Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Senior Contributor

7 Questions



This summary of the case raises important questions:

  1. Why didn’t Holder or Mueller brief the Committee on Foreign Investment about the bribery and kickbacks being engineered by Rosatom when it was seeking approval of its purchase of Uranium One in 2010 or its sale of uranium to American nuclear plants by Tenex in 2011?
  2. Why weren’t the House or Senate intelligence committees informed? The FBI and the Justice Department already had their informant in place in 2009 and already had evidence of the corruption.
  3. Why was the indictment and prosecution of Mikerin delayed, and why did the Justice Department allow this racketeering enterprise that corrupted the American uranium industry to continue for five years?
  4. Why were the possible charges against Mikerin reduced?
  5. Why was the evidence of attempted influence peddling suppressed and not made a part of the prosecution or mentioned in the plea agreement?
  6. Why did the FBI force a nondisclosure agreement on its informant, particularly because it was apparently the informant that first contacted the FBI to tell it what was going on?
  7. Who was the lawyer at the Justice Department who made this decision? And if the Justice Department can provide some law enforcement justification for it, why did it extend beyond the end of the case?

If a law enforcement investigation is ongoing, a nondisclosure agreement might be justified to prevent the informant from publicizing the investigation and sabotaging the prosecution. But this case was over in 2015—there is no evidence of any ongoing investigation beyond that date.

Without a credible explanation, it is hard to come to any conclusion other than it was a political decision intended to cover up what happened.

Who can answer all of these questions? That would be Holder, Mueller, and the other federal officials involved in the case.

1 Reply
Senior Advisor

Re: 7 Questions

The answer is easy. They are all elite progressives. The law does not apply.