FBI Confidential Informant in Obama-era Russian Nuclear Bribery OK’d to Testify Before Congress by DOJ
NOW IT GETS INTERESTING, THINK THERE ARE SOME FOLKS SQUIRMING IN THEIR SEATS RIGHT NOW?
It has been a long time in coming, the FBI informant with knowledge of Russian corruption and bribery in the Uranium One deal during the Obama administration has been given the okay to testify to Congress. According to Victoria Toensing, the attorney for the FBI informant, “the FBI has informed me that they are releasing my client from his [nondisclosure agreement] so that he can testify to Congress about his work uncovering the Russian nuclear bribery case and the efforts he witnessed by Moscow to gain influence with the Clinton’s in hopes of winning favorable uranium decisions from the Obama administration.” As reported at The Daily Caller, the Republican chairmen of two House committees announced Tuesday they’re launching a probe into the Uranium One deal and the Obama-era DOJ’s investigation of the deal.
DOJ allows FBI informant to testify to Congress
The Justice Department on Wednesday night released a former FBI informant from a confidentiality agreement, allowing him to testify before Congress about what he witnessed undercover about the Russian nuclear industry’s efforts to win favorable decisions during the Obama administration.
Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores confirmed to The Hill a deal had been reached clearing the informant to talk to Congress for the first time, nearly eight years after he first went undercover for the FBI.
“As of tonight, the Department of Justice has authorized the informant to disclose to the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, as well as one member of each of their staffs, any information or documents he has concerning alleged corruption or bribery involving transactions in the uranium market, including but not limited to anything related to Vadim Mikerin, Rosatom, Tenex, Uranium One, or the Clinton Foundation,” she said.
The man’s lawyer, Victoria Toensing, told The Hill on Wednesday night that the FBI sent her a formal letter saying it no longer had any reason to ask the informant to keep his work confidential, clearing the way for him to potentially testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the House Intelligence Committee and the House Oversight and Reform Committee.
The committees are keen to learn what the informant knows about any Russian efforts to curry favor with Bill and Hillary Clinton, to win Obama administration approval for Moscow’s purchase of large uranium assets in the United States or to secure billions in new uranium sales contracts with American utilities.
Posted October 26, 2017 by Scared Monkeys
Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, collusion, Congress, Conspiracy, Corruption, Cover-Up, Democratic National Convention, Democrats, Ethics, FBI, FBI Director James Comey, Hillary Clinton, Liberals, Main, Progressives, Quid Pro Quo, Robert Mueller - Special Counsel, You Tube - VIDEO | no comments
10/24/17: Sean Hannity with John Soloman, Sara Carter & Atty. Victoria Toensing Discuss The Clinton-Obama-Uranium One Scandal … Mueller, Obama, They all Knew …
THIS IS A REAL BOMBSHELL TONIGHT!!!
WOW … The truth comes out that they FBI knew in 2009 and 2010 before the Uranium One dean went thru about the Russian bribery. It was reported last night by John Solomon of The Hill that then FBI Director Robert Mueller and President Barack Obama and other officials were briefed on this investigation in real time. The investigaton was the Russian bribery. They knew, they all knew and they signed the deal anyhow. The briefing made it into President Obama’s daily briefing papers. UNREAL.
Robert Mueller, Rod Rosenstein, AG Eric Holder and President Obama all knew about this Russian bribery case and they all approved of the Uranium One deal. All this will they point the finger at Donald Trump and his so-called Russian collusion. Oh yeah, no Watergate cover up here., move on …
It Looks Like Obama Did Spy on Donald Trump … Just as Trump Said They Did, But Just How Much Did Obama Weaponize the Intel Agencies Against His Enemies?
IT WOULD APPEAR THAT DONALD TRUMP WAS CORRECT, TRUMP WAS WIRE-TAPPED …
Award winning reporter Sharyl Attkisson is not surprised by news seemingly confirming President Trump’s allegation that the Obama administration spied on him and his campaign staff. Why, because that’s exactly what Obama did to her. And so the plot thickens. Remember when Donald Trump claimed that the Obama administration “wire tapped” hum? Remember when the Democrat liberal lap dog media came to the defense of Obama and tried to discount the stories of the so called spying on Trump Towers? Well, it now appears that Barack Obama did spy on Donald Trump. After so many media outlets bashing Trump for his accusations of being wire tapped, now the MSM is reporting the FBI did indeed “wiretap” the former head of Trump’s campaign, Paul Manafort, both before and after Trump was elected. That would also mean, if Trump officials, or Donald Trump himself communicated with Manafort during the wiretaps, they would have been recorded, too. Imagine that? This is what happens when you have a MSM in bed with a political party who at all cost looks to conceal the truth and allows of regime to go rogue and flaunt the U.S. Constitution at ever turn, just because they like and agree with a liberal president’s agenda.
Hannity: Trump has been proven right about wiretapping
Many in the media are diving deeply into minutiae in order to discredit any notion that President Trump might have been onto something in March when he fired off a series of tweets claiming President Obama had “tapped” “wires” in Trump Tower just before the election.
