Peter Schweizer: Robert Mueller’s FBI ‘Completely Ignored’ Russian Corruption in 2010 Uranium One Deal

In a Monday interview on SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Tonight, Peter Schweizer, president of the Government Accountability Institute, said that the FBI apparently ignored evidence of Russian involvement in the uranium market “when they approved the deal back in 2010.”

Schweizer said that “Robert Mueller — director of the FBI between 2001 and 2013 — must have known of corrupt dealings related to the Uranium One deal in 2010.

From The Hill on October 17, 2017:

Before the Obama administration approved a controversial deal in 2010 giving Moscow control of a large swath of American uranium, the FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the United States, according to government documents and interviews.

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.

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.

Rather than bring immediate charges in 2010, however, the Department of Justice (DOJ) continued investigating the matter for nearly four more years, essentially leaving the American public and Congress in the dark about Russian nuclear corruption on U.S. soil during a period when the Obama administration made two major decisions benefiting Putin’s commercial nuclear ambitions.

The first decision occurred in October 2010, when the State Department and government agencies on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States unanimously approved the partial sale of Canadian mining company Uranium One to the Russian nuclear giant Rosatom, giving Moscow control of more than 20 percent of America’s uranium supply.

When this sale was used by Trump on the campaign trail last year, Hillary Clinton’s spokesman said she was not involved in the committee review and noted the State Department official who handled it said she “never intervened … on any [Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States] matter.”

In 2011, the administration gave approval for Rosatom’s Tenex subsidiary to sell commercial uranium to U.S. nuclear power plants in a partnership with the United States Enrichment Corp. Before then, Tenex had been limited to selling U.S. nuclear power plants reprocessed uranium recovered from dismantled Soviet nuclear weapons under the 1990s Megatons to Megawatts peace program.

“The Russians were compromising American contractors in the nuclear industry with kickbacks and extortion threats, all of which raised legitimate national security concerns. And none of that evidence got aired before the Obama administration made those decisions,” a person who worked on the case told The Hill, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution by U.S. or Russian officials.

The Obama administration’s decision to approve Rosatom’s purchase of Uranium One has been a source of political controversy since 2015.

That’s when conservative author Peter Schweitzer and The New York Times documented how Bill Clinton collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in Russian speaking fees and his charitable foundation collected millions in donations from parties interested in the deal while Hillary Clinton presided on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.

The Obama administration and the Clintons defended their actions at the time, insisting there was no evidence that any Russians or donors engaged in wrongdoing and there was no national security reason for any member of the committee to oppose the Uranium One deal.

But FBI, Energy Department and court documents reviewed by The Hill show the FBI in fact had gathered substantial evidence well before the committee’s decision that Vadim Mikerin — the main Russian overseeing Putin’s nuclear expansion inside the United States — was engaged in wrongdoing starting in 2009.

Then-Attorney General Eric Holder was among the Obama administration officials joining Hillary Clinton on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States at the time the Uranium One deal was approved. Multiple current and former government officials told The Hill they did not know whether the FBI or DOJ ever alerted committee members to the criminal activity they uncovered.

Spokesmen for Holder and Clinton did not return calls seeking comment. The Justice Department also didn’t comment.

Continue reading …

The FBI Has Dropped the Ball so Badly on Mass Shooters and Russian Election Meddling They Should Be Renamed the Federal Bureau of Incompetence

By Piers Morgan:

The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s official website couldn’t be any clearer about the purpose of the organisation.

‘The mission of the FBI,’ it reads, ‘is to protect the American people.’

As for the role of its much-vaunted Special Agents, the FBI defines their job as: ‘Staying ahead of the threat through leadership, agility and collaboration.’

Hmmm.

Where do those two bold statements of intent sit today, I wonder?

It’s hard to imagine there has even been a worse week for the FBI in its 109-year history.

First, they were forced to admit they spectacularly dropped the ball on the Florida mass shooter.

On January 5 this year, the FBI received a call to its Public Access Line, a service specifically set up to encourage people to report crimes or threats.

This wasn’t a vague call to the hotline’s West Virginia call center.

It was very, very specific.

‘A person close to Nikolas Cruz,’ read the FBI statement, ‘provided information about Cruz’s gun ownership, desire to kill people, erratic behaviour, and disturbing social media posts, as well as the potential of him conducting a school shooting.’

What should have happened next is blindingly obvious.

‘Under established protocols,’ the statement continued, ‘the information provided by the caller should have been assessed as a potential threat to life (and) forwarded to the FBI Miami Field Office where appropriate investigative steps would have been taken.’

You THINK?

But staggeringly, shamefully, it wasn’t.

As the FBI conceded, ‘the information was not provided to the Miami field office, and no further investigation was conducted at that time.’

Sorry, WHAT?

How is it even possible that such a detailed, terrifying warning could be ignored?

FBI Director Christopher Wray said: ‘It is up to all Americans to be vigilant, and when members of the public contact us with concerns, we must act properly and quickly.’

Well yes, Mr Wray.

Thanks for the reminder of what the FBI is supposed to do with tips like that.

But an American WAS vigilant, and DID contact you with concerns, and you acted improperly, and not just slowly but non-existently.

Continue reading …

FBI Pressure Increases with Failure to Avert School Shooting

From Newsmax:

The revelation that the FBI botched a potentially life-saving tip on the Florida school shooting suspect is a devastating blow to America’s top law enforcement agency at a time when it is already under extraordinary political pressure.

Even before the startling disclosure that the FBI failed to investigate a warning that the suspect, Nikolas Cruz, could be plotting an attack, the bureau was facing unprecedented criticism from President Donald Trump and other Republicans, who have accused it of partisan bias.

The agency and its supporters had been able to dismiss past criticism as just politics, but this time it had no option but to admit it made a disastrous mistake.

The FBI’s acknowledgment that it mishandled the tip prompted a sharp rebuke from its boss, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and a call from Florida’s Republican Gov. Rick Scott, a Trump ally, for FBI Director Christopher Wray to resign.

Wray, on the job for just six months, had already been in a precarious position defending the bureau from relentless attacks by Trump and other Republicans. They are still dissatisfied with its decision not to charge Hillary Clinton with crimes related to her use of a private email server, and they see signs of bias in special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe of possible Trump campaign ties to Russia.

As evidence, they’ve cited the former deputy director’s connection to Clinton allies, and they’ve publicized anti-Trump text messages exchanged between an FBI agent and a bureau lawyer. Democrats have said the accusations are aimed at damaging Mueller’s investigation and protecting Trump.

Continue reading …

What Do We Do about the Biased and Incompetent FBI?

Roger L. Simon writes:

It’s bad enough for a law enforcement agency to be biased. It’s even worse for it to be biased and incompetent.

But the latter seems to be an apt characterization of our Federal Bureau of Investigation in the wake of the killings in Parkland, Florida, where, by their own admission, the organization overlooked warnings about the killer that could have saved seventeen students and teachers from mass murder. This is no mere bureaucratic slip-up and the demand by Governor Scott for the resignation of FBI Director Wray is understandable considering the number of dead children in his state.

The incompetence, moreover, is not just restricted to Parkland. It pervades an institution that—frequently blinded by the most rote political correctness—interviewed and then released terrorists who ultimately perpetrated horrific attacks from the Boston Marathon to the Orlando nightclub massacre. (There are several more.)

Those, to be kind, oversights demonstrate aspects of bias mixed with incompetence, but that lethal combination became yet more apparent throughout the Russian collusion investigation. For the last few weeks we have been digesting the nauseating probability that the FBI used a dossier paid for by the Clinton campaign and ginned up by an assembly of creepy political hatchet men and women (Blumenthal, Shearer, Steele, two Ohrs, etc.) with input from various “friends of the Kremlin” in order to spy on an American citizen and, undoubtedly, Donald Trump, before and after he became president.

In other words, the FBI displayed the behavior of a Banana Republic in its bias (well, it’s a lot more than that, sadly ) at the same time it demonstrated its incompetence by doing so in a manner that would so easily — despite their myriad redactions — finally be uncovered.

Continue reading …

Scandal Deepens for Top Democrats

From Las Vegas Review Journal:

Have you heard the latest nursery rhyme? It goes like this: Hillary and Obama went up the hill. They both came down in handcuffs.

