http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...administration
Should be fun to see this play out. I'll tune into MSNBC to find out all the details.
http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...administration
Should be fun to see this play out. I'll tune into MSNBC to find out all the details.
Natural Immunity Croc
Before the Obama administration approved a controversial deal in 2010 giving Moscow control of a large swath of American uranium, 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, according to government documents and interviews.
.....
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.
The racketeering scheme was conducted “with the consent of higher level officials” in Russia who “shared the proceeds” from the kickbacks, one agent declared in an affidavit years later.
.....
When this sale was used by Trump on the campaign trail last year, Hillary Clinton’s spokesman said she was not involved in the committee review and noted the State Department official who handled it said she “never intervened ... on any [Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States] matter.”
.....
The Obama administration’s decision to approve Rosatom’s purchase of Uranium One has been a source of political controversy since 2015.
That’s when conservative author Peter Schweitzer and The New York Times documented how Bill Clinton collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in Russian speaking fees and his charitable foundation collected millions in donations from parties interested in the deal while Hillary Clinton presided on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.
The Obama administration and the Clintons defended their actions at the time, insisting there was no evidence that any Russians or donors engaged in wrongdoing and there was no national security reason for any member of the committee to oppose the Uranium One deal.
But 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 that Vadim Mikerin — the main Russian overseeing Putin’s nuclear expansion inside the United States — was engaged in wrongdoing starting in 2009.
Then-Attorney General Eric Holder was among the Obama administration officials joining Hillary Clinton on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States at the time the Uranium One deal was approved. Multiple current and former government officials told The Hill they did not know whether the FBI or DOJ ever alerted committee members to the criminal activity they uncovered.
The entire article is worth reading over and over. This is corruption at it's finest.
For those who don't find it interesting, close your eyes and imagine it was Halliburton.
Continuing on, the amount of swampiness is just startling:
The investigation was ultimately supervised by then-U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein, an Obama appointee who now serves as President Trump’s deputy attorney general, and then-Assistant FBI Director Andrew McCabe,
.....
Both men now play a key role in the current investigation into possible, but still unproven collusion between Russia and Donald Trump’s campaign during the 2016 election. McCabe is under congressional and Justice Department inspector general investigation in connection with money his wife’s Virginia state Senate campaign accepted in 2015 from now-Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe at a time when McAuliffe was reportedly under investigation by the FBI.
So one of the guys that was in charge of this investigation (that didn't see the light of day until now, years later) is also a leader of the Trump investigation, and is himself under investigation for taking bribes for the McAuliffe investigation.
Last edited by Jaw; 10-17-2017 at 08:09 AM.
Former Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), who chaired the House Intelligence Committee during the time the FBI probe was being conducted, told The Hill that he had never been told anything about the Russian nuclear corruption case even though many fellow lawmakers had serious concerns about the Obama administration’s approval of the Uranium One deal.
I'm still thinking about this and having random things occur to me.
Who was head of the FBI during this time frame that the FBI was investigating and covering up Russian collusion? Robert Mueller.
Who is head of the investigation into Russian collusion with the Trump campaign now? Robert Mueller.
The irony is glorious.
Not a peep from the resident Liberals on this board about this I'm sure.Originally Posted by Jaw
Natural Immunity Croc
So to briefly summarize this article, Comey, Rosenstein, McCabe, and Mueller (everyone involved in leading the investigation into collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia) were all knowingly part of a coverup of the Clinton Foundation receiving millions of dollars in bribes and kickbacks for the sale of 20% of our uranium to Russia. The FBI was actively investigating this and had informants and evidence while it was happening, but withheld that information from the House committee in charge of approving the sale.
http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...uclear-bribery
Just how much corruption occurred during Obamas tenure?
Sara Carter posted the first in a multi-part series of articles on this today. I'm curious to see if she has anything that Solomon didn't.
https://www.circa.com/story/2017/10/...al-with-moscow
One new bit of information in this article is that Victoria Toensing is the attorney for the "informant." This causes me to look further askance at the allegations. She's an old school anti-Clinton activist whose stock-in-trade is going on Fox and distorting the truth or outright lying about the various flavors of alleged Clinton dirt. Incidentally, she's married to Joseph DiGenova, who's notable for the same thing.
His name came up here this spring when thethe was breathlessly posting his unsourced allegations about illegal surveillance and unmasking. I said at the time that it didn't pass the smell test, and sure enough, it didn't hold up.
These are people who've been cashing paychecks for two decades doing the same song-and-dance. This indicates to me that some caution is in order.
The article thethe posted says that Grassley is going to hold hearings, so I imagine we'll have some light shed on this soon enough.
Why was it OK that muellers team donated money to democrats though? Why are they now not biased?
If Obama was being investigated do you want a Republican or a Democrat doing the investigation? If he has nothing it doesn't matter who it is.
"Donald Trump will serve a second term as president of the United States.
It’s over."
Little Thethe Nov 19, 2020.
Everyone is biased. The Supreme Court should be the most unbiased group in the country, but both sides fight over getting "their" judge appointed.
thethe has to be the most paranoid person in the world not named alex jones
"For there is always light, if only we are brave enough to see it. If only we are brave enough to be it." Amanda Gorman
"When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross"
jpx7 (10-19-2017)
Think about it, have you ever actually seen thethe and Alex Jones in the room at the same time??? ;)
Last edited by Oklahomahawk; 10-19-2017 at 06:56 AM.
It's a matter of public record that this particular echelon of the profession donates more to Democrats than Republicans, by a significant margin...as does the profession as a whole.
A lot of the attorneys that the Trump administration folks have retained are also significant D donors. Hell, Trump's lead attorney has donated to some very prominent left-leaning D's.
What this means to me is that, while it doesn't guarantee a lack of bias, it at least indicates that they have been able to do their jobs without bias and adhere to the ethical standards of their profession in the course of reaching that level of professional success. Is it always going to work that way? Probably not. Does it, generally? Yes.
I think that's a fair argument but there is still overlap between what you felt didn't impair the objectivity of an investigation and what does.
Natural Immunity Croc
Look at this pearl of wisdom from Julio!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Natural Immunity Croc
I would want someone who was bias because it lines up with my bias. That doesn't mean it's the right choice.
We are now basically a year into the investigation and no smoking gun. Let's check back in after year 3.
So, shorter than the Whitewater, Benghazi, or Watergate investigations, is what you're saying.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote