On 10/27/24 I explored the Sean (P Diddy) Combs sex
trafficking indictment as something worrisome to the Leftist Music/Hollywood
industry and by extension so also damning to the Dem-Marxist machine behind
Kamala’s election campaign (or is it a coup campaign? Time will tell).
The title: “Kamala-Supporting Left Music/Hollywood P Diddy Concerns”.
(Posted at 3 Blogs in case of platform censorship: HERE,
HERE
& HERE.)
As I was sharing that post on various Social Media platforms
I came across a Telegram Ezra A.
Cohen post along the same lines of what I was sharing.
Cohen compiled a list of Music/Hollywood associates of Sean
Combs. My guess is everyone on that list is a supporter of the Dem-Marxist
Harris/Walz Election 2024 Ticket.
I’m not going to take the time to verify the list or the Combs-association.
If you care about America’s future, YOU might want to do that on your time.
Keep in mind the Music/Hollywood Industry is a huge fabric
of influence in the lives of Americans – young and old alike. Of the many
things that needs to change in our culture, one good thing would be a reinstitution
of Christian ethics in the debased Music/Hollywood Industrial Complex.
BELOW – The Cohen List! (The title is derived from
content)
There are also designers, filmmakers, directors, writers,
comedians, actors, actresses, producers, politicians, media personalities, TV
presenters, loads of musicians, novelists, poets, authors, sports, football.
The list is endless.
And that’s only some of them…..There’s 100’s of names coming
out supporting the whore of Babylon. That’s a f**k load of blackmail they have
on these people. The lists are being released in real time through the Kamala
endorsements. Great way to expose these demons.
If there’s anyone that I should add please write in the
comments, as I’m going to post this on X for the sleepers. Sorry if I have
duplicated some of the names.
There’s so many big names being dropped, like I say I
haven’t listed all of them. I’d be here all week.
Hmm… A U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine blocks corruption data on
the Sleepy-Creepy Joe & Son criminal enterprise – she gets fired and the
Dems are angry at Swamp Draining President Trump for removing fishy now-former
Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch. I guess a new way to spell real corruption is
D-E-M P-A-R-T-Y.
Blog Editor: Rather than
capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post
and share until the Leftist censors ban me. Recently, the Facebook censorship
tactic I’ve experienced is a couple of Group shares then jailed under the false
accusation of posting too fast. So I ask those that read this, to combat
censorship by sharing blog and Facebook posts with your friends or Groups you
belong to.
************************
John Solomon: Ex-ambassador Yovanovitch blocked Ukraine
investigation before being ousted by Trump
On Friday's radio program, award-winning investigative
journalist John Solomon joined Glenn Beck to detail how Marie Yovanovitch, the
former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, obstructed investigations into potential
corruption and interference by Democratic and Ukrainian officials in the 2016
U.S. election.
The Trump administration recalled Yovanovitch from her post
in May. The whistleblower complaint at the center of the impeachment inquiry
into President Donald Trump alleged that Yovanovitch was recalled because of
claims made by former Prosecutor General Yuri Lutsenko.
A White House memo of the July 25 phone call referenced in
the whistleblower complaint, documents President Trump speaking to Ukrainian
President Volodomyr Zelensky about Yovanovitch. "The former ambassador
from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing
with in the Ukraine were bad news, so I just want to let you know that,"
he said.
During a House deposition on Friday, Yovanovitch told
congressional investigators, "there had been a concerted campaign against
me, and that the Department had been under pressure from the President to
remove me since the Summer of 2018."
In this clip, Solomon breaks down the timeline. Starting
last year, several Ukraine officials working under Prosecutor General Lutsenko
raised alarms concerning Yovanovitch's conduct, saying not only was she
meddling in Ukraine domestic affairs, trying to control who the government
there could and couldn't prosecute, but that former Vice President Joe Biden
was also up to something fishy concerning his son, Hunter, and Ukrainian gas
company Burisma. But when they tried to bring it to the attention of American politicians,
Yovanovitch blocked their visa applications from ever going further than her
desk.
"There were three waves of concern expressed by
Ukrainian authorities including the prosecutors and other officials. In May of
2018, then-House Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions, Republican from Texas
and one of the most powerful chairmen in all of Congress at the time, he made a
trip over to the Ukraine. He came back and wrote a letter to the brand-new
Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, and he said, 'I have heard some deeply
troubling reports from both Ukrainians and Americans, that our ambassador is
bad-mouthing President Trump, and I think you should recall her.' That was the
first time that Ukrainians on the ground raised concerns that they saw the
ambassador engaged in inappropriate behavior, interfering investigations, that
sort of stuff," Solomon explained.
"A few months passed and nothing happened. So the
Ukrainian prosecutors under Lutsenko ... hired an American lawyer. This is in
the October-November time frame of 2018," he continued. "They hired a
former U.S. attorney here in the United States and they gave him a packet of
information of things that they felt were wrong. One, that the ambassador was
interfering in the Ukrainian internal affairs, like telling who he could
prosecute and not prosecute. Two, that Joe Biden had fired a prosecutor, who
was investigating his son's company, Burisma. And, three, there is some
significant evidence and there is about to be a court ruling in Ukraine ...
that Ukraine inappropriately interfered in the U.S. election in 2016."
Solomon pointed out that the Ukrainian prosecutors
"tried on their own to get visas to come to the United States," but
that the U.S. Embassy would not process the request. "They were just
sitting there unprocessed. They wouldn't reject them, they wouldn't approve
him. So they were in limbo," he said.
"The third wave is when, eventually, Lutsenko ...
reaches out to me and agrees to do an interview," Solomon added. "He
says, on the record, what had happened, confirming what Pete Sessions said,
confirming what the prosecutors had done in the fall, and legitimately raising
concerns.... When we have a diplomat on our soil in Ukraine, their job is not
to tell us what to do in our internal affairs, it's to deal with American
policy. It's not to tell us who we can and can't prosecute on our own soil. So
three waves over a year ... and all before Rudy Giuliani got on the ground in
Ukraine."
John Solomon breaks down the
timeline: starting last year, several Ukraine officials working under former
Prosecutor General Lutsenko raised alarms concerning the conduct of US
Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch. They say not only was she meddling in
Ukraine domestic affairs, trying to control who the government there could and
couldn't prosecute, but that Joe Biden was also up to something fishy
concerning his son, Hunter, and Burisma. They tried to bring it to the
attention of American politicians, but could never get the visas they needed to
travel to America. Why? You guessed it...Yovanovitch blocked their visa
applications from ever going further than her desk. And this all happened
BEFORE Giuliani ever touched ground there.
Use code GLENN to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.
To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling,
thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos,
subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love
America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.
+++++++++++++++++++
Blog Editor: Rather than
capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post
and share until the Leftist censors ban me. Recently, the Facebook censorship
tactic I’ve experienced is a couple of Group shares then jailed under the false
accusation of posting too fast. So I ask those that read this, to combat
censorship by sharing blog and Facebook posts with your friends or Groups you
belong to.
Even as the spoken and written Press propagandizes against President
Trump, there is plenty of documentation – with more to be revealed – that a frame-job
to depose a sitting President has occurred. Justin Smith does his part sharing
what can be publicly dug up by anyone searching about this coup attempt. YET in
this latest Justin submission he shared some misgivings about operation of
justice in today’s America:
I'm not overly optimistic that
William Barr is going to ever successfully prosecute the traitors to America
that were found within the Obama administration and working together across
party lines to destroy our republic, but maybe he will prove me wrong. If some
of these people are not prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and
imprisoned soon, I truly believe this republic is going to be so irreparably
damaged that we will find ourselves in a continuation of battles and civil
strife years out.
Justin has good reason for some pessimism. Politicians and
crooks related to the Democratic Party have been committing crimes and getting
away with it for at least a quarter century. Even if Attorney General is an
honest representative of justice, can he buck a system that has been corrupted
for so long? I HOPE SO!
Americans are wondering how such a well-engineered republic,
with all its time tested traditions and checks and balances, could be turned
into a blazing forest fire of political misdeeds and treason by the Obama
administration and the traitors within, but as the nation moves into the summer
of 2019, many remain hopeful that U.S. Attorney General William Barr, U.S. Attorney
John Durham and the fine efforts of men such as Representatives Devin Nunes and
Trey Gowdy and others will succeed in identifying, prosecuting and imprisoning
all involved in the plot against candidate and then President Trump. The nation
cannot 'move on' until these traitors, these rats who are now jumping their
sinking ship, are held accountable for their criminal and unconstitutional
actions.
Even prior to President
Trump's declassification order last month, escalating matters in the investigation
of the investigators, most of America was already aware of most of the facts,
already documented, in the seditious, subversive plot between the Hillary
Clinton campaign and many key government figures, including former president
Barack Obama, who could not have possibly failed to understand all the action.
