by Tyler Durden Mon, 01/15/2018 - 12:00 Friday's 11-count indictment of former uranium transportation company executive, Mark Lambert, was the latest in a series of DOJ prosecutions involving individuals linked to the Russian nuclear industry and the Uranium One deal. Mark Lambert According to the indictment, Lambert and others at Transport Logistics International (TLI) engaged in several counts of bribery, kickbacks and money laundering with Russian nuclear official Vadim Mikerin, in order to secure business advantages with TENEX - a subsidiary of Rosatom, the Kremlin's state-owned energy company which bought Uranium One. TLI would have ostensibly transported all of the uranium from the U1 deal, were it not for an FBI undercover mole buried deep within the Russian nuclear industry who gathered extensive evidence of corruption. What many don't realize is that Lambert's Friday indictment is not the first linked to the Uranium One deal. In fact, Robert Mueller's FBI had been investigating the scheme since at least 2008 - with retiring Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe assigned to the ongoing investigation which was hidden from the Committee on Foreign Investments in the Untid States (CFIUS). Had they known, the committee never would have approved the Uranium One deal with TENEX's parent company, Rosatom. Four individuals were eventually prosecuted and given plea agreements after the Uranium One deal was approved. The prosecuting DOJ attorneys? Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and top Mueller investigator in the Trump-Russia probe, Andrew Weissman - who praised former acting Attorney General Sally Yates for defying Trump. Unsurprisingly, all four indicted individuals were handed extremely light sentences, none of which made headlines. The judge? Theodore Chuang - an Obama appointee who went to Harvard Law at the same time as Obama, advised Hillary Clinton as "Counselor on detail to the United States Department of State," and just so happened to strike down Trump's "Travel Ban" Executive Order. Chuang's wife, Jacinta Ma served as a senior policy advisor to Michelle Obama. Which again begs the question, who's watching the watchers?
Uhm, this has literally nothing to do with the Uranium One deal. This is a case of Americans bribing a Russian official in order to defraud a Russian company in a deal to import Russian uranium. barfo
Russian uranium informant says FBI sought new information from him about the Clintons An undercover informant who helped the FBI prove Russia’s uranium industry engaged in criminal activity says congressional Democrats’ recent attacks on his credibility were insulting to his medical disability and ignored the fact that agents recently asked him for fresh testimony about former President Clinton and Hillary Clinton. In his first on-camera interview, William Douglas Campbell told The Hill he was interviewed for about five hours in December by FBI agents from Little Rock, Ark., who were investigating whether donations to the Clintons’s charitable empire were used to influence U.S. nuclear policy during the Obama years. Campbell said he was asked specifically about whether donations to the Clintons charitable efforts were used to influence U.S. nuclear policy during the Obama year, and that agents questioned him extensively about claims the Russians made to him that they had routed millions of dollars to an American lobbying firm in 2010 and 2011 with the expectation it would be used to help President Clinton's charitable global initiative while major uranium decisions were pending before Hillary Clinton's State Department. "They were looking into the Clintons, and the information that I provided to them about the Clintons and about what was said and confirmed by Russian leadership seemed to be very important to them,” Campbell said, appearing in shadow during the interview to protect his identity. Spokesmen for the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton did not return calls Thursday seeking comment. The Clintons have long denied donations influenced any policies. Campbell worked as an FBI undercover informant from 2008 through 2014 inside Russia’s nuclear industry, helping to uncover a bribery, kickback, money laundering and extortion scheme that sent several Russian and U.S. executives to prison. He was summoned for a closed-door congressional interview last month by Republicans, who believe the criminal wrongdoing Campbell uncovered should have stopped the Obama administration from approving the sale of the Uranium One mining firm and billions of dollars in U.S. nuclear fuel contracts to Russia. House Democrats issued a blistering memo attacking Campbell’s credibility, saying he couldn’t identify specific crimes committed by the Clintons and suffered from memory lapses that required him to rely on written notes. Campbell dismissed the Democrats’ attacks as partisan. “I am not a Republican. I am not a Democrat. I’m not an independent. I am a damn American,” he said. “I'd like to remind those Democratic staff members who wrote that interview summary that none of 