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.
911 emergency call system could soon be routed through RUSSIAN satellites, giving Putin’s government the power to snoop and interfere with first responders
Russia’s own GPS system covers more ground than US satellites, so wireless phone companies want to leverage it to help locate 911 callers
Rep. Mike Rogers, an Alabama Republican, is furious and says the move could give signals intelligence to an antagonistic Russian Federation
‘GLONASS’ is a Russian satellite network that has been able to see the whole planet since 1995
Part of its software crashed for a half-day last April, generating navigation signals that were off by as much as 50 kilometersBy
David Martosko, U.S. Political Editor for The Daily Mail
January 22, 2015
U.S. astronauts are already blasting off to the International Space Station on Russian rockets. But now the Federal Communications Commission is weighing a plan to use Moscow-based satellites to route America’s 911 emergency phone calls.
Congressional Republicans, already skittish about trusting the Vladimir Putin regime as it airs its expansionist desires through Europe, fear the Russian leader would gain access to real-time information about emergency responders in every corner of the United States.
That data, piped through Russia’s GLONASS precision navigation and timing satellite system, already allows police, fire and rescue crews to pinpoint cellphone callers’ locations.
National security alarms are going off, and they’re as loud as fire bells.
Alabama Republican Rep. Mike Rogers, who chairs am Armed Services subcommittee on strategic forces, wrote to warn Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.
‘In view of the threat posed to the world by Russia’s Vladimir Putin, it cannot be seriously considered that the U.S. would rely on a system in that dictator’s control for its wireless 911 location capability,’ Rogers wrote, in a letter first reporter by The Washington Times.
‘Our response to Russia’s hybrid warfare, arms control cheating, illegal invasions of sovereign nations, and energy-based extortion must be broad-based isolation and counter-leverage.’
A trade group that worked on the plan with major wireless phone carriers – including AT&T Mobility, Sprint, T-Mobile USA and Verizon – disagrees.
Trey Fogarty, government affairs director at the National Emergency Number Association, said there’s no American satellite system that can cover enough ground on its own without help from GLONASS.
His group worked with the companies and the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials (APSCO) to develop a way to give police, firefighters and medics better tools to locate people in time to help them when seconds count.
‘Our view is that we ought to be leveraging anything that is available to find someone in an emergency,’ Fogarty told the Times.
APSCO says Rep. Rogers is overreacting based on ‘plainly false statements that stretch the imagination to try to make a case that the roadmap’s inclusion of GLONASS for location determination presents a security threat.’
That stark condemnation came from the association’s government relations chief, Jeffrey Cohen, in a Dec. 24 letter to the FCC.
GLONASS itself is an alternative GPS system operated by 24 satellites, with 4 more planned. In April 2014 the entire system went offline for a half-day, leading everyone from Russian military planes to commercial shippers to generate incorrect location data – which was in some cases off by more than 50 kilometers.
Russia Today, a state-funded news outlet, reports that Moscow began developing GLONASS in 1976 and reached the point where it could cover the entire planet’s surface in 1995.
A total of 19 ground stations collect satellite data for consumer applications, providing signals with accuracy up to one meter.
‘Three more stations are located in the Antarctic and one in Brazil,’ according to RT, ‘with two more to be constructed in Kazakhstan and one in Belarus.’
Yesterday SU-25 fighter jets carried test modules over the skies of northern Kyrgyzstan on practice runs to demonstrate its military applications.
It’s the largest and only comprehensive GPS-workalike system in existence, according to Russian media outlets, which also report that its underlying technology has been shared with North Korea and Belarus.
Sprint said it aims to minimize the degree to which American companies rely on the Russian satellites.
‘The roadmap does not envision that carriers will rely exclusively on the GLONASS system,’ the company’s government affairs director Ray Rothermel wrote on Dec. 24 to FCC officials.
‘Rather, the roadmap advocates taking advantage of a tool that is available now to allow carriers to improve location information.’
The FCC has the authority to green-light or spike the proposal, but hasn’t chosen a path forward yet. A January 29 meeting, however, could bring the issue to a head.
Retired Rear Admiral David Simpson, chief of the FCC’s Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, said his agency is ‘committed to protecting both public safety and national security as we continue to examine the input and issues in the proceeding, and will coordinate with our colleagues across the government to ensure that national security needs are addressed.’
The Pentagon has found itself blind-sided in the past by concerns about handing Russia the keys to U.S.-based signals intelligence.
In 2013 the State Department said it was considering giving Roscomos – the Russian space agency – clearance to erect six buildings in the U.S. outfitted with with antennas and signal processing electronics.
Members of Congress were outraged and wrote special language into the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act forbidding such deals with foreign nations.
545 people are responsible for the mess, but they unite in a common con
(This column was originally published in the Orlando Sentinel on Feb. 3, 1984.)
By: Charley Reese
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don’t have the constitutional authority to vote n appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don’t write the tax code. The Congress does. You and I don’t set fiscal policy. the Congress does. You and I don’t control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices – 545 human beings out of 238 million- are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Bank because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.
I exclude all of the special interest and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don’t care if they offer a politician $1 million in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it.
No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator’s responsibility to determine how he votes.
Don’t you see now the con game that is played on the people by the politicians? Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. they cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of Tip O’Neill, who stood up and criticized Ronald Reagan for creating deficits.
The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept. it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating appropriations and taxes. O’Neill is speaker of the House. He is the leader of the majority party. He and his fellow Democrats, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto.
Just 545 Americans have fouled up this great nation.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 235 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted – by present facts – of incompetence and irresponsibility.
I can’t think of a single domestic problem, from an unfair tax code to defense overruns, that is not traceable directly to those people.
When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise complete power over the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it’s because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it’s because they want it in the red. If the Marines are in Lebanon, it’s because they want them in Lebanon.
There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take it.
Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exist disembodied mystical force like “the economy,” “inflation” or “politics” that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people and they alone are responsible. They and they alone have the power. they and they alone should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses – provided they have the gumption to manage their own employees.
Journalist Charley Reese (retired) was part of the Orlando Sentinel‘s staff for three decades between 1971-2001, during which time he (among other duties) penned a thrice-weekly column which was distributed to other newspapers nationwide by King Features Syndicate.
El Chapo Trial: Former Mexican President Peña Nieto Took $100 Million Bribe, Witness Says
By: Alan Feuer
Former Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto took a $100 million bribe from international drug traffickers ,acocrding to a witness at the trial of Joaquín Guzmán Loera, the infamous crime lord known as El Chapo.
“Mr. Guzmán paid a bribe of $100 million to President Peña Nieto?” Jeffrey Lichtman, one of Mr. Guzmán’s lawyers asked Mr. Cifuentes during cross-examination.
“Yes,” responded Mr. Cifuentes.
The bribe was delivered to Mr. Peña Nieto through an intermediary, according to Mr. Cifuentes.
While other witnesses at Mr. Guzmán’s trial in Federal District Court in Brooklyn have testified about payoffs from traffickers to the Mexican police and public officials, the revelations about Mr. Peña Nieto were the most egregious allegations yet. If true, they suggest that corruption by drug cartels had reached into the highest level of Mexico’s political establishment.
From the start of the trial in November, there were lurid hints that top Mexican leaders might have been compromised by dirty money. In his opening statement, Mr. Lichtman claimed his client had been framed for years by a conspiracy hatched by his partner, Ismael Zambada García, in league with “crooked” American drug agents and a “completely corrupt” Mexican government, including two of its presidents.
At the time, Mr. Peña Nieto released a statement calling Mr. Lichtman’s claims false. The judge in the case, Brian M. Cogan, later cautioned Mr. Lichtman against making promises to the jury that the evidence in the case would not support.
Then, as the first week of the trial came to an end, Mr. Guzmán’s lawyers informed Judge Cogan at a sidebar conference that a coming witness, Jesus Zambada García, Ismael Zambada’s brother, would testify, if asked, that two Mexican presidents had taken bribes from the Sinaloa drug cartel.
Until Monday, the most prominent Mexican official accused of taking bribes was Genaro García Luna, the country’s former public security director. When Jesus Zambada testified in November, he told jurors that he had met twice with Mr. García Luna in a restaurant and both times gave him a briefcase stuffed with at least $3 million in cash.