With all of the focus on the alleged (yet never demonstrated, much less proved) connections between President Trump and Russia over the past year, the liberal mainstream media have bent over backwards to keep the attention off of the demonstrable (and likely soon to be proved) connections between Hillary Clinton and Russia. New reports may make it impossible to continue that ruse.
Hillary Clinton got quite a bit of political play out of calling Trump “Putin’s puppet” during debates and throughout the election cycle. In the end, though, her attacks missed their mark and she missed the necessary votes to secure the White House and the advent of a Clinton 2.0 presidency — an administration that would certainly have continued (and escalated) the corruption of the Clinton 1.0 presidency.
Newly released information confirms that it is Hillary Clinton — as secretary of state — and not Trump who can be shown to be “Putin’s puppet. The Hill, Fox News, Newsweek, and others are reporting that a deal between Clinton’s State Department and Russian interests that transferred 20 percent of U.S. uranium to Russian control involved bribery, collusion, and coverup. And Clinton’s fingerprints are all over it.
This confirms reports published by The New American even as the failed Clinton campaign and its accomplices in the liberal mainstream media continued to beat the stillborn horse of Trump/Russia collusion. In an article originally published in our print magazine and later published online, 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:
Those e-mails and documents serve as a box full of smoking guns against the DNC and Clinton campaign. A quick look at just a few of those smoking guns — any of which alone would be damning — illustrates why Clinton (with the help of the liberal media) wanted to keep the attention on the supposed source of the leak, rather than on what the e-mails show about Clinton and her comrades in the DNC….
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.
That report by The New American — in February — was published months before The Hill “broke” this story.
{modulepos inner_text_ad}
Now, more is known about that deal. And the more that comes out, the worse it looks for both Clinton and Obama: 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, according to a report by The Hill. As an aside, does anyone still think it was a mistake for Trump to fire Comey?
The evidence of bribes and kickbacks is not mere conjecture and innuendo (as in the case of allegations against Trump), but 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 The Hill. Moreover:
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.
And yet — even with the FBI and other federal authorities being aware of this in 2009, the DOJ dragged the investigation out until 2015, allowing a deal to go through that transferred between 20 and 25 percent of U.S. uranium to Russia in the Uranium One deal that fattened the coffers of the Clinton Foundation, strengthened Putin’s Russia, and weakened the United States. For the anti-American element (for whom Clinton was the perfect candidate), that is a win/win/win scenario.
As Newsweek put it, “The Obama administration signed a controversial nuclear deal with Moscow despite prior FBI findings that Russian officials were bribing their way into the U.S. atomic energy industry, according to government documents just published by The Hill.”
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 secretary of state — already laid that groundwork. As president, she would likely have continued to build upon it, doing exactly what she accused Trump of planning to do.
As a result of this information coming to light, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is calling for his committee to conduct a real investigation into the Uranium One deal, the Obama administration, and Hillary Clinton. As Fox News is reporting:
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.
At the beginning of a hearing with Attorney General Jeff Sessions today, Grassley said, “This committee has an obligation to get to the bottom of this issue.” So true. And the bottom of this issue could be a long way down for Clinton and Obama.
As for those Democrats who have been raising the roof calling for an end to “Russian collusion,” none appears to have come forward to celebrate this break in the case. It appears they are only interested in ending alleged collusion when it involves their opponent, but not actual collusion when it involves at least two of their darlings.
This is a developing story and The New American will continue to keep our readers updated.
Photo: AP Images
