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.
Whoa.
Some of that, or even all of that, (or, in fact, none of it) could be true, but the article gives no representation of that. Even its implications aren't really fleshed out. There was a criminal case made and a successful prosecution, and perhaps that should have been enough of a red flag to hold up the deal, but there's no exposition of the other allegations, just a single source who says that there was more...like there were sources in the NY FBI field office who said that Hillary Clinton was going to be indicted in October 2016?
"Knowingly" is an assumption, and "coverup" is a massive assumption.
Whether information was withheld from Congress is ambiguous, based on the article. One Congressman suggests it, and it's otherwise stated that it's unknown if Congress was apprised.
As for the payments to the Clinton Foundation, we need some specificity as to what payments and when, because a lot of the allegations in the
Clinton Cash book relating to the Uranium One deal were spurious. On the other hand, and the
NYT covered this pretty exhaustively in 2015, there were donations to the CGF from Uranium One's chairman which were structured in a way to avoid disclosure, and that, if only for its appearance of impropriety, is definitely fishy.
But I bring these things up because this follows a familiar pattern of anti-Clinton (and, frankly, anti-Obama) stories that bubble up in the conservative media--take a straight news story and elide it into a sensationalist claim, with little or no sourcing. Launder it through a thousand media outlets until people accept it as true even though it doesn't really conform to facts. I'm a little suspicious of John Solomon's byline on the story. He was one of the primary people flogging the various flavors of surveillance/unmasking "scandals" that were obvious pushback against the Trump/Russia narrative, and doing so while working for an outlet which is transparently pro-Trump. All of those have ended up fizzling, per Republicans in Congress. That's a bit of a red flag to me.
If you've followed coverage of the Clintons over the past quarter-century, it's impossible to escape the conclusion that 1)they've been power players on the make who have at the very least been cavalier about the appearance of impropriety and 2) most of the accusations about their outright criminality have been politically motivated smears. I've seen all the Anti-Clinton stuff going back to videotapes and chain emails, and most of it is smear and inference which dissipates under scrutiny. What's usually left is, admittedly, a distinct impression that they have used their power and influence to enrich themselves.
But if you're alleging a coverup here, you're going to have to bring more specifics. Is this confined to the DoJ, or were all 9 cabinet agencies (and the Canadian government) involved? I suppose that's possible, but it's gonna take a lot of convincing. You're saying that Rosenstein, McCabe, Comey, and Mueller were all involved. That sounds awfully coincidental and convenient, but, ok...accept that it's going to take a little more to get me to buy. If this gets expanded with some better reporting and more factual underpinning, I'll be all ears.
