At this time last year, Hillary Clinton, jovial and presumptuous, was packing her bags and getting ready to recapture the White House. Today, she’s confined to the speaking circuit and condolence-filled media interviews in which she perpetually whines and conjures up excuses for losing. She also probably never imagined a year ago just how much the stakes (and the script) would turn when it comes to the investigations of her improprieties as secretary of state under Barack Obama.

Not only did we learn that she funded the phony Trump dossier, but this week, congressional Republicans further infuriated Clinton by revealing they are digging deeper into why she was wrongly exonerated last summer by then-FBI Director James Comey. Explaining their rationale, Bob Goodlatte, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and Trey Gowdy, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, stated: “Decisions made by the Department of Justice in 2016 have led to a host of outstanding questions that must be answered.” The Hill elaborates on their pursuit:

> The two Republican leaders said they have questions about the FBI’s decision to openly declare the bureau’s investigation into Clinton’s handling of classified information, while quietly investigating Trump campaign associates. They said they also want to know why the FBI decided to formally notify Congress of the Clinton probe on two separate occasions; why the FBI — rather than the Justice Department — recommended that Clinton not be charged after the investigation concluded; and the reasoning behind their timeline for announcing such decisions.

Gowdy, for his part, isn’t necessarily expecting any bombshell revelations. He suggested the move is designed to re-establish assurance in both the FBI and DOJ. He admitted, “Comey may have a really good explanation for why he felt like he had to send a letter in October and there was no other means of notifying Congress, but we need to hear it.” Of course, this could also hint at his strategy — conducting this probe under the radar. In the meantime, Gowdy, in conjunction with the House Intelligence Committee, also initiated a probe into the infamous 2010 Uranium One deal.

As Ed Morrissey opines, “Of the two [probes], the Clintons have more to fear from the latter, and not just the Clintons either. It’s too late to do much about Hillary Clinton’s corruption regarding her e-mail, it having been litigated by the DoJ already. That’s not true at all of the Uranium One deal, which reportedly got buried by the DoJ under Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch, and which might reach into the Clinton Foundation and the Clintons’ pockets. Democrats might be able to carry an argument that the e-mail server scandal is old news, but thanks to their non-stop hysteria over Russian influence, they can’t sustain that argument on Uranium One.”

Gowdy probably suspects a link. Clinton’s email case may already have been litigated, but any new information the fresh probe can dig up could possibly augment the investigation behind the Uranium One deal. After all, she wasn’t using a private email server and deleting her emails for no reason whatsoever. Did those emails contain evidence of collusion with Russia? And did Clinton collude with Obama’s DOJ to bury the evidence and exonerate her? That’s what the committees hope to find out.