What is the DOJ, the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the Intel Community, the Department of State, and Congress hiding?
SUA has proprietary intel concerning the greatest crimes ever committed against the American people.
The “Deep State”
Paul E. Vallely, MG US Army (Ret)
Released by the Stand Up America US Foundation and the Citizen’s Commission on National Security.
June 22, 2019
President Trump is fully engaged in draining the corrupted swamp in Washington!
Who is really assisting the President in this monumental task? Certainly not the Democrats and it appears that most of the Rinos and other Republicans are not as well. We the people must support the President in this brave action.
In the United States the term “deep state” is often used to describe influential decision-making bodies believed to be within the government who are relatively permanent and whose policies and long-term plans are unaffected by changing administrations. The term is typically used in a critical sense to refer to the lack of influence popular democracy has on these institutions and the decisions they make as a shadow government. The term was originally coined in a somewhat pejorative sense to refer to a similar relatively invisible state apparatus in Turkey and post-Soviet Russia. When I was on active duty and three tours in DC, I called “The Deep State” the Bureaucracy. The bureaucracy has metastasized into a four-level deep state!
Anyone who has spent time on Capitol Hill will get the feeling when watching debates in the House or Senate chambers that he or she is seeing a kind of marionette theater, with members of Congress reading carefully vetted talking points about prefabricated issues. While the public is now aware of the disproportionate influence of powerful corporations over Washington, few fully appreciate that the United States has in the last several decades gradually undergone a process first identified by Aristotle. This process, which the journalist Lawrence Peter Garrett described in the 1930s as a “revolution within the form,” was later championed by Machiavelli. Our venerable institutions of government have outwardly remained the same, but they have grown more and more resistant to the popular will as they have become hardwired into a corporate and private influence network with almost unlimited cash to enforce its will.
Even as commentators decry a broken Congress that cannot marshal the money to secure our borders, the will, or the competence to repair our roads and bridges, heal our war veterans, or even roll out a health care website seems beyond their reach. There is always enough money and will, and maybe just enough competence, to overthrow foreign governments, and to fight the longest wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan in U.S. history.
These paradoxes, both within the government and within the ostensibly private economy, are related. They are symptoms of a shadow government ruling the United States pays little heed to the plain words of the Constitution. Its governing philosophy profoundly influences foreign and national security policy and such domestic matters as spending priorities, trade, investment, income inequality, privatization of government services, media presentation of news, and the whole meaning and worth of citizens’ participation in their government. We have come to call this shadow government the Deep State. We use the term to mean a hybrid association of key elements of government and parts of top-level finance and industry that are effectively able to govern the United States with only limited reference to the consent of the governed as normally expressed through elections.
The Deep State is the big story of our time. It is the red thread that runs through the war on terrorism and the militarization of our foreign policy, the CIA and DOJ. But these isolated cases have not provided a framework for understanding the extent of the shadow government, how it arose, the interactions of its various parts, and the extent to which it influences and controls the leaders whom we think we choose in elections.
My reflection on our “shadow of government” has come only after my retirement in 1993 and my departure from Washington, D.C. proper and the institutions located there to the State of Montana. Unlike the clear majority of Capitol Hill strivers who leave the place for greener pastures, I had no desire to join a lobbying shop, trade association, or think tank. But I did have a need to put the events I had witnessed in perspective, and I came to realize that the nation’s capital, where I lived and worked for many years, has its own peculiar ecology.
To look upon Washington once again with fresh eyes, I sometimes feel as Darwin must have when he first set foot on the Galapagos Islands. From the Pentagon to K Street, and from the contractor cube farms in Crystal City to the public policy foundations along Massachusetts Avenue, the terrain and its people are exotic and well worth examining in a rational and common-sense manner. The United States has its capital there, and so does our Deep State. To describe them in the language of physics, they coexist in the same way it is possible for two subatomic particles to coexist in an entangled quantum state. The characteristics of each particle, or each governmental structure, cannot fully be described independently; instead, we must find a way to describe the system. The Deep State also extends to many States and local governments.,
If you don’t know what the Deep State is then, perhaps you are part of it. We know, of course, that the liberal Deep State that lurks within our government is and always has been hellbent on destroying President Trump and preventing him from making America great again. And we know for certain that Deep State weasels fabricated the whole Russia HOAX and myth. But the raids on Michael Cohen’s Manhattan office and hotel room confirm one of my long-held suspicions: The Democratic Deep State has sunk to an even more insidious level and is now targeting a president in the sneakiest and most deceitful way possible. Roger Stone’s arrest using early morning Gestapo tactics by the FBI is deplorable.
Let us start with Robert Mueller ( the rogue special counsel) who completed his investigation with No Collusion and Obstruction of Justice. As Trump has said, the whole thing was a big witch hunt, and that makes Mueller the lead witch hunter and his minions in the FBI and Department of Justice. Well, Mueller who is a registered Republican and was first appointed head of the FBI by President George W. Bush, who is also a Republican. (I’m telling you, this conspiracy goes DEEP!). The raid on Trump’s lawyer began with a referral from the Mueller investigation to the U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York. That stinks to high heaven of Deep State involvement.
We will terminate and destroy the Deep State. WE must! America’s future as a secure Nation that is of the people, for the people and by the people and not governed by partisan political hacks!
MG Paul Vallely is Chairman of Stand Up America US.
A Message To President Trump from MG Paul Vallely, U.S. Army (ret.) with an Update on Murder and the Benghazi Cover Up!
Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely (U.S. Army, Ret.) was recently on Conservative Commandos Radio Show to discuss new information he has on Benghazi. Was there a stand-down order while the Special Mission Compound and CIA Annex were under attack that night in 2012? Why didn’t the military send forces to attempt to help those Americans attack in Benghazi that night?
What is the DOJ, the FBI, the CIA, the Intel Community, the Department of State, and Congress hiding?
SUA has proprietary intel concerning the greatest crimes ever committed against the American people.
Important information on “Secretary of State” Hillary Clinton and the Department of State:
More VIP Revealing Facts on Benghazi! White House notified immediately! Assets available were told to stand down!
MG Paul Vallely and American patriots involved in communications during the Benghazi murders by omission and crime scene staging and the 13 hours and a Training Mission at the time are interviewed by Audrey Russo.
Diplomatic cables and much more were exposed for years prior!
EU Investigating Report of Massive Hacking on Diplomatic Cables
By Natalia Drozdiak
The European Union is investigating “a potential leak of sensitive information” following a report that hackers breached the bloc’s diplomatic communications network.
Using techniques similar to those used by an elite unit of China’s People’s Liberation Army, hackers downloaded cables over a period of three years, according to the report by the New York Times published late Tuesday.
In response, a spokeswoman for the European Council said Wednesday they were “aware of the allegations” and “actively investigating the issue.”
China hacked US Army transport orgs TWENTY TIMES in ONE YEAR
FBI et al knew of nine hacks – but didn’t tell TRANSCOM
By Darren Pauli 18 Sep 2014
Sophisticated Beijing-backed hackers raided civilian organisations responsible for the movements of US troops and equipment 20 times in one year of which only two were detected by the responsible agency, an audit report has found.
Contractors underneath the US Transportation Command (TRANSCOM) agency were hacked a total of 50 times, which included less sophisticated attacks made by actors not identified by the US Government as being on China’s payroll.
The audit was conducted in the 12 months to June 2013 based on information provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigations, Defense Security Services, Defense Cyber Crime Centre, and the US Air Force and 11 contractors.
Senate Armed Services Committee members said the intrusions were unacceptable and a sign of aggression on the part of Beijing.
“These peacetime intrusions into the networks of key defense contractors are more evidence of China’s aggressive actions in cyberspace,” committee chairman Senator Carl Levin said.
“Our findings are a warning that we must do much more to protect strategically significant systems from attack and to share information about intrusions when they do occur.”
Ranking member Senator Jim Inhofe called for a “central clearinghouse” for critical contractors to report possible hacks.
The audit found intrusions including the compromise or theft of email accounts, documents, passwords and code.
It also revealed a Civil Reserve Air Fleet contractor lost flight details, credentials and its email encryption key while systems on a TRANSCOM contractor ship were hacked multiple times.
The committee behind the report said TRANSCOM and its contractors lack a universal definition of what constituted a compromise.
It further criticised the reporting structure and said the FBI and Department of Defence knew but did not tell the Pentagon of nine separate intrusions of TRANSCOM contractors.
The committee updated its version of the National Defense Authorisation Act for Fiscal Year 2015 to direct the Secretary of Defense to designate operationally critical contractors and impose tighter reporting requirements for breaches suspected to be pulled off by nation-states.
The audit findings follow the naming by the US Government of five members of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army it claimed were behind an eight-year hacking campaign against some American companies to steal commercially sensitive information. ®
“Chinese military cyber attacks revealed in the report included a contractor who was compromised between 2009 and 2010 and lost emails, documents, user accounts, passwords and source code, indicating the penetration gain broad access. ”
“From June 1, 2012 to May 30, 2013, 50 successful intrusions were made into contractors’ systems, and of those, 20 were attributed to an advanced persistent threat (APT). But that wasn’t the most disconcerting finding, according to the report’s executive summary.
“Of those APT-linked intrusions, TRANSCOM was made aware of only two, a troubling finding given the potential impact of cyber intrusions on defense information and operations,” the report said.”
‘We could have been there’: Squadron member speaks out on stalled Benghazi response
By Fox News
May 12, 2016
His squadron got the alert: a “real world mission was going down.”
The team – at Aviano Air Base in northeastern Italy – raced to the field and was briefed, as planes were armed and prepared to launch. Hundreds of miles away, fellow Americans were under attack in Benghazi.
“There were people everywhere,” said the witness, who was on the ground that night but wished to remain anonymous. “That flight line was full of people, and we were all ready to go” to Benghazi.
Only they were waiting for the order. It never came.
“The whole night we were told that we are waiting on a call,” he told Fox News.
This account is from a squadron member at Aviano the night of the Sept. 11, 2012, terror attack in Benghazi. The source, the first in his squadron to speak out publicly since that attack, is going public to explain – in his view – that more could have been done to save Americans under attack that night.
He asked that his identity be protected for fear of retribution. He says others in his squadron also have wanted to talk about Benghazi from the beginning, but no others have been interviewed and all are afraid of the potential backlash from speaking out.
“I’m not trying to give away any type of [information] that could ever harm the military,” the source told Fox News. “That is never my plan. I feel that some things need to come to light.”
Namely, he said, that a team was ready to go that night to help protect Americans under fire in Benghazi – an account that runs counter to multiple official reports, including from a House committee, a timeline provided by the military and the controversial State Department Accountability Review Board investigation, which concluded the interagency response to Benghazi was “timely and appropriate.”
The source said: “I definitely believe that our aircraft could have taken off and gotten there in a timely manner, maybe three hours at the most, in order to at least stop that second mortar attack … and basically save lives that day.”
Former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed in that second wave. Ambassador Chris Stevens and information officer Sean Smith were killed in the initial attack on the main compound.
“We could have been there. That’s the worst part,” the source said.
The source who spoke with Fox News challenged the military claim that a re-fueling tanker wasn’t available. He said American jets routinely refuel by using what’s called a “hot pit maneuver,” which allows the jets to land and then get fuel without shutting off the engines.
Multiple sources say there were multiple locations available the night of the attack.
He said they were waiting on the call, though, through the night. The men say they didn’t truly learn about the mission they had missed until they returned home the next day from the airfield and saw the reports about the Benghazi attack on the news.
Many still don’t talk about the subject and some insist it has hurt morale within the squadron because “people know we were stationed there and didn’t respond.”
The same frustrations have compelled Mike, a former team sergeant for a military anti-terror quick reaction force, once known as the CIF, to talk.
“For some reason they were all shut down, and I think it leads back to a policymaker somewhere because nobody in the military is going to shut down an operation,” he said. On the night of the attack, Mike was at Delta Force headquarters in the U.S. monitoring the events as they happened.
“We had hours and hours and hours to do something … and we did nothing,” he said.
Despite the claim by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the State Department that nothing more could have been done, a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit recently revealed that Department of Defense Chief of Staff Jeremy Bash immediately offered assistance to the State Department on the night of Sept. 11, saying forces could move to Benghazi and “they are spinning up as we speak.”
Mike echoed that: “I know everything was spun up and nothing was done.”
He added: “At our level, we were doing everything we were supposed to be doing. At everybody else’s level above us, it was political.”
In June 2014, Delta Forces captured Abu Khattala, a man now charged in the attack.
Mike, though, said Khattala is a low-level operative and not one of the terror cell leaders. He said the U.S. could have collected intelligence leading to “bigger fish” had the U.S. acted sooner following the attack.
Meanwhile, while Democrats have called the House investigation into the Benghazi attacks a waste of time and money, committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., says his committee has uncovered new facts – but does admit they still are having issues finding witnesses.
“It’s been very frustrating,” Gowdy told Fox News.
In response to Fox News’ reporting, he also issued a statement saying it is “deeply troubling there are individuals who would like to share their stories, but have not because they are afraid of retaliation from their superiors.”
The two men who spoke with Fox News have not spoken with the committee.
Crime Scene Staging 101 : LYONS: Benghazi was a planned tragedy
Editor’s Note: From our great friend Adm. James “Ace” Lyons, USN (ret) and our friends at WND.com (from 2014). With special thanks to The Citizens Committee on Benghazi and The Legacy National Security Group.
James A. Lyons, U.S. Navy retired Admiral, was commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations.
The road to Benghazi = time and distance. En route. What to wear when visiting each city.
LYONS: Benghazi was a planned tragedy
The event was no surprise, and the massive cover-up appalls
By James A. Lyons – – Monday, March 3, 2014
The recent reports by the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee and the House Armed Services Committee make clear that no organization in the chain of command, including the White House, should have been surprised by the tragic events that occurred at our Benghazi Special Mission Compound (SMC) on Sept. 11, 2012.
Clearly, there was both strategic and tactical warnings.
The security situation in eastern Libya, particularly Benghazi, was out of control. Trying to explain our failure to protect the SMC as a lack of appreciation of the seriousness of the deteriorating security situation or incompetence does not pass muster. This was a planned event and explains the massive cover-up.
There were numerous hostile acts leading up to the attack on the compound. For example, on April 6, 2012, an attack with improvised explosive devices was conducted on the outer wall of the compound.
On May 22, the Benghazi International Red Cross office was hit by two rocket-propelled grenades. On June 1, a car bomb exploded outside the Benghazi hotel where the British ambassador was staying. On June 6, an IED blew a hole in the compound’s perimeter wall. On June 7, Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens requested two mobile security teams for his protection but was denied by the State Department.
On June 11, the British ambassador’s convoy was hit by RPGs. On June 17, the U.K. closes its Benghazi consulate, and the International Red Cross closes its office. On June 19, the Tunisian Consulate is stormed by the rebel group Ansar al Shariah.
Then on July 9, the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli requests continued security support for an additional 60 days, but receives no answer from the State Department.
On Aug. 2, Stevens requests 11 additional personal-security bodyguards. He calls the security situation unpredictable and violent, but his requests are turned down by State. Stevens sent a cable to State on Aug, 16 stating that the compound cannot withstand a coordinated attack.
The State Department’s reaction was to withdraw the three Quick Reaction Units at our embassy in Tripoli under the command of Col. Andy Wood over the objection of the embassy and Col. Wood.
At this point, AFRICOM offers to provide additional security, but Stevens feels compelled to turn down the offer owing to State denying all his requests for increased security.
The State Department turning down all of Stevens‘ requests for increased security as well as drawing down security assets in country is more than puzzling, particularly since an internal State Department analysis completed two months after the compound opened stated that unless security was increased, the compound should be closed. This assessment is buried in the Accountability Review Board (ARB) report.
The question that needs to be answered is, with the out-of-control security situation in eastern Libya, why were there no contingency plans or forces pre-positioned ready to respond to potential attacks on the anniversary of 9/11?
According to one report, the administration was focused on Tunisia, not Libya. Mind-boggling. Nonetheless, if that were the case, where were the forces positioned to respond to an attack on Tunisia?
On the day of the attack, according to a report in The Guardian, the readiness of the ambassador’s five-member security detail raises questions. Three of the four agents with Stevens, according to the report, left their rifles, helmets and body armor in another area under orders by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, which was confirmed by the ARB report.
This makes no sense, given that standard operating procedures in a hostile environment require that weapon be kept at the ready all times. Another question that needs to be answered: Why would the secretary of state give such an order?
Based on numerous reports, the Obama administration and every organization in the chain of command knew almost instantly that this was a terrorist attack on the SMC.
Within hours, it was known that the attack was executed by Ansar al Shariah, which is a coalition of Islamic and Salafist rebel groups linked to al Qaeda, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and the February 17th Martyrs Brigade.
It should not be overlooked that the February 17th Martyrs Brigade was tasked with supporting the U.K.-based Blue Mountain Security Group that had the contract from our State Department to provide security for the compound.
According to my source, who is a confidential informant for the FBI, the Blue Mountain Security Group is a cover company for MI-6. My source also told me that the February 17 Martyrs Brigade contract personnel were positioned near the compound the day of the attack and were ready to respond but never received orders to execute. Interesting.
My FBI confidential informant has also confirmed my assessment on the Lou Dobbs TV show in October 2012; namely, that this was an operation that went terribly wrong.
According to my source’s in-country contacts, there never was any intention to kill Stevens. He was supposed to be kidnapped and held as a hostage in exchange for the release of the blind sheik, Omar Abdel Rahman. It should be recalled that this was the No. 1 objective of then-Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi in his Washington visit in 2012.
All the unanswered questions and the truth of what actually took place at our Benghazi compound that cost the lives of four Americans can only be resolved by the formation of a special committee with subpoena powers.
House Speaker John A. Boehner, appoint such a committee as called for by Resolution 36 put forth by Rep. Frank R. Wolf, Virginia Republican, and restore integrity to the office of the speaker.
James A. Lyons, U.S. Navy retired Admiral, was commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations.
Editor’s Note: Weapons to the wrong groups, ISIS and Al-Qaeda, fore a reason…to keep it going…and…
China to deploy troops to fight alongside Assad in Syria
By: The Middle East Monitor
China is planning to send troops to Syria to aid President Bashar Al-Assad’s forces, according to the New Khaleej.
According to informed sources, the move comes as China becomes increasingly concerned with the presence of Islamic militants in the East Turkestan region, who have been sighted aiding opposition groups in Syria.
Last week, during a meeting with Syrian Presidential Advisor Bouthaina Shaaban, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi praised the regime’s efforts at tackling the fighters from the Islamic East Turkistan Movement.
The Syrian regime has also claimed that some 5,000 fighters of Uyghur origin, an ethnic Muslim minority that Chinese authorities regularly accuse of terrorism, have arrived in Syria, illegally passing through Southeast Asia and Turkey.
The sources said that the Chinese Ministry of Defence intends to send two units known as the “Tigers of Siberia” and the “Night Tigers” from the Special Operations Forces to aid Syrian government troops.
This is not the first time Chinese troops have crossed into Syria; in 2015 the Syrian regime permitted some 5,000 soldiers to enter its territory as allied forces and stationed them in the Western region of Latakia. Chinese military advisors were also among the deployment, as well as naval and aerial assets.
China is one of the five veto-wielding powers of the UN Security Council and, along with Russia, has used its power on more than one occasion to protect the interests of the Syrian regime.
Russian support has given the government an upper hand in the six year-long civil war, especially as the battle against Daesh comes to an end.
More than half a million people are believed to have been killed since 2011, the vast majority by the Assad government and allied forces. The regime has also used chemical weapons against civilians and prevented aid from reaching those affected on the ground. UN officials further estimate that some ten million people have been displaced as a result of the fighting.
After a careful examination and analysis of the international and national situation and the major threats to the United States, I am recommending that President Trump begin using several of the Principles to secure America for the future. Mr. President, it is time to go on the offense, as you are doing in other areas like the economy, reducing regulations and providing employment for many Americans. Playing defense politically, in any way, will never defeat/overcome the Socialist Democrats and weak Republicans in the long run! Foreign threats are a different issue and will not be addressed here. The battle at our Border is a real war! The principles of war that I learned as a student during my studies at West Point, and later at the Army War College, provided me insights into the use of offense and defense in war and politics. Clausewitz in his book, “On War” has been very influential on military and political thinking.
The initial essay dealt with the tactics of combat and suggested the following general principles.
Clausewitz focuses on the importance of moral factors, making the best use of the few means available, as well as calmness and firmness, and without firm resolution no great results can be achieved with success.
· Discover how we may gain a preponderance of physical forces and material advantages at the decisive point.
· To calculate moral factors.
· Make the best use of the few means at our disposal.
· Never lack calmness and firmness…without this firm resolution, no great results can be achieved in the most successful war.
· Always have the choice between the most audacious and the most careful solution…no military leader has ever become great without audacity.
Based on the above, Clausewitz went on to suggest principles for tactics.
· The Defense
· The Offense
· The Use of Troops/Forces are more effective in a concentric rather than in a parallel attack; attack concentrically without having decisive superiority in an engagement.
· Always seek to envelop that part of the enemy
against which we direct our main attack
· I would also add the importance of using
strategic psychology in dealing with opponents.
Clausewitz also included in the essay general principles of
strategy by saying that Warfare has several main objects. The ones that are
starred should be considered and used by President Trump:
· To conquer and destroy the power of the enemy
· To take possession of his material and other sources of strength, and to direct our operations against the places where most of these resources are concentrated.*
· To gain public opinion, won through great
· Use our entire force with the utmost energy.*
· The decisive point of attack
· Surprise plays a much greater role in tactics
than in strategy.*
· An attack on the lines of communication takes
effect only very
slowly, while victory on the field of battle bears fruit
· In strategy, therefore, the side that is
surrounded by the enemy is
better off than the side which surrounds its opponent,
with equal or even weaker forces
· Be physically and morally superior. *
I am not in any way suggesting that military action options be advanced in the United States but for the President and his supporters to use these Principles as necessary to save the Republic from destruction.
By: Charles Jones BG (USAF Ret) and Paul Valley MG (U.S. Army Ret.) February 18, 2019
Article I, Section I clearly states – “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” Each branch of government has predetermined responsibilities. The Legislative Branch passes laws while the Executive Branch’s duty is to carry out and enforce those laws.
No where in the Constitution does it say that the Executive Branch has the right to enforce some laws and ignore others. President Washington clearly stated during the Whiskey Rebellion (1791-1794), “It is my duty to see the Laws executed: to permit them to be trampled upon with impunity would be repugnant to that duty.”
Many have said that President Trump cannot deport illegal aliens just because they are here. President Roosevelt deported over 2 million people during what is known as the Mexican Repatriation Act. Truman deported over 3.4 million illegal aliens. Eisenhower deported around 2.1 million people. President Kennedy recognized the need for limitations on immigration…“There is a legitimate argument for some limitation upon immigration…we do not seek to make over the face of America.”
Today, the United States of America faces an illegal alien invasion of between 25 to 35 million illegal border crossers living inside our borders (no one knows the exact number and there could be more). We the People face additional thousands marching in Caravans toward our southern border between the US and Mexico. We cannot solve the Border national security threat by just playing defense on the border but must adapt an offensive plan as well.
Congress has not only failed to take necessary action to recognize that an invasion exists nor take necessary responsibility and action to repel this illegal, this overt and covert invasion. Today, the ‘Deep State”, Socialist Democrats, Globalists and meek Republicans are fighting our President from taking the necessary action. This is truly a “crisis” at the Border.
many more American citizens are going to be terrorized and murdered by the
much more of our tax money will be confiscated by the elected and appointed
politicians to support the illegals in food stamps, housing, schooling (K-12),
hospital emergency room, kidney dialysis, hospital admittance, many identified
disease and sanctuary cities?
· How many more Governors’ are going to give illegals drivers licenses that allow voter fraud in all elections?
We are witnessing the eventual destruction of America! Thousands of illegals have been encouraged to apply for voting registration rights, check the American citizen block, mail in and received voting authorization which leads to fraudulent voting as witnessed in the 2018 election results. Registration Policy quietly tips the outcome of elections in heavily populated locations where the illegals take refuge.
Patriots and Fools, all, must quickly come to understand that the Congress of the United States has failed in many ways their Constitutional responsibility in National Security matters. Many of our Representatives fail to highlight human trafficking, gangs and the drug cartels and the impact on America.
Fools, you must know and understand the facts and from that knowledge come to understand that your vote at the next election will stand as a vote for your country and its future. The highest levels of technology, increased manpower and the support of our Army and National Guard have not stopped the cross-border invasion from Central America, other foreign country and agents and Mexico. The new Caravans are under way as we publish this article. There are common sense solutions to help correct and stop this ongoing illegal alien invasion. The President is correct that more barriers, and extensions of the wall are required at those vulnerable crossing sites to complement the secure border entry points.
America now has a President who, for the first time since President Reagan, is willing to stop this illegal activity invasion. We must take care of this national security issue as it will affect our children’s future and that of America. Please contact your US House Representative and your two Senators and demand that they support President Trump’s solutions.
Released and Distributed by Stand Up
America US Foundation
Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal
Uranium investors gave millions to the Clinton Foundation while Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s office was involved in approving a Russian bid for mining assets in Kazakhstan and the United States.
By Jo Becker and Mike McIntire N.Y. Times , April 23, 2015
The headline on the website Pravda trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin’s latest coup, its nationalistic fervor recalling an era when its precursor served as the official mouthpiece of the Kremlin: “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”
The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.
But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.
At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.
Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.
And 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.
At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company’s assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show.
The New York Times’s examination of the Uranium One deal is based on dozens of interviews, as well as a review of public records and securities filings in Canada, Russia and the United States. Some of the connections between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were unearthed by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution and author of the forthcoming book “Clinton Cash.”Mr. Schweizer provided a preview of material in the book to The Times, which scrutinized his information and built upon it with its own reporting.
Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors.
In a statement, Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign, said no one “has ever produced a shred of evidence supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as secretary of state to support the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation.” He emphasized that multiple United States agencies, as well as the Canadian government, had signed off on the deal and that, in general, such matters were handled at a level below the secretary. “To suggest the State Department, under then-Secretary Clinton, exerted undue influence in the U.S. government’s review of the sale of Uranium One is utterly baseless,” he added.
American political campaigns are barred from accepting foreign donations. But foreigners may give to foundations in the United States. In the days since Mrs. Clinton announced her candidacy for president, the Clinton Foundation has announced changes meant to quell longstanding concerns about potential conflicts of interest in such donations; it has limited donations from foreign governments, with many, like Russia’s, barred from giving to all but its health care initiatives. That policy stops short of a more stringent agreement between Mrs. Clinton and the Obama administration that was in effect while she was secretary of state.
Either way, the Uranium One deal highlights the limits of such prohibitions. The foundation will continue to accept contributions from foreign sources whose interests, like Uranium One’s, may overlap with those of foreign governments, some of which may be at odds with the United States.
When the Uranium One deal was approved, the geopolitical backdrop was far different from today’s. The Obama administration was seeking to “reset” strained relations with Russia. The deal was strategically important to Mr. Putin, who shortly after the Americans gave their blessing sat down for a staged interview with Rosatom’s chief executive, Sergei Kiriyenko. “Few could have imagined in the past that we would own 20 percent of U.S. reserves,” Mr. Kiriyenko told Mr. Putin.
Now, after Russia’s annexation of Crimea and aggression in Ukraine, the Moscow-Washington relationship is devolving toward Cold War levels, a point several experts made in evaluating a deal so beneficial to Mr. Putin, a man known to use energy resources to project power around the world.
“Should we be concerned? Absolutely,” said Michael McFaul, who served under Mrs. Clinton as the American ambassador to Russia but said he had been unaware of the Uranium One deal until asked about it. “Do we want Putin to have a monopoly on this? Of course we don’t. We don’t want to be dependent on Putin for anything in this climate.”
A Seat at the Table
The path to a Russian acquisition of American uranium deposits began in 2005 in Kazakhstan, where the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra orchestrated his first big uranium deal, with Mr. Clinton at his side.
The two men had flown aboard Mr. Giustra’s private jet to Almaty, Kazakhstan, where they dined with the authoritarian president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev. Mr. Clinton handed the Kazakh president a propaganda coup when he expressed support for Mr. Nazarbayev’s bid to head an international elections monitoring group, undercutting American foreign policy and criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, his wife, then a senator.
Within days of the visit, Mr. Giustra’s fledgling company, UrAsia Energy Ltd., signed a preliminary deal giving it stakes in three uranium mines controlled by the state-run uranium agency Kazatomprom.
If the Kazakh deal was a major victory, UrAsia did not wait long before resuming the hunt. In 2007, it merged with Uranium One, a South African company with assets in Africa and Australia, in what was described as a $3.5 billion transaction. The new company, which kept the Uranium One name, was controlled by UrAsia investors including Ian Telfer, a Canadian who became chairman. Through a spokeswoman, Mr. Giustra, whose personal stake in the deal was estimated at about $45 million, said he sold his stake in 2007.
Soon, Uranium One began to snap up companies with assets in the United States. In April 2007, it announced the purchase of a uranium mill in Utah and more than 38,000 acres of uranium exploration properties in four Western states, followed quickly by the acquisition of the Energy Metals Corporation and its uranium holdings in Wyoming, Texas and Utah. That deal made clear that Uranium One was intent on becoming “a powerhouse in the United States uranium sector with the potential to become the domestic supplier of choice for U.S. utilities,” the company declared.
Still, the company’s story was hardly front-page news in the United States — until early 2008, in the midst of Mrs. Clinton’s failed presidential campaign, when The Times published an article revealing the 2005 trip’s link to Mr. Giustra’s Kazakhstan mining deal. It also reported that several months later, Mr. Giustra had donated $31.3 million to Mr. Clinton’s foundation.
(In a statement issued after this article appeared online, Mr. Giustra said he was “extremely proud” of his charitable work with Mr. Clinton, and he urged the media to focus on poverty, health care and “the real challenges of the world.”)
Though the 2008 article quoted the former head of Kazatomprom, Moukhtar Dzhakishev, as saying that the deal required government approval and was discussed at a dinner with the president, Mr. Giustra insisted that it was a private transaction, with no need for Mr. Clinton’s influence with Kazakh officials. He described his relationship with Mr. Clinton as motivated solely by a shared interest in philanthropy.
As if to underscore the point, five months later Mr. Giustra held a fund-raiser for the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative, a project aimed at fostering progressive environmental and labor practices in the natural resources industry, to which he had pledged $100 million. The star-studded gala, at a conference center in Toronto, featured performances by Elton John and Shakira and celebrities like Tom Cruise, John Travolta and Robin Williams encouraging contributions from the many so-called F.O.F.s — Friends of Frank — in attendance, among them Mr. Telfer. In all, the evening generated $16 million in pledges, according to an article in The Globe and Mail.
“None of this would have been possible if Frank Giustra didn’t have a remarkable combination of caring and modesty, of vision and energy and iron determination,” Mr. Clinton told those gathered, adding: “I love this guy, and you should, too.”
But what had been a string of successes was about to hit a speed bump.
Arrest and Progress
By June 2009, a little over a year after the star-studded evening in Toronto, Uranium One’s stock was in free-fall, down 40 percent. Mr. Dzhakishev, the head of Kazatomprom, had just been arrested on charges that he illegally sold uranium deposits to foreign companies, including at least some of those won by Mr. Giustra’s UrAsia and now owned by Uranium One.
Publicly, the company tried to reassure shareholders. Its chief executive, Jean Nortier, issued a confident statement calling the situation a “complete misunderstanding.” He also contradicted Mr. Giustra’s contention that the uranium deal had not required government blessing. “When you do a transaction in Kazakhstan, you need the government’s approval,” he said, adding that UrAsia had indeed received that approval.
But privately, Uranium One officials were worried they could lose their joint mining ventures. American diplomatic cables made public by WikiLeaks also reflect concerns that Mr. Dzhakishev’s arrest was part of a Russian power play for control of Kazakh uranium assets.
At the time, Russia was already eying a stake in Uranium One, Rosatom company documents show. Rosatom officials say they were seeking to acquire mines around the world because Russia lacks sufficient domestic reserves to meet its own industry needs.
It was against this backdrop that the Vancouver-based Uranium One pressed the American Embassy in Kazakhstan, as well as Canadian diplomats, to take up its cause with Kazakh officials, according to the American cables.
“We want more than a statement to the press,” Paul Clarke, a Uranium One executive vice president, told the embassy’s energy officer on June 10, the officer reported in a cable. “That is simply chitchat.” What the company needed, Mr. Clarke said, was official written confirmation that the licenses were valid.
The American Embassy ultimately reported to the secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton. Though the Clarke cable was copied to her, it was given wide circulation, and it is unclear if she would have read it; the Clinton campaign did not address questions about the cable.
What is clear is that the embassy acted, with the cables showing that the energy officer met with Kazakh officials to discuss the issue on June 10 and 11.
Three days later, a wholly owned subsidiary of Rosatom completed a deal for 17 percent of Uranium One. And within a year, the Russian government substantially upped the ante, with a generous offer to shareholders that would give it a 51 percent controlling stake. But first, Uranium One had to get the American government to sign off on the deal.
The Power to Say No
When a company controlled by the Chinese government sought a 51 percent stake in a tiny Nevada gold mining operation in 2009, it set off a secretive review process in Washington, where officials raised concerns primarily about the mine’s proximity to a military installation, but also about the potential for minerals at the site, including uranium, to come under Chinese control. The officials killed the deal.
Such is the power of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. The committee comprises some of the most powerful members of the cabinet, including the attorney general, the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy, and the secretary of state. They are charged with reviewing any deal that could result in foreign control of an American business or asset deemed important to national security.
The national security issue at stake in the Uranium One deal was not primarily about nuclear weapons proliferation; the United States and Russia had for years cooperated on that front, with Russia sending enriched fuel from decommissioned warheads to be used in American nuclear power plants in return for raw uranium.
Instead, it concerned American dependence on foreign uranium sources. While the United States gets one-fifth of its electrical power from nuclear plants, it produces only around 20 percent of the uranium it needs, and most plants have only 18 to 36 months of reserves, according to Marin Katusa, author of “The Colder War: How the Global Energy Trade Slipped From America’s Grasp.”
“The Russians are easily winning the uranium war, and nobody’s talking about it,” said Mr. Katusa, who explores the implications of the Uranium One deal in his book. “It’s not just a domestic issue but a foreign policy issue, too.”
When ARMZ, an arm of Rosatom, took its first 17 percent stake in Uranium One in 2009, the two parties signed an agreement, found in securities filings, to seek the foreign investment committee’s review. But it was the 2010 deal, giving the Russians a controlling 51 percent stake, that set off alarm bells. Four members of the House of Representatives signed a letter expressing concern. Two more began pushing legislation to kill the deal.
Senator John Barrasso, a Republican from Wyoming, where Uranium One’s largest American operation was, wrote to President Obama, saying the deal “would give the Russian government control over a sizable portion of America’s uranium production capacity.”
“Equally alarming,” Mr. Barrasso added, “this sale gives ARMZ a significant stake in uranium mines in Kazakhstan.”
Uranium One’s shareholders were also alarmed, and were “afraid of Rosatom as a Russian state giant,” Sergei Novikov, a company spokesman, recalled in an interview. He said Rosatom’s chief, Mr. Kiriyenko, sought to reassure Uranium One investors, promising that Rosatom would not break up the company and would keep the same management, including Mr. Telfer, the chairman. Another Rosatom official said publicly that it did not intend to increase its investment beyond 51 percent, and that it envisioned keeping Uranium One a public company
American nuclear officials, too, seemed eager to assuage fears. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission wrote to Mr. Barrasso assuring him that American uranium would be preserved for domestic use, regardless of who owned it.
“In order to export uranium from the United States, Uranium One Inc. or ARMZ would need to apply for and obtain a specific NRC license authorizing the export of uranium for use as reactor fuel,” the letter said.
Still, the ultimate authority to approve or reject the Russian acquisition rested with the cabinet officials on the foreign investment committee, including Mrs. Clinton — whose husband was collecting millions in donations from people associated with Uranium One.
Before Mrs. Clinton could assume her post as secretary of state, the White House demanded that she sign a memorandum of understanding placing limits on the activities of her husband’s foundation. To avoid the perception of conflicts of interest, beyond the ban on foreign government donations, the foundation was required to publicly disclose all contributors.
To judge from those disclosures — which list the contributions in ranges rather than precise amounts — the only Uranium One official to give to the Clinton Foundation was Mr. Telfer, the chairman, and the amount was relatively small: no more than $250,000, and that was in 2007, before talk of a Rosatom deal began percolating.
But a review of tax records in Canada, where Mr. Telfer has a family charity called the Fernwood Foundation, shows that he donated millions of dollars more, during and after the critical time when the foreign investment committee was reviewing his deal with the Russians. With the Russians offering a special dividend, shareholders like Mr. Telfer stood to profit.
His donations through the Fernwood Foundation included $1 million reported in 2009, the year his company appealed to the American Embassy to help it keep its mines in Kazakhstan; $250,000 in 2010, the year the Russians sought majority control; as well as $600,000 in 2011 and $500,000 in 2012. Mr. Telfer said that his donations had nothing to do with his business dealings, and that he had never discussed Uranium One with Mr. or Mrs. Clinton. He said he had given the money because he wanted to support Mr. Giustra’s charitable endeavors with Mr. Clinton. “Frank and I have been friends and business partners for almost 20 years,” he said.
The Clinton campaign left it to the foundation to reply to questions about the Fernwood donations; the foundation did not provide a response.
Mr. Telfer’s undisclosed donations came in addition to between $1.3 million and $5.6 million in contributions, which were reported, from a constellation of people with ties to Uranium One or UrAsia, the company that originally acquired Uranium One’s most valuable asset: the Kazakh mines. Without those assets, the Russians would have had no interest in the deal: “It wasn’t the goal to buy the Wyoming mines. The goal was to acquire the Kazakh assets, which are very good,” Mr. Novikov, the Rosatom spokesman, said in an interview.
Amid this influx of Uranium One-connected money, Mr. Clinton was invited to speak in Moscow in June 2010, the same month Rosatom struck its deal for a majority stake in Uranium One.
The $500,000 fee — among Mr. Clinton’s highest — was paid by Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin that has invited world leaders, including Tony Blair, the former British prime minister, to speak at its investor conferences.
Renaissance Capital analysts talked up Uranium One’s stock, assigning it a “buy” rating and saying in a July 2010 research report that it was “the best play” in the uranium markets. In addition, Renaissance Capital turned up that same year as a major donor, along with Mr. Giustra and several companies linked to Uranium One or UrAsia, to a small medical charity in Colorado run by a friend of Mr. Giustra’s. In a newsletter to supporters, the friend credited Mr. Giustra with helping get donations from “businesses around the world.”
Renaissance Capital would not comment on the genesis of Mr. Clinton’s speech to an audience that included leading Russian officials, or on whether it was connected to the Rosatom deal. According to a Russian government news service, Mr. Putin personally thanked Mr. Clinton for speaking.
A person with knowledge of the Clinton Foundation’s fund-raising operation, who requested anonymity to speak candidly about it, said that for many people, the hope is that money will in fact buy influence: “Why do you think they are doing it — because they love them?” But whether it actually does is another question. And in this case, there were broader geopolitical pressures that likely came into play as the United States considered whether to approve the Rosatom-Uranium One deal.
If doing business with Rosatom was good for those in the Uranium One deal, engaging with Russia was also a priority of the incoming Obama administration, which was hoping for a new era of cooperation as Mr. Putin relinquished the presidency — if only for a term — to Dmitri A. Medvedev.
“The assumption was we could engage Russia to further core U.S. national security interests,” said Mr. McFaul, the former ambassador.
It started out well. The two countries made progress on nuclear proliferation issues, and expanded use of Russian territory to resupply American forces in Afghanistan. Keeping Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon was among the United States’ top priorities, and in June 2010 Russia signed off on a United Nations resolution imposing tough new sanctions on that country.
Two months later, the deal giving ARMZ a controlling stake in Uranium One was submitted to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States for review. Because of the secrecy surrounding the process, it is hard to know whether the participants weighed the desire to improve bilateral relations against the potential risks of allowing the Russian government control over the biggest uranium producer in the United States. The deal was ultimately approved in October, following what two people involved in securing the approval said had been a relatively smooth process.
Not all of the committee’s decisions are personally debated by the agency heads themselves; in less controversial cases, deputy or assistant secretaries may sign off. But experts and former committee members say Russia’s interest in Uranium One and its American uranium reserves seemed to warrant attention at the highest levels.
“This deal had generated press, it had captured the attention of Congress and it was strategically important,” said Richard Russell, who served on the committee during the George W. Bush administration. “When I was there invariably any one of those conditions would cause this to get pushed way up the chain, and here you had all three.”
And Mrs. Clinton brought a reputation for hawkishness to the process; as a senator, she was a vocal critic of the committee’s approval of a deal that would have transferred the management of major American seaports to a company based in the United Arab Emirates, and as a presidential candidate she had advocated legislation to strengthen the process.
The Clinton campaign spokesman, Mr. Fallon, said that in general, these matters did not rise to the secretary’s level. He would not comment on whether Mrs. Clinton had been briefed on the matter, but he gave The Times a statement from the former assistant secretary assigned to the foreign investment committee at the time, Jose Fernandez. While not addressing the specifics of the Uranium One deal, Mr. Fernandez said, “Mrs. Clinton never intervened with me on any C.F.I.U.S. matter.”
Mr. Fallon also noted that if any agency had raised national security concerns about the Uranium One deal, it could have taken them directly to the president.
Anne-Marie Slaughter, the State Department’s director of policy planning at the time, said she was unaware of the transaction — or the extent to which it made Russia a dominant uranium supplier. But speaking generally, she urged caution in evaluating its wisdom in hindsight.
“Russia was not a country we took lightly at the time or thought was cuddly,” she said. “But it wasn’t the adversary it is today.”
That renewed adversarial relationship has raised concerns about European dependency on Russian energy resources, including nuclear fuel. The unease reaches beyond diplomatic circles. In Wyoming, where Uranium One equipment is scattered across his 35,000-acre ranch, John Christensen is frustrated that repeated changes in corporate ownership over the years led to French, South African, Canadian and, finally, Russian control over mining rights on his property.
“I hate to see a foreign government own mining rights here in the United States,” he said. “I don’t think that should happen.”
Mr. Christensen, 65, noted that despite assurances by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that uranium could not leave the country without Uranium One or ARMZ obtaining an export license — which they do not have — yellowcake from his property was routinely packed into drums and trucked off to a processing plant in Canada.
Asked about that, the commission confirmed that Uranium One has, in fact, shipped yellowcake to Canada even though it does not have an export license. Instead, the transport company doing the shipping, RSB Logistic Services, has the license. A commission spokesman said that “to the best of our knowledge” most of the uranium sent to Canada for processing was returned for use in the United States. A Uranium One spokeswoman, Donna Wichers, said 25 percent had gone to Western Europe and Japan. At the moment, with the uranium market in a downturn, nothing is being shipped from the Wyoming mines.
The “no export” assurance given at the time of the Rosatom deal is not the only one that turned out to be less than it seemed. Despite pledges to the contrary, Uranium One was delisted from the Toronto Stock Exchange and taken private. As of 2013, Rosatom’s subsidiary, ARMZ, owned 100 percent of it.
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
The Clintons were just doing what the
Clintons do: cashing in on their “public service.” The Obama administration,
with Secretary Clinton at the forefront but hardly alone, was knowingly
compromising American national-security interests. The administration
green-lighted the transfer of control over one-fifth of American uranium-mining
capacity to Russia, a hostile regime — and specifically to Russia’s
state-controlled nuclear-energy conglomerate, Rosatom. Worse, at the time the
administration approved the transfer, it knew that Rosatom’s American subsidiary
was engaged in a lucrative racketeering enterprise that had already committed
felony extortion, fraud, and money-laundering offenses.
The Obama administration also knew
that congressional Republicans were trying to stop the transfer. Consequently,
the Justice Department concealed what it knew. DOJ allowed the racketeering
enterprise to continue compromising the American uranium industry rather than
commencing a prosecution that would have scotched the transfer. Prosecutors
waited four years before quietly pleading the case out for a song, in violation
of Justice Department charging guidelines. Meanwhile, the administration
stonewalled Congress, reportedly threatening an informant who wanted to go
To understand what happened here, we
need to go back to the beginning.
The first-tier military arsenal of
Putin’s Russia belies its status as a third-rate economic power. For well over a decade, the regime
has thus sought to develop and exploit its capacity as a nuclear-energy
producer. Naïvely viewing Russia as a “strategic partner” rather than a
malevolent competitor, the Bush administration made a nuclear-cooperation
agreement with the Kremlin in May 2008. That blunder, however, was tabled
before Congress could consider it. That is because Russia, being Russia,
In 2009, notwithstanding this
aggression (which continues to this day with Russia’s occupation of Abkhazia
and South Ossetia), President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton signaled the
new administration’s determination to “reset” relations with Moscow. In this
reset, renewed cooperation and commerce in nuclear energy would be central.
There had been such cooperation and
commerce since the Soviet Union imploded. In 1992, the administration of
President George H. W. Bush agreed with the nascent Russian federation that
U.S. nuclear providers would be permitted to purchase uranium from Russia’s
disassembled nuclear warheads (after it had been down-blended from its highly
enriched weapons-grade level). The Russian commercial agent responsible for the
sale and transportation of this uranium to the U.S. is the Kremlin-controlled
company “Tenex” (formally, JSC Techsnabexport). Tenex is a subsidiary of
Tenex (and by extension, Rosatom) have an American arm called “Tenam USA.” Tenam is based in Bethesda, Md. Around the time President Obama came to power, the Russian official in charge of Tenam was Vadim Mikerin.
The Obama administration reportedly
issued a visa for Mikerin in 2010, but a racketeering investigation led by the
FBI determined that he was already operating here in 2009.
The Racketeering Scheme
As Tenam’s general director, Mikerin
was responsible for arranging and managing Rosatom/Tenex’s contracts with
American uranium purchasers. This gave him tremendous leverage over the U.S.
companies. With the assistance of several confederates, Mikerin used this
leverage to extort and defraud the U.S. contractors into paying inflated prices
for uranium. They then laundered the proceeds through shell companies and
secret bank accounts in Latvia, Cyprus, Switzerland, and the Seychelle Islands
— though sometimes transactions were handled in cash, with the skim divided
into envelopes stuffed with thousands of dollars in cash.
The inflated payments served two
purposes: They enriched Kremlin-connected energy officials in the U.S. and in
Russia to the tune of millions of dollars; and they compromised the American
companies that paid the bribes, rendering players in U.S. nuclear energy — a
sector critical to national security — vulnerable to blackmail by Moscow.
But Mikerin had a problem. To further
the Kremlin’s push for nuclear-energy expansion, he had been seeking to retain
a lobbyist — from whom he planned to extort kickbacks, just as he did with the
U.S. energy companies. With the help of an associate connected to Russian
organized-crime groups, Mikerin found his lobbyist. The man’s name has not been
disclosed, but we know he is now represented by Victoria Toensing, a
well-respected Washington lawyer, formerly a federal prosecutor and counsel to
the Senate Intelligence Committee.
When Mikerin solicited him in 2009,
the lobbyist was uncomfortable, worried that the proposal would land him on the
wrong side of the law. So he contacted the FBI and revealed what he knew. From
then on, the Bureau and Justice Department permitted him to participate in the
Russian racketeering scheme as a “confidential source” — and he is thus known
as “CS-1” in affidavits the government, years later, presented to federal court
in order to obtain search and arrest warrants.
At the time this unidentified man
became an informant, the FBI was led by director Robert Mueller, who is now the
special counsel investigating whether Trump colluded with
Russia. The investigation was centered in Maryland (Tenam’s home base). There,
the U.S. attorney was Obama appointee Rod Rosenstein — now President Trump’s
deputy attorney general, and the man who appointed Mueller as special counsel
to investigate Trump.
Because of CS-1, the FBI was able to
understand and monitor the racketeering enterprise almost from the start. By
mid-May 2010, it could already prove the scheme and three separate extortionate
payments Mikerin had squeezed out of the informant. Equally important:
According to reporting by John Solomon
and Alison Spann in the Hill, the informant learned through conversations with Mikerin and
others that Russian nuclear officials were trying to ingratiate themselves with
Uranium One, Russia, and the
There is no doubt that this
extraordinarily gainful ingratiation took place. I outlined some of it a year ago in
suggesting that the Justice Department should be investigating the Clinton
Foundation, and its exploitation of Hillary Clinton’s influence as secretary of
state, as a potential racketeering case.
In 2005, former President Clinton
helped his Canadian billionaire friend and benefactor, Frank Giustra, obtain
coveted uranium-mining rights from Kazakhstan’s dictator. The Kazakh deal
enabled Giustra’s company (Ur-Asia Energy) to merge into Uranium One (a South
African company), a $3.5 billion windfall. Giustra and his partners thereafter
contributed tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation. Besides the
valuable Kazakh reserves, Uranium One also controlled about a fifth of the
uranium stock in the United States.
Alas, Putin, the neighborhood bully,
also wanted the Kazakh uranium. He leaned on Kazakhstan’s dictator, who
promptly arrested the official responsible for selling the uranium-mining
rights to Giustra’s company. This put Uranium One’s stake in jeopardy of being
seized by the Kazakh government.
As Uranium One’s stock plunged, its
panicked executives turned to the State Department, where their friend Hillary
Clinton was now in charge. State sprung into action, convening emergency
meetings with the Kazakh regime. A few days later, it was announced that the
crisis was resolved (translation: the shakedown was complete). Russia’s energy
giant, Rosatom, would purchase 17 percent of Uranium One, and the Kazakh threat
would disappear — and with it, the threat to the value of the Clinton donors’
For Putin, though, that was just a
start. He didn’t want a minority stake in Uranium One, he wanted control of the
uranium. For that, Rosatom would need a controlling interest in Uranium One.
That would be a tall order — not because of the Kazakh mining rights but
because acquisition of Uranium One’s American reserves required U.S. government
Uranium is foundational to nuclear
power and thus to American national security. As the New York Times explained in a report
on the disturbing interplay between the Clinton Foundation and the transfer of
American uranium assets to Russia, the United States gets a fifth of its
electrical power from nuclear energy, but only produces a fifth of the uranium
it needs. Consequently, a foreign entity would not be able to acquire rights to
American uranium without the approval of the Committee on Foreign Investment in
the United States.
CFIUS is composed of the leaders of
14 U.S. government agencies involved in national security and commerce. In
2010, these included not only Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who had cultivated
a reputation as a hawk opposed to such foreign purchases, but Attorney General
Eric Holder, whose Justice Department (and its lead agency, the FBI) were
conducting the investigation of Rosatom’s ongoing U.S. racketeering, extortion,
and money-laundering scheme.
In March 2010, to push the Obama
“reset” agenda, Secretary Clinton traveled to Russia, where she met with Putin
and Dimitri Medvedev, who was then keeping the president’s chair warm for
Putin. Soon after, it emerged that Renaissance Capital, a regime-tied Russian
bank, had offered Bill Clinton $500,000 to make a single speech — far more than
the former president’s usual haul in what would become one of his biggest
paydays ever. Renaissance was an aggressive promoter of Rosatom. The Clinton
speech took place in Moscow in June. The exorbitant speech fee, it is worth
noting, is a pittance compared with the $145 million Newsweek reports was donated to the Clinton Foundation by sources linked to
the Uranium One deal.
