Given the recent indictment of former uranium company transportation official, Mark Lambert, perhaps it is worthwhile revisiting the December 21st back-story to how AG Jeff Sessions announced his intention to reopen the investigation therein.
DECEMBER 21st, 2017 – Well, it would appear AG Jeff Sessions has instructed the DOJ to follow something similar to the basic investigative outline CTH recommended on November 3rd regarding Uranium One. When Katica discovered the FOIA documents an investigative trail seemed to almost create itself. We shared:
“Put the FBI special agent together with the unnamed FBI informant, question them, and discover what they know about the entire Uranium One deal – and there’s the road-map to tear this thing wide open.”
(WASHINGTON DC) – On the orders of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Justice Department prosecutors have begun asking FBI agents to explain the evidence they found in a now dormant criminal investigation into a controversial uranium deal that critics have linked to Bill and Hillary Clinton, multiple law enforcement officials told NBC News.
The interviews with FBI agents are part of the Justice Department’s effort to fulfill a promise an assistant attorney general made to Congress last month to examine whether a special counsel was warranted to look into what has become known as the Uranium One deal, a senior Justice Department official said.
At issue is a 2010 transaction in which the Obama Administration allowed the sale of U.S. uranium mining facilities to Russia’s state atomic energy company. Hillary Clinton was secretary of state at the time, and the State Department was one of nine agencies that agreed to approve the deal after finding no threat to U.S. national security.
[…] In recent weeks, FBI agents who investigated the case have been asked by Justice Department prosecutors to describe the results of their probe. The agents also have been asked if there was any improper effort to squash a prosecution, the law enforcement sources say.
The senior Justice Department official said the questions were part of an effort by the Sessions team to get up to speed on the controversial case, in the face of allegations from Congressional Republicans that it was mishandled.
An FBI spokesman declined to comment. (read more)
Here’s the prior CTH report we put together with Katica’s research in early November:
Internet researcher Katica (Twitter GOPollAnalyst) may have found the hidden thread that unravels a much bigger story within the Uranium-One Clinton-FBI scandal.
In an otherwise innocuous FBI FOIA FILE Katica located a notice for preservation of documents sent by an FBI special agent to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on August 28th, 2015. What is interesting about the preservation request(s) are the recipients, their attachment to CFIUS (Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States), and the timeline of events surrounding the agent’s notification.
The time-line here is very important as it might change the perception of exactly what the FBI was investigating as it relates to Hillary Clinton’s email scandal. Therefore a backdrop to understand content and context is important.
Up to now the general perception of the FBI’s involvement surrounding the Clinton emails has been against the backdrop of using a personal email server to conduct business, and the potential for unlawful transmission of classified data.
Additionally, the circumvention of official information technology protocols was the narrative most often discussed. The headlines were “Clinton used bad judgement” etc.
In essence, throughout 2015, 2016, 2017 the arguments, including FBI legal probes, were thought to center around “process“. However, Katica’s discovery re-frames that argument to focus on the subject matter “content” within the emails, and not the process.
Bear with me… The first notification of a Clinton email problem stemmed from the discovery that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used her personal email (and server) to conduct official government business. Those initial revelations were discovered around March of 2015. [New York Times, March 2nd]
Sometime around August 3rd, 2015, we discovered the FBI inquiry was actually a “criminal probe“. [USA Today August 4th] – [Washington Post August 3rd] – [New York Post, August 5th, 2015] The media reporting in early August of 2015 showed the FBI investigation was actually a criminal probe. The dates here are important.
The discovery by Katica shows that on August 28th, 2015, an FBI special agent sent a notification to preserve records to: •Nuclear Regulatory Commission; •The U.S. Dept. of Treasury; •Office of Director of National Intelligence (ODNI James Clapper); •The National Counter Terrorism Center; and the •U.S. Department of Energy (DoE).
(Page #7 – FBI Clinton Documents – Part 15 LINK)
Each of these agencies was intricately involved in the 2010 approval of the Uranium One deal. Indeed, each of these specific agencies is involved in the CFIUS approval process for the purchase within the Uranium One deal. Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State at the time.
Five Days later, on September 2nd, 2015, the FBI special agent sent another notification for preservation of records to the same agencies -beginning with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission- and adding: the National Security Agency (NSA – Admiral Mike Rogers) and the United States Secret Service (USSS).
(Page #13 – FBI Clinton Documents – Part 15 LINK)
The following day, on September 3rd, 2015, the FBI special agent submitted a supplemental notification for preservation of records to: •The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), •Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), and •The Department of Defense:
(Page #15 – FBI Clinton Documents – Part 15 LINK)
Taken in their totality those FBI special agent notifications now encompassed every member of the CFIUS group who “signed off” on approval of the Uranium One deal.
It would be intellectually dishonest not to see the very likely attachment of the special agent’s action. That is to say an FBI probe originating as an outcome of information retrieved in parallel to the timing of the “criminal probe” of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email use.
The sequence of events highlights a criminal probe starting [early August 2015], followed by notifications to the “Uranium One” CFIUS participants [late August 2015].
If you consider the larger Clinton timeline; along with the FBI special agent requests from identified participants; and overlay the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as the leading entity surrounding the probe elements; and the fact that the CFIUS participants were the recipients of the retention requests; well, it’s just too coincidental to think this is unrelated to the Uranium One deal and the more alarming implications.
Further, if you consider this factual researched information against the backdrop of new and current information about the roles of each of the outlined participants; and the knowledge of the mystery FBI informant who was threatened to keep his mouth shut; well, it’s not a leap to connect the dots and see that the top-tier of the FBI (Robert Mueller, James Comey) and DOJ (Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, Rod Rosenstein, et al), along with their subordinates, would potentially be in legal jeopardy….
And don’t think that in 2017 these people are not acutely aware of that risk, and signaling their audience:
This revelation means all the apex players in the deepest part of the DC’s deep swamp would have some level of exposure risk within the underlying scandal. That reality also presents a problem because the people charged with protecting U.S. interests, the investigative leadership, are the very people that need to be investigated. (Hence the signaling tweet from Eric Holder above)
However, there is good news. Specifically because of this find, we have located the investigative needle in the haystack of buried information.
Congress can get, and see, those FBI preservation notification documents without redaction. Congress could then interview the FBI special agent who was obviously in charge of key elements within the 2015 probe.
Put the FBI special agent together with the unnamed FBI informant, question them, and discover what they know about the entire Uranium One deal – and there’s the road-map to tear this thing wide open.
House intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes announced the congressional probe into the Russian Uranium One deal. As described, the initial part of the probe will be to discover if there was actually an ongoing FBI investigation into the company at the time the Obama administration gave the green light for the controversial purchase.
In order to answer that originating question the DOJ has released an FBI informant from their non disclosure agreement (NDA). If it is confirmed the FBI was actually conducting an investigation – the additional lines of probative value will encompass how the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) approved the purchase during an ongoing FBI investigation.
If the FBI was investigating, and if CFIUS approved the purchase despite the investigation, then it appears congress would move to the third probative point “why”? ..and why so fast?
Within the third probative point is where the possibility of a quid-pro-quo with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton comes into play. The financial dynamic behind Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation is substantive, factual, generally well cited, and potentially illegal albeit difficult to prove.
It is within that third dynamic that WikiLeaks previously outlined the exceptionally coincidental connections which align with the quid-pro-quo and encompass Hillary/Bill Clinton, John Podesta, and Russian business and governmental interests.
(Via WikiLeaks – October 2016) Part 1 of the Podesta Emails comprises 2,060 emails and 170 attachments and focuses on Mr Podesta’s communications relating to nuclear energy, and media handling over donations to the Clinton Foundation from mining and nuclear interests; 1,244 of the emails reference nuclear energy. The full collection includes emails to and from Hillary Clinton.
In April 2015 the New York Times published a story about a company called “Uranium One” which was sold to Russian government-controlled interests, giving Russia effective control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States.
Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for the production of nuclear weapons, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of US government agencies.
Among the agencies that eventually signed off the deal was the State Department, then headed by Secretary Clinton. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) comprises, among others, the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy.
As Russian interests gradually took control of Uranium One millions of dollars were donated to the Clinton Foundation between 2009 and 2013 from individuals directly connected to the deal including the Chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer.
Although Mrs Clinton had an agreement with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors to the Clinton Foundation, the contributions from the Chairman of Uranium One were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons. [The foundation admission]
When the New York Times article was published the Clinton campaign spokesman, Brian Fallon, strongly rejected the possibility that then-Secretary Clinton exerted any influence in the US goverment’s review of the sale of Uranium One, describing this possibility as “baseless”.
Mr Fallon promptly sent a memo to the New York Times with a rebuttal of the story (Podesta Email ID 1489). In this memo, Mr Fallon argued:
“Apart from the fact that the State Department was one of just nine agencies involved in CFIUS, it is also true that within the State Department, the CFIUS approval process historically does not trigger the personal involvement of the Secretary of State. The State Department’s principal representative to CFIUS was the Assistant Secretary of State for Economic, Energy and Business Affairs. During the time period in question, that position was held by Jose Fernandez. As you are aware, Mr Fernandez has personally attested that “Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter.”
What the Clinton campaign spokesman failed to disclose, however, was the fact that a few days before sending his rebuttal to the New York Times, Jose Fernandez wrote on the evening of the 17 April 2015 to John Podesta following a phone call from Mr Podesta (Email ID 2053):
“John, It was good to talk to you this afternoon, and I appreciate your taking the time to call. As I mentioned, I would like to do all I can to support Secretary Clinton, and would welcome your advice and help in steering me to the right persons in the campaign”.
Five days after this email (22 April 2015), Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon wrote a memo to the New York Times, declaring that “Jose Fernandez has personally attested that ‘Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter’,” but Fallon failed to mention that Fernandez was hardly a neutral witness in this case, considering that he had agreed with John Podesta to play a role in the Clinton campaign.
The emails show that the contacts between John Podesta and Jose Fernandez go back to the time of internal Clinton campaign concern about the then-forthcoming book and movie “Clinton Cash” by Peter Schweizer on the financial dealings of the Clinton Foundation.
In an email dated 29 March 2015 (Email ID 2059), Jose Fernandez writes to Podesta:
“Hi John, I trust you are getting a brief rest after a job well done. Thanks no doubt to your recommendation I have joined the CAP [Center for American Progress] board of trustees, which I’m finding extremely rewarding.”