For previous discussion regarding UraniumOne, see the origin of the deal here, the corruption of the deal here, and the alleged investigation here.

Milkerin and his associates were arrested and had entered plea deals in less than a year in a complicated case.  To make matters worse, Vadim Milkerin was released from custody in April 2018 and immediately deported back to Russia.

Based upon the most recent information, the CS-1 was revealed to be William Campbell.  He did give testimony, behind closed doors, to Congress which was obtained by investigative reporter Sara Carter.  According to her reports, Campbell gave the following testimony per Carter:

He also contends in his testimony, and written briefs, to the FBI that Russia attempted to hide its ongoing aid to help sustain Iran’s nuclear industry, at the time the Obama administration approved the sale of 20 percent of U.S. uranium mining rights to Russia…Senior members of the FBI, Department of Treasury, Department of Energy and Department of Justice were also briefed on Campbell’s information and were apprised of the various facets pertaining to Russia’s acquisition of the Canadian company. In fact, Campbell had been told by his FBI handlers that his work had made it at least twice into President Obama’s classified presidential daily briefings…The Russians expressed a sense of urgency to secure new U.S. uranium business because they knew that the two-decades-old “Megatons to Megawatts” program would cease in 2013,” Campbell said. “Then Russia would no longer be guaranteed a market to sell recycled nuclear warhead materials as peaceful reactor fuel in the United States. I gathered evidence for the FBI by moving closer and closer to the Russians’ key nuclear industry players, including those inside the United States and high-ranking Russian officials who would visit.

She further quotes Campbell directly:

I was speechless and angry in October 2010 when CFIUS approved the Uranium One sale to Rosatom. I was deeply worried that TLI continued to transport sensitive uranium despite the fact that it had been compromised by the bribery scheme.  I expressed these concerns repeatedly to my FBI handlers. The response I got was that ‘politics’ was somehow involved. I remember one response I got from an agent when I asked how it was possible CFIUS would approve the Uranium One sale when the FBI could prove Rosatom was engaged in criminal conduct. His answer: ‘Ask your politics.’

In a letter to the investigators, the DOJ stated they decided against using any information that Campbell had provided because they considered him too unreliable given inconsistencies in his story.  The FBI and DOJ claim they became aware of the inconsistencies after reviewing documents that did not square with what Campbell had been telling them.  News reports stated that the Uranium One deal and the Rosatom bribery case involved different business units, executives, and allegations.

John Solomon analyzed over 5,000 records related to the case and determined that the Uranium One deal came up several times with Campbell while he was CS-1.  Campbell was asked by Rod Fisk, an American contractor working with Rosatom, if he could do anything to overcome opposition to the deal in an email dated October 6, 2010.  This was in response to a negative article that the Washington Times published the previous day about the deal.  Rod Fisk passed away in 2011.

Regarding those NRC reassurances, some of the uranium that came from Uranium One mines, now owned by Rosatom, did, in fact, leave the United States.  As mentioned earlier, it was sent to Canada for processing then returned to the US for further processing.  That is not the complete truth.  NRC memos showed that some of the processed uranium in Canada was shipped to customers in Europe and Japan.  Uranium One itself has shown that 25% of the uranium exported to Canada was later transported to European and Asian customers through what is known in the industry as a “book transfer.”

Another disturbing aspect of this case involving Campbell is that the FBI and DOJ had decided that his testimony was so unreliable that they were forced into relying on the Section 371 charges rather than the more serious charges.  They also stated that they became concerned that Campbell was enriching himself through these transactions while being a confidential informant.  If this is so,

• why did they use him as a confidential source from 2009 to at least 2014 when the arrests occurred? 
• In January 2016, after Milkerin and others went to prison, the DOJ paid Campbell $51,000 for his services.  Is the FBI and DOJ in the habit of paying informants for what they claim is bogus information? 
• Do they keep them on the payroll for 6 years? 
• Do they allow their confidential sources to enrich themselves while providing this useless, bogus and unreliable information? 
• And why would you have him sign a non-disclosure agreement if the information provided was bogus or unreliable?

Instead, this appears to be a concentrated smear job to discredit Campbell.  Shortly after his identity became known, “anonymous sources” leaked stories to the press about Campbell’s alcoholism and reckless driving.  This was a naked attempt to discredit him before his testimony.  By suggesting what he had to say should be discounted because of charges of reckless driving and alcoholism is like saying Gary Ridgeway should not have been convicted of murder because his victims were prostitutes.

  In a letter to House committee leaders,  it specifically states that a DOJ official had noted that there was no connection between the Milkerin bribery case and the Uranium One deal.  The author of that letter was deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein.  

That letter did hint at the fact Campbell testified that there were contemplated attempts to influence the Clintons with uranium.  He said that Milkerin had paid a lobbying firm $3 million to influence US policy and the Clintons. Some of that was earmarked for “in kind support” to the Clinton Foundation. Campbell testified that the Rosatom officials were well-aware of the 2005 trip Bill Clinton and Frank Giustra paid to Kazakhstan.

Victoria Toensing claims that threats were made against Campbell by FBI and DOJ officials.  For example, Campbell sued the FBI for reimbursement of bribes he paid out of pocket and allegedly it was Rosenstein who contacted Toensing and told her to have Campbell drop the case or his “reputation and liberty could be at stake.”  Toensing also confirms the existence of a tape that allegedly involves Russians talking about making donations to the Clinton Foundation to curry favor.

Despite objections to the contrary, the Clinton Foundation did benefit.  In early June 2009 Rosatom sought majority ownership pending approval by the CFIUS and that they did not intend to take the country private.  Later that month, Bill makes that $500,000 speech in Moscow and less than 5 months later the deal is approved.  To further rebut the naysayers about these deals, Ian Telfer, a Canadian, was the CEO of Uranium One and made a $2.35 million donation which spooked the DNC in 2016.  Released emails hacked by Guccifer 2.0 show that staff were given talking points memos on how to respond to upcoming revelations that the donations were never reported by the Clinton Foundation.

Legal sleight of hand and rhetorical hair-splitting has allowed the government to intercept, store, and later use electronic communications of Americans without a warrant.  What was inconceivable to liberals and conservative libertarians has been, with few exceptions, codified by liberals and conservative libertarians.  Campaign finance laws have been skirted allowing foreign influence in policy-making at the highest reaches of the US government by the creation of a tax-exempt “philanthropic” organization.  A few outsized media voices drown out opposition and refuse to ask the questions that the so-called conspiracy theorists ask and when they do, the cadre of fact-checkers jump into action to dismiss any alternative out of hand that goes against the government line.  

Just examine their coverage of the Uranium One deal.  Clinton is excused from culpability because she was not involved in the decision; that was left to an assistant.  The Giustra donations to the Clinton Foundation occurred before there was a Uranium One ever mentioned so run along…nothing to see, although the pledged donations were for over ten years and other Uranium One executives donated through their own funds or the joint Foundation-Giustra effort in Canada.  The excuses just kept coming.  No- Rosatom did not obtain 20% of the American uranium when- YES- they did since the companies they acquired through Uranium One in the United States owned 20% of the known uranium reserves in the United States.  “Who cares?,” they then said, “we import most of our uranium anyway.”  While that is true for commercial use, domestic reserves are considered strategic for military use.  “So, who cares?  Rosatom cannot export it out of the United States anyway,” we were then told except we know that uranium from a Uranium One-owned mine was exported to Canada and that 25% of it was then shipped off to Japan and Europe.

At every juncture, the arguments in favor Clinton illustrate either she was the most obtuse laissez-faire Secretaries of State who would delegate her duties as a voting member of the CFIUS to a deputy, or she and her husband were up to their necks in some nefarious dealings here.  It becomes interesting in a uniquely Clinton way since she and her minions continue to characterize the results of the 2016 election outcome as the product of Russian favoritism for Trump.  In the aftermath of the Uranium One deal, the Russian press heralded the deal.  Whether Clinton was involved or not, the United States had just delivered 20% of US uranium reserves to the Russian government-run Rosatom.

Next: A look at the tenure of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.