'em have ever worked undercover as a confidential informant … and put themselves in clear and present danger with Russian criminals who are breaking U.S. law." Campbell said the Democrats’ criticism smacked of hypocrisy, because they knew in advance he suffered memory problems from a brain tumor. “I can remember them running on an American disabilities [platform] wheeling people in wheelchairs and people that were having issues like I was having in and talking about how sacred that was to the Democratic Party. And hell, they’re mocking me?” he said. “It’s not right.” Spokesman for Democrats on the House Intelligence, Judiciary and Oversight and Government Reform committees, who wrote the Campbell memo, did not respond to a request for comment Thursday. Campbell also disputed allegations by anonymous Justice officials and Democrats that while undercover he may have engaged in illegal payments with the Russians without approval. He said Moscow asked him to pay $25,000 in 2010 to hire a consultant to train him on nuclear issues and that his FBI handlers “sanctioned and were aware that I was transferring those monies.” When the Russians didn’t provide the consulting and asked for more money, the agents recognized it was a kickback scheme and authorized him to keep making payments so they could make a criminal case, he said. He dismissed suggestions he lacked credibility, noting the FBI recently asked him for fresh information and paid him a $51,000 reward in 2016. "I was embraced and told what a good job I had done," he said. http://thehill.com/video/in-the-new...ays-fbi-sought-new-information-from-him-about
FBI informant says U.S. had evidence to block billions in nuclear deals for Russia In a series of rapid-fire decisions, a young Obama administration cleared the way for Russia to buy a mining company with large U.S. uranium assets, to be freed from Cold War-era nuclear export restrictions and to secure billions of dollars in new American nuclear fuel contracts. Now nearly a decade later, a longtime FBI undercover informant says the U.S. government had ample reason between 2009 and 2011 to block those decisions: It knew the top American executive of the Russian state-owned nuclear company benefitting from them was engaged in extensive criminal conduct on U.S. soil. “I was shocked and appalled because I believed that my reporting to the United States government certainly would head off or would, at least, have some type of consideration before approval was made for those acquisitions,” William Douglas Campbell told The Hill in his first on-camera interview. Campbell has faced questions about the credibility of his account of events due to his memory loss after a brain tumor and because he is accused of engaging in unauthorized payments with Russians while undercover. Campbell disputes those accusations. A spokesman for former President Obama did not immediately respond Friday to a request for comment. Campbell spent from 2008 to 2014 undercover as an informant inside Rosatom, the state-owned company at the center of Russia’s uranium empire. During that time, he says he helped the FBI prove Russian nuclear industry figures were engaged in bribery, money laundering, kickbacks and extortion and were carrying out a plan to hurt the United States by making it more dependent on Russian uranium. He even recorded them accepting suitcases full of bribery cash. “It was all covert work. The Russians had no idea that I was working, that I was interacting with the federal government, specifically the [Department of Justice] and FBI,” he said. His counterintelligence work eventually helped the FBI land several Russian and American executives in prison. But those criminal charges were filed years after the first evidence was uncovered, he said, and his FBI handlers described their own frustration at watching Russia win favorable decisions while engaged in wrongdoing. “Because it was a matter of national security, I felt sure that it was being handled on a high level and I was actually assured of that by agents that this strategy would be offset because it was a liability to our country,” he said. When he pressed agents why the Obama administration approved the Uranium One mining company purchase and cleared the way for billions in new U.S. nuclear fuel contracts during a “reset” in U.S.-Moscow relations, they gave a simple answer. “Ask your politicians,” he recalled. He said he also provided the FBI with evidence Moscow was aiding Iran’s illicit nuclear program and at some point Russian President Vladimir Putin’s top nuclear aides boasted to him how weak they thought the United States was to cede so many favorable decisions to Russia. “It was very illuminating because of the indications that they made about the influence from the United States government, their arrogance about the weakness of our government. It was not easy to sit there and listen to it,” he told The Hill. “They talked about the weakness of the president ... and in describing the president’s weakness they used racial epithets, which was not good.” http://thehill.com/video/380001-wat...to-block-billions-in-nuclear-deals-for-russia
