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.