The Uranium One controversy involves various theories surrounding the sale of Uranium One to Rosatom as a $145 million bribery scandal involving Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. The FBI has refused to make important documents public.
The evidence was compiled as Secretary Clinton courted Russia for better relations, as her husband former President Clinton collected a $500,000 speech payday in Moscow, and as the Obama administration approved the sale of a U.S. mining company, Uranium One, to Rosatom.
The sale — made famous years later by author Peter Schweizer and an epic New York Times exposé in 2015 — turned over a large swath of America’s untapped uranium deposits to Russia.
FACT 1: Evidence of Wrongdoing Exits
FACT 2: The Secret Information Contain Important Finding of National Interest
The first kickback payment was in November 2009, according to the FBI. An American uranium-trucking company also engaged in the bribery and kickbacks. After Congress requested his testimony, the FBI put a nondisclosure deal on the informant that was only recently annulled by the FBI.
FACT 3: Either the CFIUS Process Was Corrupted or Broken, or the FBI Dropped the Ball; or Both
But none of the facts that the FBI had about this “racketeering scheme” was brought to the attention of the Committee on Foreign Investment in 2010 or 2011 by Holder, as it was named in an affidavit by an agent of the Energy Department assigned to assist the FBI in the case.
Recall that Holder, as attorney general, was responsible for overseeing the FBI and its investigations.
None of the details on the millions of dollars sent to the Clinton Foundation was brought to the attention of the Committee by Hillary Clinton. And no congressional intelligence panels were told about it, either, according to The Hill.
Mikerin was not charged until 2014, along with other executives from the trucking company. Mikerin was charged with just one count of money laundering, not several bribes or several kickbacks.
A plea agreement was reached in 2015 and was made public by a press release in August of that year. The plea agreement applied only to transactions that occurred in 2011 and 2012 following the approval by the Committee on Foreign Investment of Russian uranium sales, despite the fact that corruption had begun in 2004.
The final court case, according to The Hill, “did not mention any connection to the influence peddling conversations that the FBI discovered had witnessed about Russian nuclear officials seeking to ingratiate themselves with the Clintons, even though agents had collected documents showing the transfer of millions of dollars from Russia’s nuclear industry to the Clinton Foundation.
This Summary of the Case Raises Important Questions:
The Heritage Foundation release a list of 7 questions in light of the following facts:
- The Obama administration’s handling of the Uranium One “bribery plot” raises serious, critical questions that must be answered.
- It is hard to come to any conclusion other than it was a political decision intended to cover up what happened.
- The Justice Department needs to turn over its complete file on the investigation and prosecution.
- Why didn’t Holder or Mueller brief the Committee on Foreign Investment about the bribery and kickbacks being engineered by Rosatom when it was seeking approval of its purchase of Uranium One in 2010 or its sale of uranium to American nuclear plants by Tenex in 2011?
- Why weren’t the House or Senate intelligence committees informed? The FBI and the Justice Department already had their informant in place in 2009 and already had evidence of the corruption.
- Why was the indictment and prosecution of Mikerin delayed, and why did the Justice Department allow this racketeering enterprise that corrupted the American uranium industry to continue for five years?
- Why were the possible charges against Mikerin reduced?
- Why was the evidence of attempted influence peddling suppressed and not made a part of the prosecution or mentioned in the plea agreement?
- Why did the FBI force a nondisclosure agreement on their informant, particularly because it was apparently the informant that first contacted the FBI to tell them what was going on?
- Who was the lawyer at the Justice Department who made this decision? And if the Justice Department can provide some law enforcement justification for it, why did it extend beyond the end of the case?