Image 01 Image 03

Recent Reports Suggest Obama Administration Covered for the Clintons on More than One Occasion

Recent Reports Suggest Obama Administration Covered for the Clintons on More than One Occasion

Meanwhile, Hillary claims she was shivved

The Obama administration ran interference for Hillary on more than one occasion (that we know of), if two recent reports are to be believed.

First, there’s the issue of the Clinton Foundation’s dealings with Canadian Uranium One (sold to Russians), which include a bribery scandal the FBI was aware of, and in which the DOJ chose not to reveal until after the deal was done.

Secondly, emails posted by the FBI as part of their public disclosure efforts indicate Comey planned to exonerate Hillary months before he interviewed her in the home-brewed email scandal investigation.

The Clinton Foundation and Uranium One:

As we blogged previously:

the Clinton Foundation was wheeling and dealing, taking “donations” from a Russian bank in the form of $500,000 speaking fees along with an aggregate of $2.35 million in straight donations from Uranium One’s Chairman. This same bank was helping to broker the Uranium One deal. Remember that one? The deal struck while Hillary was Secretary of State that sold one-fifth of the U.S.’s uranium production to Russia?

In 2015, the story was an issue because the donations were not publicly disclosed when the Clinton’s were promising complete transparency on all Clinton Foundation transactions while Hillary was serving as Secretary of State. Now, it’s resurfaced for a different reason — the FBI was aware of the bribes, and sat on the evidence for four years.

The Hill reports:

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.

For timeline reference, (now) former FBI Director James Comey did not take the reins until 2013. The Hill ctd:

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.

And the clincher:

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.

Consider that since her embarrassing electoral loss, Hillary has been traipsing around the country, hocking her book, fancying herself a modern day “Paula Revere” warning us all that Russia is evil.

The Email Thread Suggesting Comey Never Planned to Bring Charges Against Hillary:

Confirming criticism that Comey was in the tank for Hillary, recent evidence suggests Comey planned to exonerate Hillary in the investigation into her mishandling of classified information while serving as Secretary of State months before she was interviewed.

CNN reports:

The five-page document included a list of nearly 50 deleted pages and a mostly redacted email chain titled “Midyear Exam.” Though the email is marked unclassified, the only visible content is FBI official James Rybicki forwarding a redacted email from Comey to other top officials asking for “any comments on this statement so we may roll it into a master doc for discussion with the Director at a future date.”

The Rybicki email is dated May 16, 2016, and the original Comey email is dated May 2, 2016. Newsweek was first to report the release.

Comey announced in July 2016 that the FBI would not recommend charges in the Clinton investigation in an unprecedented statement, during which he also heavily criticized Clinton and her team for their handling of sensitive information in her use of a private email server while at the State Department.

The FBI declined to comment further on the documents.

Emails here:

Drafts of Director Comeys July 5- 2016 Statement Regarding Email Server Investigation by Legal Insurrection on Scribd

But because this story isn’t ridiculous enough, while on her book tour, Hillary blamed Comey (and everything else under the sun) for her electoral loss, saying Comey “shivved” her.

In her latest interview, Clinton borrowed a prison phrase to accuse Comey of costing her the election by re-opening the investigation into her private email server.

“He did shiv me, yeah… we also know that opponents of mine, like former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, knew something was coming,” Clinton told Australia’s “So there was clearly an effort to detail my campaign at the end.”

Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


This deal and dealings influenced my vote.

The Obama administration and the FBI did a lot more than just “cover for” the Clintons.

    regulus arcturus in reply to topcat69. | October 17, 2017 at 7:25 pm

    My thoughts exactly.

    This goes well beyond covering for someone.

    Items –

    1. Mueller is now implicated in the Russia Uranium One malfeasance.
    2. Mueller’s task as Special Counsel is to investigate Russian collusion, but given Item 1, he may actually be doing something else, like covering the trail of malfeasance.
    3. How far back and how high did the corruption go? Was Comey himself directly involved?

    Here is John Hinderaker at Powerline –

    Ironies abound: who supervised the Russia investigation? Rod Rosenstein. Who was the FBI director when the Russia probe began in 2009? Robert Mueller. Who was running the FBI when the case ended with a whimper and an apparent cover-up? James Comey. How any of these people can participate with a straight face in an investigation into President Trump’s purportedly nefarious (but, as far as we know, nonexistent) relationship with the Russian regime is beyond me.

    Jeff Sessions….ah, who cares.

Shivved. Reins.

    Oregon Mike in reply to ttl. | October 17, 2017 at 9:41 pm


    And on a slightly different tack (not tact, as so many write) the plural of Clinton is “Clintons,” not “Clinton’s.”

Shiv is such an interesting word. It’s a noun AND a verb.

‘I made a shiv’

‘Somebody shived my bro in the excercise yard’

We MUST be living in the Twilight Zone, because in any REAL world hil-lie0ry would not be walking around stubbing her toe, she would no be able to walk more than 10 feet !

    Rick the Curmudgeon in reply to Lewfarge. | October 17, 2017 at 11:46 pm

    “stubbing her toe” = “drunk on her ass, pissed off at the Brit interviewers, kicking something immovable”

Aren’t we at this point ?????

“When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another……”

Is there anyone in the Clinton orbit who wasn’t colluding with the Russians??

This is going to be a huge surprise for Jeff Sessions when he wakes up.

The FIX was in from the start

    regulus arcturus in reply to Frank G. | October 17, 2017 at 9:03 pm

    This looks like more than just a “fix” –

    I think there was quid-pro-quo here, probably large, involving Mueller, Comey, Rosenstein, and McCabe.

    And there were additional players outside of this group including Brennan, Rice, Power, and others running surveillance cover for both this operation as well as illegal domestic spying/intel gathering on Trump’s campaign.

    This, and the other ongoing Obama scandals, is a terrific opportunity for enterprising journalists wishing to make names for themselves.

regulus arcturus | October 17, 2017 at 9:47 pm

More info:

Victoria Toensing, a lawyer for the FBI informant, 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.”

Toensing said, “My client was providing information for a couple years before this really got voted on by CFIUS, and here’s the rub. High-ranking law enforcement officials in the Obama Administration knew that there was corruption in this company and that information about the corruption in this Russian entity never made it to CFIUS, evidently, because CFIUS authorized the purchase in 2010.”


1. Was CFIUS informed of this investigation? If not, why not?
2. If yes, why was the sale approved?
3. Who had knowledge of the investigation? We Know Mueller, Rosenstein, McCabe, and Comey did.

Senate Judiciary Committee – convene full investigation. House Judiciary Committee, same thing.

Start firing off subpoenas and taking testimony, convene a grand jury or juries.

Sessions is recused. Rosenstein is implicated, as is Mueller.

Rachel Brand (DOJ #3), start warming up in the bullpen.

Build the case to fire Rosenstein and McCabe, look at firing Mueller.

Well, isn’t that something?

Comey doesn’t prosecute Hillary for corruption in the uranium deal and for server-gate, and she complains that he shivved her.

That’s Clintonian gratitude for you.

It may explain why Obama ridiculed Romney about the Russian threat. In Obama’s mind these were his friends. How could they be a threat?

But what a great bogeyman to use against Trump.

This may be more a Clinton operation, but Obama has his own share of them, not to mention Holder. These corrupt leaders that point fingers elsewhere and feign to go high.

Colonel Travis | October 17, 2017 at 10:09 pm

Nobody cares enough to do anything about it.
America – fun while it lasted!

Where’s Waldo Sessions?

Listen, Jeff: the Attorney General position is not a place to retire in.

Get off your ass, or resign.

As the scarecrow said, “If I only had a brain”! This is turning into one of those ScFi movies where the people you need to tell about the secret invasion have the funny marks on their necks too! Everyone that should be looking into this, is this! Where do we turn to get an honest investigation? Muller, Comey, Rosenstein, McCabe, Holder, Lynch? They are all compromised and corrupted by their actions/inactions in the uranium deal. Thank you once again obama for totally transforming America (Into the most corrupt government that has ever flown the stars and stripes)!

There’s still nothing to this uranium story.

That the Russian purchaser was being investigated for corruption is not relevant, because there was no reason not to let it buy the shares. It make no difference to US security who owns our uranium mines; the uranium stays here, and can’t be exported without a license, which Uranium One did not have and had expressed no interest in applying for.

Clinton was not on the CFIUS. The State Dept representative was one Jose Fernandez, who has said that throughout his tenure on the committee Clinton never said a word to him about it; there’s no evidence that she was even aware it existed, or that he was on it.

The CFIUS’s role is purely advisory. The decision to approve or deny belongs to the president alone, so if someone wants to buy approval it makes no sense to bribe committee members (let alone non-members!). If the committee were to pass a surprising approval, because its members had been bribed, the president’s advisers would be suspicious and recommend he not accept the advice. So the only people it would make sense to bribe would be the president or his close personal advisers such as Jarrett. Not Fernandez, let alone Clinton.

The only person associated with the deal who made significant donations to the Foundation while it was pending was Ian Telfer, who gave $250,000. But he was a long-time Clinton friend and donor, and $250K was actually less than his average annual donation to the Foundation. Odd way to bribe someone, by giving less than usual.

    “That the Russian purchaser was being investigated for corruption is not relevant, because there was no reason not to let it buy the shares. It make no difference to US security who owns our uranium mines; the uranium stays here, and can’t be exported without a license, which Uranium One did not have and had expressed no interest in applying for. ”

    So demonstrating the buyer is a law breaker isn’t relevant to US security because there are laws against exporting the uranium without a license.

    Your logic escapes me there.

      Milhouse in reply to BKC. | October 18, 2017 at 4:57 am

      Please explain how you think it’s possible to export uranium from the USA without a license. You think they can just load it in a truck, drive it to the dock, and load it onto a ship?! This stuff is tracked at all times. It doesn’t go anywhere without permits.

