Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

FBI Informant in Uranium One Bribery Case Allowed to Talk to Congress

FBI Informant in Uranium One Bribery Case Allowed to Talk to Congress

Will we finally know the truth?

http://youtu.be/9sudCmrAsF4

Last week, The Hill reported that an FBI undercover agent in Russia accused President Barack Obama’s DOJ of blocking him from speaking to Congress “about conversations and transactions he witnessed related to the Russian nuclear industry’s efforts to win favor with Bill and Hillary Clinton and influence Obama administration decisions.”

His lawyer Victoria Toensing, who served as a Reagan DOJ official and chief counsel of the Senate Intelligence Committee, explained she was trying to free her client of the confidentiality agreement.

It worked. The DOJ and FBI freed the informant from his confidentiality agreement, which means he may now speak to Congress about what he witnessed.

Freedom

The Hill reported:

Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores confirmed to The Hill a deal had been reached clearing the informant to talk to Congress for the first time, nearly eight years after he first went undercover for the FBI.

“As of tonight, the Department of Justice has authorized the informant to disclose to the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, as well as one member of each of their staffs, any information or documents he has concerning alleged corruption or bribery involving transactions in the uranium market, including but not limited to anything related to Vadim Mikerin, Rosatom, Tenex, Uranium One, or the Clinton Foundation,” she said.

Toensing claims she has documents “how the Justice Department last year threatened her client when he attempted to file a lawsuit that could have drawn attention to the Russian corruption during the 2016 presidential race as well as helped him recover some of the money Russians stole from him through kickbacks during the FBI probe.”

Toensing is pleased about the decision, but wants to make sure her client remains anonymous:

“The FBI has informed me that they are releasing my client from his [nondisclosure agreement] so that he can testify to Congress about his work uncovering the Russian nuclear bribery case and the efforts he witnessed by Moscow to gain influence with the Clintons in hopes of winning favorable uranium decisions from the Obama administration,” Toensing said.

“He is now able and willing to talk with the congressional committees seeking his testimony though I will be working with all parties to ensure his identity remains confidential to ensure his safety,” she added.

The DOJ threatened the informant with a criminal case and loss of freedom if he broke his confidentiality agreement:

Emails obtained by The Hill show that a civil attorney working with the former undercover witness described the pressure the Justice Department exerted to keep the client from disclosing to a federal court what he knew last summer.

“The government was taking a very harsh position that threatened both your reputation and liberty,” the civil lawyer wrote in one email. In another, she added, “As you will recall the gov’t made serious threats sufficient to cause you to withdraw your civil complaint.”

What Does He Know?

This informant worked in an FBI probe into Russia’s nuclear industry. He took a job at Russia’s main nuclear energy company Rosatom’s Tenex subsidiary during its “multiyear campaign to grow Moscow’s uranium business inside the United States.”

These records refer to the FBI informant as “confidential source 1,” “contractor,” and “Victim 1.” Toensing said this man is her client. It also shows that her client went to the FBI in 2009 “after Russian officials asked him to engage in illegal activity.”

The FBI allowed the informant to hand out “kickback payments to the Russians” as he gathered other evidence.

The Hill heard from sources that this informant led the government “to crack a multimillion dollar racketeering scheme by Russian nuclear officials on U.S. soil that involved bribery, kickbacks, money laundering and extortion.” This led to an executive to expand the nuclear business, an executive at a U.S. trucking firm, and Russian financier from New Jersey to plead “guilty to various crimes in a case that started in 2009 and ended in late 2015.”

The documents that the informant has shows connections between the Clintons and Obama:

The information the client possesses includes specific allegations that Russian executives made to him about how they facilitated the Obama administration’s 2010 approval of the Uranium One deal and sent millions of dollars in Russian nuclear funds to the U.S. to an entity assisting Bill Clinton’s foundation. At the time, Hillary Clinton was serving as secretary of State on the government panel that approved the deal, the lawyer said.

It has been previously reported that Bill Clinton accepted $500,000 in Russian speaking fees in 2010 and collected millions more in donations for his foundation from parties with a stake in the Uranium One deal, transactions that both the Clintons and the Obama administration denied had any influence on the approval.

Federal law requires officials such as then-Secretary Clinton to avoid both conflicts of interest and the appearance of conflicts when it comes to the business and financial interests of a spouse. Clinton signed a special agreement when she became secretary to disclose her husband’s charitable donations to the State Department to avoid any such conflicts. Both Clintons have repeatedly insisted no donations raised by the foundation ever influenced her decisions.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Will we know the truth? No of course we won’t and the mother fucking media will make sure of that. Not to mention the Democrats (both the D and R versions) will ensure this goes no where. And of course liberals will just shrug their shoulders and say they knew about this years ago and why is it news now…much like they are doing with the pee pee bullshit.

    Ragspierre in reply to mailman. | October 26, 2017 at 10:36 am

    I know it’s hard for a drooling soccer hooligan from the UK, but could you post comments without the F-bomb?

      That’s a bit rich, coming from you, Rags. [;-)

      Appropriate, but rich.

        Ragspierre in reply to Daiwa. | October 26, 2017 at 2:52 pm

        That’s only because of your irrational hatred of what I say. I never use the F-bomb, though several here use it regularly.

        I WILL push back hard when attacked, and I DO come from a work background where creative cussing is just a part of the language. Read a book by a combat vet, for an example.

…I will be working with all parties to ensure his identity remains confidential to ensure his safety,” she added.

Yeah, he might wanna be careful. Hilliary may wipe him with more than a cloth, or something.

    rabidfox in reply to rinardman. | October 27, 2017 at 12:30 am

    Just let someone leak his name to the NYT and the whole world will know who he is.

      Insufficiently Sensitive in reply to rabidfox. | October 27, 2017 at 11:36 am

      Just let someone leak his name to the NYT and the whole world will know who he is.

      The deep state progressives who saturate the gummint bureaus will have it to the MSM in ten seconds flat.

regulus arcturus | October 26, 2017 at 10:59 am

Several things need to happen right now:

1. Inventory all of this informant’s evidence, create multiple copies.
2. Identify all the players, especially Mueller, Rosenstein, McCabe, Comey in the proceedings.
3. Get the Mueller et al. actions to the appropriate committees, make sure they are aware of Mueller’s actions in this matter.
4. Haul Mueller before those committees, ask him what he is investigating now, and demand explanations of his conduct in this matter.

Depending on how this sets up, if it comes out that Mueller had a role in concealing the FBI investigation and acted inappropriately, fire him.

“Will we know the truth? No of course we won’t and the mother (FORNICATING) media will make sure of that. Not to mention the Democrats (both the D and R versions) will ensure this goes no where. And of course liberals will just shrug their shoulders and say they knew about this years ago and why is it news now…much like they are doing with the pee pee (MALE BOVINE FECES).”

There. Safe for work.

Though I agree, we don’t need *excessive* cussing. One per post should be ok but two is pushing it

What? Is Lavrov giving Hillary “The Figure”?

Manaforte worked with Podesta during this period and all roads to Hillary run down the Podesta highway . Is Manaforte the CI . ?
That would be interesting ,
He is working for Trump and Lynch leans on him not to go to Congress .
Mueller is involved with Uranium 1 and is leaning on Manaforte .

possibility ????

I am surprise the media is making no speculations as too the CI ‘s identity

Does it bother anyone else that if an agency of the government can force an NDA on an employee where he cannot even talk to a Congressional committee with appropriate security clearance then we will lose all of our checks and balances.? Using NDAs bureaucrats can isolate themselves from congress and the judiciary. Why is this allowed?

    regulus arcturus in reply to sdharms. | October 26, 2017 at 5:19 pm

    Agreed, it should not be allowed.

    That was extremely suspicious and extraordinary. I’d not heard of such an arrangement previously, and it seems tailor-made to conceal damaging information that one branch of government may wish to conceal from another.

    However, the case of McGrain v. Daugherty 273 U.S. 135 (1927)

    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/273/135/

    held that Congress has full investigational authority over DOJ, including ability to require subpoenaed witnesses to appear.

    The triggering event was a subpoena, which would have been the next step in this case, had Sessions not lifted the NDA (at Trump’s insistence, apparently).

    Milhouse in reply to sdharms. | October 27, 2017 at 1:10 am

    It isn’t allowed. But he wasn’t to know that.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | October 28, 2017 at 4:28 pm

FYI

Everybody But Trump Was Colluding with Russia

A few short weeks ago, the word the left used for colluding with the Russians to change the outcome of an election was “treason.” Now, they’re calling it “Opposition Research.” And Clinton campaign operatives are bragging about it.

Brian Fallon, the Clinton campaign’s national press secretary and now a CNN political contributor, tweeted Tuesday that he wasn’t aware of the connection between the campaign and the dossier authored by Steele, but “if I had, I would have volunteered to go to Europe and try to help him.”
“I have no idea what Fusion or Steele were paid but if even a shred of that dossier ends up helping (Justice Department special counsel Robert) Mueller, it will prove money well spent,” he tweeted.

Update: Hillary Clinton: “Dossier? What dossier? You mean, like, with a cloth?”

http://www.gaypatriot.net/2017/10/26/everybody-but-trump-was-colluding-with-russia/

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend