FBI KEPT RUSSIAN BRIBERY PLOT UNDER WRAPS BEFORE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION APPROVED NUCLEAR DEAL WITH MOSCOW
he Obama administration signed a controversial nuclear deal with Moscow despite prior FBI findings that Russian officials were bribing their way into the U.S. atomic energy industry, according to government documents just published by The Hill.
A confidential U.S. witness deployed by the FBI infiltrated Russia’s nuclear industry and made secret recordings, collected financial records and intercepted emails dating back to 2009 that showed that Moscow engaged in bribery and kickbacks with an American uranium trucking company, documents show.
But the Obama administration insisted no evidence existed of Russian interference and that there were no national security concerns for committee members to go against the deal in 2010.
The deal that boosted Vladimir Putin’s nuclear footprint in the U.S. took place in October 2010 when the State Department and the Committee on Foreign Investment unanimously agreed to a partial sale of Uranium One, a Canadian mining company, to the major Russian nuclear company Rosatom, effectively sending more than 20 percent of the U.S.’s uranium to Moscow.
In 2011, the Obama administration gave the green light for Rosatom’s Tenex subsidiary to sell uranium to American nuclear power plants. Before the deal, Tenex could only sell reprocessed uranium from dismantled Soviet nuclear firearms to power plants in the U.S.
Russian exortion threats and kickbacks brought legitimate national security concerns, “And none of that evidence got aired before the Obama administration made those decisions,” a souce who insisted on anonymity out of fear of retribution told The Hill.
Then-U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein — who was appointed by President George W. Bush and reappointed by President Barack Obama, and is now President Donald Trump’s deputy attorney general — and then-Assistant FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who serves as deputy FBI director under Trump, supervised the investigation, documents show.
FBI agents also gathered documents and a witness account that Russian officials routed millions of dollars to ex-President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation while Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sat on a committee that gave a nod to the dealings with Moscow.
Like the Obama administration, the Clintons said there was no evidence to prompt them to go the other way on the Uranium One deal.
The Department of Justice investigated the Russian plot for close to four years, keeping the information under wraps while the Obama administration approved the deal instead of bringing immediate charges.
Uranium deal to Russia, with Clinton help and Obama Administration knowledge, is the biggest story that Fake Media doesn't want to follow!
Crowdstrike Payments Coincide With Deaths Of Seth Rich, Shawn Lucas
The cyber firm Crowdstrike has been one of the main proponents of allegations that Russia interfered in the 2016 American presidential elections using their cyber capabilities. The analysis performed by Crowdstrike was relied on almost exclusively by the Democratic National Committee to establish their claims of “Russian hacking.” The founder of Crowdstrike is also tied to the Atlantic Council, a think tank supported by George Soros which has been accused of accepting funds in exchange for support of favored policy positions as well as promoting disinformation and propaganda attacks against anti establishment figures.
The Federal Election Commission site shows a huge DNC payment to Crowdstrike the day after Seth died. There were also payments to them starting several months before that, which lined up with the dates when the DNC announced they hired them to “secure their systems and catch the leaker” (fabricate the Russian hackers story).
During the 2016 Presidential Election, the biggest story became how Russia “hacked” the election. The “17 intelligence agencies” that Hillary Rodham Clinton cited all relied on word from a contracted company, Crowdstrike.
Crowdstrike is a technology company that specializes in cyber-security. Not only is there conflict of interest with Crowdstrike receiving payments, campaign data shows some incredible correlations with the payments that were made.
All payments cited below are part of the Federal Election Committee data of campaign spending on the www.fec.gov website.
The first payments made were preemptive measures on May 5th, 2016 when the DNC was looking to figure out where the breach of security was. Payments made on May 5th, 2016 of $7,650.00 and $1,462.50 were likely paid for Crowdstrike to install their Falcon software, a stellar technology security suite that would identify any internal or external security breach.
The final email on Wikileaks from the DNC is dated May 25th, 2016. Crowdstrike would have had complete knowledge of the party that ripped the emails from the server.
The next payment that was made to Crowdstrike occurred on July 11th, 2016 for the amount of $98,849.84. The relationship to this date happens to be the day after DNC Data Director of New Voter Registration Seth Rich was murdered.
The final payment to date is August 3rd, 2016. This coincides with another murder in the District of Columbia. Shawn Lucas, who died on August 2nd of last year, was the DNC Process Server and close friend of Seth Rich. The payment on August 3rd included two checks, one for $113,645.77 and the other for $4,275.00.
We find it highly coincidental that both of these payments came within 24 hours of two high profile murders in Washington D.C., which both have connection to the DNC.