According to media reports this week, the FBI did indeed “wiretap” the former head of Trump’s campaign, Paul Manafort, both before and after Trump was elected. If Trump officials — or Trump himself — communicated with Manafort during the wiretaps, they would have been recorded, too.
But we’re missing the bigger story.
If these reports are accurate, it means U.S. intelligence agencies secretly surveilled at least a half dozen Trump associates. And those are just the ones we know about.
Besides Manafort, the officials include former Trump advisers Carter Page and Michael Flynn. Last week, we discovered multiple Trump “transition officials” were “incidentally” captured during government surveillance of a foreign official. We know this because former Obama adviser Susan Rice reportedly admitted “unmasking,” or asking to know the identities of, the officials. Spying on U.S. citizens is considered so sensitive, their names are supposed to be hidden or “masked,” even inside the government, to protect their privacy.
In May, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates acknowledged they, too, reviewed communications of political figures, secretly collected under President Obama.
But just how much did Obama weaponize the Intel agencies against his enemies? Move over Richard Nixon, we have a true corrupt president and his name is Barrack Hussein “Millhous” Obama. Does anyone care that a president used Intel agencies to go after his enemies? The Soviet Union and East Germany would be so proud of your actions. Who sees the irony with the LEFT and their endless witch hunt of Trump and the connection with Russian hacking of the 2016 elections, when it was in fact the Obama administration who hacked and spied of U.S. citizens. Sorry, but after the Obama administration weaponized the IRS to attack Conservative Tea Party groups following the 2010 midterm elections, they get no pass or benefit of the doubt on this.
It’s difficult not to see patterns in the government’s behavior, unless you’re wearing blinders.
- The intelligence community secretly expanded its authority in 2011 so it can monitor innocent U.S. citizens like you and me for doing nothing more than mentioning a target’s name a single time.
- In January 2016, a top secret inspector general report found the NSA violated the very laws designed to prevent abuse.
- In 2016, Obama officials searched through intelligence on U.S. citizens a record 30,000 times, up from 9,500 in 2013.
- Two weeks before the election, at a secret hearing before the FISA court overseeing government surveillance, NSA officials confessed they’d violated privacy safeguards “with much greater frequency” than they’d admitted. The judge accused them of “institutional lack of candor” and said, “this is a very serious Fourth Amendment issue.”
Much Bigger Than Watergate! Trump Was Right And Limbaugh Knew It: Obama Wiretapped Trump
Posted September 21, 2017 by Scared Monkeys
Barack Obama, Chicago-Style Politics, CIA, collusion, Conspiracy, Corruption, Cover-Up, Ethics, FBI, Hacked/Hacking, Imperial President, Law Breaker in Chief, Misleader, NSA, Saul Alinsky, Smear Campaign, The Lying King, Transparency, WTF, You Tube - VIDEO | 3 comments
Profiling Project, Independent Group Releases Report on Seth Rich Murder Investigation … Murder was More Likely Committed by a Hired Killer.
WAS IT A BOTCHED ROBBERY OR A HIRED KILLER?
The death of DNC worker Seth Rich continues to be an unsolved crime. Rich was murdered in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of D.C. 11 months ago on Sunday July 10, 2016, at approximately 4:19 AM. The DC police are calling a random robbery gone terribly wrong. However, a group of George Washington University graduate students calling themselves the Profiling Project have released a report on their own investigation into Seth Rich’s murder and have come up with quite a different conclusion. According to Profiling Project. They published their findings on Tuesday in an 83-page report that was also reported by Newsweek, hardly a right-wing publication. Te report says, the “death was more likely committed by a hired killer or serial murderer,” and that the killer is likely still at large. So what to make of this? Newsweek and other media outlets previously have gone out of their way to debunk the Wikileaks-Rich connection. Now they are publishing a story like this?
Read the full Project Profile report HERE.
DNC worker Seth Rich was murdered in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of D.C. 11 months ago and his killer is still on the loose.
Now, a group of George Washington University graduate students calling themselves the Profiling Project are releasing a report on their own investigation into Rich’s murder.
D.C. Police tell the 7 ON YOUR SIDE I-Team that Seth Rich’s murder is still being investigated as a botched robbery.
The Profiling Project doesn’t buy it. A report just issued by the Profiling Project says the murder was more likely committed by a hired killer.
Kevin Doherty, the Chief Investigator of Profiling Project says, “It’s a possibility. A proficient killer is what we think, the fact that the killer has gotten away with it for this period of time and that it appears to be a very sanitized crime scene certainly shows some level of proficiency in killing.”
With all that entails with the back story of Seth Rich, one would think that this was one investigation that law enforcement, Democrats and the MSM would want to find out the truth as to what happened. Instead, it is just the opposite. Maybe if it was a conspiracy between the Russians and Trump they would put an independence counsel on the case.
How is Robert Mueller Allowed to Be Independent Special Counsel When Special Counsel Statute Specifically Prohibits It Because of Conflict of Interest (VIDEO)
ISN’T THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL, SUPPOSED TO BE INDEPENDENT?
What would the LEFT be saying today if the individual picked to be the Independent counsel investigating the Russian hacking and any so-called involvement of Donald Trump and obstruction of justice was a friend and mentor of Trump? This is a legitimate question. According to the special counsel statute, it specifically prohibits individuals from serving if he/she has “a personal relationship with any person substantially involved in the investigation or prosecution.” The language is mandatory as it states “shall” disqualify himself. It does not say, might, kinda or sort of. Shall means shall. Gregg Jarrett of Fox News is 100% correct in that Robert Mueller has no business being the independent counsel. Mueller has a complete conflict of interest. The two men and former colleagues have long been friends, allies and partners. One has to wonder how Mueller was selected in the first place. Unless the fix is in.
28 CFR Section 45.2 provides in part:
Disqualification arising from personal or political relationship.
(a) Unless authorized under paragraph (b) of this section, no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with:
(1) Any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution; or
(2) Any person or organization which he knows has a specific and substantial interest that would be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution …
(c) For the purposes of this section:
(2) Personal relationship means a close and substantial connection of the type normally viewed as likely to induce partiality. … Whether relationships (including friendships) of an employee to other persons (outside his or her family) or organizations are “personal” must be judged on an individual basis with due regard given to the subjective opinion of the employee.
It does not matter whether Robert Mueller is an honorable man or a Boy Scout. Provisions like this are put in to maintain that there is no appearance of impropriety. It takes the subjectivity out of such an investigation. Honestly, who thinks some one can be objective to the man that fired his friend? If Robert Mueller was truly a man of honor as so many claim, he would understand and admit he is woefully conflicted and recuse himself. The canons of ethics and the law are greater than any one person and the blood lust to destroy them. Or are they?
The Washington Post is reporting that Robert Mueller is now investigating President Trump for obstruction of justice, examining not only the president’s alleged statement to James Comey in their February meeting, but also the firing of the FBI Director.
If true, this development makes the argument even more compelling that Mueller cannot serve as special counsel. He has an egregious conflict of interest.
The special counsel statute specifically prohibits Mueller from serving if he has “a personal relationship with any person substantially involved in the investigation or prosecution.” The language is mandatory. He “shall” disqualify himself. Comey is substantially involved in the case. Indeed, he is the central witness.
The two men and former colleagues have long been friends, allies and partners. Agents have quipped that they were joined at the hip while at the Department of Justice and the FBI. They have a mentor-protégé relationship. The likelihood of prejudice and favoritism is glaring and severe.
So, it is incomprehensible that the man who is a close friend of the star witness against the president… will now determine whether the president committed a prosecutable crime in his dealings with Mueller’s good friend. Mueller cannot possibly be fair in judging the credibility of his friend versus the man who fired him.
Is the special counsel now motivated to retaliate against the president for ending Comey’s career at the FBI? Will he be tempted to conjure criminality where none actually exist?
Even worse, are Mueller and Comey now “colluding” by acting as co-special prosecutors to bring down the president? By meeting in advance of the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, did they plan Comey’s testimony to depict Trump in the most incriminating light? These are legitimate questions that invite serious concerns.
UPDATE I: USA Today – Robert Mueller should recuse himself from Russia investigation: William G. Otis is an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center, a former federal prosecutor, and former special counsel for President George H.W. Bush.
Former FBI director is too close to his successor, James Comey, to be impartial.
Robert Mueller is a man of integrity with a long record of public service. In the abstract, he would be the right selection as special counsel in the Russia investigation. Under the specific circumstances of this case, however, with his longtime friend James Comey at the center of the inquiry, Mueller’s the wrong choice. The public cannot be as sure as it needs to be of his objectivity.
This is true for reasons similar to those that prompted Attorney General Jeff Sessions to recuse himself from the same investigation. Sessions testified Tuesday that he felt he had no proper choice because he had a potential political conflict of interest, having been a campaign adviser to President Trump. Mueller should likewise step away because he has a potential personal conflict of interest, having been a longtime friend of a crucial witness, Comey, and Comey’s key ally at the most important moment of his career.
Mueller and fired FBI Director James Comey are best buds. Family vacations, picnics, hours spent at the office, and a few cocktails after work. As an impartial arbiter Mueller will be tasked to determine whom he believes, but Muelller is predisposed to believe his friend Comey. Wouldn’t you? The elements of obstruction of justice can be highly interpretive, so expect some legal exposure for our president.
Comey stated that he “leaked” the Trump meeting memo to The New York Times to stimulate the appointment of a special counsel. That admission is enlightening. As the Director of the FBI, Mr. Comey had the authority, stature and responsibility to deal with a violation of law. What he appeared to lack is courage or conviction.
The fact that Comey leaked the memo places him in some legal jeopardy. He could be charged with two federal violations. Should we expect to place Mueller into the position to investigate his dear friend? Even if Mueller believes himself capable of being impartial, our hearts will usually override our minds.
Why Mueller should step down as special counsel or recuse himself from any aspect of the investigation involving Comey: