7 Reasons Why the Uranium One Scandal
Won’t Go Away
May 9, 2019 Updated: May 22, 2019
Commentary
The Trump–Russia collusion narrative is officially
dead, now that special counsel Robert Mueller has concluded there
is no evidence of collusion.
With the cloud
of the Mueller probe lifted, President Donald Trump can now go on the offensive
with an attorney general who appears ready to drop the hammer on corruption in
Washington. Moreover, Attorney General William Barr doesn’t appear to be
intimidated by Democratic lawmakers who have already threatened him with
impeachment and even incarceration.
Former President Barack Obama’s allies have lately
claimed his term in office was “scandal-free,” a claim his critics find “laughable.”
Abuses of power under the Obama administration ranged from drone-strike
assassinations of U.S. citizens to the IRS’s targeting of conservatives. In
fact, the Obama administration was a magnet for scandals. One of the
largest—and perhaps least understood—involves the Russian takeover of Uranium One, a Canadian mining
company with large uranium holdings in the United States.
The mainstream
press has repeatedly declared the Russian purchase of Uranium One a “debunked
conspiracy theory.” But it’s no theory, nor has it been debunked. The Uranium
One deal was complicated and had many moving parts, which also explains why
misinformation about it has spread widely.
It’s true that the Clinton Foundation received undisclosed millions
from Uranium One stakeholders—such as the $2.35 million from board Chairman Ian
Telfer. The Obama administration did allow the Russians to acquire domestic
nuclear assets critical to U.S. national security. But minor inaccuracies in
the soundbites have allowed self-appointed fact-checkers such as PolitiFact and Snopes to
selectively “debunk” the larger story without critically examining the full set
of facts.
In the coming
months, readers may find the Uranium One scandal coming back into focus. For
that purpose, it’s time to set the record straight.
Here are seven
reasons why the Uranium One scandal isn’t going away:
1. Uranium One is the largest
foreign-influence scandal in US history.
If you ask any
American what the largest political scandal in our history was, you will likely
find that former President Richard Nixon’s Watergate affair tops the list.
Nixon’s spying on political opponents left such a bruise on America’s
collective psyche that adding “-gate” to later political scandals is an homage.
For Nixon, the coverup was worse than the crime.
Scandals that
result in the impeachment of a sitting president are hard to top, which is why
the Clinton–Lewinsky fiasco also ranks high among U.S. political scandals.
Those shenanigans—and the more recent targeting by Obama of Trump’s 2016
presidential campaign—demonstrate clear abuses of power, but have little to do
with foreign influence.
The Uranium One scandal, however, involves
alleged bribery, kickbacks, extortion, and money laundering at the highest
levels of the U.S. nuclear industry. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) informant-turned-whistleblower William
Douglas Campbell infiltrated Russian President Vladimir Putin’s inner circle
and claims to have video evidence of “suitcases full of bribery cash.”
(Click on image to
enlarge map)
It’s now known that former President Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 by
a Kremlin-backed bank to deliver a speech in Moscow just months before the
Uranium One sale was approved by the Obama administration. Clinton sought
approval from his wife’s State Department to meet with a Russian board member
of Rosatom, the state-owned nuclear agency. Clinton ended up meeting directly
with Putin instead, who thanked the former president for the visit. Soon after,
Bill Clinton was paid a half million dollars by Russian interests, and Hillary Clinton’s State
Department allowed the Russian takeover of U.S. nuclear assets.
When Peter
Schweizer first broke the Uranium One scandal in April 2015, Hillary Clinton’s
apologists immediately claimed that her State Department was just one of
several Obama administration agencies that approved the sale—but is that really
any better? Because if none of the Obama agencies who approved that deal found
any issues with it, perhaps other players were just as conflicted as Bill and
Hillary Clinton.
The Uranium One
scandal contains elements of corruption and abuses of power. Neither Watergate
nor the Lewinsky affair involved payments to top White House officials by
foreign adversaries in exchange for favorable policies. However, Uranium One
did—and the payments were massive.
The $145 million figure refers to the
collective “commitments and donations” made to the Clinton Foundation by
“investors who profited from the deal,” as documented extensively in
Schweizer’s book “Clinton Cash” and confirmed by The New York Times. Any
uncertainty in the dates or amounts is due exclusively to the Clinton
Foundation, which reports its donations once per year and in wide ranges—or as
Schweizer calls it, “the Clinton blur.” The bulk of the $145 million figure
came from longtime Clinton friend Frank Giustra. Another major Clinton donor
included in that figure is uranium investor Frank Holmes, who was grilled on
his timely donations by CNBC.