And now, with a paper trail as wide as Percy Priest Lake[Blog
Editor: For readers who are unaware, the significance of the lake mention
undoubtedly relates to author Justin Smith residing in Rutherford County
Tennessee] and a fouled up coup, the truth is falling down on the traitors'
shoulders like radioactive ash.
Incredulously, during the last week of May, Representative Adam Schiff, House Intelligence
Committee Chairman, accused President Trump and
Attorney General Barr of attempting to "conspire to weaponize law
enforcement and classified information against their political enemies."
This would be hilarious if it weren't so serious, and if not for the fact that
Schiff accused President Trump of the very thing the Democratic Party and then
President Obama did for several of his last years in office.
If the dossier was not reliable enough to warn Trump's
campaign about the Kremlin's plot, how could it remotely serve as the basis for
obtaining FISA warrants to spy on Donald Trump and his inner circle? America
demands a full accounting of who, what, where, when, why and how the dossier
was used four, possibly five, times to dupe the FISA Court.
On May 24th, Representative Lindsey Graham, who has emerged as one of President
Trump's most intense and loyal supporters, spoke on Trump's declassification
order and told Fox and Friends:
"You're going to find out the mentality of the people investigating the
president. You're going to find out what they did and said. You're going to
find out that Papadopoulos was not working with the Russians. There'll be some
transcripts coming out where he says, 'If you did that, that'd be treason.' So
the bottom line is, there's going to be a lot of information about they were
warned Steele was a bad guy and you can't trust him. They blew through every
stop sign".
If Donald Trump wasn't the subject of the surveillance, as
the FBI asserted, then there was no valid reason not to apprise him of the
surveillance and what was suspected, during the January 2017 briefing. Who
decided not to give the President a FULL briefing on the dossier? Who decided
to deliberately hide this from the new Commander-In-Chief?
All of a sudden America is witnessing James Comey, James
Clapper, John Brennan accusing each other of being guilty of inserting the
unreliable Steele Dossier into a presidential assessment, since its ridiculous
stories and outright lies have been exposed. If they truly believed that this
dossier was fact -- that the American people faced an existential threat from
Donald Trump's sexual perversions, hatred of Obama and ties with Moscow, a
reprobate who stole the election from Hillary -- why are they not vying
for all the credit for warning President Obama and the American people, given
that they leaked and pushed this narrative over the past three years?
Fox News investigative journalist Catherine Herridge reported last month that an
email from former FBI Director James Comey in December 2016 indicates that it
was John Brennan who pushed the dossier to be included in the presidential
intelligence report. A source inside the CIA blames Comey for pressing the
dossier's inclusion.
Noting that he has seen the report, former Rep. Trey Gowdy has stated it does not look
good for John Brennan.
Protesting their innocence, Andrew McCabe and James Comey
are at odds too, even though they both swore President Trump remains a threat
to the republic and leaked classified documents to the media, supposedly to
save us, to save America. McCabe asserts that the Steele dossier was the
primary evidence presented to the FISA Court by the FBI, which Comey denies.
Why would they be at odds if their leaks were nobly motivated and their cause a
righteous one?
The fact that President Trump's declassification order
includes the Department of Treasury and the Department of Energy makes the
matter even darker, more intriguing, and, in fact, a critical point that
suggests pressure applied on President Trump not to release classified
documents was more subversion, and the focus was on using Russian collusion as
a way to conceal the FBI's spying and abuse of power; this was also part of a
broader attempt to cover up other massive Democrat corruption, especially the Uranium One Deal and real Russian collusion
by Democrats and the true depth of Clinton's pay-for-play operation
within the U.S. State Department, with many people aware of its
existence.
The salary men of the FBI dream of getting the top job, so
they play along, which explains Mueller's motivation as a one-time bag man
for Clinton in the Uranium One scheme.
And that makes for an extremely vile and dangerous partner when one considers
Hillary Clinton's vermin-like rapacity and her shrewd, corrupt, clever
ruthlessness. It's like selling one's soul to the devil and realizing too late
what a terrible deal one has made.
Abuse of power is to the Democrats what drugs are to the
addict, as exhibited by Susan Rice, National Security Advisor under Obama, who regularly unmasked American citizens
picked up on NSA surveillance sweeps. Also important to note, Samantha Power,
U.N. Ambassador, averaged unmasking someone every working day of 2016,
unmasking almost three-hundred; in comparison, John Bolton only unmasked three
during his tenure as U.N Ambassador, according to PJ Media.
