On the day Trump was elected president, Strzok wrote a message, “OMG, this is terrifying.”49 Page replied she was “depressed.” A week later she noted that she needed to brush up on “Watergate,” and the next day stated, “we have OUR task ahead of us.”50 What exactly she had in mind as their task is unclear, although it may have been a reference to their earlier discussion of an “insurance policy” in the event Trump were to win the presidency.
The bias of Strzok and Page in favor of Clinton and their unabashed enmity toward Trump meant that they should never have been allowed anywhere near the Clinton email case. Despite this prejudice, Strzok was front and center conducting many of the main interviews. He was present on July 2, 2016, during Clinton’s surprisingly short questioning by the FBI that was neither recorded nor under oath.51
Strzok also interviewed Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, two of Clinton’s top aides who claimed they never knew about their boss’s private, unsecured server until after she left office, even though documents clearly prove that they did, in fact, know.52 Emails both to and from them show they discussed her unauthorized computer system.53 However, they were never charged for making materially false statements to the FBI under 18 U.S. C. 1001.54 When confronted about this by the House Judiciary Committee on September 28, 2016, Comey offered up inane excuses on their behalf, stating that failed recollections should be forgiven in ancillary matters.55 In truth, there was nothing tangential about top aides who aided and abetted the use of Clinton’s unclassified server. Their testimony was central to the case.
Why a specialist in counterintelligence would use his work phone to convey toxic messages to a top FBI lawyer who also happened to be his lover is a case study in hubris and foolishness. But the recklessness with which he voiced his visceral hatred for the Republican presidential candidate and adoration for the Democratic candidate did manage to expose political motives for clearing Clinton and targeting Trump that had long been suspected.
Once Clinton was absolved, it was Strzok who reportedly executed the documents launching the 2016 investigation into Russia’s meddling in the American presidential election and whether Trump conspired with Russians to advance his candidacy, despite no real evidence to support the probe.56
An editorial in the New York Post described it this way:
As things stand, it now looks like the fix was well and truly in on the Hillary probe. Far worse, it also looks like the “collusion” probe was a partisan hit from the start—which undermines the basis for Mueller’s own investigation.57
The messages exchanged between Strzok and Page represent incriminating evidence that forces within the FBI appear to have interfered with or influenced their own investigation. If it was done for political purposes, this would constitute obstruction of justice58 It would also constitute a violation of the Hatch Act.59 House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte put it bluntly:
These text messages prove what we all suspected: High-ranking FBI officials involved in the Clinton investigation were personally invested in the outcome of the election and clearly let their strong political opinions cloud their professional judgment.
The taint of politicization should concern all Americans who have pride in fairness of our nation’s justice system.60
Americans are entitled to a system of justice that is both equal and blind. Those who abuse their authority by imposing their own political prejudices poison this cherished principle of democracy.
Chapter 4
Clinton Greed and “Uranium One”
There is no greater disaster than greed.
—THE WAY OF LAO TZU, ANCIENT CHINESE PHILOSOPHER
Truth has always been an alien concept to Hillary Clinton.
One of her famous whoppers was the fallacy she tried to sell during an interview with ABC News in June 2014. “We came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt.”1 It was a ridiculous and gross distortion since Bill and Hillary Clinton already owned two lavishly expensive houses by the time they departed 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in January 2001.
They had bought a five-bedroom residence in Chappaqua, New York, for $1.7 million and had purchased a seven-bedroom house in the tony enclave of Embassy Row in Washington, D.C., for the hefty price of $2.85 million. People who are dead broke can hardly afford homes valued at a combined $4.55 million.
Regardless, the Clintons felt they were not rich enough, so they wasted little time in fattening their bank accounts and becoming immensely wealthy in a remarkably short period of time. They earned more than $230 million before taxes within a few years of leaving the White House, according to a comprehensive review of their financial worth by Forbes.2
The source of that staggering amount may be connected to Hillary Clinton’s determination to keep her State Department emails forever hidden from public view.
The former president earned much of the cash from speaking fees. At one point, he charged an average rate of $225,000 for each speech, although that figure would sometimes balloon to half a million dollars or $750,000 for a talk that might last no longer than an hour. Income from Bill’s books and consulting fees added to the pot of riches, with one client paying as much as $16 million for his business acumen, although he had no prior business experience beyond government employment.3
A 2014 analysis by the Washington Post determined that Bill was paid roughly $105 million for speeches, with the majority of that income derived from his speaking engagements in foreign countries.4 Almost half of that money, some $48 million, went into Bill’s pocket when his wife served as secretary of state.5 While paid speeches by former presidents are neither unusual nor prohibited, Bill’s reliance on foreign sources demonstrates how the power couple devised a moneymaking machine designed to deliver what foreign governments and corporations wanted most: access and influence.
As Bill Clinton was raking in millions from foreign businesses, investors, and governments, his wife was a senior member of the powerful Senate Armed Services Committee and a member of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. In those positions, she helped shape decisions that affected governments and businesses overseas. Later, when Hillary became secretary of state, millions of foreign dollars continued to flow to Bill at the very time his wife was America’s chief diplomat.
Oddly enough, the pace of Bill’s lucrative speaking engagements, especially those abroad, accelerated during the four years his wife presided over the state department. Two-thirds of his fees came from foreign sources. It is no surprise that many of the foreign entities who were shelling out substantial dollars to Bill were the very people and governments who were angling for favorable actions or decisions by Hillary.
In his bestselling book Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, author Peter Schweizer described the Clinton profiteering machine this way:
Who else in American politics would be so audacious as to have one spouse accept money from foreign governments and businesses while the other charted American foreign policy? Or would permit one spouse to conduct sensitive negotiations with foreign entities while in some instances the other collected large speaking fees from some of those same entities?6
Meanwhile, bureaucratic or legislative obstacles were mysteriously cleared or approvals granted within the purview of his wife, the powerful secretary of state. Huge donations then flowed into the Clinton Foundation while Bill received enormous speaking fees underwritten by the very businessmen who benefited from these apparent interventions.7
As enriched as Bill became, it paled in comparison to the largess heaped upon the Clinton Foundation.
The Clinton Foundation Gravy Train
At the end of the Bill Clinton presidency, the couple established a nonprofit organization named the Clinton Foundation. By all outward appearances, it was a good and legitimate charity. Driven by the celebrity of a former president and the prospect that his wife was positioning herself to make her own run for the W
hite House, the foundation became a magnet for people, businesses, and foreign governments. They calculated that generous financial contributions might reap the kind of rewards that can only be conferred by powerful public officials like the Clintons. It has been estimated that the foundation raised more than a billion dollars over the years.
The charity also became a cash conduit, helping Bill collect millions of dollars as he leveraged the foundation to secure his lucrative personal speaking engagements.
Before she was confirmed as secretary of state, members of Congress expressed deep concern that foreign governments and businesses would seek to buy influence by funneling cash to Bill and even more wealth to the Clinton Foundation. Hillary promised it would not happen and vowed to senators at her confirmation hearing that “all contributors will be disclosed.”8 She insisted she would not only insulate herself from genuine conflicts of interest, but avoid even the appearance of conflicts. She did not keep her promises, not even close. A comprehensive review by The Hill found innumerable examples of how Clinton disregarded both her written and oral promises of transparency.9 Reuters reported that “millions of dollars in new or increased payments from at least seven foreign governments” were never accounted for as promised.10
The Clintons were adept at disguising the channeling of cash from donors. Their foundation became a major beneficiary of foreign largess. While operating as a charity, it also served as a ready receptacle for hundreds of millions of dollars in donations from foreign contributors who either directly or indirectly had business before the State Department.11
Victor Davis Hanson, a historian at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, also accused the Clintons of peddling both access and influence in what he characterized as a “shameless” scheme driven by “inordinate greed.” In his column “How the Clintons Got Rich Selling Influence While Decrying Greed,” he wrote:
The worth of both the Clinton family and the Clinton Foundation . . . is truly staggering, and to a great extent accrued from non-transparent pay-for-play aggrandizement.
Well before Hillary Clinton’s failure in the Democratic primaries in 2008 and her subsequent appointment as secretary of state, the Clintons had found a way to exploit the idea that both of them would return to the White House. That reality gave them access to quid pro quo opportunities often funneled through a philanthropic foundation, of a sort unknown to any past American president.12
Many of the largest contributions to the Clinton Foundation were made by people and shell companies connected to a Russian-controlled business called Uranium One, which managed, through a series of clever maneuvers, to seize control of a sizable percentage of America’s prized uranium assets.
The Uranium One Scam
In September 2005, Bill Clinton traveled to Kazakhstan. Joining him was his friend Frank Giustra, the Canadian investor who wanted to purchase Kazakh uranium mines, which required the government’s approval. Upon arrival, Bill met with President Nursultan A. Nazarbayev, who had a long and ugly record of suppressing any political opposition. Several human rights organizations have accused him of severe abuses during his notorious authoritarian rule.13 Nevertheless, Bill praised Nazarbayev at a public news conference which helped him immeasurably in his quest for improved public relations. Days later Giustra got his lucrative uranium mines. Soon after that, the Clinton Foundation received a $31.3 million donation from Giustra, followed by a pledge to give $100 million more.14 The deal also provided Bill with incredibly profitable speechmaking fees.
By virtue of a subsequent merger, Giustra’s company became a uranium giant called Uranium One. According to the president of the government agency that runs Kazakhstan’s uranium industry, Hillary Clinton pressured the foreign government to approve the merger. Clinton, who sat on the powerful Senate Armed Services Committee, had allegedly threatened to withhold U.S. aid if the deal did not go through.15 It should come as no surprise that it did.
In addition to its ownership of Kazakh mines, Uranium One began to acquire American uranium deposits in Wyoming, Utah, Texas, and South Dakota. Rosatom, the Russian State Atomic Nuclear Agency, which also controls Russia’s nuclear arsenal, saw a golden opportunity to enter the valuable U.S. uranium market. It gradually purchased shares of Uranium One, eventually gaining majority control of the company.
By this time, Hillary had moved on to become secretary of state. But Russia’s acquisition of a Canadian company that held U.S. uranium deposits had to be approved by Washington since uranium is considered a vital U.S. strategic asset. An executive branch task force called the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) had the authority to accept or reject the Russian takeover of Uranium One. The secretary of state is designated to preside over the nine cabinet officials on the CFIUS. Even though Hillary had, in the past, opposed a foreign government’s takeover of an American strategic asset, CFIUS approved the Russian deal.16 Since any one of the members of CFIUS could have vetoed the matter, unanimity was required. It was approved without dissent on October 22, 2010.
Schweizer put the transaction in perspective:
The result: Uranium One and half of projected American uranium production were transferred to a private company controlled in turn by the Russian State Nuclear Agency. Strangely enough, when Uranium One requested approval from CFIUS by the federal government, Ian Telfer, a major Clinton Foundation donor, was chairman of the board, a position he continues to hold.17
This point bears repeating. Clinton’s CFIUS committee approved a Russian takeover of U.S. uranium assets at the same time that the Russian company’s chairman was giving substantial sums of money to Clinton’s foundation. There is no evidence Clinton ever divulged this blatant, if not potentially corrupt, conflict of interest. The American public had no idea until Schweizer uncovered the information and published it in his book.
Just how much control Russia now has over uranium extraction in the United States has been hotly debated. Some have put it at 20 percent.18 Regardless, it is a significant amount in the hands of an unfriendly and often hostile adversary on the world stage, given that Russia has a lethal nuclear arsenal and can now tap American resources for the weapons it aims at U.S. cities.
As for the millions of dollars that helped grease the deal, Frank Giustra was not the only one connected to Uranium One who showered the Clinton Foundation with money. As mentioned, Ian Telfer, chairman of Uranium One, made generous personal contributions to the Clinton charity and steered more than $2 million more through a Canadian foundation he controlled called Fernwood Foundation.19 Again, these donations were never disclosed by Clinton or her foundation as she had promised as a strict condition for Senate approval as secretary of state.
Money also appeared to have made its way to the Clintons from the Russians themselves, although the cash took a circuitous route. A Canadian company called Salida Capital delivered more than $2.6 million to the Clinton Foundation. It just so happens that a company by the same name was listed by Rosatom in its annual report as being wholly owned by the Russian company.20
Other people connected to Uranium One made generous donations. All told, some $145 million is estimated to have made its way from shareholders to the Clinton Foundation.21 Bill Clinton also made out well financially. After Rosatom announced its takeover of Uranium One, but before CFIUS approved the deal, he traveled to Moscow. While there, a Russian financial institution, Renaissance Capital, paid Bill half a million dollars to deliver an hour-long speech.22 Renaissance had ties to the Kremlin and was also touting Uranium One stock. During his visit to Moscow, Bill met with Russian president Vladimir Putin. No one called this “collusion.”
Were all the boatloads of money an exchange of benefits for favorable approval by Clinton and the CFIUS committee vote? Little is known about what occurred behind closed doors. The work of the task force is shrouded in secrecy. Whatever precious few documents may exist are buried somewhere in government archives and have not been made public.
Clinton
sought to dismiss allegations of corruption by claiming she was not involved in the uranium decision. Since it was her job to preside over the CFIUS task force, this is hard to believe. Her former assistant secretary, Jose Fernandez, claimed he took Clinton’s place on the committee and insisted she never intervened. This, too, seemed implausible since giving a foreign power control over one of our country’s most vital strategic assets would normally demand attention at the highest level.
Even more unconvincing was the statement from a Clinton spokesman who maintained that no one had produced any evidence proving that Clinton conferred favors in exchange for money.23 That’s a little like bragging about a burglar who was smart enough to wear gloves. Perhaps the Clintons were adept at hiding evidence. Maybe they avoided any paper trail that would be incriminating. But the timing of contributions and the sheer volume of Clinton enrichment strongly suggest something more than a coincidence. Moreover, the failure of the Clintons to publicly reveal the contributions as promised in their agreement with the Obama White House raises logical and legitimate concerns that they sought to conceal activities that were illicit, if not illegal.
The Russians wasted little time in circumventing their commitment to the United States that Uranium One would not export material beyond America’s borders. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission had assured Congress that the Russian-owned company had no license to export the uranium beyond our borders. Cleverly, Uranium One hired a third party to obtain an export license. Uranium yellowcake was then shipped to Canada, which was confirmed by the NRC.24 From there, some of it was transported overseas with no guarantee that it would not reach, for example, Iran, which was being tutored by the Russians to develop nuclear capabilities.25 Yellowcake is a concentrated uranium powder that can be enriched and processed for nuclear weapons.
The Russia Hoax Page 7