2.
Uranium One was never just a Clinton scandal; it’s also an Obama scandal.
In addition to Obama’s State Department,
his Department of Justice (DOJ) had a lead
role on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) that
approved the sale. Thus, top DOJ and FBI officials share blame for not blocking
the transaction in 2010. That could explain why Obama’s top DOJ and FBI
personnel stonewalled their
own field office investigations involving Hillary Clinton’s Uranium One
conflicts. Those investigations effectively exonerated her just before the 2016
election.
The DOJ’s role
in the 2010 CFIUS review is troubling. No one from the DOJ involved with that
committee raised any objections to the deal, despite separate ongoing FBI
investigations into Russian espionage and racketeering schemes—schemes that
specifically targeted the U.S. nuclear industry. Despite hard evidence of these
schemes, the FBI, the DOJ, and other Obama agencies nevertheless raised no
objections to the Russian takeover of U.S. nuclear assets.
The fact that
Clinton’s State Department wasn’t the only Obama agency in the CFIUS review
with conflicting motives must be fully investigated. The Democrats are right,
Clinton couldn’t have approved the deal singlehandedly. They seem to think that
this exonerates Clinton, when, in fact, it really damns the broader Obama
administration.
3.
Uranium One likely played a major role in the origins of the Trump–Russia
collusion hoax.
Last month,
Barr pledged to investigate the origins of the Trump–Russia probe, also known
as “Spygate.” As this latest saga unfolds, note that many of the same players
in the Obama targeting of the Trump campaign also played lead investigative
roles in each of the Russian nuclear schemes.
James Comey, Robert Mueller, Andrew McCabe, and Andrew Weissmann all
appear to have been involved in both the investigation of long-running Russian
nuclear conspiracies and in the attempt to unseat a duly elected president who
threatened to expose them.
At the time of
the sale, Obama’s FBI—headed by Mueller—had intimate knowledge of ongoing
Russian espionage and bribery schemes, but the deal went through anyway. McCabe
headed the FBI investigation, which began in 2009, into the bribery, kickbacks,
and money laundering linked to Uranium One. Weissmann and Rosenstein headed the
DOJ prosecution of the Russian principals and announced the charges, years
later in 2014.
One felon
received 48 months for crimes that could have carried up to a 20-year sentence.
Those convictions didn’t occur until after Obama’s top officials approved the
sale. The DOJ’s failure to publicly object to the Uranium One purchase, despite
knowing about ongoing bribery and espionage schemes, raises a major red flag.
The overlap of
the previous Russian influence investigations with the 2016 Trump–Russia
investigation deserves a thorough review by Barr.
4.
‘What did Obama know, and when did he know it?’
In autumn 2015, an FBI agent sent notices to the
Obama CFIUS agencies that required them to preserve their Uranium One records.
Those records remain secret but may shed light on the largest questions of all:
What did Obama know about the Russians’ nuclear schemes, when did he know it,
and why did his administration allow them to proceed?
The Director of National Intelligence (DNI)
is legally required to submit a threat analysis of any sale under review to
CFIUS. Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) has demanded the
threat analysis performed by Obama’s then-DNI James Clapper. Notably, Clapper
has a history of lying
under oath to Congress and is currently under fire for intelligence leaks that
were damaging to the Trump campaign.
Once it’s made
public, Clapper’s threat analysis of the Uranium One deal will be very
telling—either the analysis was thorough, or it was not. That’s bad news for
the Obama administration in either case.
The Hill’s
John Solomon framed the issue another way in October 2018:
“Since the
emergence of [Uranium One whistleblower Campbell’s] undercover work, there has
been one unanswered question of national importance.
“Did the FBI
notify then-President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and other leaders on the CFIUS
board about Rosatom’s dark deeds before the Uranium One sale was approved, or
did the bureau drop the ball and fail to alert policymakers?”
Neither
outcome is particularly comforting.
5.
Whistleblowers are ready to talk. An ‘avalanche’ is coming.
There are now
at least three credible Uranium One whistleblowers who have provided
information to authorities since the story first broke.
As previously mentioned, William D.
Campbell was an FBI operative who had infiltrated Putin’s inner circle.
Campbell worked directly with Rosatom chief Sergei Kiriyenko, who has since
been promoted to Putin’s first deputy chief of staff. Campbell documented
evidence of the Russians’ nuclear ambitions and their strategy to infiltrate
the U.S. nuclear supply chain through the Uranium One purchase. According to
Campbell, Moscow paid millions in an influence operation targeting Obama administration
decision-makers.
Last November, 16 FBI agents raided the home
of former FBI contractor Dennis Nathan Cain, a federally protected whistleblower who claims that he can provide documented evidence that the FBI and DOJ
failed to investigate possible criminal activity related to the Clinton
Foundation and the Russian takeover of Uranium One. Cain recently tweeted his appreciation for Rep. Doug
Collins (R-Ga.): “Thank you @RepDougCollins for
releasing this testimony. It proves the DoJ under BHO was running a two-tier
system of justice that allowed politically connected get away [sic] with
serious crimes. What other crimes were ignored?”
Former top Uranium One executive Scott
Melbye attended the conservative CPAC conference this year. Melbye hammered the
Uranium One scandal, calling Clinton’s role “bizarre,” according to
The Daily Beast.
“People who
say that’s exaggerated or there’s nothing there—there’s definitely something
there,” Melbye said. “As an American, I’m outraged at that whole episode.”
Campbell,
Cain, Melbye, and others appear to have more than enough inside information
relating to Uranium One to demonstrate widespread corruption at the highest
levels of the Obama administration. In addition, more whistleblowers are
expected to come forward with more bombshell reports.
6. Top
GOP lawmakers are not going to let Uranium One be swept under the rug.
Former Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck
Grassley (R-Iowa) has been tracking the Uranium One case since day one, and has
sent numerous lettersto Obama agencies to clarify their roles.
In a statement last
month, Grassley said: “I’ve been pushing for years for more answers about this
[the Uranium One] transaction that allowed the Russian government to acquire
U.S. uranium assets. I’ve received classified and unclassified briefings about
it from multiple agencies. And I’ve identified some FBI intelligence reports
that may shed more light on the transaction. … If the Democrats want to be
consistent, they’ll have to treat the Clinton, Uranium One, and Russia-related
investigations the same [as the Mueller report]. Anything less than that reeks
of political gamesmanship and sets a clear double standard.”
Barrasso
expressed early concerns. In a 2010 letter to Obama, the senator warned: “This
transaction would give the Russian government control over a sizable portion of
America’s uranium production capacity. Equally alarming, this sale gives ARMZ
[Uranium Holding Co.] a significant stake in uranium mines in Kazakhstan.”
More recently, Barrasso has pushed to
expand the investigations of the sale and has demanded answers regarding Uranium One’s exports of nuclear materials outside the
United States—an unacceptable development, as first reported by John Solomon.
Reps. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), Mark Meadows
(R-N.C.), Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), and several of their
colleagues—notably Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.) and Ron DeSantis (now Florida
governor)—have repeatedly demanded answers about the Obama administration’s
approval of the Russian takeover of Uranium One. GOP lawmakers introduced a
resolution last year excoriating the Obama FBI and DOJ for their roles in the
Spygate scandal, which they linked to the Uranium One scandal.
It’s safe to
say that these lawmakers are invested in the full exposure of Uranium One
events and bringing swift justice to the Obama officials who were responsible.
7.
President Trump and Attorney General Barr appear to be ready to drop the
hammer.
Barr has found the Uranium One matter
significant and worthy of a full investigation. In a 2017 interview with
The New York Times, Barr said that the DOJ was “abdicating its responsibility”
if it wasn’t investigating the Clinton Foundation vis-à-vis the Uranium One
deal. In Barr’s confirmation hearing this year, Democrats grilled him on his
support for the Uranium One “conspiracy theory.” While Barr seemed to distance himself during the hearing, New York
Times reporter Peter Baker subsequently leaked an email
in which Barr said he “believed that the predicate for investigating the
uranium deal, as well as the foundation, is far stronger than any basis for
investigating so-called, ‘collusion.'”
It’s clear that
Barr doesn’t believe that the Uranium One deal has been fully investigated.
