6. Top GOP lawmakers are not going to let Uranium One be swept under the rug.
Former Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has been tracking the Uranium One case since day one, and has sent numerous letters to Obama agencies to clarify their roles.

In a statement last month, Grassley said: “I’ve been pushing for years for more answers about this [the Uranium One] t***saction that allowed the Russian government to acquire U.S. uranium assets. I’ve received classified and unclassified briefings about it from multiple agencies. And I’ve identified some FBI intelligence reports that may shed more light on the t***saction. … If the Democrats want to be consistent, they’ll have to treat the Clinton, Uranium One, and Russia-related investigations the same [as the Mueller report]. Anything less than that reeks of political gamesmanship and sets a clear double standard.”

Barrasso expressed early concerns. In a 2010 letter to Obama, the senator warned: “This t***saction would give the Russian government control over a sizable portion of America’s uranium production capacity. Equally alarming, this sale gives ARMZ [Uranium Holding Co.] a significant stake in uranium mines in Kazakhstan.”

More recently, Barrasso has pushed to expand the investigations of the sale and has demanded answers regarding Uranium One’s exports of nuclear materials outside the United States—an unacceptable development, as first reported by John Solomon.


Reps. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), and several of their colleagues—notably Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.) and Ron DeSantis (now Florida governor)—have repeatedly demanded answers about the Obama administration’s approval of the Russian takeover of Uranium One. GOP lawmakers introduced a resolution last year excoriating the Obama FBI and DOJ for their roles in the Spygate scandal, which they linked to the Uranium One scandal.

It’s safe to say that these lawmakers are invested in the full exposure of Uranium One events and bringing swift justice to the Obama officials who were responsible.

7. President Trump and Attorney General Barr appear to be ready to drop the hammer.
Barr has found the Uranium One matter significant and worthy of a full investigation. In a 2017 interview with The New York Times, Barr said that the DOJ was “abdicating its responsibility” if it wasn’t investigating the Clinton Foundation vis-à-vis the Uranium One deal. In Barr’s confirmation hearing this year, Democrats grilled him on his support for the Uranium One “conspiracy theory.” While Barr seemed to distance himself during the hearing, New York Times reporter Peter Baker subsequently leaked an email in which Barr said he “believed that the predicate for investigating the uranium deal, as well as the foundation, is far stronger than any basis for investigating so-called, ‘collusion.'”

It’s clear that Barr doesn’t believe that the Uranium One deal has been fully investigated.

To date, Trump has been fully cleared of all allegations of collusion with Russia. Multiple separate investigations led by special counsel Mueller, the House Intelligence Committee, and the Senate Intelligence Committee have all concluded that there was no collusion. And yet, Democrats in Congress now want Mueller to testify and want to hold Barr in contempt if he doesn’t surrender himself to their endless interrogations.

If the Democrats want to go to war with Barr, he appears to have more than enough evidence to expose corruption that would crush the Obama administration and its defenders—starting with Spygate and ending with Uranium One.

At its core, the Uranium One deal is quite simple: Putin wanted long-term access to the U.S. nuclear supply chain. Decision-makers in Washington were under no obligation to give Putin what he wanted. Politics aside, does anyone really think that Putin deserves any access to an industry critical to the American energy sector and national security? Of course not.

Yet, in 2010, the Obama administration acquiesced and Putin gained a significant stake in an industry critical to U.S. energy and national security. Period.

Seamus Bruner is the author of the book “C*********d: How Money and Politics Drive FBI Corruption.”

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

Still, at it I see. I image that's why the judge ruled that Trump's financial records are fair game. Is this what one of your giant brains told you Blade? Who was it, Levin? I'll bet it was. Here's a hypothetical. Suppose a p**********l candidate were to have used money laundering as one of the means to finance his operations. Your argument is that because the action occurred prior to his e******n all of his financial actions are off limits. So according to you, or I should say the giant brain that programmed your tiny little brain, there can be no recourse and we have to be content having a crook for a president. So is that what those giant brains tell you was how the founders designed the constitution?

Now I don't know if Trump is guilty of money laundering but that is one of the charges stemming from Deutsche Bank that haven't even been investigated yet, even though a whistleblower has stated that there was something hinky with both Tump and Kirshners financial dealing with the bank.

Snip>>Deutsche Bank Has Rolled on Donald Trump

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/federal-judge-sides-with-house-democrats-over-subpoena-for-trumps-financial-records/ar-AABE1wa?ocid=spartandhp

Fox News' Bill Mears, Edward Lawrence, Brooke Singman, and Kristin Brown contributed to this report.

A Washington, D.C.-based federal judge has sided with House Oversight Committee Democrats seeking to enforce their subpoena of Trump accounting firm Mazars USA, in a major ruling that breathes new life into Democrats' ongoing efforts to probe the president's financial dealings.

The subpoena seeks access to a slew of Trump financial documents dating back to 2011. Democrats pursued the subpoena after former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen testified to Congress that the president routinely and improperly altered financial statements.

Barack Obama-appointed judge Amit P. Mehta's 41-page opinion began by comparing President Trump's concerns over congressional overreach to those of President James Buchanan, asserting that Trump "has taken up the fight of his predecessor."

And Mehta acknowledged that he was "well aware that this case involves records concerning the private and business affairs of the President of the United States."

But, Mehta said, Democrats' subpoena fell within well-established congressional investigative powers. He said he would not stay his ruling pending appeal.

“It is simply not fathomable that a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a President for reasons including criminal behavior would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct—past or present—even without formally opening an impeachment inquiry," Mehta wrote.

The president’s legal team, in a filing earlier this month, had asked the judge to prohibit Mazars from “enforcing or complying” with the subpoena, issued April 15.

Trump's lawyers had argued the subpoena to Mazars “lacks a legitimate legislative purpose,” and is an “unconstitutional attempt to exercise ‘the powers of law enforcement.’”

Trump’s lawyers also noted that the House Oversight Committee, led by Chairman Elijah Cummings, D-Md., is leading several Trump-focused investigations.
.
“Chairman Cummings flat-out admitted that he wanted to ‘investigate whether the President may have engaged in illegal conduct before and during his tenure in office’ and ‘review whether he has accurately reported his finances to the Office of Government Ethics and other federal entities,’” Trump’s lawyers wrote in the filing.

The Trump team filing came after Cummings’ committee issued several subpoenas for Mazars Accounting in an effort to obtain financial documents and audits prepared for Trump and his businesses over the last decade. Cummings also sought independent auditor’s reports, annual statements and other documents related to Trump’s finances spanning from 2011 to 2018.

At the time, Mazars said it “will respect the legal process and fully comply with its legal obligations.”

===================
Slatten, I think your legal position on this matter is wrong.
I am about to leave, but can't stand this assault on the innocent Trump. I have to defend it. Here is the situation Slatten.

Proper legal procedure here is: First they must identify the problem committed by president Trump. Next stage is subpoena or demand surrender of the documents to review and to prove the case.

But because Congress h**e president Trump so much, they identified the victim first, who is president Trump. That is wrong!! If this process continues, and prevails, it is not only president Trump who will be deprived of his legal rights. It will be carried forward in the long run to incoming presidents at the Executive Branch. The Executive Branch is stripped out of its power, and the ability to protect and to function is disabled.

What Congress must follow to make it valid:
1. First, identify the crime or problem committed. [NOT THE PERSON THEY ACCUSE OF]
2 Next, seek all documents, or witnesses that could support the validity of the crime.
Here comes the fishing expedition:
3. When documents have proven the identified problem, then Congress could go ahead and pursue its investigation. Best channel is to refer to SC.
4. The Office of the Executive Branch have equal balanced rights with Congress, and SC.
5. The Executive Office must be respected, same with the other branches.
6. President Trump has executive privileges not to disclose or display documents sought by Congress unless there is a specific problem the president is accused of.
7. All US citizens by the power of the Constitution Amendment IV, is protected from illegal searches, demands, or scrutiny of the person's personal affairs is unlawful, unless there is specified problem presented, on the victim accused of.

What Congress is doing is plain assault and harassment against president Trump.
Pelosi's big mouth must be shut off. Congress has now prepared coordinated efforts to prevent the president from winning the 2020 p**********l e******n. But that will not happen. God will protect the president to prevent the t***sformation of our country, by removing God from us. Morals deteriorate further, baby k*****gs will increase, L**T will increase it's demands, Muslims will increase, Atheists will increase, etc.

Now, Congress is jumping up and down, due to Obama's appointed federal judge's decision. but I am confident, they will not prevail to remove the president. SC will review this.

Scrutiny of the president's papers and documents supporting his financial activities and Tax Returns, without specific problem identified first is wrong, and must be defended vigorously because it is the law. I suggest refer the matter to the SC.

Obama's appointed judge, I believe did not do his job, but for political aggrandizement of Democrats in Congress, against the sitting president. Mr. President is duly elected by 63 million citizens of this country, with 304 E*******l College V**es. Illegal removal of president Trump disenfranchises the 63 million v**ers. Congress will make all our 2016 v**es null and void. Wrong verdict.

The only official Trump merchandise is sold from https://shop.donaldjtrump.com/?utm_medium=ad&utm_source=dp_googlesearch&utm_campaign=20190514_store_djt_tmagacmerch_ocpmypur_bh_audience0001_na_copy00058_us_b_18-99_gsn_all_na_lp0001_shop_conversion_search_na_na_na&utm_content=sto&gclid=CjwKCAjwiZnnBRBQEiwAcWKfYrJ8g66zN6p4giE5lAbHDPsf-md2rm0UOVEQdYeHRL5Jb2WJGrBZYBoC5gIQAvD_BwE

Other labeled Trump merchandise is made outside of the US and NOT sold by anyone associated with Trump. If you have any site to Ivanka or Kellyanne selling merchandise from a government site, please post the link.

Respectfully, Radiance, I am amused by your thinking the link's cut'n paste is my legal opinion...especially since I have no legal standing in the matter, whether I agree or not to what the court's decision was in this case. My opinion notwithstanding, this was simply a FOX article explaining a legal ruling with which you and others obviously do not agree. You may join the many others of us that have disagreed (at all levels of the judiciary) with one or more courts' decision(s).

Your specious arguments aside, it may prove difficult to defend (in many opinions) the indefensible. The bottom line is that the court(s) will decide the future of our president...not you, me or any other individual citizen. The result will be as it always has been: We will live with the decision reached by a court of law. As stated earlier, someone is always unhappy with any court decision. Not surprisingly, it is only and/or always when decisions go against their political or ideological persuasion. C'est la vie

It often seems that nothing, absolutely nothing, can be said or written to convince zealots from either side of the ideological or political persuasion of facts they absolutely refuse to believe. One may as well attempt pi**ing on a raging forest fire in a futile effort to put it out. A valiant effort is of no avail.

===================
Slatten, I think your legal position on this matter is wrong.
I am about to leave, but can't stand this assault on the innocent Trump. I have to defend it. Here is the situation Slatten.

Proper legal procedure here is: First they must identify the problem committed by president Trump. Next stage is subpoena or demand surrender of the documents to review and to prove the case.

But because Congress h**e president Trump so much, they identified the victim first, who is president Trump. That is wrong!! If this process continues, and prevails, it is not only president Trump who will be deprived of his legal rights. It will be carried forward in the long run to incoming presidents at the Executive Branch. The Executive Branch is stripped out of its power, and the ability to protect and to function is disabled.

What Congress must follow to make it valid:
1. First, identify the crime or problem committed. [NOT THE PERSON THEY ACCUSE OF]
2 Next, seek all documents, or witnesses that could support the validity of the crime.
Here comes the fishing expedition:
3. When documents have proven the identified problem, then Congress could go ahead and pursue its investigation. Best channel is to refer to SC.
4. The Office of the Executive Branch have equal balanced rights with Congress, and SC.
5. The Executive Office must be respected, same with the other branches.
6. President Trump has executive privileges not to disclose or display documents sought by Congress unless there is a specific problem the president is accused of.
7. All US citizens by the power of the Constitution Amendment IV, is protected from illegal searches, demands, or scrutiny of the person's personal affairs is unlawful, unless there is specified problem presented, on the victim accused of.

What Congress is doing is plain assault and harassment against president Trump.
Pelosi's big mouth must be shut off. Congress has now prepared coordinated efforts to prevent the president from winning the 2020 p**********l e******n. But that will not happen. God will protect the president to prevent the t***sformation of our country, by removing God from us. Morals deteriorate further, baby k*****gs will increase, L**T will increase it's demands, Muslims will increase, Atheists will increase, etc.

Now, Congress is jumping up and down, due to Obama's appointed federal judge's decision. but I am confident, they will not prevail to remove the president. SC will review this.

Scrutiny of the president's papers and documents supporting his financial activities and Tax Returns, without specific problem identified first is wrong, and must be defended vigorously because it is the law. I suggest refer the matter to the SC.

Obama's appointed judge, I believe did not do his job, but for political aggrandizement of Democrats in Congress, against the sitting president. Mr. President is duly elected by 63 million citizens of this country, with 304 E*******l College V**es. Illegal removal of president Trump disenfranchises the 63 million v**ers. Congress will make all our 2016 v**es null and void. Wrong verdict.