        Right, because no substances controlled by the government are ever lost or stolen. A Hellfire training missile accidentally got shipped to Cuba a couple of years ago. How could that happen?

        You’re giving a company that is connected to the Russian government, who has already demonstrated they are willing to bribe and extort companies involved in transporting nuclear materials, ownership of 20% of U.S. uranium deposits.

        How in any sane universe can that be acceptable, no matter how hard it is to steal uranium?

          Milhouse in reply to BKC. | October 18, 2017 at 8:05 am

          If they wanted to steal it (and really, why would they? they mine far more uranium themselves than we do) they could do so just as easily without owning it. Thieves usually steal other people’s property, not their own.

        ss396 in reply to Milhouse. | October 18, 2017 at 9:23 am

        Stealing the uranium is not the issue. Putting an adversary into a position where it can control the production is another matter. Our nuclear weaponry is sorely outdated, and in need of major upgrades. Impeding uranium production can impair our capability to do the upgrades and maintenance.

        Russia doesn’t need or even want our uranium. But they do want to exert as much control as they can over our strategic interests. Having their hands in the middle of a key supply chain is a good contributor toward that. Yes, I do see national security concerns here.

        buckeyeminuteman in reply to Milhouse. | October 18, 2017 at 12:16 pm

        There are no licenses to transport illegal drugs, but somehow they are one of our nation’s biggest imports. I don’t suppose the DOJ had a license to transport deadly weapons to Mexico either but that didn’t stop Fast & Furious from being perpetrated.

    Your naive logic is amazing.

    You should become a judge in Hawaii.

A bribe is a bribe Millhouse. That’s just like saying killing someone softly isn’t as bad as killing them mean.

    Milhouse in reply to mailman. | October 18, 2017 at 4:59 am

    There was no bribe. Nobody involved gave anything unusual to the Clintons. And there was nothing to bribe them for.

      Just licenses to allow the sale that State had to sign off on. And what part of “donations to the Clinton Foundation” was unclear? The Clintons have been living off the Clinton Foundation since it was formed.

        Milhouse in reply to SDN. | October 18, 2017 at 8:10 am

        See above. State’s sign-off was neither necessary nor sufficient, and the only donations from anyone involved, while the deal was pending, were from a regular donor who gave less that year than his usual average. So no, there were no suspicious donations to the Clintons or their foundation/slush fund.

        Besides, even if the president had for some reason vetoed the share sale it would have gone ahead anyway, they’d just have to sell off their US mines. It’s not as if that’s what the Russians were after. Telfer would have made the same money either way.

What part of “donations to the Clinton Foundation” was unclear?

I’m surprised we haven’t seen Rags here trying to claim that having ALL the players in the Trump investigation involved in ACTUAL collusion with the Russians.means we should totally trust them to be honest.

    Milhouse in reply to SDN. | October 18, 2017 at 8:16 am

    None of the players were colluding with any Russians. The allegation here is that they were aware of a completely separate and irrelevant investigation of Rosatom (for breaking a senseless law that should never have been passed, by the way, not that that matters). But the idea that had CFIUS been informed of the investigation its members might have recommended to the president to turn down the deal is extremely unlikely. There just wasn’t any reason to.

    Ragspierre in reply to SDN. | October 18, 2017 at 9:53 am

    I’m not going to let you get away with the implicit lie you attempt in your cartoonish distortion of my views on this matter.

    I don’t…and never have…held that anyone here should be ASSumed to be “totally honest”. I won’t subscribe to your tribal dogma that Comey is the devil incarnate. This is heresy to your cult, I understand.

    I’ve said, quite clearly, that he was wrong in July. Hellary was obviously culpable regarding her emails. There is no “intent” element to the law in question. Also, as a matter of process, he had no business “cock-blocking” any prosecutor who may have gone after Hellary.

    I’ll note in passing that your Great Goad Cheeto just days ago stated he has no thought of firing Mueller.

    Also, I note that you invest apparent unquestioned credence to a story from “The Hill” that relies on anonymous sources, which you selectively decry in stories that you don’t find fit your religion.

    Additionally, and again, I observe the simple TRUE FACT that prosecution of Clinton and every other actor named in the root post here lies EXCLUSIVELY in the purview of Mr. “Lock Her UP!”.

    Ironies abound…

    Lastly, I’m the guy who very often counsels, “Wait and see”. I deal in #realism, not dogma.

      Rags, I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to imply anything. I’m saying flat out that you would lie like a rug to make sure your NeverTrump fantasies came through, even if the accusations are coming from actual criminals and perjurers.

      And as for you stopping me: how, exactly, do you propose to do that, you pissant.

        Ragspierre in reply to SDN. | October 19, 2017 at 2:13 pm

        You’re nuts.

        I have no reason or intent to stop you. I like you posting crazy lies. Please, continue. In fact, you should double your out-put.

She ain’t in prison.
The Clintons are keeping the money.

So who’s the dummy here?

Anyone? Mueller? Mueller?