House intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes announces 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”?
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.”
(Via New York Times) […] “Shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.”