The Case for a Special Counsel to Investigate Hillary Clinton’s Russian Uranium One Ties

There is plenty of evidence that crimes were committed, so what's the holdup?

By Rachel Alexander Published on November 18, 2017

Why investigate one but not the other? Legally, it doesn’t make sense. There is overwhelming evidence that Hillary Clinton colluded with Russians in the Uranium One scandal. There’s scant evidence Trump colluded with them. Why is there a special counsel looking into Trump but not one looking into Clinton?

The Facts

Here are the facts. Russians connected to the Kremlin sent millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation. Former President Bill Clinton collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in Russian speaking fees. He received $500,000 for just one speech to a bank with Kremlin ties. 

Before Clinton signed off on the transfer, the FBI collected evidence of the apparent bribery money and money laundering from an informant working in the nuclear industry. The money transfers were conducted “with the consent of higher level officials” in Russia who “shared the proceeds” from the kickbacks.

Hillary Clinton failed to disclose to the Obama administration that Ian Telfer, chairman of Uranium One, had contributed $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation. This was in violation of her agreement with the administration to disclose donors with potential conflicts.

Evidence of Wrongdoing

The FBI informant says he has proof wrongdoing exists. William D. Campbell worked as a lobbyist for a Russian firm. The Hill reporter John Solomon told Sean Hannity that Campbell has videos of suitcases full of cash that Russians used to bribe U.S. officials. After the DOJ released his name, Campbell said he became afraid for his life.

The FBI informant says he has proof wrongdoing exists.

Vadim Mikerin, the main Russian overseeing Putin’s nuclear expansion inside the U.S., was indicted in 2014 as a result of an informant’s work. An agent testified that Mikerin supervised a “racketeering scheme.” It involved extortion, bribery, money laundering and kickbacks. The informant made kickback payments at Mikerin’s direction.

In December 2015, a judge sentenced Mikerin to four years in prison. Another man who worked with Mikerin was sentenced this month to a year and a day in prison for money laundering. Boris Rubizhevsky acted as an go-between to facilitate the payoffs.

Even with this evidence, Sessions has said there is not enough evidence to start a probe.

Why Not a Probe?

Maybe he’s right. But wait: What evidence was there of a crime involving Trump and the Russian collusion accusations? There was less evidence of Trump colluding with the Russians than there is evidence of Clinton colluding with them.

Sessions’ own deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein, admitted this. He said when appointing a special counsel to investigate the Trump campaign, “My decision is not a finding that crimes have been committed or that any prosecution is warranted. I have made no such determination.”

If that’s true for Trump why isn’t it also true for Clinton? The attorney general appoints special counsel when he has a conflict. Sessions recused himself from the Trump campaign probe, citing his own contacts with Russians. The acting attorney general — instead of Sessions — then decides if a criminal probe is warranted. Rosenstein is a holdover from the Obama administration. Maybe he’s hesitant to start a probe of the Clintons.

The Crimes

The crimes look like bribery (which violates the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act), fraud and obstruction of justice. Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, notes that giving official favors in return for cash is racketeering.

There are grave concerns about giving such an untrustworthy country that amount of control over our energy.

McCarthy observes that the uranium would produce energy, not nuclear weapons. It’s still an issue of national security. If, for example, the U.S. encountered an energy shortage. The nation only produces 20 percent of its uranium. America shouldn’t have its uranium supply controlled by a hostile power. What if Clinton allowed that to happen just to get more money for the family foundation?

At the very least, the problem is a matter of apparent corruption. The State Department approved the sale of Canadian-owned Uranium One to Russian nuclear company Rosaton. This gave Russia control of 20 percent of the U.S. energy supply. There are grave concerns about giving such an untrustworthy country that amount of control over our energy.

Hillary Clinton claims if a special counsel investigated her, the U.S. would be like an “authoritarian regime.” What’s authoritarian about following the precedent the Department of Justice set with Trump? Maybe it’s more like the government is finally looking into Clinton family self-dealing. The FBI informant has given enough evidence already to warrant a probe.

 

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.
  • Spot on, as usual. I have heard, though, that Rep. Trey Gowdy is investigating, and that as many as 30 indictments could be coming from that investigation.

    • Rachel, I saw your reply on my Discus feed, but not here. I am on Facebook, and will try to do as you suggested in your reply.

  • Patmos

    “Why investigate one but not the other?”

    Maybe an Illuminati membership card has certain perks?

  • Paul

    Nothing to see here folks, please move along….

  • Chip Crawford

    I’m holding my breath. AG Sessions’ response and reluctance about prosecuting these Clinton matters is very puzzling. Hey, it’s a new day in the DOJ, or is it? Then, the NEW FBI refused Judicial Watch’s request for documents in one of their investigations, saying there wasn’t much interest in the public on it. Huh? All along, there’s been something holding up going into these issues. Land mines left by the Obama era people? The new FBI director is fresh and new … Someone recently cried, does HRC have something on everyone in the government? It would explain her ease of movement even these days, relying on the fact that she had log jams in place that would prevent or make it near catastrophic for anyone to get into those old matters concerning her and maybe Obama as well. “Matters” need to become investigations and proceed to conclusions!

    • Patmos

      “does HRC have something on everyone in the government?”

      If it’s not blackmail, it’s probably a threat of some sort, along with of course benefits.

      It’s also not Hillary who is the principle actor, but rather she’s just entangled up in it, and you get the sense that she likes it. As in, she was an easy get.

      If you think it’s just my tinfoil hat talking, there are people who dig into this stuff through FOIA requests and other means and who turn up some rather peculiar things, to the point where it’s pretty clear we’re not getting the entire story about just how things work and why things take place.

      As far as I can tell there are a few different warring factions that cut across borders, and it get’s murkey when you try to come to any sort of ultimate conclusion that you can back with hard evidence. It’s also important to continually be reminded of the Lord of Lords and the King of Kings, if you so believe. The works of the earth shall be burned up.

      • Chip Crawford

        I followed some of that … 🙂

        • Patmos

          It wouldn’t make any more sense if I tried to explain it further, nor is there any real clear picture to be explained in the first place, which is kind of the point. It’s the fog of war, hidden behind national security measures, with disinformation thrown into the mix, along with a dash of lies and betrayals.

          Nonetheless, when common folk like you and I can sit back and see there’s something clearly wrong with Hillary getting a free pass, it probably means that she’s getting a free pass. Hopefully at the very least voters will keep her on the sidelines.

          • Chip Crawford

            I am seeing that she is in for the ride in many cases, with others signing off on things along with her. We may have mistaken her scheming and stymying abilities for actual governing skills. It appears the in-home email server may have been her “brain child” alone. However, about any photo of her with Pres. Obama shows her as kind of a wide-eyed sidekick, including with matters in her realm. I’ve often thought of the clear pre-election plan of Obama staying in Washington last year, as kind of a shadow coach. Even her handlers are challenged to recount any actual accomplishments from her time in office. She is in all things a political operative first. Actually, on real examination, it appears she may actually be that alone.

  • Kevin Carr

    It should be investigated as it stands now we have a two tiered justice system and that shouldn’t be. If there is/was an investigation of Pres.Trump for a made up collusion story, then this must be investigated, there is actual smoke here.

Inspiration
The Strangely Mysterious Beauty of Christmas
Tom Gilson
More from The Stream
Connect with Us