Obama and Clinton Made Six Decisions Favorable to Russia to Enable Them to Take Over US Energy

Over 5,000 pages of documents compiled from an FBI informant reveal there was a quid pro quo of bribery and kickbacks taking place.

By Rachel Alexander Published on November 22, 2017

A nation turning over control of 20 percent of its energy to an unstable regime is dangerous. Why would any nation do that? Yet that’s what the United States has done with Russia. 5000 pages collected by an FBI informant offer a reason why.

As revealed by The Hill, the documents show that the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton as secretary of state made decisions favorable to the Russians’ energy plan six times. The Uranium One scandal isn’t the only one.

The decisions ranged from “approving the sale of Uranium One to removing Rosatom from export restrictions and making it easier for Moscow to win billions in new commercial uranium sales contracts.” Rosatom is a Russian state-owned nuclear firm. The favorable decisions occurred during Obama’s failed “reset” with Russian relations.

The documents reveal that Russia was trying to make the U.S. more dependent on Russian uranium.

The Department of Justice claimed the documents FBI informant William Campbell turned over wouldn’t shed much light. The Hill determined that they reveal that Russia was trying to make the U.S. more dependent on Russian uranium. Moscow was also trying to increase their control over the world’s energy supply.

Sessions Denies Quid Pro Quo

Strangely, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and his Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein sent a letter to the Senate last month saying there was no connection between Russians attempting to bribe U.S. officials and the Uranium One sale.

They said since the criminal bribery charges weren’t brought against Vadim Mikerin, the main Russian overseeing Putin’s nuclear expansion inside the U.S. until 2014, they weren’t connected to the sale of Uranium One in 2010. Campbell’s documents show evidence of the bribery back in 2009. Nor does this take into account prosecutors often delay filing charges for various reasons.

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

Campbell’s documents revealed that he told FBI agents repeatedly about a Washington entity with close ties to the Clintons. It earned millions to expand Tenex’s holdings in the U.S. After the Russians hired the firm, it increased its donations to a Clinton charitable project. Campbell heard Russians bragging about how easy it was to expand U.S. uranium holdings under Obama.

Rod Fisk, an American contractor working for the Russians, sent an email to Campbell expressing his opinion that the sale of Uranium One to the Russians was “strange.” They paid a premium price to acquire the company.

Russian Business as Usual

Once Campbell heard that officials approved the sale, he approached an FBI agent with his concerns. The agent responded and told him it was “politics.”

The Russian buy is modeled after Russian takeover of the natural gas industry in East European countries. It led to monopolies that helped Russia’s economy and bolstered its reputation as a powerful country.

A program that converted Soviet warheads into U.S. nuclear fuel expired in 2013. Buying Uranium One would replace it with U.S. dependency on Russia for energy, documents show.

Congress intends to confirm that the FBI warned the Obama administration about the bribery and kickbacks before approving the sale.

Leaks from the DOJ claim that Campbell isn’t very credible. He helped convict Mikerin. The DOJ blames Campbell for their decision to offer a plea deal to Mikerin, since Campbell would be a “disaster” as a trial witness.

However, the documents contradict this. After Mikerin took the plea deal, the FBI treated Campbell to a seafood dinner. They gave him $51,046.36. A a source familiar with the documents said the reason the FBI decided to offer a plea deal is because the indictment incorrectly portrayed Campbell’s role.

The DOJ will brief Congress next week on Campbell’s work. Congress intends to confirm that the FBI warned the Obama administration about the bribery and kickbacks before approving the sale.


Follow Rachel on Twitter at Rach_IC.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Kevin Carr

    At a minimum this requires a Special Prosecutor. Obama and Hillary are traitors and should have been in prison. Unfortunately we have a two tiered justice system. Nothing will happen.

    • Unless the DOJ needs to recuse itself, there is no need for a special prosecutor.If you believe there is a legal reason for them to recuse themselves, you might want to make that case. Something does need to be done, but right now, I THINK it’s in the DOJ’s court, isn’t it?

      • Rachel Alexander

        My guess is there’s a chance Sessions might recuse himself, since he recused himself from the Russian-Trump investigation due to his own communications with Russians. But the connection is more tenuous here, since Sessions wasn’t communicating with the Russians on behalf of Hillary Clinton.

        • People have been talking a lot, lately, about special prosecutor/special counsel. I’ve been hearing that there is no current law on the books governing what a special counsel can do, and how that is part of the problem with Mueller. Is there such a law governing a special prosecutor, and how would that happen?

          See, I think a lot of people are skating over the difference in terms, there. An article on the differences might not go amiss.

          What do you think, Rachel?

      • Kevin Carr

        You are correct, Sessions is part of the Swamp and hasn’t moved on this issue.

  • BroFrank

    Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. 20 Therefore “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; If he is thirsty, give him a drink; For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head.”
    (Romans 12:19-20)
    Then someone told David, saying,”Ahithophel is among the conspirators with Absalom.” And David said, “O LORD, I pray, turn the counsel of Ahithophel into foolishness!”
    (2 Samuel 15:31 )

    In the quote above, David’s special counsel, Ahithophel, turned advisor for the team seeking to “impeach” David. But David knew what to do.

    Rule number one, when engaging the Swamp: don’t panic. Those gators below are for real, and they will not hesitate to eat you for breakfast (or an appetizer) the first chance they get. I do believe that Mr. Sessions is smarter than the average Joe when considering engaging the Swamp. Consider this primer: the former FBI Chief was in cahoots with the previous Administration, and managed to manipulate the political novice who made it into the White House in such a way that his friend (Mr. Mueller) is now the Special Prosecutor. So . . . when “investigating” who will be prosecuted? I know that some readers will not consider Christian prudence appropriate when engaging political sharks, but there is more at stake here than simply “getting back” at Hillary. Our Republic is in danger, and only the One Who placed Mr. Trump in Office can save us. I suggest we do more praying for Mr. Sessions than criticizing.

Is Santa Claus Our Projection of The Messiah?
Dudley Hall
More from The Stream
Connect with Us