The FBI Asked DOJ to Investigate the Clinton Foundation — Despite 3 Strong Reasons, They Were Denied

The Department of Justice’s public integrity unit has declined to launch an investigation into the Clinton Foundation, even after the FBI recommended an investigation take place.

According to CNN, new emails released by Judicial Watch “raise questions about the Clinton Foundation’s influence on the State Department and its relations during her tenure.”

“Early this year as the investigation into Clinton’s private email server was in full swing, several FBI field offices approached the Justice Department asking to open a case regarding the relationship between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation, according to a law enforcement official.

At the time, DOJ declined because it had looked into allegations surrounding the Clinton Foundation around a year earlier and found there wasn’t sufficient evidence to open a case.”

Here are three prominent examples of unusual practices involving the Clinton Foundation.

The Appointment of Rajiv Fernando

In 2011, Rajiv K. Fernando, a Chicago securities trader, was given a seat on the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB).

According to the State Department, ISAB is no joke:

[The] International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) provides the Department with independent insight and advice on all aspects of arms control, disarmament, nonproliferation, international security, and related aspects of public diplomacy…Board members are national security experts with scientific, military, diplomatic, and political backgrounds.

As a securities trader, Fernando was not familiar with nonproliferation, arms control, or disarmament, nor was he a national security expert by any means. He had, however, donated money to the Clinton Foundation.

Image Credit: Alex Wong / Staff / Getty Images
Image Credit: Alex Wong / Staff / Getty Images

ABC reports that Fernando donated between $100,000 and $250,000 to the foundation. Additionally, he helped raise $100,000 for Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential bid.

Emails reveal that some State Department officials began to panic when ABC started asking questions regarding Fernando’s appointment to ISAB.

Wade Boese, who was Chief of Staff for the Office of the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, said in an email that Clinton herself didn’t add Fernando, but that long-time aide and legal advisor Cheryl Mills did:

“The true answer is simply that S staff (Cheryl Mills) added him…Raj was not on the list sent to S; he was added at their insistence.”

After ABC continued to push, Rajiv Fernando quickly resigned.

Uranium One

The New York Times reports that from 2009 to 2013, three “transactions” occurred which gave Russia control over a Canadian company called Uranium One. The company held uranium-mining stakes across the world, which made it an extremely valuable asset for Russia.

Following the transactions, Russia essentially had control of “one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States.”

Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Here’s where it gets interesting. During the entire Uranium One process, the Clinton Foundation, as well as former-President Bill Clinton, were raking in cash from dubious donors.

The chairman of Uranium One donated $2.35 million to the foundation (which the Clintons initially failed to disclose, violating a deal with the Obama administration), and Mr. Clinton was paid an astonishing $500,000 to give a single speech in Moscow just after Russia announced it would seek to have a “majority stake” in Uranium One.

Image Credit: Mikhail Metzel / Staff / Getty Images
Image Credit: Mikhail Metzel / Staff / Getty Images

To be fair, as The New York Times and The Washington Post note, there’s no evidence of a quid pro quo. There’s only a pattern of peculiar activity, and seemingly peculiar activity isn’t proof of any nefarious dealings.

Middle East Allies?

During Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State, she aggressively promoted fracking, a practice by which water and a chemical mixture are blasted into shale rock in order to extract natural gas.

Despite strong pushback from many on the left who oppose fracking, Clinton moved forward with initiatives designed to promote the practice in the Middle East, and elsewhere.

During a speech at Georgetown University, Clinton enthusiastically said:

“This is a moment of profound change…Countries that used to depend on others for their energy are now producers. How will this shape world events? Who will benefit, and who will not?…The answers to these questions are being written right now, and we intend to play a major role.”

According to The Daily Caller, the Clinton Foundation has received “$100 million from autocratic Persian Gulf states and their leaders.”

“Hydraulic fracturing of shale has turned the United States from an importer of oil and gas to an exporter, which threatens oil producing states, but particularly oil producers such as Saudi Arabia and the gulf states.”

In short, Hillary Clinton has heavily promoted fracking in nations that produce and export energy. However, she appears to be opposed to fracking in the United States.

In March, Clinton told a debate audience:

“By the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place.”

Image Credit: Pete Souza / The White House / Getty Images
Image Credit: Pete Souza / The White House / Getty Images

The Daily Caller quotes Richard Rahn of the Institute for Global Economic Growth, who believes Clinton’s rather dramatic shift is due to monetary ties to the Middle East:

“The Clinton’s always do everything in a calculated manner. ‘Ok, I go after fracking, why not go ahead and make my environmental friends happy, but at the same time reap the benefits from foreign source income by making my Sheikh’s happy?'”

As with the previous peculiar transactions, there is no real evidence to suggest a quid pro quo, but unusual patterns and behaviors suggest that an unwritten and unspoken arrangement may be taking place.

A seat at ISAB for a donor who had no expertise in the field; approval of a uranium company stake purchase coinciding with a massive cash flow; taking two different positions on fracking as the Clinton Foundation receives money from Middle Eastern leaders who would benefit from such a reversal.

Bereft of physical evidence, such behavior still appears extraordinarily unusual. Regardless, Loretta Lynch’s DOJ isn’t interested in an investigation.

What do you think?

9 pledges
Upvote Downvote

10 Damning Minutes of CNN and MSNBC Cutting Off Anyone Who Dares Criticize Hillary Clinton

Woman Who Took Infant While Mom Was Sleeping in Hospital Says She Didn’t Think it Was a ‘Big Deal’