![](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/i.pinimg.com\/originals\/7e\/f1\/9f\/7ef19f4313142155e1a4ae3593eafd8f.png?resize=445%2C246&ssl=1\")
<\/p>\nGood day all. Since the news came out regarding the Obama Regime\u2019s apparent cover up of the massive levels of corruption in the sale of Uranium One to the Russians, Congress has been getting a might annoyed.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Now more news came out that the Department of Justice had a confidential informant working for them from the beginning, and he dumped huge amounts of evidence on the desk of the investigators. Since it\u2019s becoming apparent that the Clintons were involved in this \u201cdeal\u201d from the beginning, it\u2019s not at all surprising that the DoJ tried to bury the investigation. One of the details they neglected to tell congress about was the existence of the Confidential Informant.<\/p>\n
The CI was fully prepared to brief Congress on what he had done and who was involved. However, in the course of the investigation, the CI signed a Non Disclosure Agreement, or NDA. Normally, NDA\u2019s can\u2019t be used to stop someone who is called to testify in front of Congress or in a courtroom. However, the corruption of the DoJ under both Eric Holder and later Loretta Lynch was so extreme, the CI was threatened with arrest and prosecution if he went before Congress.<\/p>\n
When this news broke a few days ago, members of Congress were outraged. Now Senator Chuck Grassley is demanding that the gag order on the CI be lifted. Here are the details from Fox News<\/b><\/a>:<\/p>\n A top Senate Republican is calling for the Justice Department to lift an apparent \u201cgag order\u201d on an FBI informant who reportedly helped the U.S. uncover a corruption and bribery scheme by Russian nuclear officials but allegedly was \u201cthreatened\u201d by the Obama administration to stay quiet. <\/b><\/p>\n Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, is focusing on the informant amid scrutiny of the 2010 approval of a controversial uranium deal with a Russian company. He\u2019s raising questions about potential \u201cconflicts of interest\u201d for Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration, and especially wants to know whether the committee that approved the deal was aware of the FBI probe involving a subsidiary of the same Russian firm. <\/b><\/p>\n Considering that Eric Holder was on this committee, and that he was the Attorney General, and would have been briefed, I think it\u2019s safe to say both he and Felonia von Pantsuit, then Secretary of State, were fully aware of the criminal activities. Holder on the investigative side, and Felonia as a co-conspirator.<\/p>\n On Thursday, President Trump called the issue \u201cyour real Russia story\u201d and said \u201cit\u2019s a disgrace\u201d that the \u201cfake news won\u2019t cover\u201d it.<\/b><\/p>\n President Trump is referring to the blackout of coverage by the Mostly Stupid Media. With the exception of Fox News, very few news organizations have covered this story. The reason for this is simple. They are protecting the Clintons and Obama.<\/p>\n The deal in question, which was previously reported, involved the 2010 approval of a partial sale of Canadian mining company Uranium One to Russia\u2019s Rosatom nuclear company. The U.S. was involved because the sale gave the Russians control of part of the uranium supply in the U.S.<\/b><\/p>\n Killing this deal should have been a no brainer. Giving a hostile government a major chunk of our Uranium production? That smells to high heaven.<\/p>\n Grassley wrote in letters last week to federal agencies that he\u2019s not \u201cconvinced\u201d by previous \u201cassurances\u201d that there were no unresolved national security concerns, and revealed Thursday that he wants to hear from the FBI informant in the Russia corruption probe.<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cWitnesses who want to talk to Congress should not be gagged and threatened with prosecution for talking. If that has happened, senior DOJ leadership needs to fix it and release the witness from the gag order,\u201d Grassley said in a statement.<\/strong><\/p>\n From what I\u2019ve read on sites such as Powerline Blog<\/a>, that NDA and the threats by the Obama InJustice Department towards the CI were legally questionable. According to Paul Mirengoff:<\/p>\n \u201cI haven\u2019t researched the issue, nor have I seen the non-disclosure agreement. However, it seems to me that, as a general matter, a non-disclosure agreement that bars someone from testifying before Congress on a matter of national security concern is contrary to public policy and thus not enforceable. In addition, constitutional issues may be raised when the executive branch tries, by invoking an employment contract, to prevent somebody from giving information to the legislative branch.