And by now, it is pretty well acknowledged that elements
within the FBI and most likely the CIA conducted an illegal surveillance operation
against President Trump. Attorney General Barr has said as much,
stating the only remaining thing is to determine if the surveillance was
predicated upon the law and through a substantial evidentiary basis. The only
decision left is whether or not these people face charges or the whole thing
gets swept under the rug.
Some details remain to be confirmed, for instance:
Was the entrapment conman Josef Mifsud working for the
CIA and/or Britain's MI6 and/or Hillary Clinton's Fusion GPS contractor, or Orbis
Business Intelligence? I believe America is going to discover very few Russians
involved in all of this, but rather, they will see the FBI attempted to
infiltrate the Trump campaign and coordinated with Australia and the United Kingdom
to frame Donald Trump for collusion, so he could be prevented from taking
office or removed from office after the inauguration. The remaining questions
aren't going to be asked by the New York Times.
On May 15th, former U.S. Attorney for the District of
Columbia. Joe DiGenova explained to Breitbart News Daily:
"There was a brazen plot that started before the election, and the plot
was to illegally exonerate Hillary Clinton so that she could become president,
and then if she lost, there was an insurance policy to frame Donald Trump so he
could be prevented from taking office or removed from office after the
inauguration. ... John Brennan is at the core of this conspiracy. His handymen
and acolytes were Clapper and Comey and the senior FBI officials who worked
with Comey. Let's not forget that all of the people in senior levels of the
Department of Justice under Obama were involved in this plot. ... Loretta Lynch
was too dumb to be allowed to lead it," DiGenova speculated. "This is
Brennan Inc."
No longer standing unified, the drama between Brennan, Comey
and Clapper is just the surface. The Durham investigation could reach out of
the FBI and CIA up through the Obama administration, including Attorney General
Lynch and the White House itself.
We are in the midst of a morality play, where some of the
most unlikely villains have aligned themselves with the cause of tyranny and
Evil. And standing against them is the one time billionaire Playboy, President
Donald Trump, an unlikely hero. Yet here we are, with the tide turning our way
once more.
All of America's true patriots must raise their voice today
and tomorrow and for as long as it takes to arrive at a day of reckoning for
these traitors to the republic and our beloved America, otherwise and to our
chagrin, we may eventually see the administrative state simply bury this sorry
episode of American history. However, make no mistake, the weaponization of
federal agencies will happen again, and the next time, America may not be so
fortunate to have a president who is strong enough to withstand the onslaught
on behalf of the people and the nation.
When due process is ignored and justice is measured by
compulsion and our Fourth Amendment Rights against improper searches and
seizures seemingly no longer exist, freedom and liberty is endangered. When we
see men, who rebuke the Constitution, leverage the law through politics,
violating other men's 6th Amendment right to due process and acquiring power
over individual liberty by graft and scheme; and our representatives don't
protect us against them, but rather protects them against the people, our
republic is endangered. And when America sees corruption wielding heavy
influence and individual liberty so easily dispatched and suppressed, We the
People have realized that our freedom too is endangered and soon to perish.
It is no small thing to restore a republic once it has
fallen into corruption. It may be that the task is impossible, but it lies
before us to do. The alternative offers only a dark future, and thus, it is no
option at all. And if we do not try, the Founders' Republic and the larger war
for Western Civilization will be lost.
By Justin O. Smith
___________________________
Edited by John R. Houk
Text embraced by brackets and source links are by the
Editor.
There is one sure truism in this day and age: If a member of
the Democratic Party’s lips are moving, a LIE is spewing forth. When you hear a
Dem claim Obama was scandal free or not a single whisper of a scandal,
THAT DEM IS LYING!
ERGO the Dem Claim that the Uranium One scandal is debunked
and settled, THAT DEM IS…!
(This Epoch Times post
is an updated version from the original 5/9/19 post.)
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.”
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.
Epoch
Times VIDEO: The mainstream press has repeatedly declared the Russian
purchase of Uranium One a “debunked conspiracy theory.” …
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 whistleblowerwho 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 letters to
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-Ã -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.
The Epoch Times, published by The Epoch Times
Association, Inc., a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, is dedicated to seeking
the truth through insightful and independent journalism.
We stand outside of political interests and the pursuit
of profit, to educate readers about today’s most critical issues with the
intention of broadening minds and uplifting society. A well-informed society is
the cornerstone of a flourishing democracy.
Being independent, we investigate issues overlooked—or
avoided—by other media outlets. We do this because we believe journalism must
play the role of being truly responsible to society.