oh my. Nice meltdown you are on with multiple posts basically saying the same thing. You worry more about those no longer in office and have no real power anymore than you do a current president who is breaking laws on an almost daily basis and make every excuse in the book for him. You need to wake up
It all just keeps coming back to Uranium One and the Clinton Mafia. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...mp-directly-asked-why-hasnt-been-charged.html New scrutiny on Tony Podesta as Trump directly asked why he hasn't been charged Tony Podesta, the older brother of Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and co-founder of the onetime lobbying powerhouse the Podesta Group, was thrust back into the political spotlight after President Donald Trump pointedly questioned why he had not been "charged and arrested." Trump focused on Podesta in one of a series of tweets Sunday attacking Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials. In October, reports emerged that Mueller was investigating the Podesta Group over its lobbying work on behalf of a nonprofit group called the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine (ECMU). According to the special counsel's indictment of former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and associate Rick Gates, the Brussels-based ECMU functioned as a "mouthpiece" for Viktor Yanukovych, Ukraine's pro-Russian president between 2010 and 2014. The indictment went on to allege that Manafort and Gates enlisted the Podesta Group and one other firm to lobby on behalf of the ECMU -- the "nominal client," in the words of the indictment -- so that Manafort and Gates could continue their work on Yanukovych's behalf without making the required legal disclosures to the Justice Department. The indictment alleged that the Podesta Group was not paid directly by the ECMU, but rather through offshore bank accounts controlled by Manafort and Gates. It also claimed that Gates gave the Podesta Group false talking points in order to cover his and Manafort's tracks about their work for Yanukovych and ECMU. Manafort is facing charges of acting as an unregistered foreign agent and false statements related to his political work in Ukraine and loans he took out to purchase U.S. properties. Gates has pleaded guilty to federal conspiracy charges and making false statements and is cooperating with Mueller's investigation. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the ECMU paid the Podesta Group $1.02 million over 2012 and 2013 for its work. Tony Podesta's name is not mentioned in the indictments of Manafort and Gates and it is not clear what, if anything, he knew about their work for the ECMU and Yanukovych. However, former Podesta Group staffers told ABC News they were skeptical about their prospective client. "There was a lot of suspicion that it was a front for bad stuff," one ex-staffer said. Another said workers were concerned Podesta was bringing in "clients you wouldn’t want to touch with a 100-foot pole." The Wall Street Journal reported last month that Podesta was doing $5 million in overseas business by 2015, double what it had been four years earlier. According to the paper, some of those clients included the governments of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and South Sudan. That time frame coincided with Podesta's divorce from his second wife, Heather. The Journal reported he gave up "nearly $5 million in retirement savings" and agreed to pay his ex-wife $200,000 quarterly over five years. The same day that Manafort and Gates' indictment went public, Oct. 30, Tony Podesta announced that he would step away from the firm. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the Podesta Group's lobbying income had plummeted from a high of $29.3 million in 2010 at the height of the Obama presidency. In 2017, the firm took in $18.4 million, its lowest income since 2008, as clients who hired Podesta in anticipation of a Hillary Clinton presidency melted away. As the Journal reported, the firm's longtime bank had cut ties in the summer of 2016 over its involvement with an American subsidiary of a sanctioned Russian bank. The same week as the Manafort and Gates indictment, the Podesta Group missed a deadline set by its new banker to pony up $655,000 and its line of credit was cut. During that week, Podesta reportedly shot down an idea to use his art collection -- valued in the millions of dollars -- as collateral for a loan. The Podesta Group ceased operations in November of last year. Most of its employees joined a new firm, Cogent Strategies, headed up by Podesta's last CEO, Kimberley Fritts. ABC News reported Sunday that six former employees were interviewed by federal investigators in connection with the Mueller investigation. The Journal reported at the time of those interviews that Podesta offered to have the firm pay their legal fees. Three former associates told ABC Newa they had not been reimbursed. Fox News' Brooke Singman contributed to this report. Click for more from The Wall Street Journal.
