Monday, 20 November 2017

Clinton Collusion & Coverups

Written by 

From the print edition of The New American

During the third and final presidential debate in October 2016, Hil­lary Clinton introduced her now-famous accusation that Donald Trump is “Putin’s puppet.” When she delivered that line, she likely never realistically suspected that he would beat her in the election, be the president, and be investigated for collusion with Russia. She probably also never imagined that she and her DNC associates would find themselves the subjects of multiple investigations from both houses of Congress as a result of the Trump-collusion investigations.

Those investigations may well prove that — among other things — it is Clinton, not Trump, who is guilty of collusion with Russia.

Clinton and the DNC got quite a bit of political play over her claim that Trump was beholden to Russian President Vladimir Putin. Her comrades in the liberal establishment media made sure of that. Even with all that, though, it was not enough to secure the votes she needed to win the election. So following the principle of dirty politics that says, “If you can’t beat them, delegitimize them,” Clinton and company ramped up the “Putin’s puppet” rhetoric in the wake of her defeat; and have continued to ramp it up until the present. A good example of that is the fake Trump dossier that has now been shown to have been illegally bought and paid for by the Clinton campaign and the DNC (For more information on that and other Clinton election scandals, see page 21).

Cash and Carry

Then, in mid-October — almost a full year after Trump defeated Clinton in the election — new reports began to emerge that the 2010 Uranium One deal between Clinton’s State Department and Russian interests that transferred 20 to 25 percent of U.S. uranium to Russian control involved bribery, collusion, and coverup. The Hill reported on October 17, 2017 that 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. And yet the deal — with Clinton’s fingerprints all over it — was allowed to go through.

In an article entitled “From Russia With Love: Did Putin Put Trump in the White House?” in the February 20, 2017 issue of The New American, 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. That article — published months before The Hill reported on UraniumGate — said:

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.

Though The Hill may not have “broken” the story, the new information reported by them certainly brings forth much more evidence of Clinton’s collusion with Russia. And while — after more than a year of claims of Trump/Russia collusion from Democrats and their comrades in the liberal media — the “evidence” of collusion between Trump and Russia is made up of conjecture, innuendo, and insinuation, the evidence of bribes and kickbacks in the Uranium One deal 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 documents quoted by The Hill.

As The Hill reported:

[Investigators] 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.

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 Obama’s secretary of state — already laid that groundwork by signing off on a deal that fattened the coffers of the Clinton Foundation, strengthened Putin’s Russia, and weakened the United States. As president, she would likely have continued to build upon that foundation, doing exactly what she accused Trump of planning to do.

Oh, “Putin’s puppet,” thy name is Hillary.

Of course, Secretary of State Clinton was not alone in approving the Uranium One deal. The Obama administration was up to its elbows in the scandal, with the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS) — made up of the secretaries of state, defense, the treasury, homeland security, commerce, and energy; the attorney general; and representatives of two White House offices — looking the other way and failing (or refusing) to raise any red flags over the deal and President Obama (who was the only one with the authority to stop the deal) doing nothing.

But while Clinton had company in approving the deal, she seems to have made sure to turn it into a rousing game of “pay for play” by raking in more than $40,000,000 in “donations” for the Clinton Foundation from Russian interests involved in the deal, according to a New York Times report from 2015. Of course, the Times reported that before Clinton was the Democrat nominee and long before she lost to Trump. In the wake of The Hill’s article, the Times has been oddly silent on the subject.

Newsweek, though, followed up on the report by The Hill by writing:

FBI agents also gathered documents and a witness account that Russian officials routed millions of dollars to ex-President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation while Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sat on a committee that gave a nod to the dealings with Moscow.

So Clinton sold out America to Russia, collecting millions in the process. Yet, so far, her Teflon coating seems to be holding up. But even Teflon can only take so much heat. And more heat — in the form of congressional probes — is coming.

Insider Investigations

In the wake of The Hill report on the FBI and court documents demonstrating collusion with Russia on the part of the Obama administration in general and Clinton in particular, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles “Chuck” Grassley (R-Iowa) opened his committee’s hearing with Attorney General Jeff Sessions on October 18 by calling for his committee to investigate the Uranium One deal, the Obama administration, and Hillary Clinton. Grassley said, “This committee has an obligation to get to the bottom of this issue.”

And Fox News reported that same day:

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.

The following week, top House Republicans announced two new congressional probes into the Obama administration in general and Clinton in particular. When it rains, it pours — and right now, the Democrats are getting soaked.

The announcement of the two separate but related investigations was made at a press conference on October 25. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) said that a panel made up of members of the House Judiciary Committee, the House Oversight Committee, and the House Intelligence Committee has been “looking into” UraniumGate “for a while now” and decided to make the investigation official after The Hill reported on the government documents showing evidence of collusion.

The first investigation is focused on the Obama administration’s mishandling of the Uranium One deal and the part Clinton played in approving it. With Grassley pressing for the Senate Intelligence Committee to investigate the same matter, this would mean that both houses of Congress could be digging into things that Democrats — all of their demands for uncovering collusion with Russia notwithstanding — may well wish had been left alone. Someone should have told them to be careful what they wish for. Of course, those Democrats who have been raising the roof for months demanding an end to “Russian collusion” aren’t interested in actual collusion when it involves at least two of their darlings.

Photo: AP Images

This article appears in the December 4, 2017, issue of The New American. To download the issue and continue reading this story, or to subscribe, click here.

Nunes — who in April was a casualty of the Left’s Russia/Trump probe (read: witch hunt) when he was forced to step down from that investigation due to complaints filed with the Office of Congressional Ethics — may have an opportunity to enjoy doing his duty as chairman of his committee as these investigations move forward.

The second investigation Nunes announced is a blast from the past that seems destined to haunt Clinton: her flagrantly illegal actions when — as secretary of state — she conducted State Department business (including sending and receiving thousands of classified e-mails) over her unsecured, unauthorized, illegal, private e-mail server and account. In particular, the investigation is focused on how the Department of Justice conducted its investigation of her actions — a reasonable focus, considering that with a mountain of evidence indicating her guilt, she was given a pass not once, but twice.

That investigation will almost certainly zero in on FBI documents made public on October 16 showing that ousted FBI Director James Comey protected Clinton during the dog-and-pony show that he passed off as an investigation.

The documents released by the FBI prove that Comey began drafting an e-mail about the determination of the investigation months before it was complete and even before the FBI had interviewed several key people involved. One of the people not interviewed before Comey drafted his e-mail was Clinton herself. This means that months before the conclusion of the investigation — which twice ended with Comey publicly refusing to recommend indictment for Clinton’s illegal use of a private e-mail server and account — Comey had already decided that that’s how it would end.

The body of the publicly released version of Comey’s e-mail — dated May 2, 2016 — is entirely redacted, showing nothing. While it is not possible to know what was in the body of the e-mail, it was addressed to Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, General Counsel James Baker, and Chief of Staff and Senior Counselor James Rybicki. When the FBI released the document as part of a Freedom of Information Act request, it was given the title “Drafts of Director Comey’s July 5, 2016 Statement Regarding Email Server Investigation Part 01 of 01.”

July 5, 2016 was the day Comey issued a public statement that the investigation was complete and that the FBI would not recommend an indictment against Clinton. Now it is known that Comey had made that decision more than two months before announcing it.

Months later, 650,000 previously undiscovered e-mails, including thousands that bore metadata showing they were State Department e-mails, were found on a laptop used by Clinton associate Huma Abedin. The e-mails were discovered by investigators working the case of disgraced Representative Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) (to whom Abedin was married), who used computers and phones to send obscene images to a minor. The laptop — though used by Abedin to send and receive State Department e-mails, many of which were classified — actually belonged to Weiner, who lacked the security clearance to access those e-mails.

On October 28, Comey sent a letter to high-ranking members of Congress announcing that — because of the e-mails on the Abedin/Weiner laptop — he was reopening the case. Then, the FBI — which had taken months to review 75,000 to 85,000 e-mails in the first round of the “investigation” — was somehow able to clear 650,000 e-mails in just over a week. Eight days after announcing the reopening of the investigation, Comey reclosed it — again announcing that there would be no recommendation for an indictment.

On the campaign trail, Donald Trump told a crowd of 8,000 in the Detroit, Michigan, suburb of Sterling Heights that Clinton was “being protected by a rigged system!” because “You can’t review 650,000 new emails in eight days! You can’t do it, folks!” The math says Trump was correct. Even if there were 500 agents working full days (and working over the weekend) devoted to nothing but analyzing, cross referencing, and clearing those e-mails, they would each have had to clear them at a rate of 20 e-mails per hour. That is not an investigation; that is a rigged system protecting Clinton — exactly as Trump said.

Comey’s decision to protect Clinton — already apparent from his refusal to recommend indictment and now obvious from his May e-mail laying out his July “decision” — did not happen in a vacuum. In fact, The New American reported in October 2016 that a heavily (but not completely) redacted FBI document from August 2015 mentions a group called “The Shadow Government” — made up “of very high-ranking STATE officials” — that was working to protect Clinton. In running interference for Clinton, it is reasonable to suspect that Comey may have been following “guidance” (if not a direct order) from those higher than him on the totem pole.

When Comey’s May e-mail was reported, President Trump took to his favorite form of mass communication, tweeting that Comey “totally protected Hillary Clinton. He was the best thing that ever happened to her!” And this time, Trump has the document to prove it.

Comey’s Comeuppance?

For his part, Comey is not off the hook. As part of the congressional probe into how Obama’s Department of Justice (a misnomer that is difficult to type with a straight face) handled the investigation, Comey may soon have to explain how his May e-mail jibes with his previous sworn testimony, because Grassley, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who sits on the committee, have both stated that they intend to have him answer those questions. Graham has gone so far as to say that, if necessary, he will issue a subpoena compelling Comey’s testimony, saying, “He’s coming, one way or the other.”

To top it off, in the wake of reports that Clinton and the DNC illegally funded the fake Trump dossier that served as the springboard for investigations into allegations of Trump/Russia collusion, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) has indicated that his committee’s investigation will be changing direction. On October 25, Burr told CNN, “This provides us the ability to connect some dots that we couldn’t do before this,” adding, “And any investigation when you have a revelation this big, it begins to clarify some pictures that you were already trying to understand.” He went on to say that this new information “will require us to dig a lot deeper in some areas that maybe a week ago we weren’t planning to.”

No wonder Trump told reporters on October 25 that “the hoax is turned around, and you look at what’s happened with Russia and the uranium deal and the fake dossier, and it’s all turned around.” It looks like the missiles fired by Clinton and the DNC have circled back and found their true targets. In an effort to use the specter of Russian collusion to delegitimize Trump’s presidency, they appear to have unwittingly revealed actual Russian collusion in their own camp.

With two new investigations headed up by high-ranking Republicans in the House, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee calling for his committee to launch its own investigation, and the Senate Intelligence Committee shifting its focus to look into the Clinton Campaign and the DNC illegally hiding their funding of the fake Trump dossier, the days ahead look dark for Clinton and company.

Photo: AP Images

Please review our Comment Policy before posting a comment

Social Media