The initial and final payment was referring to Technology Consulting and Technology Infrastructure Maintenance, linked here. It does not include the licensing of the software under the description of Data Services Subscription.
A Pulitzer Prize Winning Wall Street Journal Reporter who asked Russia for Information on Hillary Clinton was found dead 2 days later.
Wall Street Journal writer/reporter Joseph Rago was found dead in his apartment on July 20th 2017.
He was reportedly investigating Hillary’s involvement in the purchase of Russian drug company Veropharm by Abbot Labs at a time in 2014 when sanctions against Russia would have prevented the sale.
According to a New York Police Department spokeswoman, the cause of death is as yet undetermined. “The cause and manner of death are pending further studies following today’s examination,” a spokeswoman for the city’s medical examiner’s office said.
A shocking new Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) report circulating in the Kremlin today states that this past Tuesday (18 July), the Consulate General’s office in New York City was contacted by Wall Street Journal reporter/editor Joseph Rago who requested a Thursday (20 July) in person interview with Federation consular officials regarding an upcoming article he was preparing on Hillary Clinton and her links to Russia—but who failed to attend the meeting he requested due to his being discovered dead in his apartment of as yet “unknown causes” just hours prior to this meeting occurring. [Note: Some words and/or phrases appearing in quotes in this report are English language approximations of Russian words/phrases having no exact counterpart.]
According to this report, Joseph Rago was a Pulitzer Prize winning reporter whose expertise was in the health care field—and whose stated purpose for this meeting was his investigating Hillary Clinton’s links to the 2014 sale of Veropharm (one of Russia’s largest medical companies) to the American medical giant Abbott Laboratories.
Handling this takeover transaction, this report continues, was the Russian investment bank Renaissance Capital—who are most to be noted for their having paid former President Bill Clinton $500,000 for a speech he gave before their top executives in Moscow.
With Joseph Rago telling Federation consular officials that he had documents linking Hillary Clinton to both Abbott Laboratories and Kew Garden Hills, this report notes, it was supposed by them that this was the line of inquiry he was going to pursue during his requested meeting—but with him having mysteriously died, this cannot be said for a certainty.
This shift is definitely worth noting and should be brought to the attention to all on the left regularly. Why would you want to receive your news from an organization that peddled this bull crap for over a year. Now when it suddenly fell off the face of the Earth you’re okay with it? The narrative has unfortunately stuck for some despite the lack pf Mainstream Media coverage of it anymore, and it needs to be pointed out that some news outlets are questioning if there was a hack at all now.
What was in the DNC email leak?
(CNN) — Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s stewardship of the Democratic National Committee has been under fire through most of the presidential primary process.
Now, on the eve of the party’s convention, Wasserman Schultz is facing pressure to resign, and will have no major role on the convention stage, after Wikileaks released nearly 20,000 DNC emails that bolster Sanders’ supporters’ claims that the party favored Clinton.
One email appears to show DNC staffers asking how they can reference Bernie Sanders’ faith to weaken him in the eyes of Southern voters. Another seems to depict an attorney advising the committee on how to defend Hillary Clinton against an accusation by the Sanders campaign of not living up to a joint fundraising agreement.
Here’s what you need to know about the DNC email leak so far:
Emails leaked from seven DNC officials
The leaks, from January 2015 to May 2016, feature Democratic staffers debating everything from how to deal with challenging media requests to coordinating the committee’s message with other powerful interests in Washington.
The emails were leaked from the accounts of seven DNC officials, Wikileaks said. CNN has not independently established the emails’ authenticity.
The emails could boost Sanders supporters’ charge that the DNC was biased toward Clinton — a position Sanders himself underscored when he endorsed Wasserman Schultz’s primary opponent in her Florida congressional race.
But Baltimore mayor and DNC Secretary Stephanie Rawlings-Blake denied any suggestion that Clinton’s camp was treated more favorably by the committee.
“My xpectation is beyond your opinion about a candidate, that you act evenly. All of the officers took a pledge of neutrality and I honored that, and I take that very seriously,” Rawlings-Blake told CNN’s Poppy Harlow. She added: “I know that the chair will hold those employees accountable if they’re found to have acted outside of that neutrality and even-handedness.”
Asked about the exchanges, Rawlings-Blake said: “Expressing an opinion about a candidate doesn’t mean that you’re in collusion, doesn’t mean that you are actively working against them. And I don’t think that that’s what it shows.”
Questioning Sanders’ faith
One email features DNC staffers appearing to ponder ways to undercut Sanders, an insurgent Democrat who had a bitter relationship with party leadership.
On May 5, a DNC employee asked colleagues to “get someone to ask his belief” in God and suggested that it could make a difference in Kentucky and West Virginia. Sanders’ name is not mentioned in the note.
“This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist,” DNC chief financial officer Brad Marshall wrote.
Marshall did not respond to a request for comment.
Clinton prods DNC for intervention
In another email, an attorney for the Clinton campaign appears to advise the DNC on how to respond to a dispute between the two campaigns over how much money Clinton’s operation had raised for state parties. Sanders’ campaign charged that Clinton’s team was not handing over its fair share of its fundraising, which Sanders’ campaign manager Jeff Weaver said was “laundering” and “looting.”
“My suggestion is that the DNC put out a statement saying that the accusations the Sanders campaign are not true. The fact that CNN notes that you aren’t getting between the two campaigns is the problem,” Marc E. Elias wrote. “Here, Sanders is attacking the DNC and its current practice, its past practice with the POTUS and with Sec Kerry. Just as the RNC pushes back directly on Trump over ‘rigged system,’ the DNC should push back DIRECTLY at Sanders and say that what he is saying is false and harmful (to) the Democratic party.”
Elias and the Clinton campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment Saturday.
Favoring bigger donors
Another exchange involves a discussion on whether to move Maryland ophthalmologist Sreedhar Potarazu from sitting beside President Barack Obama at a DNC event after National Finance Director Jordan Kaplan said he gave less money than Philip Munger, another donor.
“It would be nice to take care of him from the DNC side,” Kaplan wrote, referring to Munger.
Potarazu told CNN Saturday that he wants answers from top DNC officials on how they are responding to these revelations, which have surfaced days before the Democratic convention.
“I was obviously shocked to see my name in the middle of all of this because I’m just an innocent bystander,” he said.
“I’m curious to see what’s happening at the highest levels of the DNC right now,” he added. “I don’t know, but I’m sure it’s a fire drill. The timing is not good.”
Wasserman Schultz attacks Weaver
Wasserman Shultz also called Weaver a “damn liar” in May after he criticized the Nevada Democratic Party following protests among Sanders supporters who said Clinton’s backers had subverted party rules. They shouted down pro-Clinton speakers and sent threatening messages to state party Chairwoman Roberta Lange after posting her phone number and address on social media.
“The state party there has a lot of problems. They’ve run things very poorly. It has been done very undemocratically,” Weaver said on CNN in May. “And there seems to be an unwillingness on the part of the Nevada Democratic Party to bring in all of the new people that Bernie Sanders has brought into the process.”
The DNC chair responded in an email: “Damn liar. Particularly scummy that he barely acknowledges the violent and threatening behavior that occurred.”
And in an email quoting Weaver as saying, “I think we should go to the convention,” Wasserman Shultz wrote: “He is an ASS.”
Leaked e-mails of DNC show plans to destroy Bernie Sanders. Mock his heritage and much more. On-line from Wikileakes, really vicious. RIGGED
What if the DNC Russian “hack” was really a leak after all? A new report raises questions media and Democrats would rather ignore
A group of intelligence pros and forensic investigators tell The Nation there was no hack— the media ignores it
Last week the respected left-liberal magazine The Nation published an explosive article that details in great depth the findings of a new report — authored in large part by former U.S. intelligence officers — which claims to present forensic evidence that the Democratic National Committee was not hacked by the Russians in July 2016. Instead, the report alleges, the DNC suffered an insider leak, conducted in the Eastern time zone of the United States by someone with physical access to a DNC computer.
This report also claims there is no apparent evidence that the hacker known as Guccifer 2.0 — supposedly based in Romania — hacked the DNC on behalf of the Russian government. There is also no evidence, the report’s authors say, that Guccifer handed documents over to WikiLeaks. Instead, the report says that the evidence and timeline of events suggests that Guccifer may have been conjured up in an attempt to deflect from the embarrassing information about Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign that was released just before the Democratic National Convention. The investigators found that some of the “Guccifer” files had been deliberately altered by copying and pasting the text into a “Russianified” word-processing document with Russian-language settings.
If all this is true, these findings would constitute a massive embarrassment for not only the DNC itself but the media, which has breathlessly pushed the Russian hacking narrative for an entire year, almost without question but with little solid evidence to back it up.
You could easily be forgiven for not having heard about this latest development — because, perhaps to avoid potential embarrassment, the media has completely ignored it. Instead, to this point only a few right-wing sites have seen fit to publish follow-ups.
