Feds face new demands to probe Hillary Clinton
Bob Unruh About | Email | Archive
‘Deep state bureaucracy’ challenged over Uranium One, foundation donations, Comey’s ‘sham’ review
Hillary Clinton’s emails, those Russian donations to the Clinton Foundation, the details on how a Russian company gained access to U.S. uranium assets – all old news?
Two new lawsuits have just been filed demanding answers from the “deep state bureaucracy” to a lot of questions about what went on under the Obama administration.
The lawsuits, one against the FBI and the Department of Justice, and another against the U.S. Department of Justice, the Department of State, the FBI and the Treasury Department, were filed by the public interest American Center for Law and Justice.
Citing “an all-too-familiar pattern and practice of failure by several federal bureaucratic agencies to comply with Freedom of Information Act requirements,” the ACLJ said it is suing to get the answers federal law requires those agencies provide.
“We are asking a federal court to order the agencies to issue determinations and produce documents responsive” to the ACLJ’s questions, the organization stated.
The complaints focus on the “sham Clinton investigation” concerning her use of an unauthorized and unsecured computer server for the nation’s classified secrets while Hillary Clinton was U.S. secretary of state, and the Uranium One scandal, when millions of dollars came from Russia to the Clinton Foundation just as she was on a committee authorizing Russian ownership of uranium assets.
“The first lawsuit is against four agencies: the Department of State, Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and U.S. Treasury Department. In this suit, we are seeking to obtain documents concerning a decision by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS) to transfer the U.S.’s controlling interest in Uranium One to the Russian state-owned ARMZ – a wholly owned subsidiary of the Russian nuclear giant, Rosatom,” the ACLJ explained.
The uranium deal was filled with questionable components.
“Why would the Obama administration approve a deal that would result in making Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and bring Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain?” ACLJ asked.
The complaint notes at the time the deal was being approved, other issues were present.
For example, that was when the FBI was investigating bribes, kickbacks and racketeering by the Russian conglomerate’s American subsidiary that were calculated to compromise contracts in the American nuclear energy industry, just as the attorney general’s representative sat on CFIUS.
Further, there were those reports Russian nuclear officials gave $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.
And don’t forget Hillary Clinton’s husband, Bill Clinton, at that time “received $500,000 from the Russian government for a speech in Moscow.”
The ACLJ wants the facts “on this ill-advised – and, frankly, foolish – deal approved by CFIUS. Specifically, the information the ACLJ has demanded in its FOIA request will reveal just how much information the Obama FBI/DOJ provided to members of the CFIUS before its approval of the deal, as well as the validity of reports that Russia tried to bribe Hillary Clinton.”
The questions are not going away, because new information keeps appearing.
“Just last week, an FBI informant involved in the controversial Uranium One deal … gave a 10-page statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee, House Intelligence Committee, and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that APCO Worldwide – a global public affairs consulting firm headquartered in Washington, D.C. – was hired by Russia in an effort to influence the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton.
“According to the informant, Russian nuclear officials ‘told [him] at various times that they expected APCO to apply a portion of its funds received from Russia to provide in-kind support for the Clintons’ Global Initiative.’ Specifically, in exchange for Russia’s payment of more than $3 million dollars, ‘APCO was expected to give assistance free of charge to the Clinton Global Initiative as part of their effort to create a favorable environment to ensure the Obama administration made affirmative decisions on everything from Uranium One to the US-Russia Civilian Nuclear Cooperation agreement,’” the ACLJ said.
The organization’s second complaint targets the DOJ and FBI for the FBI’s investigation – under fired FBI Director James Comey – into Hillary Clinton’s use of private email servers and treatment of classified information.
“As you might recall, late last year, the Senate Judiciary Committee obtained information, including the transcripts of FBI interviews of multiple witnesses in the investigation, which calls into question the objectivity of the FBI’s investigation. As the interviews revealed, Comey drafted his statement clearing Clinton as early as April or May – months before the FBI interviewed several key witnesses, including Clinton herself.”
Further, the DOJ handed out immunity to many, including top Clinton aide Cheryl Mills, and another aide, Heather Samuelson, for turning over their computers.
“We now know that early drafts of Comey’s statement announcing his decision not to pursue criminal charges against Hillary Clinton strongly indicated she had violated federal law by hosting and sharing top secret information on a private server,” the ACLJ explained.
So, to review what went on in Comey’s “sham” investigation, it is asking for records on the decision by the FBI not to prosecute Hillary Clinton, drafts of Comey’s decision to close the investigation, records relating to “potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information,” details about all immunity agreements, and any attempts to compel information from Hillary Clinton’s internet providers.
There is “irreparable harm” being delivered by the government’s refusal to provide what should be public information, the complaints state.
That will continue “unless defendants are compelled to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law.”
http://www.wnd.com/2018/02/feds-face-new-demands-to-probe-hillary-clinton/