Nikitas3.com has long adhered to a Golden Rule about Democrats and it is this:
When a liberal points his/her finger at a conservative on any issue, the liberal is virtually always infinitely more guilty than the conservative of the wrongdoing that the liberal is charging.
Example #1: Democrats have been pointing fingers at Republicans and conservatives for decades for waging a “war on women”. But the recent scandal about harassment, abuse and rape in Hollywood shows that the liberal left is infinitely more guilty of this “war”. And this scandal is 100 times bigger than we now know.
Example #2: Liberals claim that conservatives are “racists”, yet the Democrat party has a history of racism going back to the Civil War. The Ku Klux Klan was the military arm of the Democrat party. Bill Clinton’s political mentor was a segregationist US senator named J. William Fulbright.
Example #3: Liberals claimed that president Trump had paid no federal taxes. Yet when Trump’s 2005 tax return was released by the media it showed Trump paying a higher rate than any other politician including leading Democrats like Obama or John Kerry.
The list goes on and on. And now we have had Democrats pointing fingers at president Trump for colluding with the Russians to steal the presidential election. No evidence has turned up, and we now are discovering the opposite, per the Golden Rule.
We are discovering that Hillary and Bill Clinton; Barack Obama along with his attorneys general Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch; Obama’s FBI director Robert Mueller; and others on the Democrat side appear to have been involved in or helped to cover up a massive scheme that sold 20% of America’s uranium supply to Russia in exchange for huge financial payoffs, as much as $145 million funneled to the Clinton Foundation from Russian interests.
In short, the Democrats appear to have sold out our national security for profit. No surprise there.
This is a complex story and thus Nikitas3.com has excerpted below from many publications to hopefully make it as clear as possible in the fewest number of words. First, here is an excerpt from an editorial in The New York Post:
It turns out the Obama administration knew the Russians were engaged in bribery, kickbacks and extortion in order to gain control of US atomic resources — yet still OK’d that 2010 deal to give Moscow control of (20%) of America’s uranium. This reeks.
Peter Schweizer got onto part of the scandal in his 2015 book, ‘Clinton Cash’: the gifts of $145 million to the Clinton Foundation, and the $500,000 fee to Bill for a single speech, by individuals involved in a deal that required Hillary Clinton’s approval.
The New York Times confirmed and followed up on Schweizer’s reporting — all of it denounced by Hillary as a partisan hit job.
But now The Hill (website) reports that the FBI in 2000 had collected substantial evidence — eyewitnesses backed by documents — of money-laundering, blackmail and bribery by Russian nuclear officials, all aimed at growing “Vladimir Putin’s atomic-energy business inside the United States” in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
The bureau even flagged the routing of millions from Russian nuclear officials to cutouts and on to Clinton Inc.
Hillary Clinton, again, sat on a key government body that had to approve the deal — though she now claims she had no role in a deal with profound national security implications, and during the campaign called the payments a coincidence.
The Obama administration — anxious to “reset” US-Russian relations — kept it all under wraps, refusing to tell even top congressional intelligence figures.
And when the Obamaites in 2014 filed low-level criminal charges against a single individual over what the FBI found, they did so with little public fanfare.
OK, so this is the setup. Meanwhile Democrats are charging that president Trump hired prostitutes in Moscow, which is ludicrous. That story was certainly concocted by top Democrat operatives to further divert us from the uranium story. Fox News reported:
The House Oversight Committee has started its investigation into an Obama-era deal in which a Russian-backed company bought a uranium firm with mines in the U.S., Rep. Ron DeSantis told Fox News on Sunday, adding that he’s spoken with the federal government’s “confidential informant” on the matter.
… “I’ve spoken with the confidential informant that helped the FBI uncover this bribery scheme,” DeSantis, R-Fla., a member of the oversight committee, told “America’s News Headquarters.” “Clearly, it’s in the public’s interest that this individual be able to tell his story to Congress.”
DeSantis said Sunday the informant to whom he spoke signed his original non-disclosure deal with Obama administration Attorney General Eric Holder and was “threatened with reprisal” by the Justice Department under Attorney General Loretta Lynch when he tried to “come forward” in 2016.
Obama, Holder and Lynch. There you go. Smoking gun? Meanwhile commentator Lou Dobbs said:
“There is no clear statement as to why we would give up, for any reason, any price, 20% of our uranium in this country. And that is a question that is left open still unanswered. and secondly, have you ever heard of anyone putting $145 million, at one moment, into the hands of the Clinton foundation? And the answer is, of course not. These questions most basic and fundamental, were armed by the very committee made up of the very agencies, departments, and individuals responsible for national security. this, this is the biggest Obama scandal. I think it may well turn out to be the biggest scandal in American political history.”
The Gateway Pundit website reports:
From Tuesday’s report we found out that the (uranium) investigation was supervised (under Obama) by then-U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein, who is now President Trump’s Deputy Attorney General, and then-Assistant FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who is now the deputy FBI director under Trump.
Sara Carter of Circa News interviewed Victoria Toensing, a lawyer for the FBI informant who said her client “is not only afraid of the Russian people, but he is afraid of the US government because of the threats the Obama administration made against him.”
Yes, and the FBI director at the time was Robert Mueller who now is investigating the fake Trump-Russia collusion story. Gee, I wonder why?
Now here is The Gateway Pundit reporting about the year that the uranium deal was made:
In 2010 former President Bill Clinton met with Vladimir Putin at the State residence Novo-Ogaryovo outside of Moscow.
This was after his $500,000 speech and before the Uranium One deal was approved by the Hillary Clinton State Department and Obama administration officials.
The Gateway Pundit uncovered photos from Bill’s meeting with Vladimir Putin.
Photos are then shown. That $500,000 speech came after the deal was made, i.e., appeared to be part of a payoff for the deal. The Hill website reported:
As he prepared to collect a $500,000 payday in Moscow in 2010, Bill Clinton sought clearance from the State Department to meet with a key board director of the Russian nuclear energy firm Rosatom — which at the time needed the Obama administration’s approval for a controversial uranium deal, government records show.
Arkady Dvorkovich, a top aide to then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and one of the highest-ranking government officials to serve on Rosatom’s board of supervisors, was listed on a May 14, 2010, email as one of 15 Russians the former president wanted to meet during a late June 2010 trip, the documents show…
…Bill Clinton instead got together with Vladimir Putin at the Russian leader’s private homestead.
OK, this is more evidence of the real Russian collusion story. The Daily Caller then reported:
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) reportedly buried evidence tying the Clinton Foundation to a Russian bribery scheme underway as the Obama administration decided whether or not to give Moscow control over U.S. uranium reserves.
FBI officials collected evidence of a Russian bribery scheme that started as early as 2009 (Note: When Obama took office) including “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,” The Hill (website) reported Tuesday.
The Clinton Foundation became a lightning rod for controversy during the 2016 election. Critics, including President Donald Trump, claimed the Clinton Foundation was engaged in influence peddling — trading donations for political favors. the Clintons repeatedly denied these allegations.
On the campaign trail, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton defended her role in approving Rosatom’s, Russia’s state-owned nuclear energy company, acquisition of Canadian mining company Uranium One.
Clinton said there was no reason at the time to oppose the Uranium One deal, and argued the committee she served on had no veto power to stop the deal — they only gave the president a recommendation.
But The Hill (website) found documents showing investigators “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.”
… Rosatom began its Uranium One takeover in 2009, and U.S. officials approved the Uranium One take over in October 2010. The takeover gave Russia control over 20 percent of U.S. uranium reserves.
The merger lasted through 2013, and during that time donations from the charitable foundation of Uranium One’s chairman donated $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation.
Former President Bill Clinton also got $500,000 for a speech he gave in Moscow shortly after Rosatom announced its plans to take control of the Canadian mining company. Clinton was paid by a “Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock,” The New York Times reported in 2015.
Now here are excerpts from The Hill website from an article entitled FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama administration approved controversial nuclear deal with Moscow
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.
Yes, and who was head of FBI in 2010?
You guessed it. It was Robert Mueller, who is now investigating the alleged Trump-Russia collusion story.
In other words, friends, Mueller certainly could appear to be seeking to throw the dogs off of scent of the Clintons, Obama, Holder, Lynch and anyone else who is involved, including Mueller himself.
