RUSSIAN COLLUSION? YEP, BUT IT WAS
CLINTONS & OBAMA, NOT TRUMP
BY C. MITCHELL SHAW
SEE: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/27164-russian-collusion-yep-but-it-was-clinton-obama-not-trump;
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
With all of the focus on the alleged (yet never demonstrated, much
less proved) connections between President Trump and Russia over the
past year, the liberal mainstream media have bent over backwards to keep
the attention off of the demonstrable (and likely soon to be proved)
connections between Hillary Clinton and Russia. New reports may make it
impossible to continue that ruse.Hillary Clinton got quite a bit of political play out of calling Trump “Putin’s puppet” during debates and throughout the election cycle. In the end, though, her attacks missed their mark and she missed the necessary votes to secure the White House and the advent of a Clinton 2.0 presidency — an administration that would certainly have continued (and escalated) the corruption of the Clinton 1.0 presidency.
Newly released information confirms that it is Hillary Clinton — as secretary of state — and not Trump who can be shown to be “Putin’s puppet. The Hill, Fox News, Newsweek, and others are reporting that a deal between Clinton’s State Department and Russian interests that transferred 20 percent of U.S. uranium to Russian control involved bribery, collusion, and coverup. And Clinton’s fingerprints are all over it.
This confirms reports published by The New American even as the failed Clinton campaign and its accomplices in the liberal mainstream media continued to beat the stillborn horse of Trump/Russia collusion. In an article originally published in our print magazine and later published online, this writer addressed the evidence of “unethical, illegal, and corrupt behavior” revealed in the leaked Clinton campaign and DNC e-mails and documents published by WikiLeaks:
Those e-mails and documents serve as a
box full of smoking guns against the DNC and Clinton campaign. A quick
look at just a few of those smoking guns — any of which alone would be
damning — illustrates why Clinton (with the help of the liberal media)
wanted to keep the attention on the supposed source of the leak, rather
than on what the e-mails show about Clinton and her comrades in the
DNC....
As secretary of state, Clinton “reset”
relations with Putin’s Russia, which helped the Clinton Foundation and
its donors make millions of dollars off a deal that sold the mining
company Uranium One (and 25 percent of our strategic uranium production)
to Russia.
That report by The New American — in February — was published months before The Hill “broke” this story.Now, more is known about that deal. And the more that comes out, the worse it looks for both Clinton and Obama: FBI and court documents show that the Obama-era FBI (under the “leadership” of ousted FBI Director James Comey) was aware that Putin’s regime in Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, according to a report by The Hill. As an aside, does anyone still think it was a mistake for Trump to fire Comey?
The evidence of bribes and kickbacks is not mere conjecture and innuendo (as in the case of allegations against Trump), but is solidly supported by “a confidential U.S. witness working inside the Russian nuclear industry” who gathered “extensive financial records,” made “secret recordings,” and intercepted “emails as early as 2009,” according to The Hill. Moreover:
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.
The racketeering scheme was conducted
“with the consent of higher level officials” in Russia who “shared the
proceeds” from the kickbacks, one agent declared in an affidavit years
later.
And yet — even with the FBI and other federal authorities being aware
of this in 2009, the DOJ dragged the investigation out until 2015,
allowing a deal to go through that transferred between 20 and 25 percent
of U.S. uranium to Russia in the Uranium One deal that fattened the
coffers of the Clinton Foundation, strengthened Putin’s Russia, and
weakened the United States. For the anti-American element (for whom
Clinton was the perfect candidate), that is a win/win/win scenario.As Newsweek put it, “The Obama administration signed a controversial nuclear deal with Moscow despite prior FBI findings that Russian officials were bribing their way into the U.S. atomic energy industry, according to government documents just published by The Hill.”
So, while Hillary Clinton was using Russia as a bogeyman during the campaign by claiming that if Trump were elected, Putin would gain control of the United States, the reality is that she had — as secretary of state — already laid that groundwork. As president, she would likely have continued to build upon it, doing exactly what she accused Trump of planning to do.
As a result of this information coming to light, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is calling for his committee to conduct a real investigation into the Uranium One deal, the Obama administration, and Hillary Clinton. As Fox News is reporting:
Grassley on Wednesday released a series
of letters he fired off last week to 10 federal agencies, addressing
those issues in detail and raising the question of whether the committee
that approved the transaction was aware of the FBI probe. The Committee
on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) included
then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
At the beginning of a hearing with Attorney General Jeff Sessions
today, Grassley said, “This committee has an obligation to get to the
bottom of this issue.” So true. And the bottom of this issue could be a
long way down for Clinton and Obama.As for those Democrats who have been raising the roof calling for an end to “Russian collusion,” none appears to have come forward to celebrate this break in the case. It appears they are only interested in ending alleged collusion when it involves their opponent, but not actual collusion when it involves at least two of their darlings.
This is a developing story and The New American will continue to keep our readers updated.
______________________________________________________
Documents Show Other Democrats, Not Just Clintons, on Russian Payroll
Uranium One scandal threatens to bring down the entire Democratic Party
BY JEROME CORSI
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
WASHINGTON, D.C. – While the mainstream media continues to
obsess over Paul Manafort and Gen. Michael Flynn’s supposed “Russian
collusion,” totally ignored are the ties Tony Podesta, the brother of
Hillary’s 2016 presidential campaign chairman John Podesta, had to both
Uranium One and to Sherbank, Moscow’s largest state-run bank with close
ties to international terrorism and to Russian President Vladimir Putin.As the Russians gained control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 through 2013, the Podesta Group was paid a total of $630,000 between 2010 and 2015 to represent Uranium One, the Russian-controlled firm with close financial ties to the Clinton Foundation that today controls 20 percent of all U.S. uranium produced.
Podesta ties to Russian Money, Putin, and Russian clandestine operations
Among the revelations made public through the 11.5 million documents leaked by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists detailing the legal and financial arrangements behind secretive off-shore banking transactions dating back to the 1970s was the disclosure Russia’s largest bank, the state-owned Sherbank, uses the Podesta Group as its registered lobbyist in Washington.
“Sberbank (Savings Bank in Russian) engaged the Podesta Group to help its public image—leading Moscow financial institutions not exactly being known for their propriety and wholesomeness—and specifically to help lift some of the pain of sanctions placed on Russia in the aftermath of the Kremlin’s aggression against Ukraine, which has caused real pain to the country’s hard-hit financial sector,” wrote former National Security Agency analyst and counterintelligence officer John R. Schindler in an article entitled “Panama Papers Reveal Clinton’s Kremlin Connection” published by the Observer on April 7, 2016.
“It’s hardly surprising that Sberbank sought the help of Democratic insiders like the Podesta Group to aid them in this difficult hour, since they clearly understand how American politics work,” Schindler continued.
“The question is why the Podesta Group took Sberbank’s money,” Schindler asked. “That financial institution isn’t exactly hiding in the shadows—it’s the biggest bank in Russia, and its reputation leaves a lot to be desired. Nobody acquainted with Russian finance was surprised that Sberbank wound up in the Panama Papers.”
Schindler noted that since the 1990s, Sberbank has grown to be Russia’s dominant bank, controlling nearly 30 percent of Russia’s aggregate banking assets and employing a quarter-million people. The majority stockholder in Sberbank is Russia’s Central Bank, making Sberbank functionally an arm of the Russian government, though officially Sberbank is a private institution.
“Certainly, Western intelligence is well acquainted with Sberbank, noting its close relationship with Vladimir Putin and his regime. Funds moving through Sberbank are regularly used to support clandestine Russian intelligence operations, while the bank uses its offices abroad as cover for the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service or SVR,” Schindler pointed out.
A NATO counterintelligence official explained that Sberbank, which has outposts in almost two dozen foreign countries, “functions as a sort of arm of the SVR outside Russia, especially because many of its senior employees are ‘former’ Russian intelligence officers.” Inside the country, Sberbank has an equally cozy relationship with the Federal Security Service or FSB, Russia’s powerful domestic intelligence agency.
On April 17, 2014, the Moscow Times reported Ukraine opened criminal proceedings against Sberbank and 13 other banks on suspicion of “financing terrorism.”
Schindler noted the Ukrainian criminal infestation concluded Sberbank had distributed millions of dollars in illegal aid to Russian-backed separatists fighting in eastern Ukraine, with the bank serving as “a witting supporter of Russian aggression against Ukraine.”
On April 5, 2016Lachlan Markay reporting in the Washington Free Beacon published the lobbying registration form the Podesta Group filed with the U.S. government proving Sberbank had contracted with the Podesta Group to advance their interests with banking, trade, and foreign relations.
Markay further reported that according to the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, a consortium of journalists exploring the Panama Papers leak, Sberbank and Troika Dialog have ties to companies used by members of Putin’s inner circle to funnel state resources into lucrative private investments.
“Some of these companies were initially connected to the Troika Dialog investment fund, which was controlled and run by Sberbank after the bank bought the Troika Dialog investment bank. Troika and Sberbank declined to comment,” Markay noted the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, concluded in a report published in April 2016.
On March 30, 2016, Politico reported the Podesta Group registered to lobby for the U.S. subsidiary of Sherbank to see if relief could be obtained for the bank in the easing of U.S. sanctions against Russia for Russia’s role in the Ukraine conflict.
The Podesta Group and the Russian uranium scam
As first documented in Peter Schweizer’s bestselling book “Clinton Cash,” and confirmed in Jerome Corsi’s bestselling book “Partners in Crime: The Clinton’s Scheme to Monetize the White House,” Uranium One directed millions to the Clinton Foundation as the Russian government gained ownership of the company.
New York Times reporters Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, in an article entitled “Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal,” that the newspaper printed on April 23, 2015, documented the tie between the Russians and the Clinton Foundation as the Uranium One deal evolved.
“As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation,” Becker and McIntire wrote.
“Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million,” the New York Times reporters continued. “Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.”
Becker and McIntire further noted that shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Bill Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.
CIFUS is the acronym for the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, the inter-agency committee of the U.S. government, operating out of the U.S. Treasury, that is responsible to review and authorize transactions of a U.S. business that could result in a foreign person or entity undermining U.S. national security interests.
As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton was a member of CIFUS and she was the only presidential candidate in 2008 to make an issue of the importance of strengthening CIFUS to protect U.S. economic sovereignty and national security.
In October 2010, CIFUS reviewed and approved the Rosatom acquisition of majority control in Uranium One before the deal was done.
In 2013, Rosatom acquired all remaining shares of Uranium One. Becker and McIntire estimated that by 2015, after getting CIFUS approval, the Russians ended up controlling one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States.
John Podesta served as Clinton Foundation CEO
According to a New York Times report published Aug. 13, 2013, in 2011, a wave of midlevel program staff members departed the Clinton Foundation, “reflecting the frustration of much of the foundation’s policy personnel with the old political hands running the organization.”
Around that time, in 2011, Bruce Lindsey, then the Clinton Foundation’s CEO, suffered a stroke, underscoring concerns about the foundation’s line of succession. John D. Podesta, a chief of staff in Mr. Clinton’s White House, stepped in for several months as temporary chief executive.
An earlier version of this report was published by Jerome R. Corsi, “Media Neglect Clinton-Linked Firm’s Role in Russia Scandal, WND.com, Sept. 28, 2016, http://www.wnd.com/2016/09/media-neglect-clinton-linked-firms-role-in-russia-scandal/.
_______________________________________________________
New Details Expose Clinton & FBI Devils
18Oct17 - New details show the REAL devils in the Russian/Putin
collusion — Hillary, Obama’s DOJ, and the FBI who gagged a whistleblower
and pushed the Uranium One deal through 15 months AFTER they knew of
fraud, bribery and money laundering by those involved
Mueller Transferred Uranium To Russia,
Hid Clinton Crimes
Robert Mueller, the man who is investigating President Donald Trump for
ties to Russia has been shown to have ties to Russia himself.
Confirmed Mueller & The Clintons
Were On The Russian Pay Roll All Along
Once more it's proven that it's the lying democrats and not Donald Trump
who are in bed with the Russians.