Unrolled Twitter story with 67 tweets of Uranium One deal (If true Hillary is toast)

Thread Reader

1) This started either before Trump announced his run for President, or soon thereafter. Someone who knew what happened told him.

2) SOMEONE in the IC, likely military intel, sat Trump down & laid out the entire #UraniumOne bribery scheme. Link Here

3) How all across the breadth of the Obama Administration people in high offices took massive bribes to facilitate sell of uranium to Russia

4) It involved so many people, it compromised so many agencies, the people who did it counted on it never being exposed or prosecuted.

5) The lengths to which they corrupted our government offices to enrich themselves by selling out our country virtually ENSURED they’d walk.

6) People knew but nobody could talk, the people involved in the scheme were at the HIGHEST levels of the American government.

7) So patriots in our gov’t had their hands tied. There was nothing they could do to stop the sale.

8) Even after SOME of the dirty facts behind #UraniumOne became known in 2015, it was easily buried, ignored, passed by.

9) Somebody took a chance on Trump. They sat him down, walked him through what happened.

(Excerpt) Read more at tttthreads.com

Bergdahl sentence – Obama is still giving the orders

https://i0.wp.com/www.smh.com.au/content/dam/images/g/l/l/f/a/z/image.related.articleLeadwide.620x349.gllak9.png/1449808555376.jpg

Image via smh.com.au

 

Family Security Matters

It was a show trial, but not in the usual meaning of the term. Bowe Bergdahl was never meant to be punished. The trial was all for show.

It was not, however, mismanagement or incompetence, but arguably deliberate.

On the night of June 30, 2009, then Army Private First Class Bowe Bergdahl went missing. On July 2, 2009, the Pentagon said that Bergdahl had walked off his base in eastern Afghanistan with three Afghan counterparts and was believed to have been taken prisoner. Bergdahl’s commanding officers said that a vigorous, but unsuccessful 45-day search for Bergdahl put soldiers in danger. During his nearly five years as a captive of the Taliban, the Army twice promoted, Bergdahl, first to the rank of specialist in June 2010, then to the rank of sergeant in June 2011. On May 31, 2014, Bergdahl was released from captivity in exchange for five senior Taliban commanders held at Guantanamo Bay in a controversial deal negotiated by the Obama Administration.

Continue reading

Investigate this

Powerline

by Scott Johnson

 

One of our most knowledgeable law enforcement readers writes to emphasize a point bearing on our coverage of the Trump Dossier. He adds valuable context to our commentary:

As a retired FBI Special Agent with over two decades of experience in counterintelligence, I’d like to make a point that Scott and Paul are surely aware of, but which it’s useful to keep at the front of your mind.

Scott regularly refers to the Trump dossier as the “Rosetta Stone” of the “muh Russia” narrative. That’s true, but it’s helpful to go one step further. The real importance of the Trump dossier from a criminal law standpoint lies in the use it was put to for official government purposes. To understand that we need to know whether the dossier was used to justify the initiation of Full Investigations (FIs), according to the relevant AG Guidelines for National Security investigations.

We can take it as given that such FIs were opened that broadly targeted the overall Trump political organization–campaign staffers, advisers, etc. We know this because we know that FISA orders were sought and (eventually) approved. We also know that the real target was Trump himself, since the initial FISA application in June or July 2016 specifically named Trump.

FISA coverage can only be used if a FI has been previously authorized. In this circumstance I believe (I’ll skip my reasoning) that the real goal of opening a FI was precisely to obtain FISA coverage. For that reason the likelihood is that the substantially same justification that was used to obtain an order from the FISC had already been used internally (at the FBI and DoJ) to justify opening a FI. How many FIs were opened relating to the overall Trump organization? Who were the subjects? What was the predication (and, especially, did that include the dossier)?

The full relevance of these considerations can be seen from Scott and Paul’s review of just how threadbare the dossier really was in terms of authentication. If it was used in applications to the FISC with the knowledge that it was “oppo research” and likely not credible, and if that knowledge was withheld from the FISC, I suspect we’re looking at the real possibility of criminal conduct. And bear in mind that such applications (for FISA coverage relating to a candidate for President or a President-elect) would have been approved only at the highest levels before submission to the FISC.

To put two names to that process: James Comey and Loretta Lynch. If they knowingly deceived the FISC–and that depends, as far as we can tell at this point, largely on how they may have used the “dossier”–they’re looking at serious criminal liability.

All of this explains the FBI and DoJ stonewalling. Comey and the rest are well aware of the implications for them. Bear in mind too that the stonewalling isn’t limited to document production–important as that may be. FBI and DoJ have been refusing to allow their personnel to testify to Congressional committees–that is, personnel below the top few officials.

Investigations of the magnitude we’re discussing necessarily include a fair number of people and the testimony of those other people would likely shed valuable light on the true nature of the process that was followed, who made the decisions, what was known about the credibility of information that was used to justify official actions, who really believed those justifications, the nature of coordination with other government agencies, etc. This is where the investigative rubber will hit the road.

The Obama Administration’s Uranium One Scandal

Not only the Clintons are implicated in a uranium deal with the Russians that compromised national-security interests. 

 

Family Security Matters

by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY

Let’s put the Uranium One scandal in perspective: The cool half-million bucks the Putin regime funneled to Bill Clinton was five times the amount it spent on those Facebook ads – the ones the media-Democrat complex ludicrously suggests swung the 2016 presidential election to Donald Trump.

The Facebook-ad buy, which started in June 2015 – before Donald Trump entered the race – was more left-wing agitprop (ads pushing hysteria on racism, immigration, guns, etc.) than electioneering. The Clintons’ own long-time political strategist Mark Penn estimates that just $6,500 went to actual electioneering. (You read that right: 65 hundred dollars.) By contrast, the staggering $500,000 payday from a Kremlin-tied Russian bank for a single speech was part of a multi-million-dollar influence-peddling scheme to enrich the former president and his wife, then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton. At the time, Russia was plotting – successfully – to secure U.S. government approval for its acquisition of Uranium One, and with it, tens of billions of dollars in U.S. uranium reserves.

Here’s the kicker: The Uranium One scandal is not only, or even principally, a Clinton scandal. It is an Obama-administration scandal.

Continue reading

Attorney: FBI Informant Was Blocked by Obama Administration from Testifying on Uranium One Deal

Breitbart

by KRISTINA WONG

An American businessman who went undercover for the FBI was blocked during the Obama administration from telling Congress what he knew about Russia’s efforts to influence the Clintons’ and Obama administration decisions, according to a report. Attorney Victoria Toensing, a former Reagan Justice Department official and former chief counsel of the Senate intelligence committee, told The Hill that she is trying to get the Trump administration or the FBI to free her client to talk.

“All of the information about this corruption has not come out,” Toensing said.

She said her client possesses “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.”

(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com

FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama administration approved controversial nuclear deal with Moscow

The Hill

by

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.

Continue reading

Obama Looted Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

American Thinker

By Brian McNicoll

 

President Obama never was shy about using his phone and pen to achieve what he could not get from Congress on regulatory matters.

But documents revealed last week show the Obama administration may have been willing to get around congressional decisions on spending by using a slush fund of sorts funded by the profits of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the two government-sponsored home loan giants.

Fannie and Freddie are federally chartered enterprises which buy mortgage loans from banks and bundle them into securities that are sold to investors, thus freeing up capital so that banks can make more home loans.

They are government-sponsored enterprises, which means the government guarantees their loans. But they are run as private enterprises, with private leadership, a board of directors and, most significantly for this purpose, investors. They’re even listed on the stock market.

Continue reading