Following The Hill‘s bombshell report that Russian spies had carried out an extortion, bribery, and racketeering scheme to advance their interests in the Uranium One deal, federal agencies and Congress itself have reopened the story of the Uranium One deal’s chapter in 2010.
The information that has trickled out so far has implicated the State Department, the FBI, DOJ, Clinton Foundation, and, of course, the Russian government as being active participants in the scheme.
Most peculiarly, as TFPP reported last week, it appears that the FBI itself, with Robert Mueller as director, may have assisted in covering for Hillary Clinton regarding the scheme, even though the Bureau was investigating the allegations at the time.
Robert Mueller, who is now in charge of the Justice Department’s Russia investigation, is accused of hiding evidence showing Russian officials engaged in a bribery scheme with Hillary Clinton’s charity while Mueller was FBI director.
As far back as 2009, FBI officials 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, The Hill reports.
Included in the bribery scheme is the routing of millions of dollars designed to benefit the Clinton Foundation during the time Hillary was Secretary of State.
Congress is now looking into the matter as well. With so many agencies involved, it’s a truly massive scheme. In President Trump’s words, it’s our own Watergate-sized scandal.
“I think the uranium sale to Russia, in the way it was done, so underhanded with tremendous amounts of money being passed, I actually think that is Watergate, modern age,” he said according to CNN.
As of this point in the story, there are two major things that need to be addressed: first, why was Congress not notified about the FBI’s probe of the Russian scheme, not even House Intelligence Charmain Devin Nunes was informed of the probe.
“One of the things that you know we’re concerned about is whether or not there was an FBI investigation,” Nunes said. “Was there a DOJ investigation? If so, why was Congress not informed of this matter?”
At the time of the probe, former Congressman Mike Rogers of Michigan was head of the committee, and he was not informed of the probe. Why is that? Should the head of the Intelligence committee not be privy to the fact that a major investigation is taking place surrounding a potential international trade deal with uranium supplies?
The second question to answer is why the witness, who still remains unidentified for his own safety, had to sign such a broad and expansive nondisclosure agreement. CNN notes that informants will usually sign some form of nondisclosure agreement, but this particular one does not even allow him to bring forth this information to Congress, something that informants are usually able to do.
Towards the end of CNN’s October 25 report on the story is a key detail that will really raise some eyebrows (emphasis added):
The informant’s attorney tells CNN the informant has a lot of information about corruption that has not come out yet. In particular, the attorney maintains that while the FBI investigation was going on, FBI agents told the informant that President Barack Obama was being briefed on the probe, and that’s why the informant was so stunned when the Uranium One deal was approved in 2010. Obama’s representative declined to comment.
Obama was briefed on the probe, but it does not appear that he changed anything in regards to how the Uranium One deal proceedings were carried out. Is that not the epitome of suspicious?
Congress wants answers. Senator Chuck Grassley sent a letter to the DOJ demanding the gag order be lifted so the informant can testify to Congress about the corruption that has yet to be uncovered. What sort of information will be brought to light by his testimony?