To date, Trump has been fully cleared of
all allegations of collusion with Russia. Multiple separate investigations led
by special counsel Mueller, the House Intelligence Committee, and the Senate Intelligence Committee have all concluded that there was no collusion. And yet, Democrats
in Congress now want Mueller
to testify and want to hold
Barr in contempt if he doesn’t surrender himself to their endless
interrogations.
If the
Democrats want to go to war with Barr, he appears to have more than enough
evidence to expose corruption that would crush the Obama administration and its
defenders—starting with Spygate and ending with Uranium One.
At its core,
the Uranium One deal is quite simple: Putin wanted long-term access to the U.S.
nuclear supply chain. Decision-makers in Washington were under no obligation to
give Putin what he wanted. Politics aside, does anyone really think that Putin
deserves any access to an industry critical to the American energy sector and
national security? Of course not.
Yet, in 2010,
the Obama administration acquiesced and Putin gained a significant stake in an
industry critical to U.S. energy and national security. Period.
Views expressed in this article are the
opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch
Times.
DOJ Prosecutors Looking Into Controversial
Obama-Era Uranium One Deal
Deal gave Russia control over a Canadian company mining uranium
in US. Despite assurances, the uranium has left the US.
December 21, 2017 Updated: December 30, 2017
Department
of Justice prosecutors have requested information from FBI agents about an
investigation they conducted into the so-called Uranium One deal, NBC
News reported on
Dec. 21.
ADVERTISING
DOJ prosecutors are currently establishing
whether a special counsel is needed to look into the controversial deal that
gave Russia control over Canadian mining company Uranium One, which at the time
controlled 20 percent of the uranium supply licensed for mining in the United
States.
By giving Russia control over a significant
portion of American uranium supplies, the deal created a potential national
security risk. Despite the assurances of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) to Congress that the uranium mined by Uranium One would not leave the
United States, it did.
A
radioactive warning sign hangs on fencing around the Anfield’s Shootaring
Canyon Uranium Mill on October 27, 2017, outside Ticaboo, Utah. Anfield with is
in partnership with the Russian firm Uranium One, and bought the mill from
Uranium One in 2015. (George Frey/Getty Images)
NRC
memos reviewed by The Hill show
that uranium transfers to Canada as well as Europe were approved by the Obama
administration. From either destination, it could have made its way to other
countries, potentially including adversaries of the United States in pursuit of
nuclear weapons.
Chairman of the Senate judiciary committee
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has called on the DOJ to appoint a special counsel
to look into the agreement.
Chairman
of the Senate Judiciary Committee Chuck Grassley in Washington on Sept. 20,
2016. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Russia’s nuclear energy agency, Rosatom,
acquired the controlling stake in Uranium One in 2010.
Because uranium, when enriched, is a
key component for nuclear weapons, the deal required a national security review
by the Committee on Foreign Investments (CFIUS) in the United States.
The State Department is part of CFIUS and
was required to give its approval for the deal. At the time of the review and
the approval given by the State Department, Hillary Clinton was serving as
secretary of state.
During the time the deal was under review,
payments made their way from Uranium One and Russian officials to the Clintons.
During the time the deal was under review,
payments made their way from Uranium One and Russian officials to the Clintons.
The
payments were detailed by
The New York Times in a 2015 exposé, in which the payments made to the Clinton
Foundation as well as former President Bill Clinton were detailed.
Uranium One’s chairman used his family
foundation to make four donations to the Clinton Foundation, totaling $2.35
million.
According to The New York Times, those
donations were not disclosed by the Clintons, despite a deal that Hillary
Clinton reached with the Obama administration before being appointed as
secretary of state that they would disclose all donors.
Former
President Bill Clinton delivers a speech during the annual Clinton Global
Initiative in New York City, on Sept. 21, 2016. (Stephanie Keith/Getty
Images)
At the same time that the security review
was being conducted, Bill Clinton received a speaking fee of $500,000 from a
Kremlin-linked investment bank.
In
2006, the Clinton Foundation had already received a $31.3 million donation from Canadian billionaire Frank Giustra, owner of
mining company UrAsia, which merged with another mining company in 2007 to
become Uranium One.
The FBI had also uncovered evidence of a
sophisticated Russian bribery plot to get the controversial deal approved.
Citing
FBI and court documents, The Hill reported on Oct. 17 that the Russian officials had engaged in “bribery,
kickbacks, extortion, and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s
atomic energy business inside the United States.”
