According to a United Press International (UPI) report of statements by FBI Director James Comey, the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s State Department problems may be nearing a conclusion. Some of Clinton’s top aides and advisers were interviewed in the past week, and the FBI indicated it would next interview Clinton herself, a sign the investigation could be nearing an end and that a recommendation to prosecute or drop the case may be forthcoming.
FBI Director Comey went to great lengths to say that the FBI actions were a formal investigation and not simply a “security inquiry” as Hillary Clinton herself had dubbed it. When asked directly, he again noted he regarded the FBI’s actions as a formal investigation, contrary to Clinton’s regular characterization of the issue as a “security inquiry.” Several commentators have suggested that this manner of characterizing the investigation could indicate that the investigation may involve more than the issue of security classification of email found on the infamous “private” server used by Clinton while Secretary of State.
The investigation could include inquiry into other matters found amongst the email, including conflict of interest between the Clinton Foundation’s international fundraising and Secretary Clinton’s duties as Secretary. It seems fairly clear that Secretary Clinton did not comply with a pre-appointment written pledge to the Obama administration regarding potential fundraising conflicts. In particular, interest is being shown in the interplay between payments made with sources involving Russian uranium interests and US State Department approvals of a license needed to collect, store and process foreign uranium. On top of these possible fundraising irregularities is the direct payment to Bill Clinton of $500,000.00 from a Russian bank with strong Kremlin ties and connection to the Russians involved in the uranium deal. The Clinton Foundation was linked to the Russian atomic energy agency’s 2013 acquisition of a company that controls one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the U.S., The New York Times reported in April 2016. http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2015/04/23/clintons-tied-to-russian-uranium-control.html
According to a BusinessInsider.com report the basic facts were: This story is about the sale of a controlling stake in a Canadian company called Uranium One to Rosatom, the Russian atomic energy agency. Because Uranium One controlled uranium mines in the United States, the sale had to be approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment In the United States (CFIUS), part of the executive branch. A number of investors in Uranium One gave donations to the Clinton Foundation during the time the sale was being considered (between 2008 and 2010), in part through the participation of Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining magnate who was a large donor to the Foundation and who had controlled a company that eventually bought Uranium One (according to the Times, Giustra sold his interest in the company in 2007, before the Rosatom deal). The reason this is a story is the potential that there was some quid pro quo involved: that in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation and/or the speech Bill Clinton gave in Russia, Hillary Clinton used her position as Secretary of State to make approval of this sale happen. It need not be explicit, but at the very least there has to be a connection between donations and official action that Clinton took. The Clinton emails could shed light on that.
The New York Times published several lengthy analyses of Clinton’s involvement (perhaps) in the Russian uranium deal and possible glitches in Clinton promises and conditions on fundraising while she was Secretary of State. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html [Also see links below]
The unanswered question is whether the tens of thousands of emails on the private Clinton server which the FBI has access to, but which have not been released publicly provide any further information that would cause concern for FBI investigators who have access to those emails. Another highly important question is whether the admitted attempts to delete Clinton’s “private” emails” were in fact attempts to cover up evidence of the financial irregularities that have now come to light from other sources.
While FBI Director Comey has gone to great lengths to explain his intentions and duty is to provide a thorough investigation and not one directly tied to the exigencies of the ongoing presidential campaign, it seems a foregone conclusion that if there were any potential for any indictments forthcoming, that the interests of the nation would require disclosure of such a possibility prior to the nominating convention and the election. “I don’t tether to any particular external deadline,” Comey told reporters, “so I do feel the pressure to do it well and promptly, but as between the two, I always choose ‘well.'” Again, Comey, AG Lynch and all of their staffs involved in the investigation have been silent into exactly what the investigation is looking for.
Breitbart Report Speculating on What Clinton’s Email may Disclose Journalist and author Carl Bernstein stated that there would be “very damaging” leaks from the investigation into Democratic presidential candidate former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email, and described her conduct as “what she did was an act of recklessness, and entitlement, that there’s no excuse for.”
New York Times report “Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal”
New York Times report “Donations to the Clinton Foundation, and a Russian Uranium Takeover”