October 27, 2021

Loretta Lynch Needs to Investigate the Clintons

Riots in Baltimore

On April 27, 2015 Loretta Lynch was sworn as Attorney General by Vice President Joe Biden. On that same day rioters in Baltimore looted and burned businesses and set several police cars on fire over the death of Freddie Gray, African-American in police custody. Several police officers were injured. Attorney General Lynch condemned the “senseless acts of violence.” She said “I will bring the full resources of the Department of Justice to bear in protecting those under threat, investigating wrongdoing, and securing an end to the violence.”

The inept Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake stated unbelievably, “We also gave those who wish to destroy space to that as well.” Democratic Mayor Rawlings-Blake called the rioters “thugs”, but later retracted and apologized for calling the rioters that term. She said that in Baltimore there were no “thugs”.

The mayor of Baltimore did not deploy the police in time to prevent the riots and tied their hands as well. An official with law enforcement in Baltimore stated that Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake told the police to let rioters burn and loot. According to a report from FoxNews Neil Cavuto, she said “Let them loot, it’s only property.” This mayor should be fired for dereliction of duty and gross negligence. Even the president called the looters “thugs.”

Freddie Gray, who had an extensive criminal record, may have had a spinal condition from youth due to lead poisoning. Gray’s pre-existing condition may well have been a contributing factor in his subsequent injury and death. Gray was apparently received treatment as a youth from the Kennedy-Kreiger Institute, which specializes in such illness.

The Washington Post reported that the prisoner who was in the van with Freddie Gray stated that “He could hear Gray ‘banging against the walls’ of the police van and believed that Gray ‘was intentionally trying to injure himself.” The Washington Post obtained an application for a search warrant which contains this testimony.

The Baltimore Attorney General ended up indicting six police officers, in a decision widely criticized since it was thought to have been made in a very short time. Many lawyers believe that when these officers are taken to trial they would be difficult to convict.

Eric Holder’s corrupt tenure as Attorney General

Loretta Lynch replaced the corrupt Attorney General Eric Holder whose entire tenure was marked by his defiant, unprofessional, and arrogant behavior with Republicans in Congress. Eric Holder committed crimes by spying on Associated Press reporters and covering up his department Fast and Furious operation that gave arms to criminal cartels in Mexico. Holder refused to investigate and prosecute African-Americans who committed election fraud in presidential elections. He was the only attorney general in history who was declared in contempt of Congress for his refusal to turn in documents requested. Holder covered up the many crimes committed by the president of the United States and members of his administration. History will condemn Eric Holder as one of the worst attorney generals in the nation. Additionally, Attorney General Holder behavior and incendiary statements, as well as those of President Barack Obama, contributed to a worsening of race relations in the nation. The President who promised to unite the nation has been one of the most divisive in history.

The new attorney general

Loretta Lynch was confirmed by the Senate in a 56-43 vote on April 23, 2015. She can serve the American people by investigating former President Bill Clinton and Former First lady and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for their worldwide influence peddling and trading multimillion donations to their foundation for favors. Like any American citizen, the Clintons should be given the presumption of innocence. However, if crimes were committed, federal prosecutors need to indict Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton and if convicted, they must go to jail.

Attorney General Lynch should investigate what looks like Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton’s acceptance of bribes in exchange for favors. Many Americans suspect and former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney suspect that crimes may have been committed by the Clintons. If Attorney General Lynch does not investigate, she will be no different from the outgoing corrupt Attorney General Eric Holder that she is replacing. Unfortunately, it is extremely unlikely that Loretta Lynch will even investigate the Clintons.

The Justice Department under Barack Obama has always protected members of his administration Democratic politicians unless one of them severely criticized the president. Democratic Senator Bob Menendez from New Jersey denounced strongly the president for his erroneous policy with Cuba and Iran and later he was indicted. Senator Harry Reid helped Senator Menendez intercede on behalf of a Dominican doctor with the Center of Medicare Medicaid. Why is it that the Justice Department did not indict Senator Reid? How about Lois Lerner and other officials in the Internal Revenue Service? The president protects his friends and officials and throws the book at his enemies.

Ten Republicans voted for Loretta Lynch, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Numerous Republican senators who voted against her confirmation reflected their disapproval of Lynch’s support for executive orders issued by Obama in November 2014 that shielded millions of undocumented immigrants from the threat of deportation. Of course, President Obama violated one more time the Constitution and ignored its separation of powers clause which says that only Congress can legislate. Obama does not have the authority to unilaterally legislate laws that are the sole power of Congress. Obviously, all Republicans in the Senate should have voted against her confirmation.

Republican Senator Jeff Sessions criticized Lynch. He stated the following: “We do not have to confirm someone to the highest law enforcement position in America if that someone is publicly committed to denigrating Congress, violating law.” GOP presidential candidates Senator Marco Rubio and Senator Rand Paul voted against her confirmation. Senator Ted Cruz did not vote but has criticized Lynch. All Republican presidential candidates will be helped by the cloud of suspicion over possible bribes taken by Hillary Clinton and her husband. Polls already indicate that the majority of American people think that Hillary Clinton cannot be trusted.

Loretta Lynch was sworn as Attorney General by Vice President Joe Biden on April 27, 2015.

Scandals of the Clinton Foundation

Jo Becker and Mike McIntire wrote an article entitled “Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal” which was published in the New York Times on April 23, 2015. Becker and McIntire explained that the Russian newspaper Pravda in a January 2013 article praised President Vladimir V. Putin with the headline that stated “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.” The Pravda article pointed out how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had purchased a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Kazakhstan in central Asia to the United States. The transaction made the Russian atomic energy agency Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers. Russian dictator Putin, who is increasingly unfriendly to the United States and our allies, now controls much of the global uranium mines.

Becker and McIntire wrote that Canadian mining industry leaders, who had contributed millions to the Clinton Foundation, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One. One of these men is multimillionaire Frank Giustra, a mining financier, who donated $31.3 million to the foundation run by former President Bill Clinton.

The reporters pointed out that the sale made by the Canadian company gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Uranium is a strategic asset, with national security implications. The deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. One of the federal agencies was the State Department and Secretary Hillary Clinton approved the transaction. As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, as Canadian records indicate, millions of contributions were made to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Other people with ties to the Canadian company made donations as well. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, which was a violation of an agreement that Secretary of State Clinton had made with President Barack Obama. Under this agreement Hillary Clinton promised to publicly identify all donors.

The reporters explained that former President Bill Clinton, shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, was paid $500,000 for a Moscow speech paid by a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin. The records indicate that at the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to eliminate concerns about giving control of the company’s assets to the Russians. Those promises were broken.

Becker and McIntire indicated that the New York Times’s examination of the Uranium One transaction was based on dozens of interviews, as well as a review of public records and securities filings in Russia, Canada, and the United States. Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at the Hoover Institution and author of the coming book Clinton Cash, pointed out the connections between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation. Peter Schweizer provided a preview of the material in the book to the New York Times, which the reporters used to build upon their own investigation.

A Uranium One sign that points to a 35,000-acre ranch owned by John Christensen, near the town of Gillette, Wyoming. Uranium One has the mining rights to John Christensen’s property.

This deal, which was approved by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, has seriously endangered our national security. It has the appearance that Bill and Hillary Clinton have put “America for sale” to a potential enemy of the nation solely to enrich themselves. Russia has as a client state and an ally, Iran, which the Obama administration is trying to prevent its development of nuclear weapons. This raises the question as to whether the Obama administration was aware of the acquisition by for Russia such a large percentage of the uranium of our nation, which is a strategic asset which national security implications. If the White House was not aware of this deal, then the question is why not.

Frank Giustra, a multimillionaire mining financier, donated $31.3 million to the foundation run by former President Bill Clinton.


The reporters wrote that there are special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, which received so much foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets while Secretary of State Hillary Clinton presided over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors.

Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, said no one “has ever produced a shred of evidence supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as secretary of state to support the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation.” He stated that many United States agencies, as well as the Canadian government signed off on the deal. He added that “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.” However, this author believes that the explanation given by Brian Fallon is completely unsatisfactory.

Political campaigns in the United States are prohibited from accepting foreign donations. But foreigners may give to foundations in the United States. When Hillary Clinton declared that that she was running for president, the Clinton Foundation has announced changes to lessen concerns about potential conflicts of interest with such donations. The foundation stated that it would only accept donations from Western countries.

Russia’s annexation of Crimea and military invasion of Eastern Ukraine have created a new Cold War between Russia and the United States and its European allies. Allowing the dictator Vladimir Putin to acquire such a large portion of America’s uranium has seriously endangered our national security. The Russian dictator has used the oil and gas resources of his country to threaten Ukraine and our European allies and to project power around the world. Former U.S. Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul, who served under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, stated the following: “Should we be concerned? Absolutely. Do we want Putin to have a monopoly on this? Of course we don’t. We don’t want to be dependent on Putin for anything in this climate.” The ambassador stated that he was unaware of the Uranium One deal until asked about it.