Attorney general Jeff Sessions must appoint a special prosecutor immediately to investigate this uranium treachery. It could be the biggest scandal in all of American history since it involved one of our key resources transferred to an adversary nation to enrich top Democrat politicians.
Nikitas3.com has called for months for Trump to fire Mueller, and for good reason. Mueller is a sleazy decades-long occupant of the Washington Swamp, but he tries to appear like he is Mr. Straight Shooter.
Beware. Not only was Mueller FBI chief during this scandal, but he has used questionable tactics for decades, most recently in the “no-knock” invasion and search of Paul Manafort’s home.
It gets worse. Here are excerpts from Boston attorney Harvey Silverglate from WGBH.org about Muller’s tactics years ago from a column called How Robert Mueller Tried To Entrap Me:
…I have known Mueller during key moments of his career as a federal prosecutor. My experience has taught me to approach whatever he does in the Trump investigation with a requisite degree of skepticism or, at the very least, extreme caution.
When Mueller was the acting United States Attorney in Boston, I was defense counsel in a federal criminal case in which a rather odd fellow contacted me to tell me that he had information that could assist my client. He asked to see me, and I agreed to meet. He walked into my office wearing a striking, flowing white gauze-like shirt and sat down across from me at the conference table. He was prepared, he said, to give me an affidavit to the effect that certain real estate owned by my client was purchased with lawful currency rather than, as Mueller’s office was claiming, the proceeds of illegal drug activities.
My secretary typed up the affidavit that the witness was going to sign. Just as he picked up the pen, he looked at me and said something like: “You know, all of this is actually false, but your client is an old friend of mine and I want to help him.” As I threw the putative witness out of my office, I noticed, under the flowing white shirt, a lump on his back – he was obviously wired and recording every word between us.
Years later I ran into Mueller, and I told him of my disappointment in being the target of a sting where there was no reason to think that I would knowingly present perjured evidence to a court. Mueller, half-apologetically, told me that he never really thought that I would suborn perjury, but that he had a duty to pursue the lead given to him. (That “lead,” of course, was provided by a fellow that we lawyers, among ourselves, would indelicately refer to as a “scumbag.”)
This experience made me realize that Mueller was capable of believing, at least preliminarily, any tale of criminal wrongdoing and acting upon it, despite the palpable bad character and obviously questionable motivations of his informants and witnesses. (The lesson was particularly vivid because Mueller and I overlapped at Princeton, he in the Class of 1966 and me graduating in 1964.)
Years later, my wariness toward Mueller was bolstered in an even more revelatory way. When he led the criminal division of the U.S. Department of Justice, I arranged in December 1990 to meet with him in Washington. I was then lead defense counsel for Dr. Jeffrey R. MacDonald, who had been convicted in federal court in North Carolina in 1979 of murdering his wife and two young children while stationed at Fort Bragg. Years after the trial, MacDonald (also at Princeton when Mueller and I were there) hired me and my colleagues to represent him and obtain a new trial based on shocking newly discovered evidence that demonstrated MacDonald had been framed in part by the connivance of military investigators and FBI agents. Over the years, MacDonald and his various lawyers and investigators had collected a large trove of such evidence.
The day of the meeting, I walked into the DOJ conference room, where around the table sat a phalanx of FBI agents. My three colleagues joined me. Mueller walked into the room, went to the head of the table, and opened the meeting with this admonition, reconstructed from my vivid and chilling memory: “Gentlemen: Criticism of the Bureau is a non-starter.” (Another lawyer attendee of the meeting remembered Mueller’s words slightly differently: “Prosecutorial misconduct is a non-starter.” Either version makes clear Mueller’s intent – he did not want to hear evidence that either the prosecutors or the FBI agents on the case misbehaved and framed an innocent man.)
Special counsel Mueller’s background indicates zealousness that we might expect in the Grand Inquisitor, not the choirboy.
(Please bookmark this website and send this article by e-mail to your friends. Please recommend this site to all of your friends via Facebook and any other means. Let’s make Nikitas3.com the #1 conservative site by word of mouth. And if you would like to contribute to Nikitas3.com, please click the link at the upper right where it says “support this site”. Thank you, Nikitas)