The Wall Street Journal's out with multiple stories, today, discussing the fact that there's substantial unrest within the FBI relating, in large part, to an ongoing investigation concerning the activities of the Clinton Foundation, above and beyond the John Podesta emails/Hillary Clinton email server story. Just by reading today's articles, it's becoming quite obvious (at least to this reader) that a significant portion of this entire, over-arching story, relates to the November 11, 2011 Doug Band memo, disclosed in the next-to-last Wikileaks dump, which I featured in my last post here, October 27th.

Here's an excerpt of the first of two articles in today's WSJ (various other MSM outlets are covering multiple, interrelated stories this morning)...

FBI agents pressed Justice unsuccessfully for probe of Clinton Foundation.
Matt Zapotosky, Rosalind S. Helderman and Tom Hamburger
Wall Street Journal
October 30 at 10:46 PM

...A spokeswoman for the FBI’s New York field office referred questions to the FBI’s National Press Office. Officials there did not respond to an email seeking comment Sunday evening.

A Clinton Foundation official said, “We are not aware of any investigation into the Foundation by the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, or any United States Attorney’s Office and we have not received a subpoena from any of those agencies.”

A spokesman for the Clinton campaign did not immediately return a phone call and email seeking comment...
...
...recently, the foundation’s internal strife has been laid bare in the disclosures that appeared on the WikiLeaks website.

For example, WikiLeaks has published emails and documents that exposed a brewing feud in 2011 between Doug Band, a foundation official who had formed a consulting firm called Teneo, and Chelsea Clinton, who was taking a stronger role in leading the foundation.

The emails revealed details about the mix between foundation activities, the Clintons’ personal income and Teneo’s rapid growth. A 2011 memo from Band to foundation lawyers laid out the role that Band played building the business and asking his corporate clients to contribute to the foundation and provide opportunities for Bill Clinton to make paid speeches.

A Clinton Foundation inquiry would be completely separate from the FBI’s probe into Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state — an investigation that was ostensibly ended in July without charges for anyone, before Comey said in his recent letter there were new emails investigators wanted to examine.

At a congressional hearing in July over the email investigation, Comey notably declined to say whether agents had looked at the Clinton Foundation.

“I’m not going to comment on the existence or nonexistence of any other investigations,” Comey said.

When Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) asked if the Clinton Foundation was “tied into” the email probe, Comey responded, “I’m not going to answer that.”

So, while the previously-excerpted article does mention the Clinton Foundation investigation rather extensively, it's the WSJ story from earlier Sunday evening, which mentions the Foundation no less than 15 times in which the reporter tells us: a.) the Clinton Foundation is/was under investigation by the FBI as recently as just a few weeks ago; and, b.) it's that entity which is, in large part, at the heart of the FBI's "Internal Feud Over the the Hillary Clinton Probe."...

FBI in Internal Feud Over Hillary Clinton Probe
By Devlin Barrett
Wall Street Journal
Updated Oct. 30, 2016 7:59 p.m. ET

...According to a person familiar with the probes, on Aug. 12, a senior Justice Department official called Mr. McCabe to voice his displeasure at finding that New York FBI agents were still openly pursuing the Clinton Foundation probe during the election season. Mr. McCabe said agents still had the authority to pursue the issue as long as they didn’t use overt methods requiring Justice Department approvals.

The Justice Department official was “very pissed off,” according to one person close to Mr. McCabe, and pressed him to explain why the FBI was still chasing a matter the department considered dormant. Others said the Justice Department was simply trying to make sure FBI agents were following longstanding policy not to make overt investigative moves that could be seen as trying to influence an election. Those rules discourage investigators from making any such moves before a primary or general election, and, at a minimum, checking with anticorruption prosecutors before doing so.

“Are you telling me that I need to shut down a validly predicated investigation?” Mr. McCabe asked, according to people familiar with the conversation. After a pause, the official replied, “Of course not,” these people said.

For Mr. McCabe’s defenders, the exchange showed how he was stuck between an FBI office eager to pour more resources into a case and Justice Department prosecutors who didn’t think much of the case, one person said. Those people said that following the call, Mr. McCabe reiterated past instructions to FBI agents that they were to keep pursuing the work within the authority they had...

...

...For agents who already felt uneasy about FBI leadership’s handling of the Clinton Foundation case, the moment only deepened their concerns, these people said. For those who felt the probe hadn’t yet found significant evidence of criminal conduct, the leadership’s approach was the right response.

In September, agents on the foundation case asked to see the emails contained on non-government laptops that had been searched as part of the Clinton email case, but that request was rejected by prosecutors at the Eastern District of New York, in Brooklyn. Those emails were given to the FBI based on grants of partial immunity and limited-use agreements, meaning agents could only use them for the purpose of investigating possible mishandling of classified information.

Some FBI agents were dissatisfied with that answer, and asked for permission to make a similar request to federal prosecutors in Manhattan, according to people familiar with the matter. Mr. McCabe, these people said, told them no and added that they couldn’t “go prosecutor-shopping.”

Not long after that discussion, FBI agents informed the bureau’s leaders about the Weiner laptop, prompting Mr. Comey’s disclosure to Congress and setting off the furor that promises to consume the final days of a tumultuous campaign.

Obviously, the Doug Band memo from November 2011 (see link to my previous post here, up above) really is at least one of the biggest "smoking guns" here, to the point where I'd call even that strong term an understatement.

See the final sentence of the first WSJ excerpted story, up above...

...When Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) asked if the Clinton Foundation was “tied into” the email probe, Comey responded, “I’m not going to answer that.”

And, this is all pretty damn obvious to any reader, once they review the two stories in today's WSJ that I've excerpted herein.