\u201d <\/b><\/p>\n This begs the question, what was the Obama Regime up to? We know now that Barack Obama was the first, and hopefully only, Anti-American president in United States history. His track record of aiding those who are hostile to the United States, and simultaneously working to wreck long held alliances and international friendships is well documented. Actively covering up crimes like this makes Nixon\u2019s Watergate scandal pale in comparison.<\/p>\n Victoria Toensing, a lawyer for the former FBI informant, told Fox News\u2019 \u201cAmerica\u2019s Newsroom\u201d that her client has \u201cspecific information about contributions and bribes to various entities and people in the United States.\u201d <\/b><\/p>\n I wonder, would two of those people be known as Felonia von Pantsuit and Bubba Horndog, aka Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton?<\/p>\n She said she could not go further because her client has not been released from a nondisclosure agreement but suggested the gag order could be lifted soon. Toensing also claimed that her client was \u201cthreatened by the Loretta Lynch Justice Department\u201d when he pursued a civil action in which he reportedly sought to disclose some information about the case. <\/b><\/p>\n Loretta Lynch was not involved in the original investigation as far as I know. However, if she issued this threat against the Informant, she had to have done so on orders from higher up. The only ones further up the food chain that she would pay attention to would have been Valarie Jarrett and Barack Obama.<\/p>\n In a letter sent Wednesday to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Grassley said such an NDA would \u201cappear to improperly prevent the individual from making critical, good faith disclosures to Congress of potential wrongdoing.\u201d<\/b><\/p>\n He asked for a copy of the NDA by Nov. 1 and requested that, should one exist, \u201cyou release him from it and pledge not to engage in any form of retaliation against him for good faith communications with Congress.\u201d <\/b><\/p>\n I suspect that Jeff Sessions may have been caught off guard by this mess. As we\u2019ve seen, the level of corruption and the burying of evidence by the Obama Regime rivals that of your typical Third World dictator. I fully expect Attorney General Sessions to release the informant in fairly short order.<\/p>\n Sessions separately sent a letter to Toensing asking to set up an interview with the former informant. Grassley wrote, \u201cIt appears that your client possesses unique information about the Uranium One\/Rosatom transaction and how the Justice Department handled the criminal investigation into the Russian criminal conspiracy.\u201d <\/b><\/p>\n Again, I suspect that AG Sessions will spend a couple of hours with the informant and Ms. Toensing, and then sign a full release letter so that the person may publicly speak as to what he knows. As to what that may be?<\/p>\n It had been previously reported that figures tied to the transaction gave donations to Bill Clinton and his family foundation, but Grassley wrote that he has learned additional details about a $500,000 fee the former president got from a Russian investment bank for a June 2010 speech. He wrote that the bank\u2019s senior officers include former Russian intelligence personnel, and sources had described the company as an \u201cextension\u201d of the Russian government. <\/b><\/p>\n \u201cNotably, in the same month as the Clinton speech, Uranium One and Rosatom notified CFIUS of the Russian government\u2019s intent to acquire 20 percent of the United States\u2019 uranium assets. The next month, in July 2010, Renaissance Bank reportedly assigned Uranium One a \u2018buy\u2019 rating, a move that would principally benefit its Russian investors,\u201d Grassley wrote. \u201cThe donations raise concerns about potential conflicts of interest for Secretary Clinton and the Obama administration.\u201d <\/b><\/p>\n Conflict of Interest? Gee, whatever gave you that idea? The story regarding the Clinton Crime Family\u2019s corruption first came out in 2015 when Peter Schweizer published a very well researched book, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich<\/a>. At the time, the Clintons went into their typical full denial mode and attacked Schweizer.<\/p>\n When details of the Uranium One deal first emerged in 2015, Clinton\u2019s campaign downplayed the allegations.<\/b><\/p>\n “No one has produced a shred of evidence that Hillary Clinton ever took action as Secretary of State in order to support the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation,” a spokesman said at the time. “To suggest the State Department, under then-Secretary Clinton, exerted undue influence in the U.S. government’s review of the sale of Uranium One is utterly baseless.\u201d<\/b><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/angry.net\/blog2\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/08\/double-facepalm.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n