The month before the speech, the Hill reports, Bill Clinton told
his wife’s State Department that he wanted to meet while in Russia with Arkady
Dvorkovich, who, in addition to being a top Medvedev aide, was also a key
Rosatom board member. It is not known whether the State Department gave
clearance for the meeting; the question appears to have become moot since the
former U.S. president met directly with Putin and Medvedev. You’ll be
comforted, I’m sure, to learn that aides to the Clintons, those pillars of
integrity, assure us that the topics of Rosatom and Uranium One never came up.
Keeping Congress in the Dark
Meanwhile, congressional opposition
to Russia’s potential acquisition of American uranium resources began to stir.
As Peter Schweizer noted in his essential book, Clinton Cash: The Untold
Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and
Hillary Rich, four senior House members steeped in national-security issues
— Peter King (R., N.Y.), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R., Fla.), Spencer Bachus (R.,
Ala.), and Howard McKeon (R. Calif.) — voiced grave concerns, pointing out that
Rosatom had helped Iran, America’s sworn enemy, build its Bushehr nuclear
reactor. The members concluded that “the take-over of essential US nuclear
resources by a government-owned Russian agency . . . would
not advance the national security interests of the United States.” Republican
senator John Barrasso objected to Kremlin control of uranium assets in his
state of Wyoming, warning of Russia’s “disturbing record of supporting nuclear
programs in countries that are openly hostile to the United States,
specifically Iran and Venezuela.” The House began moving a bill “expressing
disfavor of the Congress” regarding Obama’s revival of the nuclear-cooperation
agreement Bush had abandoned.
Clearly, in this atmosphere,
disclosure of the racketeering enterprise that Rosatom’s American subsidiary
was, at that very moment, carrying out would have been the death knell of the
asset transfer to Russia. It would also likely have ended the “reset”
initiative in which Obama and Clinton were deeply invested — an agenda that
contemplated Kremlin-friendly deals on nuclear-arms control and accommodation
of the nuclear program of Russia’s ally, Iran. That was not going to be allowed
to happen. It appears that no disclosure of Russia’s racketeering and
strong-arming was made to CFIUS or to Congress — not by Secretary Clinton, not
by Attorney General Holder, and certainly not by President Obama. In October
2010, CFIUS gave its blessing to Rosatom’s acquisition of Uranium One.
A Sweetheart Plea Helps the
Even though the FBI had an informant
collecting damning information, and had a prosecutable case against Mikerin by
early 2010, the extortion racket against American energy companies was
permitted to continue into the summer of 2014. It was only then that, finally,
Mikerin and his confederates were arrested.
Why then? This is not rocket science.
In March 2014, Russia annexed Crimea. Putin also began massing forces on the
Ukrainian border, coordinating and conducting attacks, ultimately taking
control of territory. Clearly, the pie-in-the-sky Obama reset was dead.
Furthermore, the prosecution of Mikerin’s racketeering scheme had been so
delayed that the Justice Department risked losing the ability to charge the
2009 felonies because of the five-year statute of limitations on most federal
Still, a lid needed to be kept on the
case. It would have made for an epic Obama administration scandal, and a body
blow to Hillary Clinton’s presidential hopes, if in the midst of Russia’s 2014
aggression, public attention had been drawn to the failure, four years earlier,
to prosecute a national-security case in order to protect Russia’s takeover of
U.S. nuclear assets.
The Obama administration needed to
make this case go away — without a public trial if at all possible.
Think about this: The investigation
of Russian racketeering in the American energy sector was the kind of
spectacular success over which the FBI and Justice Department typically do a
bells-n-whistles victory lap — the big self-congratulatory press conference
followed by the media-intensive prosecutions . . . and, of
course, more press conferences.
Here . . . crickets.
As the Hill reports, the
Justice Department and FBI had little to say when Mikerin and his
co-conspirators were arrested. They quietly negotiated guilty pleas that were
announced with no fanfare just before Labor Day. It was arranged that Mikerin
would be sentenced just before Christmas. All under the radar.
How desperate was the Obama Justice
Department to plead the case out? Here, Rosenstein and Holder will have some
explaining to do.
Mikerin was arrested on a complaint
describing a racketeering scheme that stretched back to 2004 and included
extortion, fraud, and money laundering. Yet he was permitted to plead guilty to
a single count of money-laundering conspiracy.
Except it was not really
Under federal law, that crime
(at section 1956 of the penal
code) carries a penalty of up to 20 years’ imprisonment — not only
for conspiracy but for each act of money laundering. But Mikerin was not made
to plead guilty to this charge. He was permitted to plead guilty to an offense
charged under the catch-all federal conspiracy provision (section 371) that criminalizes agreements to commit any crime against the
United States. Section 371 prescribes a sentence of zero to five years’
The Justice Department instructs
prosecutors that when Congress has given a federal offense its own conspiracy
provision with a heightened punishment (as it has for money laundering,
racketeering, narcotics trafficking, and other serious crimes), they may not
charge a section 371 conspiracy. Section 371 is for less serious conspiracy
cases. Using it for money laundering — which caps the sentence way below
Congress’s intent for that behavior — subverts federal law and signals to the
court that the prosecutor does not regard the offense as major.
Yet, that is exactly what
Rosenstein’s office did, in a plea agreement his prosecutors co-signed with
attorneys from the Justice Department’s Fraud Section. (See in the Hill’s report, the third
document embedded at the bottom, titled “Mikerin Plea Deal.”) No RICO, no
extortion, no fraud — and the plea agreement is careful not to mention any of
the extortions in 2009 and 2010, before CFIUS approved Rosatom’s acquisition of
U.S. uranium stock. Mikerin just had to plead guilty to a nominal “money
laundering” conspiracy charge. This insulated him from a real money-laundering
sentence. Thus, he got a term of just four years’ incarceration for a major
national-security crime — which, of course, is why he took the plea deal and
waived his right to appeal, sparing the Obama administration a full public
airing of the facts.
Interestingly, as the plea agreement
shows, the Obama DOJ’s Fraud Section was then run by Andrew Weissmann, who is
now one of the top prosecutors in Robert Mueller’s ongoing special-counsel
investigation of suspected Trump collusion with Russia.
There was still one other problem to
tamp down. That was the informant — the lobbyist who alerted the FBI to the
Russian racketeering enterprise back in 2009. He wanted to talk.
Specifically, as his attorney, Ms.
Toensing, explains, the informant wanted to tell Congress what he knows — about
what the FBI and the Justice Department could already have proved in 2010 when
CFIUS signed off on Russia’s acquisition of American nuclear material, and
about what he’d learned of Russian efforts to curry favor with Bill and Hillary
Clinton. But he was not allowed to talk.
It turns out, the lawyer explains,
that the FBI had induced him to sign a non-disclosure agreement. The Justice
Department warned him that it was enforceable — even against disclosures to
Congress. (Because, you know, the FBI is opposed to all leaks and disclosures
of confidential investigative information . . . except
those initiated by the FBI, of course.) In addition, when the informant was
primed to file a federal civil lawsuit to recover his own losses from the
scheme, he claims that the Justice Department threatened him with prosecution,
warning that a lawsuit would violate the non-disclosure agreement. The Hill reports that
it has obtained emails from a civil lawyer retained by the witness, which
describe pressure exerted by the Justice Department to silence the informant.
What a coincidence: That was in 2016,
the stretch run of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.