The relationship between former president Bill Clinton and Canadian multimillionaire financier Frank Giustra

Kazakhstan, which is in central Asia, has many uranium mines. The Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra, with the help of Bill Clinton, made an extremely lucrative uranium deal. The reporters pointed out that Bill Clinton flew aboard Frank Giustra’s private jet to Almaty, Kazakhstan, where they met with the dictator Nursultan A. Nazarbayev. Bill Clinton did an immense favor to the Kazakh dictator when he expressed support for Nazarbayev’s bid to head an international election monitoring group, “undercutting American foreign policy and criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, his wife, then a senator.” Within days of the visit, Frank Giustra’s company, UrAsia Energy Ltd., signed a preliminary deal giving it stakes in three uranium mines controlled by the state-run uranium agency Kazatomprom.

After the lucrative Kazakh deal, UrAsia merged with Uranium One, a South African company with assets in Africa and Australia, in a $3.5 billion transaction in 2007. The new company, which kept the name of Uranium One was controlled by UrAsia investors, including Ian

Telfer, a Canadian who became chairman.

Ian Telfer was chairman of Uranium One when he made large donations to the Clinton Foundation.

The reporters indicated that soon after that transaction, Uranium One began to buy companies with assets in the United States. The reporters wrote the following: “In April 2007, the corporation announced the purchase of a uranium mill in Utah and more than 38,000 acres of uranium exploration properties in four Western states, followed quickly by the acquisition of the Energy Metals Corporation and its uranium holdings in Wyoming, Texas and Utah. That deal made clear that Uranium One was intent on becoming a powerhouse in the United States uranium sector with the potential to become the domestic supplier of choice for U.S. utilities, the company declared.” Later, Frank Giustra made a contribution of $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation. And five months later, Frank Giustra held a fund-raiser for the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative, a project aimed at fostering progressive environmental and labor practices in the natural resources industry, to which he had pledged $100 million.

Former President Bill Clinton stated during the fundraiser that “None of this would have been possible if Frank Giustra didn’t have a remarkable combination of caring and modesty, of vision and energy and iron determination. I love this guy, and you should, too.” Who would not love a person who gives you millions of dollars?

Bill Clinton met with Vladimir V. Putin in Moscow in 2010.

List of donors to the Clinton Foundation

The New York Times investigative reporters Jo Becker and Mike McIntire published a list of the donors connected with Uranium One Corporation. They are the following:

Frank Giustra

He gave a donation of $31.3 million and a made pledge for $100 million more. Giustra created a corporation that later merged with Uranium One.


Ian Telfer

Telfer contributed $2.35 million and was the mining investor who was chairman of Uranium One when the Russian agency Rosatom bought it.


Paul Reynolds

Reynolds contributed from $1 million to $5 million. He was an advisor to the UrAsia-Uranium One merger.


Frank Holmes

Holmes gave from $250,000 to $500,000. He was the chief executive officer of U.S. Global Investors Inc. which held 4.7 million of Uranium One shares.


Neil Woodyer

He gave from $50,000 to $100,000 and was an advisor to Uranium One.


GMP Securities Ltd.

The Corporation donated a portion of profits. It had raised $260 million for Uranium One.


The inter-agency Committee on Foreign Investment has to approve any purchase in the United States that has implications to national security

In 2009 a Chinese company with ties to the Chinese government wanted to acquire a 51% stake in a small Nevada gold mining operation. However, the Committee on Foreign Investment did not approve the purchase. The reason for that was that this mine also had uranium and members of the committee did not want China to have access to the uranium in the United States.

During the George W. Bush administration, the Committee on Foreign Investment routinely turned down Chinese companies that wanted to acquire American companies. However, with the Obama administration, Chinese companies were allowed to purchase enormous amount of land in several states that had large amounts of gas and oil, even though the United States is not energy independent.

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States includes the attorney general; the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy; and the secretary of state. The members of this committee have to review any deal that could result in foreign control of an American business or assets which have implications to national security.

The reporters explained that while the United States uses one-fifth of its electrical power from nuclear plants, it produces only around 20% of the uranium it needs. Marin Katusa wrote a book called The Colder War: How the Global Energy Trade Slipped From America’s Grasp. Katusa wrote the following: “The Russians are easily winning the uranium war, and nobody’s talking about it. It’s not just a domestic issue but a foreign policy issue, too.” He also was concerned about the deal of Uranium One.

The reporters explained that when ARMZ, which is part of Rosatom, acquired its first 17% stake in Uranium One in 2009, the two parties signed an agreement to seek the Foreign Investment Committee’s review and approval. But it was the 2010 deal, giving the Russians a controlling 51% stake, that brought a great deal of concerned. Four U.S. representatives signed a letter expressing concern. Two more members of Congress began drafting legislation to kill the deal.

Republican Senator John Barrasso from Wyoming, where the largest American operation of Uranium One was located, wrote a letter to President Obama. The Senator stated the following regarding the deal: “This would give the Russian government control over a sizable portion of America’s uranium production capacity. Equally alarming, this sale gives ARMZ a significant stake in uranium mines in Kazakhstan.”

President Barack Obama is equally responsible as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for endangering the national security of the United States by not stopping this deal. As already indicated, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton approved this deal even though there was conflict of interest since her husband was collecting millions in donations from people associated with Uranium One.

President Putin during a meeting with Rosatom’s chief executive, Sergei Kiriyenko, in December 2007.

Undisclosed Donations violated the memorandum of understanding between Secretary Clinton and President Obama

Prior to Hillary Clinton being named Secretary of State, the White House demanded that she sign a Memorandum of Understanding placing limits on the activities of her husband’s foundation. To prevent conflicts of interest, beyond the ban on foreign government donations, the foundation was required to publicly disclose all contributors. Part of the agreement stated that the Clinton Foundation would not accept donations from additional countries. Both of these stipulations were violated by the Clinton Foundation.

The reporters indicated that a review of tax records in Canada, where Ian Telfer, who was the chairman of the board of Uranium One before the sale to the Russians, revealed a family charity called the Fernwood Foundation. Tax records in Canada showed that Telfer donated millions of dollars more during and after the critical time when the Foreign Investment Committee was reviewing his deal with the Russians. To sweeten the deal, the Russians offered a special dividend. Shareholders like Ian Telfer made a lot of money.

The reporters explained the following regarding the Telfer contributions to the Clinton Foundation through the Fernwood Foundation: “$1 million reported in 2009, the year his company appealed to the American Embassy to help it keep its mines in Kazakhstan; $250,000 in 2010, the year the Russians sought majority control; as well as $600,000 in 2011 and $500,000 in 2012.” Telfer stated that his contributions had nothing to do with his business dealings and that he had never discussed Uranium One with the Clintons. He said he had given the money because he wanted to support Frank Giustra’s charitable work with former President Bill Clinton. Telfer stated that “Frank and I have been friends and business partners for almost 20 years.”

This writer believes that Telfer’s explanation is a lie. Interestingly, Hillary Clinton campaign left it to the foundation to reply to questions about the Fernwood donations. However, the foundation has not provided a response.

The reporters pointed out that Telfer’s unreported donations were in addition to between $1.3 million and $5.6 million in donations, which were reported, from a constellation of people with ties to Uranium One or UrAsia. This is the company that originally acquired Uranium One’s most valuable asset, the Kazakh mines.

This writer finds very suspicious that, in addition to the influx of money from individuals connected to Uranium One, Bill Clinton was invited to speak in Moscow in June 2010. During this month Rosatom made its deal for a majority stake in Uranium One. The former president received a $500,000 fee from Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin.

John Christensen sold the mining rights on his ranch in Wyoming to Uranium One.

The reporters pointed out that Renaissance Capital would not comment on why former President Clinton was invited to speak to an audience that included leading Russian officials or on whether it was connected to the Rosatom deal. Vladimir Putin thanked Bill Clinton for speaking.

The New York Times investigative reporters Becker and McIntire wrote that an individual with knowledge of the fund-raising of the Clinton Foundation, who requested anonymity to speak candidly about it, said that for many people, the hope is that money will in fact buy influence: “Why do you think they are doing it — because they love them?”

Dick Morris wrote an article titled “The real sources of Bill Clinton’s speaking fees” which was published by WND on April 24, 2015. Morris stated the following: “The Clintons lined their joint bank accounts with millions of dollars from Bill’s speaking fees from foreign governments, government related organizations and multinational corporations. But you won’t see all of the details on Hilary’s mandatory financial reports filed and publicized while she was secretary of state. Was she hiding something from us?”

Morris believes that Hillary Clinton was definitely hiding what she was doing since her financial disclosures routinely omitted the sponsorships of many of her husband very lucrative fee for speeches. Morris pointed out that Bill Clinton had no duty to publicly disclose anything. However, in a January 9, 2009, letter to the State Department ethics officer, Clinton lawyer David Kendall volunteered that “President Clinton would provide the “identities of the host(s) (the entities that pay the speaker’s fee) of proposed paid speeches.”

