Quite a number of headlines over the past few days while I’ve been away, enjoying some time offline. As I caught up on some of the issues, it seemed appropriate to outline some of the recent developments.
As we all know, Robert Mueller has been appointed to investigate whether the Trump candidacy “colluded” with Russia during the 2016 campaign. As part of that, Mueller is looking into the circumstances surrounding Trump’s firing of former FBI Director James Comey. There were already questions about how impartial Mueller could be about the later, given his long personal and professional relationship with Comey.
Now it appears Mueller may have additional conflicts of interest regarding Russia. You see, Mueller was Comey’s predecessor as head of the FBI. During his tenure, the FBI had already discovered Russian efforts to influence the U.S.:
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.
Despite having this information in 2009, the U.S. government approved in 2010 the purchase of Canada’s Uranium One (which itself controlled 1/5 of the U.S. uranium mining capacity) by Russia’s state-owned Rosatom. As Investor’s Business Daily points out:
Does it seem strange that an American administration would OK the acquisition of 20% of America’s uranium resources by a hostile nuclear power? How could that be?
It only makes sense if you understand what else was going on, namely Hillary Clinton’s aggressive use of her State Department perch to raise money for the family “charity,” the Clinton Foundation. That Clinton used her office to the foundation’s advantage, there can be little doubt.
The Clinton Foundation took in some $145 million in contributions from Uranium One shareholders, much of it coming at about the time that deal won approval from CFIUS — the investment panel on which both Hillary Clinton and Attorney General Eric Holder conveniently sat. Is that a coincidence? Or that the Justice Department waited until 2014, the year after Hillary left office, to take any action in the Russian criminal matters? Or that details of the Uranium One deal didn’t come out until 2015, the year Eric Holder left office? Was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s “reset” with the Russian government in 2009 just part of a wider plan to enrich her own family foundation with Russian cash?
We’d sure like to know the answers to these and other questions. At the very least, there is a clear prima facie case to be made for an investigation into the pay-for-play behavior in the Obama administration.
So remember: when Democrats run around screaming “Russia, Russia, Russia,” it’s most likely an attempt at projection. As for the Clinton’s “charitable foundation,” it’s clear there’s only one beneficiary: the Clintons. They’ve made a career out of literally selling out the U.S. For all Trump’s shortcomings (and they are many), he at least prevented Her Hillariness from being in a position to do even more damage. It would be ironic if the investigation meant to hamstring his administration instead revealed many of the sordid details of the swamp Trump promised to drain.