In 2009, FBI found
that Moscow’s officials in contact with U.S. uranium-involved companies were violating
the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, as being involved in money laundering,
extortion and bribery. The officials helped Russian president Vladimir Putin, allegedly
world’s richest man, in his nuclear ambitions inside the U.S. However, the
Department of Justice did not bring charges, and let the Obama administration make critical decisions in the uranium business, which benefited Putin’s Russia
(Forbes,
13 December 2018). In October 2010, the State Department and government
investment agencies unanimously approved a partial sale of Canadian mining
company Uranium One (UO) to the Russian nuclear giant Rosatom, giving Moscow
control of more than 20 % of America’s uranium supply. In addition, Russia also
attained UO’s subsidiaries – profitable uranium mines in Kazakhstan, which is the
largest producer of commercial uranium in the world, and the deal enabled Russia
to obtain control over the production in this country. Furthermore, in 2011 the
Obama administration approved a Rosatom subsidiary to sell commercial uranium
to U.S. nuclear power plants. Finally, in 2013 Russia obtained 100 % control in
UO – luckily one year before the sanctions on Russia were imposed after the
Crimea annexation.
The FBI agents found
that Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. to
benefit former president Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation; this happened
when Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State and, furthermore, when she served
on government bodies that made decisions favorable for Moscow. The
investigation of Russian uranium business in the US continued for many years in
low profile, and the public and Congress were long left in the dark. Only in
2015, media published that donations to the Clinton Foundation were behind the
Obama Administration’s controversial 2010 deal that gave Moscow control over a great
part of American uranium interests. The New York Times (23
April 2015) described how Bill Clinton collected hundreds of thousands of
dollars from lectures in Russia and how Clinton Foundation collected many millions
in donations from parties interested in the deal, while Hillary Clinton
presided on the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment. Bribery and corruption of
the Clintons was one aspect of the tragic deal, Obama’s silliness was the other
– Obama probably still aimed at unilaterally improving the relations with Russia,
which he called „resetting the relations“.
The slow investigation
ended without fanfare in the court case against Vadim Mikerin, the Russian
official overseeing Putin’s nuclear expansion in the U.S. There was no mention
of contacts between Russian nuclear officials and Clintons or of millions
dollars from Russia’s nuclear industry transmitted to an American entity providing
assistance to Bill Clinton’s foundation. The serious national security breach
was uncovered in low profile; Mikerin was sentenced to four years in prison on 15
December 2015.
Presidential candidate
Trump took up this issue during his 2016 campaign, but there were too many
agencies involved in the deal recommendation, and there were too many FBI and State
Department officials loyal to Hillary, to extract anything usable against her.
On the other hand, many officials who reluctantly investigated Russian links to
Hillary, including former FBI directors Robert Mueller and James Comey, later eagerly
cooperated with Democrats against elected president Trump, paradoxically again
in investigating Russian links, but this time non-existing links to Trump.
The Democrats did not
manage to indict Trump on a Russian link – a crime in fact committed by Hillary
Clinton, the Democrat president candidate in the 2016 election. Toward the next
election, Democrats started to organize impeachment of Trump; in 2017 they
failed but in 2019 they succeeded. This time it should be not a Russian but a
Ukrainian link: Trump allegedly abused power when he asked the Ukrainian
president to investigate Joe Biden’s son Hunter, and then he allegedly committed
obstruction when he did not cooperate in investigating said alleged abuse.
Who was Hunter? Joe
Biden’s son Hunter applied for a position in U.S. Navy Reserve in 2013, he was
accepted, but a month later he was discharged for testing positive for cocaine (here).
The same year, he founded, together with a Chinese businessman, an investment
fund BHR Partners, which for years cooperated closely with the Chinese
Communist Government (here). In another project, Hunter helped Chinese businessmen Ye and Ho negotiate a
deal in Louisiana. Ho was eventually arrested and jailed in the U.S. for
bribery (here), and Ye, who had given Hunter a 2.8 carat diamond (here), was detained for
corruption in China. From 2014 to 2019, Hunter served on the board of Burisma
Holdings (here), a major Ukrainian natural gas producer owned by Ukrainian oligarch Mykola
Zlochevsky, investigated for money laundering. Hunter’s father Joe Biden, while
serving as vice president, encouraged the Ukraine government to fire the country's
top prosecutor Viktor Shokin, who investigated Burisma; Biden in fact threatened to withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid to Ukraine unless Shokin was fired (here). Many including Rudy
Giuliani claimed that vice president Biden had sought the dismissal of Shokin
in order to protect his son and Burisma Holdings. Joe Biden played a major role
in U.S. policy towards Ukraine, and the anti-corruption advocates in Ukraine and
even officials in Obama administration were concerned that Hunter Biden's presence
on the Burisma board represented a conflict of interest.
Again, the involvement
of Hunter, suffering from alcohol and drugs problems, in Ukrainian and Chinese
business, clearly represented a conflict of interest if not a breach of
security, particularly when the business comprised also strategic fields, and
when Hunter’s father Joe was a U.S. vice president – notwithstanding the fact
that Joe may become a U.S. president. However, the Democrat administration again
turns their own problems against their enemy; Trump’s legitimate concerns about
the Bidens’ contacts with Ukrainian and Chinese criminals became the reason for
impeachment of Trump.
Democratic presidential
candidates of both 2016 and 2020 were involved in criminal activities. However,
instead of investigating Hillary Clinton’s and Joe Biden’s activities, evidently
dangerous for national security, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump
has been attacked and defamed in both cases.
No comments:
Post a Comment