Morris explained that due to Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information lawsuit, Bill Clinton’s’ filings are public information and reveal who is really paying the Clintons. Hillary Clinton disclosed “Power Within” as the funding source of five speeches in 2009 and 2010, totaling $955,000. Power Within, produced by Anthony “Tony” Robbins, was the event planner. But the sponsor for the events was TD Bank, a major investor and proponent of the Keystone Pipeline, which Hillary’s State Department had to approve. Hillary Clinton did not disclose the generous benefactor and ignored her obvious conflict of interest.

Morris wrote that Teck Resources, Ltd. a Canadian mining company was a co-sponsor at a Vancouver event. Donald Lindsey, CEO of Teck is also the president of the Vancouver Board of Trade. Bill Clinton announced a partnership with Teck Resources for a “Zinc Nutrition Initiative” to eliminate zinc deficiencies in poor countries. Teck is also a contributor to the Clinton-Guistra Sustainable Growth Initiative.

The disclosure of Abu Dhabi Global Environmental Data Initiative (AGEDI) does not mention that it, too, is a UAE government-sponsored initiative. The UAE has donated between $10-20 million to the Clinton Foundation. Morris stated that there many examples such as these three.

Morris concluded his article by stating the following: “If foreign governments were to send the U.S. secretary of state checks totaling millions of dollars for her personal use, it would trigger a big scandal. But, disguised as speaking fees for Bill Clinton, few questions were asked. Given Hillary’s filings, which are misleading at best, it’s time to start asking some serious questions.”

The Clinton Foundation acknowledges that mistakes were made


The Clinton Foundation’s acting CEO, Maura Pally, admitted to some mistakes in the organization’s listing of donations from foreign governments on its tax forms.

Maura Pally, the acting CEO wrote in a statement the following: “Our total revenue was accurately reported on each year’s form—our error was that government grants were mistakenly combined with other donations. Those same grants have always been properly listed and broken out and available for anyone to see on our audited financial statements, posted on our website. So yes, we made mistakes, as many organizations of our size do, but we are acting quickly to remedy them and have taken steps to ensure they don’t happen in the future. We are committed to operating the Foundation responsibly and effectively to continue the life-changing work that this philanthropy is doing every day.”


This writer almost never agrees with editorials written by the New York Times. However, an editorial by this newspaper has requested that Hillary Clinton fully explains all the donations received by foreign governments. It is obvious to this writer, as well as to many Americans and members of the news media, that an investigation should be made of the Clinton Foundation.

A Rasmussen poll published on April 29, 2015 revealed that 63% likely voters think Hillary Clinton may have helped foreign donors as Secretary of State and 30% that this was unlikely. An earlier poll has revealed that 51% of likely voters do not trust Hillary Clinton, while 37% trust her. If this major scandal of the Clinton Foundation continues to be investigated and publicized by major newspapers and television stations, the numbers of Americans who do not trust Hillary Clinton will increase. In addition, if the former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is forced to testify on the Select Committee on Benghazi regarding her role in Libya and the truth comes out, it would very difficult for her to regain the trust of the American people.

The new Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, needs to investigate Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton for their worldwide influence peddling and trading multimillion donations to their foundation for favors. Like any American citizen, the Clintons should be given the presumption of innocence. Failure to do so would mean that like Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch will be presiding not over a Department of Justice but a Department of Injustice.

The American people, as well as Republican members of Congress, are tired of cover-ups and failure to prosecute the many crimes committed by President Obama and members of his administration. Loretta Lynch needs to remember that her job is not to protect the Obama administration but to serve the American people. If crimes were committed, federal prosecutors need to indict Bill and Hillary Clinton and, if convicted, they must go to jail. The Clintons have been involved in numerous scandals during their entire lives and they obviously feel that they are above the law. The Clintons believe that rules and regulations must be followed by other people, but not by them.

If Attorney General Lynch does not investigate, what looks like, Bill and Hillary Clinton’s involvement in a “pay-to-play scheme” which are nothing more than bribes. There is definitely a pattern of financial transactions involving the Clintons that occurred at the same time that favorable decisions were made by Secretary Clinton. These transactions benefitted those providing the contributions, but endangered our national security as in the case of Uranium One. Many Americans suspect, as well as former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, that is possible that the Clintons were taking bribes.

The fact that the Clinton Foundation accepted tens of millions from foreign countries and shady individuals over a number of years is a major scandal. The Democratic Party should start looking quickly for another presidential candidate or risk a major defeat at the polls in 2016. The scandals of the Clinton Foundation, as well as her other many scandals, could definitely derail Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign