Newly declassified FBI and DOJ documents have blown the lid off long-buried questions about the Clinton Foundation’s shady ties to the Uranium One deal.

These records shine a spotlight on internal disputes and leadership roadblocks that stalled a probe into whether the foundation’s connections influenced the sale of 20% of America’s uranium production capacity to a Russian state-owned company, Rosatom.

Let’s rewind to the origins of this saga, when the Uranium One transaction first raised eyebrows during the Obama administration’s push for a “reset” with Russia. The deal, which needed approval from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), saw then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in a key position.

Uncovering the Uranium One Controversy

Reports from back then, including by The New York Times, noted that significant donations to the Clinton Foundation rolled in from Uranium One stakeholders as the deal was under review. Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra, a key player in creating Uranium One, poured over $100 million into the foundation, while chairman Ian Telfer added $2.35 million. Talk about curious timing.

Adding fuel to the fire, Bill Clinton pocketed a hefty $500,000 speaking fee from a Kremlin-linked bank pushing Uranium One stock. If that doesn’t raise an eyebrow about potential conflicts of interest, what does?

By January 2016, the FBI launched investigations out of Little Rock, New York, and Washington, uncovering what they called substantial evidence of possible criminal activity tied to the deal. But here’s where it gets messy—DOJ and FBI brass, including Sally Yates and Andrew McCabe, seemed more interested in dragging their feet than digging deeper.

Leadership Delays Stall Critical Investigation

Fast forward to 2018, and internal memos show prosecutors bickering over whether the statute of limitations had run out, with field offices clashing against higher-ups over questionable legal calls. Career investigators were left frustrated as the probe hit a wall, with no clear explanation from leadership on why it was shelved.

One striking detail from a 2018 email by Jonathan Ross, then-First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, pointed to payments to the Clinton Foundation flowing “continuously from 2007 through 2014.” That’s a long window of financial ties begging for scrutiny, yet somehow the investigation didn’t push forward.

Even worse, the FBI timeline reveals that DOJ officials didn’t bother exploring whether acts like email deletions in 2015 could have extended the statute of limitations. They also skipped over potential violations of major laws like the RICO Act or bank fraud statutes. Sounds like a missed opportunity to hold powerful players accountable.

Whistleblowers and Unanswered Questions Emerge

Peter Schweizer, who first exposed this in his 2015 book “Clinton Cash,” didn’t mince words on the matter. “We broke the Uranium One story back in my 2015 book Clinton Cash. Now it emerges that while federal investigators believed there was ‘significant evidence worth pursuing related to criminal activity,’ Obama officials shut the investigation down,” Schweizer said.

Schweizer’s take cuts to the core of public distrust—did foundation donors get special treatment from Hillary Clinton’s State Department in exchange for hefty contributions? It’s a question that still hangs in the air, especially with evidence like FBI recordings of Russian officials scheming in the U.S. uranium market during the deal’s approval.

Even an FBI informant, Douglas Campbell, claimed to have seen Russian nuclear executives plotting to funnel millions to entities linked to Bill Clinton during the CFIUS review. Yet, despite these red flags, the investigation quietly fizzled out by 2020 after U.S. Attorney John Huber’s review failed to escalate.

Strategic Risks and Modern Implications

Today, the stakes of the Uranium One deal feel even heavier, with Russia’s recent restrictions on uranium exports to the U.S. in November 2024 exposing our strategic vulnerabilities. Congress responded with the Prohibiting Russian Uranium Imports Act, but the damage of past decisions lingers.

While the Clinton Foundation declined to comment on these revelations, as reported by Just the News, the public deserves answers. Why did DOJ and FBI leadership let this probe wither, despite internal pushback from investigators over unaddressed leads?

At the end of the day, this isn’t just ancient history—it’s a stark reminder of how unchecked influence can jeopardize national interests. Let’s hope future administrations learn from these missteps and prioritize transparency over political expediency.