Hillary, Uranium, Russian Bribes and the Shame of the FBI

By Al Perrotta Published on October 19, 2017

If you had a dime for every time the media said “Trump-Russia Collusion” you could buy a palace in Beverly Hills. If you had a $100,000 for every report on Tuesday’s Clinton-Russian bribery bombshell, you couldn’t even buy a condo in the Valley. NBC, ABC and CBS failed to mention it. Nothing on CNN’s website. The Associated Press didn’t even have it on their “10 Things to Know for Today.” Apparently they don’t want you to know.

We do.

Bribery and Cover-Up

The Hill broke the story yesterday. Circa soon followed suit. The FBI had “gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the United States.”

There were two primary beneficiaries: Bill and Hillary Clinton. As The Hill reports:

They also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill.

Clinton was on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS. So was Attorney General Eric Holder. The committee voted across the board to approve the sale of mining company Uranium One to the Russian nuclear giant Rosatom. The FBI’s had proof of the bribery scheme. Still, the Obama administration signed off on the deal. They gave Putin control of more than 20% of America’s uranium supply.

What did the Clintons get out of it? “A cool $145 million in donations and ‘speaking fees’ just from Uranium One and Rosatom-affiliated donors,” says Investors Business Daily. Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer called it a “spontaneous outbreak of philanthropy among eight shareholders in Uranium One.” The donations just happened to come around the same time that Clinton had to decide yea or nay on the deal.

Playing Dumb

When Schweizer first wrote about Hillary and Uranium One, Clinton and Obama played dumb. As The Hill reports, they insisted “there was no evidence that any Russians or donors engaged in wrongdoing.” Also, there was “no national security reason for any member of the committee to oppose the Uranium One deal.”

Not true. FBI, Energy Department and court documents reviewed by The Hill “show the FBI in fact had gathered substantial evidence well before the committee’s decision.” They found that “Vadim Mikerin — the main Russian overseeing Putin’s nuclear expansion in the United States — was engaged in wrongdoing starting in 2009.”

No “national security reason”? A hostile foreign power bribing and extorting our nuclear industry and U.S. officials? Then there’s the folly of handing Putin 20% of our uranium. This is the same Putin that Obama and Hillary now insist is out to wreck America. The other day Hillary called his alleged election antics a “cyber 9/11.” Just the guy you want to give the stuff used to build nuclear bombs.

Keep Quiet or Else

It gets worse. Apparently, Obama’s DOJ didn’t want Congress to know what was going on. Or you. The Hill now reports the American businessman who warned the FBI about the Russian scheme and worked undercover to gather proof was blocked from telling Congress. DOJ had forced him to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement.

He also wanted to file a lawsuit last year. He hoped to regain some of the money he’d lost to the Russians while cooperating with the FBI. The DOJ threatened him with jail. “They said they would bring a criminal case against him for violating an NDA,” says his lawyer Victoria Toensing.

Sounds like the Obama team didn’t just take money from Harvey Weinstein. They borrowed his M.O.

Please Support The Stream: Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.

The motive for stopping the lawsuit? It could have drawn attention to the Russia-Hillary corruption smack dab in the middle of the campaign.

What Now?

What now? Will this Russian scandal and coverup be properly scrutinized?

Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said on Wednesday, “This committee has an obligation to get to the bottom of this issue.” Grassley fired off letters last week to 10 agencies seeking more information. Grassley asked Jeff Sessions if the DOJ had probed whether Russia “compromised” the Obama administration to “smooth the way” for the Uranium One deal.

Sessions would not confirm or deny the existence of an investigation. However, said Sessions, “I would say I hear your concerns and they will be reviewed.”

Do we have reason to be skeptical that justice will be served? The bribery case was spearheaded by then-U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein and then-Assistant FBI Director Andrew McCabe. Rosenstein is now Deputy Attorney General. McCabe is now deputy FBI director. That is, when he’s not being investigated for the $700,000 that Clinton ally Terry McAuliffe sent his wife’s campaign during the Hillary email case.

Who headed the FBI when the bribery investigation was closed? James Comey. He opted to let Hillary skate before that email investigation was complete. The bribery investigation began under Robert Mueller. He and his team of Clinton and Obama supporters are currently hunting Donald Trump for his alleged collusion with Russia.

Will Mueller turn his focus on Russia’s enrichment of Trump’s opponent? Or how the Obama administration suppressed that information?

That’s the $145 Million Dollar Question.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Like the article? Share it with your friends! And use our social media pages to join or start the conversation! Find us on Facebook, Twitter, Parler, Instagram, MeWe and Gab.

Inspiration
Repairing the Broken Pieces
Janet Boynes
More from The Stream
Connect with Us