Democratic
presidential candidate Hillary Clinton makes a concession speech after being
defeated by Republican president-elect Donald Trump in New York on Nov. 9,
2016. (JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images)
The FBI also had a witness who possessed
documents showing that Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars
to the United States to benefit the Clinton Foundation, sources told The Hill.
An FBI informant in the case named William
Campbell had gathered evidence on “millions of dollars in bribes and kickbacks,
plus extortion and money laundering,” the Hill reported based on a review of
documents provided by Campbell.
Campbell had been prevented by
then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch from testifying before Congress on his
findings. In October, the DOJ lifted the gag order on the informant, allowing
him to speak to congressional panels.
Former
U.S. President Barack Obama speaks following a meeting with Attorney General
Loretta Lynch (L) in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC,
on July 19, 2016. (MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images)
The FBI director at the time was Robert
Mueller, who is now the special counsel investigating the allegations of
Russian meddling in the 2016 elections.
A leaked diplomatic cable obtained
by Wikileaks shows that Mueller had personally flown to Moscow in early 2009 to
deliver a 10-gram sample of highly enriched uranium. The transfer of the strip
from the FBI director to Russian officials was conducted on the tarmac,
according to the cable, which was sent by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
The sample had been requested by Russia
following the seizure of highly enriched uranium in Georgia in 2006 that had
been transferred to U.S. custody.
The Uranium One Scandal Explained
How President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton aided Russia’s quest for global nuclear dominance
February 9, 2018 Updated: May 9, 2019
In
2010, the Obama administration granted approval to Russia’s atomic agency,
Rosatom, to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One. The deal was
controversial because the Canadian mining company at the time controlled 20
percent of all uranium mining capacity in the United States.
Given
the national security implications, the deal required approval by the Committee
on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which included the State
Department, then headed by Hillary Clinton.
Russia had well announced its plans to
corner the global uranium market as a way to exert political control over other
countries. As early as 2006, Russia announced it would spend $10 billion to
grow Russia’s global uranium production capacity by 600 percent.
Uranium is a key component for nuclear
weapons as well as nuclear energy. A July 2011 report from the U.S. Energy
Information Administration revealed that American nuclear power plants relied
on imports for 92 percent of their uranium supply. Twenty-three percent was
imported from Russia.
So why did President Barack Obama and the
State Department headed by Hillary Clinton approve the deal that weakened
America’s security and energy independence?
The Epoch Times, using public sources,
including the book “Clinton Cash” by Peter Schweizer, has mapped out the
connections and events related to the Uranium One acquisition by Russia.
It shows that while the State Department
under Hillary Clinton was considering approving the deal, as part of the CFIUS
approval process, Russia and key stakeholders in the deal paid millions to the
Clinton Foundation.
Bill Clinton himself traveled to
Moscow just months before the deal was approved to meet with Vladimir Putin. Clinton was also paid
$500,000 for a speech he gave in Moscow by Renaissance Capital, an investment
firm with an interest in the Uranium One deal and ties to Putin.
(Click
on image to enlarge map)
The FBI at the time was aware that the
Russian authorities had staged a large-scale operation to blackmail and extort
U.S. companies connected to uranium production and transportation.
The agency also had a well-placed source
working in the uranium industry that provided extensive evidence of bribery and
corruption.
However, the investigation was killed in
2015 by FBI Director James Comey, and the key informant was given a gag order
and prevented from talking to Congress by Obama’s attorney general, Loretta
Lynch.
That gag order was lifted by Attorney
General Jeff Sessions last year, and three congressional committees interviewed
FBI informant William Campbell on Feb. 7.
He
revealed how the Russian government used an American lobbying firm, APCO, to
funnel millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation’s Global Initiative, The Hill reported on Feb. 7.
In December, Attorney General Jeff Sessions
had announced it is revisiting evidence obtained by the FBI in an investigation
into the Uranium One Deal.
On Jan. 12, the DOJ unsealed an 11-count
indictment of a former co-president of a Maryland-based transportation company
for his alleged role in the bribery of a Russian official connected to Russia’s
State Atomic Energy Corporation
Grassley Questions FBI Over Raid of
Clinton Foundation, Uranium One Whistleblower
December 4, 2018 Updated: December 7, 2018
No comments:
Post a Comment