Posted on 12/22/2017 2:42:50 PM PST by Signalman
So, last month, there were rumors that Attorney General Jeff Sessions was looking into whether a special counsel would be necessary to look into Clinton-Uranium One transaction. In his testimony to Congress in November, he threw cold water on it, saying there wasn’t enough evidence to appoint one. Now, NBC News is reporting that Sessions has instructed prosecutors at the Justice Department to interview the FBI agents who were involved in the Uranium One probe and explain the evidence they obtained [emphasis mine]:
On the orders of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Justice Department prosecutors have begun asking FBI agents to explain the evidence they found in a now dormant criminal investigation into a controversial uranium deal that critics have linked to Bill and Hillary Clinton, multiple law enforcement officials told NBC News.
The interviews with FBI agents are part of the Justice Department's effort to fulfill a promise an assistant attorney general made to Congress last month to examine whether a special counsel was warranted to look into what has become known as the Uranium One deal, a senior Justice Department official said.
[…]
A senior law enforcement official who was briefed on the initial FBI investigation told NBC News there were allegations of corruption surrounding the process under which the U.S. government approved the sale. But no charges were filed
[…]
In recent weeks, FBI agents who investigated the case have been asked by Justice Department prosecutors to describe the results of their probe. The agents also have been asked if there was any improper effort to squash a prosecution, the law enforcement sources say.
The senior Justice Department official said the questions were part of an effort by the Sessions team to get up to speed on the controversial case, in the face of allegations from Congressional Republicans that it was mishandled.
An FBI spokesman declined to comment.
The Uranium One case has been at least reported extensively by the media. It involves the Clintons, Russia, uranium, and a former Canadian-owned mining company called Uranium One. The Russian state-owned energy corporation Rosatom wanted a majority stake in the company, which was announced in 2010. Between 2009-2013, Rosatom gradually gained more control of Uranium One, while its then-chairman, Ian Telfer, gave over $2 million from his charitable foundation to the Clinton Foundation. Eventually, since uranium is a national security priority, the Council on Foreign Investment had to approve the sale; the secretary of state is on the nine-member panel. During this time, that was Hillary Rodham Clinton. In addition, Bill Clinton received a $500,000 check from a Russian bank involved in the Uranium One transaction; the former president was asked to deliver a speech. Previous reports had Uranium One’s mining stakes in the U.S. at 20 percent, meaning that the Russians would absorb those interests. That figure has been revised down to 11 percent. Hillary Clinton never disclosed these donations and it fed into the narrative that if you give money to the power couple, especially via their foundation—somewhere on the timeline a socioeconomic dividend would be delivered to the donor.
It was recently discovered that the Obama White House knew the Russians were also bribing their way through the deal, had their payment schedule, but did nothing in the hopes of resetting relations with Moscow. So, why are we revisiting this again? Ed Morrissey at Hot Air had a few reasons—all of them fraught with politics, though some aspects worthy of congressional oversight and an inspector general inquiry:
For one thing, Donald Trump has put a lot of pressure on Sessions to investigate Hillary Clinton, mainly to force the media to acknowledge that the Clintons had more commercial and political ties to the Russians than Trump ever did. He wanted a “sauce for the goose” probe to balance out what Trump considers a “witch hunt” investigation on Russia-collusion speculation. When the latter was still in-house at the DoJ, Trump wanted an FBI investigation for the former; now that the collusion probe has a special counsel, Trump wants the same thing for Uranium One.
That pressure increased two months ago after The Hill’s John Solomon uncovered an FBI informant who claimed that the DoJ had prevented him from blowing the whistle on Russian extortion and influence operations going back to 2009. That involved the Uranium One deal, among others, and specifically targeted Hillary Clinton. In response, Congress demanded that the DoJ lift the whistleblower’s non-disclosure agreement. A month later, Sessions told Congress that he was considering the necessity of appointing a special counsel to review the actions of the Obama-era DoJ in regard to Uranium One and the potential for a criminal investigation.
[…]
No matter what Sessions decides, he’ll run the risk of large-scale political blowback. If he chooses to shut it down without a special counsel, he’ll be torn to shreds by Trump and his supporters; if he appoints a special counsel, Democrats will accuse him of touching off a constitutional crisis (it won’t be, but that’s been their slogan all year). That’s why it will either be a special counsel or nothing at all, too. Even though there’s no reason at all to go outside the DoJ for such an investigation, Sessions won’t want his fingerprints on it.
In the meantime, Trump will have what he wants — a potential bookend to the “collusion” nothingburger that may force the news media to report on the Clintons and all their slimy dealings in conjunction with the Clinton Foundation. How long Sessions will string that out is anyone’s guess, but in the end it’s not just the Clintons whose reputations will be on the line. It involves the Obama administration too, whose DoJ silenced the FBI informant for some reason. That alone is worth an Inspector General review and Congressional oversight.
Statute of limitations? It was not that long ago was it? How long is the statute of limitations?
Matt Vespa: Why, oh why, oh why did you use a completely worthless and altogether unneeded word as the first word in your article?
Really sorry to see that from a professional writer.
Here we go and don’t forget about the FBI agent that had the gag order removed...
Trump and Sessions knew everything about Uranium One before the election. Trump hired Rosenstein and Rosenstein appointed Mueller one day after Trump interviewed Mueller. While everybody was distracted by Mueller's leaks about going after Trump, Sessions and his DOJ inspector general (Horowitz) were quietly building their cases against the plotters.
Exactly where are those statues of limitation posted? I didn’t know TREASON had a statue of limitation?
Nominating Comey to replace Mueller in the Rose Garden.
Anybody ever see a figure on that?
What happened to the cash for the actual uranium sale? Did that money go into OFA--Obama’s slush fund for revolution? Or maybe into some offshore accounts?......
Particularly interesting is that immediately after exiting the white House, the Obama's traveled far and wide in such a short time -- their itinerary included Indonesia, Bali, French Polynesia; all those out-of-the-way places w/ infamous offshore banks that have numbered accounts.
THIS WE KNOW: the conniving Clintons took uranium.....a national strategic US asset......and sold it for their personal gain.
That smells like the infamous Teapot Dome scandal. Law professor Jonathan Turley said the Clintons uranium scheme .... "could be criminal." Turley (or somebody) needs to address the Clinton criminality in this context.
=======================================
More egregiously (to me) is that the criminal Clintons used proprietary information----intel the govt uses to secure the safety and security of we, the people.....to carry out their criminal acts.
I consider it reprehensible that Secy Hillary routinely sent her itinerary to the Clinton Foundation, giving the Clintons govt info to plot their scams.
p
“I think you have the solution with a Special Prosecutor. The evidence to justify one is overwhelming.”
Bring back Fitzgerald...he did such a great job with Scooter.
threaten her like they did to Flynn’s son...
Very clever !!
“Justice Department prosecutors have begun asking FBI agents to explain...”
To hell with “asking”—it should be “ordering”.
Sorry, I simply don’t believe the report from MSNBC’s reporter.
My guess is that it’s Fake News that Sessions is doing anything, other than trying to bury any chance of this getting investigated again, and what they found originally.
Sessions actually got into a shouting match with Jim Jordan last time he was asked about it in front of cameras.
They all assumed HRC would become POTUS, and continue to hide all their crimes.
When Trump won, PANIC TIME!
Exactly where are those statues of limitation posted? I didn’t know TREASON had a statue of limitation?
><
I said nothing about that. You need to ask the poster who I was responding to.
I just reviewed the 5:34 minute exchange between Jordan and Sessions on YouTube and have a much different take on it. Sessions refused to answer whether or not DOJ is already investigating the Clinton emails or Uranium One, and that is the only correct answer for him to give. In time, we will look back on Sessions's evasive answers as a necessary smokescreen to buy his DOJ more time. Robert Mueller has been a successful diversion to keep the conspirators focused on Trump while the DOJ builds its cases against them.
No it's not. The Judiciary Committee rightfully wants to know why there was a special counsel appointed to investigate Trump, when there was no evidence of a crime but a few ragtag Democrats wanted it, but now the DOJ refuses to appoint one when the DOJ oversight committee is requesting it, and there is a greater possibility of a crime and cover up.
Robert Mueller has been a successful diversion to keep the conspirators focused on Trump while the DOJ builds its cases against them.
So you really believe this one MSNBC reporter is the only one who would be able to get this info, if Sessions had actually ordered it? And you think the appointment of a special counsel to investigate Trump was more deserving of an independent counsel, than an investigation of corruption in the DOJ itself is deserving of one?
The statute of limitations for most federal crimes is five (5) years, which means that charges must be filed within five years of the date of the alleged crime.
Some federal crimes have longer statutes of limitations, such as:
- Income tax - 6 years
- Major fraud against government - 7 years
- Arson, embezzlement, citizenship fraud - 10 years
There is no statute of limitations for these federal crimes:
- Crimes punishable by death (e.g. Murder, Espionage, Treason)
- Terrorism resulting in death or serious injury
- Sex crimes with a minor
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.