It was said the Jeff Sessions recused himself from all things Russian because of election campaign conflicts but is it really because he thought it would insulate him from having to divulge what he knew about Uranium One and the people who at the very least knew about the deal, some who approved the deal, including past and present members of the FBI, the DOJ, and Special Counsel Robert Miller\u2019s team? Is Jeff Sessions part of the Uranium One cover-up? If not, then he needs to explain why he is thus far refusing\u00a0Sen. Chuck Grassley\u2019s request<\/a>\u00a0to lift the gag order imposed by the Obama administration as part of the Uranium One cover-up:<\/p>\n A top Senate Republican is calling for the Justice Department to lift an apparent \u201cgag order\u201d on an FBI informant who reportedly helped the U.S. uncover a corruption and bribery scheme by Russian nuclear officials but allegedly was \u201cthreatened\u201d by the Obama administration to stay quiet\u2026.<\/p>\n \u201cWitnesses who want to talk to Congress should not be gagged and threatened with prosecution for talking. If that has happened, senior DOJ leadership needs to fix it and release the witness from the gag order,\u201d Grassley said in a statement.<\/p>\n Victoria Toensing, a lawyer for the former FBI informant, told Fox News\u2019 \u201cAmerica\u2019s Newsroom\u201d that her client has \u201cspecific information about contributions and bribes to various entities and people in the United States.”<\/p>\n She said she could not go further because her client has not been released from a nondisclosure agreement but suggested the gag order could be lifted soon. Toensing also claimed that her client was \u201cthreatened by the Loretta Lynch Justice Department\u201d when he pursued a civil action in which he reportedly sought to disclose some information about the case.<\/p>\n In a letter sent Wednesday to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Grassley said such an NDA would \u201cappear to improperly prevent the individual from making critical, good faith disclosures to Congress of potential wrongdoing.\u201d\u2026<\/p>\n The Hill<\/a>\u00a0reported earlier this week that the FBI had evidence as early as 2009 that Russian operatives used bribes, kickbacks and other dirty tactics to expand Moscow\u2019s atomic energy footprint in the U.S. Grassley on Wednesday released a\u00a0series of letters<\/a>\u00a0he fired off last week to 10 federal agencies, raising the question of whether the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) which approved the uranium transaction was aware of that FBI probe — and pointing to potential \u201cconflicts\u201d involving the Clintons. The committee included then-Secretary of State Clinton.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n So why not just lift the gag order, vacate the non-disclosure agreement, which Sessions has the power to do, and let the informant come forward with information on how and why the Clintons conspired to put 20 percent of our uranium assets under Russian control while lining the pockets of the Clintons and their pay-for-play foundation?\u00a0As Toensing notes<\/a>, Sessions could do it, and thereby bring to light the details of this criminal enterprise:<\/p>\n The lead investigators on the case included Rod Rosenstein, who is now the deputy attorney general, and Andrew McCabe, who is now the deputy FBI director. Rosenstein is the DOJ official who appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller to investigate alleged collusion between the Trump presidential campaign and Russia.<\/p>\n Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from the collusion\/campaign investigation.\u00a0 He could waive the Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) signed by the informant, said Toensing. “Yes, Jeff could do it,” she said. “He is not recused from this matter and should not be.”<\/p>\n However, Rod Rosenstein “is conflicted,” said Toensing, “because he was the U.S. attorney who oversaw the case involving my client.” \u00a0Toensing added that she has “asked an oversight committee to pursue the release” of the NDA so her client may testify before Congress about what he knows.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n By lifting the gag order, Sessions might have to explain the real reasons behind his recusal and why people who knew of actual collusion between Russia and the Clintons were silent, only to reappear to investigate and pursue prosecution of nonexistent collusion between Russia and Team Trump. He might have to explain why Mueller, McCabe, Rosenstein and others were allowed to hide the truth from the American people and why they should not be summarily fired. As Grassley notes, neither Sessions or anyone in the Justice Department has the authority to\u00a0block the informant from testifying before Congress<\/a>\u00a0or issue non-disclosure agreements to thwart Congressional oversight:<\/p>\n \u201cThe Executive Branch does not have the authority to use non-disclosure agreements to avoid Congressional scrutiny,” Grassley wrote. “If the FBI is allowed to contract itself out of Congressional oversight, it would seriously undermine our Constitutional system of checks and balances. The Justice Department needs to work with the Committee to ensure that witnesses are free to speak without fear, intimidation or retaliation from law enforcement.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/admin.americanthinker.com\/images\/bucket\/2017-10\/201588_5_.png\")
<\/p>\n