ALL THE REAL RUSSIAN CONNECTIONS LEAD TO CLINTONS, OBAMA & DEMOCRATS & THE REAL SCANDAL IS BRITISH INTERFERENCE IN 2016 ELECTION
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?
iStockphotos and Wikimedia Commons247
By RACHEL ALEXANDER Published on November 18, 2017 • 10 Comments
Rachel Alexander
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.
