Politics Senate Judiciary opens probe into Obama-era Russian nuclear bribery case

http://thehill.com/policy/national-...-probe-into-obama-era-russian-nuclear-bribery

The Senate Judiciary Committee has launched a probe into a Russian nuclear bribery case, demanding several federal agencies disclose whether they knew the FBI had uncovered the corruption before the Obama administration in 2010 approved a controversial uranium deal with Moscow.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the committee chairman, gets his first chance to raise the issue in public on Wednesday when he questions Attorney General Jeff Sessions during an oversight hearing.
​

(The oversight hearing is on CNN right now. CNN is touting it as a grilling of Jeff Sessions.)

The senator also specifically conveyed in the latest letters he no longer accepts the Obama administration's assurances from 2015 that there was no basis to block the Uranium One deal.

"I am not convinced by these assurances," Grassley wrote the Homeland Security Department last week. "The sale of Uranium One resulted in a Russian government takeover of a significant portion of U.S. uranium mining capacity. In light of that fact, very serious questions remain about the basis for the finding that this transaction did not threaten to impair U.S. national security."

Though Wednesday's hearing was scheduled for other purposes, aides said they expected Grassley to ask Sessions questions about a story published in The Hill on Tuesday that disclosed the FBI had uncovered evidence showing Russian nuclear officials were engaged in a racketeering scheme involving bribes, kickbacks and money laundering designed to expand Russian President Vladimir Putin's atomic energy business on U.S. soil.

The evidence was first gathered in 2009 and 2010 but Department of Justice officials waited until 2014 to bring any charges. In between that time, President Obama's multi-agency Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) gave approval to Russia's Rosatom to buy a Canadian mining company called Uranium One that controlled 20 percent of America's uranium deposits.

The committee's members at the time included former Attorney General Eric Holder and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, whose husband collected large speech fees and millions in charitable donations from Russia and other entities interested in the outcome of the decision.

Grassley dispatched letters late week to all the federal agencies whose executives served on the CFIUS when the decision was made, demanding to know whether they were aware of the FBI case before they voted.

He also questioned whether the documented corruption that was uncovered posed a national security threat that should have voided approval of the uranium deal.

"It has recently come to the Committee’s attention that employees of Rosatom were involved in a criminal enterprise involving a conspiracy to commit extortion and money laundering during the time of the CFIUS transaction," Grassley wrote in one such letter addressed to Sessions.

"The fact that Rosatom subsidiaries in the United States were under criminal investigation as a result of a U.S. intelligence operation apparently around the time CFIUS approved the Uranium One/Rosatom transaction raises questions about whether that information factored into CFIUS’ decision to approve the transaction," the chairman added.

Grassley has been one of the few congressional leaders to have consistently raised questions about the uranium deal, and in 2015 agencies told his committee they had no national security reasons to reject the Moscow approval.​

 

The previous Hill story:

http://thehill.com/policy/national-...sian-bribery-plot-before-obama-administration

FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama administration approved controversial nuclear deal with Moscow

Before the Obama administration approved a controversial deal in 2010 giving Moscow control of a large swath of American uranium, the FBI 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, according to government documents and interviews.

Federal agents used a confidential U.S. witness working inside the Russian nuclear industry to gather extensive financial records, make secret recordings and intercept emails as early as 2009 that showed Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, FBI and court documents show.

They also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill.

 

http://nypost.com/2017/10/17/team-obamas-stunning-coverup-of-russian-crimes/

Team Obama’s stunning cover-up of Russian crimes

It turns out the Obama administration knew the Russians were engaged in bribery, kickbacks and extortion in order to gain control of US atomic resources — yet still OK’d that 2010 deal to give Moscow control of one-fifth of America’s uranium. This reeks.

Peter Schweizer got onto part of the scandal in his 2015 book, “Clinton Cash”: the gifts of $145 million to the Clinton Foundation, and the $500,000 fee to Bill for a single speech, by individuals involved in a deal that required Hillary Clinton’s approval.

The New York Times confirmed and followed up on Schweizer’s reporting — all of it denounced by Hillary as a partisan hit job.

But now The Hill reports that the FBI in 2009 had collected substantial evidence — eyewitnesses backed by documents — of money-laundering, blackmail and bribery by Russian nuclear officials, all aimed at growing “Vladimir Putin’s atomic-energy business inside the United States” in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

The bureau even flagged the routing of millions from Russian nuclear officials to cutouts and on to Clinton, Inc.

Hillary Clinton, again, sat on a key government body that had to approve the deal — though she now claims she had no role in a deal with profound national security implications, and during the campaign called the payments a coincidence.

The Obama administration — anxious to “reset” US-Russian relations — kept it all under wraps, refusing to tell even top congressional intelligence figures.

And when the Obamaites in 2014 filed low-level criminal charges against a single individual over what the FBI found, they did so with little public fanfare.

“The Russians were compromising American contractors in the nuclear industry with kickbacks and extortion threats, all of which raised legitimate national security concerns,” one veteran of the case told The Hill.

Yet the administration let Moscow move ahead — publicly insisting that there were no national security worries — and no evidence of Russian interference, despite many lawmakers’ concern at the time.

 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/18/russia-tables-turn-roping-clinton-obama-holder-not/

Russia tables turn, roping Clinton, Obama, Holder, not Trump

 

Who's trying to prove one party is more corrupt than the other?

This seems like big news.

 

Well, we do seem to be interested in Russian interference in the election, why not be interested in their interference in our government functionality?

 

What is your point? That we should turn a blind eye to certain Russian interferences? There are at least two congressional investigations and a special counsel looking into Russian interference into the elections, why not have the same look into them potentially buying favors from our government officials?

BTW, I consider the latter to be far worse. I mean, we know we can't trust the Russians, but we should be able to trust our elected and appointed officials.

 

https://www.circa.com/story/2017/10...er-fbi-informant-to-testify-about-uranium-one

Judiciary Committee calls on former FBI informant to testify about Uranium One

Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles Grassley asked the attorney of a former FBI informant Wednesday to allow her client to testify before his committee regarding the FBI's investigation regarding kickbacks and bribery by the Russian state controlled nuclear company that was approved to purchase twenty percent of United States uranium supply in 2010, Circa has learned.

In a formal letter, Grassley, an Iowa Republican, asked Victoria Toensing, the lawyer representing the former FBI informant, to allow her client, who says he worked as a voluntary informant for the FBI, to be allowed to testify about the "crucial" eyewitness testimony he provided to the FBI regarding members of the Russian subsidiary and other connected players from 2009 until the FBI's prosecution of the defendants in 2014.

Toensing's client was an American businessman who says he worked for four years undercover as an FBI confidential witness. Toensing said he was blocked by the Obama Justice Department, under then Attorney General Loretta Lynch, about testifying to Congress about his time as an informant for the FBI. He contends that he has pertinent information that the Russian's were attempting to gain access to former President Bill Clinton and his wife, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to influence the Obama administration's decision on the purchase of Uranium One, Toensing said.

"Reporting indicates that “the informant’s work was crucial to the government’s ability to crack a multimillion dollar racketeering scheme by Russian nuclear officials on U.S. soil” and that the scheme involved “bribery, kickbacks, money laundering, and extortion," Grassley states in his letter. "Further, the reporting indicates that your client can testify that 'FBI agents made comments to him suggesting political pressure was exerted during the Justice Department probe' and 'that there was specific evidence that could have scuttled approval of the Uranium One deal.' It appears that your client possesses unique information about the Uranium One/Rosatom transaction and how the Justice Department handled the criminal investigation into the Russian criminal conspiracy."

Grassley added that "such information is critical to the Committee’s oversight of the Justice Department and its ongoing inquiry into the manner in which CFIUS approved the transaction. Accordingly, the Committee requests to interview your client."

Toensing, who formerly worked under the Reagan Justice Department and is the former chief counsel of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said told Circa Tuesday that she was attempting to get Congress to persuade the Trump Justice Department or the FBI to free her client of a non-disclosure agreement he signed with the FBI so that he can talk to lawmakers.

Toensing told Circa, the letter from Grassley is important and "sets up a constitutional issue, the executive branch cannot prevent somebody from giving information to the legislative branch."

"He's truly a patriot, he started this because he cares for his country and he's doing this because he cares for his country," said Toensing of her client.

 

Including Trump, right?

 

No, I care what Obama did. I did all along. People did all along.

I agree there's hypocrisy. I'm glad you admit it. When Obama and Clinton were robbing the taxpayer (and future generations of taxpayers), there were all kinds of people complaining about it.

I cared when he did good things and said so.

I've posted many times that Mueller should finish his investigation and that Trump should STFU and speed it along. Meanwhile, the hypocrites on the right demand Mueller recuse himself, and all sorts of other silliness that I give zero consideration. Yet when Clinton was investigated by a special prosecutor, he used government agencies, campaign organizations, and his friends in the media to personally attack Ken Starr - far beyond anything the right is doing with Mueller. It's not even close. Mueller's name comes up in the news once every few weeks. Starr's was in the news 24/7 and he was assaulted by the press (without cause). The sides are flipped - those who attacked Starr now think the special counsel is a saint, and a minority on the right attack Mueller's credibility. Both sides are hypocrites.

I don't support many politicians. Is that hard to fathom? I think the democrats are crooks and republicans are morons.

One of the ones I do are ... Jerry Brown, governor of California, who's a democrat. He may be wrong headed, but he's utterly honest and a good person.

The mayor of San Diego does a good job, but I wouldn't say I support him. I don't urge people to vote for him.

I liked Reagan, but no other republican president (I didn't vote for any of them after Reagan's 2nd term - not a single election).

I like some of what Trump is doing. I hate a lot of what he's doing. If people actually raised the issues, you might see me in agreement with people I find posting a lot of untruths.

 

Trump/Russia connection is being investigated by two congressional committees and a special counsel.

Including Trump.