Go ahead and put Tony Podesta to death if appropriate. Makes no difference and no one cares. Tony Podesta aint president. barfo
https://lawandcrime.com/opinion/if-...ardon-herself-and-congress-might-be-helpless/ If Hillary Is Indicted, President Clinton Could Pardon Herself and Congress Might be Helpless by Chris White | 2:01 pm, October 28th, 2016 On Friday, just days before the election, reports are emerging that the FBI has re-opened the Hillary Clinton email investigation. “The FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation,” a letter from FBI Director James Comey reads. And while Comey didn’t indicate how long the investigation could take, it’s pretty safe to bet investigators won’t come to any kind of decision before November 8th. It may even take months for the FBI to wrap up round two of this. So what happens if Clinton is elected, takes office, and then finds her self under indictment? It might not be likely, but it is worth exploring the legal possibilities. It is Friday, January 20, 2017 and Hillary Clinton has just been sworn in as the 45th President of the United States after narrowly defeating Donald Trump in November. Republicans managed to hold both the House of Representatives and the Senate. A few weeks after winning the election, however, the Department of Justice handed down a multi-count indictment against Clinton over her handling of classified information and her involvement in an alleged pay for play scandal with the Clinton Foundation during her time as Secretary of State. It is a scenario that several of our commentators, and twitter followers have asked us to analyze. As I am sure you can imagine, such a situation would cause a political firestorm of epic proportions. But before dismissing this scenario as some sort of wild fantasy, be reminded that we are talking about the Clintons who are no strangers to bizarre scandals (bringing nearly all of them upon themselves). In fact, a delayed announcement would be similar to what happened with David Petraeus in 2012 when DOJ sat on announcing that investigation until three days after the election. Now, back to January 20, 2017. Could a future President Hillary Clinton pardon herself? The short answer is she could certainly try, and may very well get away with it. What’s more, there is likely little Congress could do about it — even with a Republican controlled House of Representatives and Senate. Here is why. The president’s pardon power comes from Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution that provides, “The President … shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” Based on the language of Article II, Section 2, the only limits placed on the power are that pardons may only be issued for federal offenses (not civil or state crimes), and a pardon cannot override the Congress’ impeachment power. Presidents have used this power to issue pardons in a wide range of matters throughout the country’s history. However, no president has ever attempted to pardon himself. As a result, the legality of the self-pardon remains an open question. There are persuasive arguments on both sides. For the sake of brevity, the two arguments can be boiled down to this: (1) those that argue a self-pardon violates longstanding legal principals that a person should not act as their own judge and that no person is above the law; and (2) those, including Richard Nixon’s attorneys in the aftermath of Watergate, that argue that power to pardon is broad and unlimited, except for the two specific limitations mentioned in the Constitution. So, assuming Clinton follows the latter approach and issues the self-pardon, where does that leave Congress? Could the House of Representatives start impeachment proceedings based on the criminal indictments? That answer to that question is a resounding “no.” Under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, “The President… shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” The Constitution further provides that impeachment proceedings are to begin in the House of Representatives and if approved by a simple majority vote, the matter proceeds to the Senate for trial. When the president is tried, the Chief Justice presides over the Senate trial. A conviction requires a 2/3-majority vote and the Senate may impose punishment including barring the individual from holding future office. Although, the Senate is required to take an additional vote if it wishes to impose a ban on holding future office. In Clinton’s case, however, the conduct underlying this hypothetical indictment occurred prior to her taking office. The House of Representatives, as far back as 1873, has determined that a person cannot be impeached based on conduct prior to them holding office. In other words, House precedent says a President Hillary Clinton could not be impeached as president for crimes related to the e-mail server or the Clinton Foundation. In 1873, the House of Representatives considered impeaching the Vice President for crimes committed before he took office. After considering the matter, the House determined impeachment was only proper for crimes committed while in office. So, under this precedent, a President Hillary Clinton could pardon herself without the Congress being able to do anything about it. However, all options may not be exhausted. There remains a possibility that self-pardon is grounds for impeachment as an abuse of power. Furthermore, there is the possibility of impeaching Clinton back from her time as Secretary of State. This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of the author. A version of this article was first published on May 23, 2016, but this article has been updated with new information.
First time I've bothered to read anything on this other than headlines. I read the Wikipedia article and this one Maris article. Here's the gist of it. The former Trump campaign manager helped a foreign mafia. For cover, he hired Hillary Clinton campaign chairman's lobbyist brother in a small role, paying him peanuts to lobby, $1 million during 2 years. The Republican chairman is on his way to jail. The Democratic chairman's brother's lobbying business lost most business and best employees, but since his business is starting to recover, Trump wants his blood to make it look like the crooks were bipartisan. Not separate sources. Both are owned by Murdoch.
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press...&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=press release Judicial Watch Obtains Emails Showing Podesta Group’s Work for Pro-Russia Ukrainian Political Party Updated: 5/23/18 Emails show Longtime Obama and Clinton Counselor John Podesta Lobbying on behalf of the Podesta Group (Washington, DC) — Judicial Watch today released new documents from the U.S. Department of State showing the Podesta Group working on behalf of the pro-Russia Ukrainian political group “Party of Regions.” The new documents also show longtime Obama and Clinton counselor John Podesta lobbying on behalf of his brother’s firm. Judicial Watch obtained the documents in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the State Department filed on November 20, 2017, (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:17-cv-02489)). The lawsuit was filed after the State Department failed to respond to a September 13, 2017, FOIA request for: All records of communication between any official, employee, or representative of the Department of State and any principal, employee, or representative of Podesta Group, Inc. All records produced related to any meetings or telephonic communications between any official, employee, or representative of the Department of State and any principal, employee, or representative of Podesta Group, Inc. All records regarding the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine. The FOIA request covers the timeframe of January 1, 2012 to the present. A March 28, 2013, email from now-Deputy Executive Secretary in the Office of the Secretary of State Baxter Hunt shows the Podesta Group, led by Tony Podesta, a Clinton bundler and brother of Clinton’s 2016 campaign chairman John Podesta, represented the Party of Regions, a pro-Kremlin political party in Ukraine. In the March 2013 email, to a number of officials including then-U.S. Foreign Service Officer John Tefft (who would go on to be U.S. Ambassador to Russia in 2014) and State Department director for the Office of Eastern Europe Alexander Kasanof, Hunt writes: See below, I also stressed to them the need for GOU to take concrete steps to get new SBA with IMF and avoid PFC/loss of GSP. Podesta Group is noted among host of Ukraine lobbyists in article I’ll forward in article on low side. Ben Chang and Mark Tavlarides of the Podesta Group, which is representing the Party of Regions, told us they were working with Klyuyev on a visit he plans to make to Washington in early May. They are working to broaden the POR’s contacts on the Hill, including setting up a meeting for Klyuyev with Chris Smith, and have advised Kyiv to stop trying to justify their actions against Tymoshenko in Washington. They also noted that during his recent meeting with former EC President Prodi, HFAC Chairman Ed Royce said that Congress would not be enacting sanctions legislation against Ukraine. The Party of Regions served as the pro-Kremlin political base for Ukraine’s former President Viktor Yanukovych, who fled to Russia in 2014. Like Paul Manafort, who is currently under indictment in the errant special counsel Russia investigation, the Podesta Group had to retroactively file Foreign Agent Registration Act disclosures with the Justice Department for Ukrainian-related work. The filing states that the Podesta group provided for the nonprofit European Centre for a Modern Ukraine “government relations and public relations services within the United States and Europe to promote political and economic cooperation between Ukraine and the West. The [Podesta Group] conducted outreach to congressional and executive branch offices, members of the media, nongovernmental organizations and think tanks.” Unlike Manafort and his partner Rick Gates, the Mueller special counsel operation hasn’t indicted anyone from the Podesta Group. Also, the new emails show longtime Obama and Clinton counselor John Podesta, lobbying on behalf of the Podesta Group’s efforts to secure a maintenance facility from Jet Blue and Lufthansa for Puerto Rico. In a June 27, 2013, email former U.S. Ambassador to Germany and current New Jersey Gov. Philip D. Murphy writes to John Podesta, Minister-Counselor for Economic Affairs at the American Embassy in Berlin Seth Winnick, and others: Jet Blue and Lufthansa are considering 2 locations for a maintenance center – Puerto Rico or Mexico. The Governor of PR wants this badly. The question is can we get to LH at the right levels to make the case. Either John or colleague OR John’s brother Tony or colleague will get to us with more details. Winnick then writes to John Podesta: “Washington alerted us to this advocacy issue and we are on it. Phil will try to connect in the next few days and we will follow up.” Later that day, in an email sent to his brother Tony Podesta and Winnick, John Podesta writes: “Thanks Seth. The Governor is a friend of mine. My brother Tony represents Puerto Rico and will follow up with details.” Winnick replies to John and Tony Podesta: “Happy to help on this one. I think we have the details we need for now from SelectUSA at Commerce but will come back if any issues arise.” Puerto Rico was selected by the airlines for the facility to service A320s in 2014. Judicial Watch is waiting to hear on any additional documents the State Department may produce in response to the FOIA lawsuit about the Podesta Group. “By the standards of the Mueller special counsel operation, these emails alone would have been enough for the Podestas to have been hauled before a grand jury or worse,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “These emails are a stark reminder that the Mueller’s special counsel operation seems more interested in the alleged foreign ties of the Trump team, rather than Hillary Clinton’s (and Barack Obama’s) associates.”
Putin just told the entire world who colluded with Russia to influence our elections, offered proof, and backed it up by calling out Meuller and the DOJ to provide the accused deep state intelligence officers for questioning in exchange for the same for Meuller to question Russians. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018...-agents-funneled-400-million-clinton-campaign Putin Claims U.S. Intelligence Agents Funneled $400 Million To Clinton Campaign by Tyler Durden Mon, 07/16/2018 - 17:10 Vladimir Putin made a bombshell claim during Monday's joint press conference with President Trump in Helsinki, Finland, when the Russian President said some $400 million in illegally earned profits was funneled to the Clinton campaign by associates of American-born British financier Bill Browder - at one time the largest foreign portfolio investors in Russia. The scheme involved members of the U.S. intelligence community, said Putin, who he said "accompanied and guided these transactions." Browder made billions in Russia during the 90's. In December, a Moscow court sentenced Browder in absentia to nine years in prison for tax fraud, while he was also found guilty of tax evasion in a separate 2013 case. Putin accused Browder's associates of illegally earning over than $1.5 billion without paying Russian taxes, before sending $400 million to Clinton. After offering to allow special counsel Robert Mueller's team to come to Russia for their investigation - as long as there was a reciprocal arrangement for Russian intelligence to investigate in the U.S., Putin said this: For instance, we can bring up Mr. Browder, in this particular case. Business associates of Mr. Browder have earned over $1.5 billion in Russia and never paid any taxes neither in Russia or the United States and yet the money escaped the country. They were transferred to the United States. They sent [a] huge amount of money, $400,000,000, as a contribution to the campaign of Hillary Clinton. Well that’s their personal case. It might have been legal, the contribution itself but the way the money was earned was illegal. So we have solid reason to believe that some [US] intelligence officers accompanied and guided these transactions. So we have an interest in questioning them.