Don’t laugh. It’s not a joke.

The noose tightened last week upon the entire FBI leadership over the scandal to destroy candidate Donald Trump and then President Donald Trump. But it’s no longer just the FBI leadership facing prison time for conspiracy and obstruction of justice. It’s no longer just Hillary and her pals at the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton Foundation facing prison time.

The real question now: What did Barack Obama know, and when did he know it?

Continue reading …

Peeling Back the Layers of Hillary Clinton’s Deceit

From New York Post:

For law enforcement, Congress and even journalists, exposing misdeeds is like peeling an onion. Each layer you remove gets you closer to the truth.

So it is with the scandalous behavior of the FBI during its probe into whether President Trump’s campaign conspired with Russia in 2016. One layer at a time, we’re learning how flawed and dirty that probe was.

A top layer involves the texts between FBI lawyer Lisa Page and her married lover, Peter Strzok, the lead agent on the Hillary Clinton e-mail probe. They casually mention an “insurance policy” in the event Trump won the election and a plan for Strzok to go easy on Clinton because she probably would be their next boss.

Those exchanges, seen in the light of subsequent events, lead to a reasonable conclusion that the fix was in among then-Director James Comey’s team to hurt Trump and help Clinton.

Another layer involves the declassified House memo, which indicates the FBI and Justice Department depended heavily on the unverified Russian dossier about Trump to get a warrant to spy on Carter Page, an American citizen and briefly a Trump adviser.

The House memo also reveals that Comey and others withheld from the secret surveillance court key partisan facts that would have cast doubt on the dossier. Officials never revealed to the judges that the document was paid for by Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee or that Christopher Steele, the former British spy who compiled the dossier, said he was “desperate that Donald Trump not get elected.”

Continue reading …

Byron York: What Explains the FBI’s Deep Faith in Trump Dossier Author Christopher Steele?

From Washington Examiner

One of the most remarkable takeaways from the new documents released in the Trump-Russia investigation is the degree to which FBI officials were determined to believe dossier author Christopher Steele — even after it became clear he had lied to them. In their drive to win a warrant to wiretap sometime Trump volunteer Carter Page — along with Paul Manafort, one of only two Trump figures known to be wiretapped in the investigation — the bureau rested most of its case on Steele’s information, and the officials who filed the warrant application seemed resolved to believe Steele even after his credibility came into question.

The new document is the (mostly) unredacted version of the criminal referral of Steele sent to the Justice Department by Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley and subcommittee chairman Lindsey Graham. Like the earlier House Intelligence Committee memo, the Grassley-Graham referral shows that the FBI focused extensively on the dossier in its effort to convince the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court to give permission to wiretap Page. The FBI warrant application “relied heavily” on the dossier, according to the referral, and “the bulk of the application consists of allegations against Page that were disclosed to the FBI by Mr. Steele and are also outlined in the Steele dossier.”

In part, the FBI trusted Steele because it had to; the bureau had no other evidence that would have sufficed to win a warrant to wiretap Page. “The application appears to contain no additional information corroborating the dossier allegations against Mr. Page,” the Grassley-Graham referral said, “although it does cite to a news article that appears to be sourced to Mr. Steele’s dossier as well.” At another point in the referral, Grassley and Graham wrote that the FBI “relied more heavily on Steele’s credibility than on any independent verification or corroboration for his claims.”

“Indeed, the documents we have reviewed show that the FBI took important investigative steps largely based on Mr. Steele’s information — and relying heavily on his credibility,” Grassley and Graham wrote.

The FBI placed so much faith in Steele because he was a former British spy — a fellow professional — who had worked with the bureau a few years earlier in the world soccer corruption investigation. The FBI specifically referenced Steele’s history in the Page application to the FISA court, known as FISC.

“The FBI stated to the FISC that ‘based on [Steele’s] previous reporting history with the FBI, whereby [Steele] provided reliable information to the FBI, the FBI believes [Steele’s] reporting to be credible,'” Grassley and Graham wrote, quoting from the surveillance application.

But there were two problems with Steele’s credibility, according to the referral. The first was the lack of corroborating evidence. The other was convincing evidence that Steele lied to the FBI.

Continue reading …