Who's Up For Another Hearing And Possible Subpoenas Around Hillary Clinton On The Uranium One Deal?

So Hot Air readers have by now read Ed’s post on the twin revelations in the New York Times and Boston Globe about the intent to hide donors to the Clinton Foundation from full disclosure. But where’s the oversight? What’s the remedy? If there was something wrong done, what law was broken and what is the mechanism for accountability?

Well, since we’re talking about the Clintons, it’s largely a theoretical exercise, because laws don’t seem to apply to them. But for the sake of argument, if Bill and Hillary Clinton were mere mortals who had to answer for their actions, the process in the Uranium One deal, which allowed a Russian company to acquire a Canadian company that itself acquired one-fifth of United States uranium production, there technically is a mechanism in place in law that allows for oversight and investigation, thanks to the Dubai Port Deal fiasco of 2007. The need for scrutiny, of course, is because the Times and Globe reports show that nearly everyone involved on the Russian side and the Canadian side of the transaction donated millions to the Clinton Foundation at the time this deal was being pushed through. There is a law called CFIUS, The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which codified who has to sign off on a deal that involved strategic U.S. assets that have national security implications, and allows the House Financial Services Committee to have oversight. That oversight has now begun, as Texas Congressman Jeb Hensarling, the current Chairman of the Financial Services Committee fired off the first salvo to Treasury Secretary Jack Lew demanding all relevant documents be turned over to Financial Services for review.

Now this is the Clintons we’re talking about, and the demand letter is going to a close confidant of President Obama, who has demonstrated in his six years in office that Nixon knew nothing about secrecy, paranoia and cover-up. Former Congressman John Campbell, who chaired the Financial Services Committee last year, and knows full well what’s entailed with this CFIUS process, pressed Rep. Hensarling on what happens next if/when the White House, through Treasury and presumably State, does not cooperate.


JC: Based on my experience, it would not be out of character for Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, and for this Treasury Department, to give you an answer that has no answer, to give you a non-answer. If you got that, Chairman Hensarling, then what?

JH: Well, I hope it doesn’t come down to this. I hope that they would be cooperative, although as history as my guide, I’m not holding my breath, then we would have to subpoena documents and potential subpoena witnesses. I have not always found this administration, let me be more blunt, this administration has not been cooperative, it has not has been transparent, so we’re going to give them an opportunity to cooperate. We certainly hope the relevant documents don’t sit on Hillary Clinton’s personal server. We know what happens to those emails. So I don’t know. It’s too premature, John, to say whether hearings will be warranted. Again, we’re at the first phase of our investigation, and we’ll see if either classified hearings or open hearings are demanded. But it’s a very serious matter, and you just question, forget about the aspects of potential quid pro quo and corruption, but again, what breach of duty and in the foreign, you know, in our homeland security and national defense implications of this transaction, which again, House Republicans, we were in the minority, we raised our voice, but we didn’t have the votes to do anything about it. We hope to get to the bottom of this. Clearly, this is new information, of the millions that were going to the Clinton Foundation that had been undisclosed and unreported at the same time that this transaction was going down. And right now, we’ve demanded all the documents relevant.

JC: And what I’m hearing from you, Chairman Hensarling, is you’re not going to let this go. Is that correct?

JH: I would say that the dog has the bumper in his mouth, and he will not let it go.

Just to remind you about the promise of transparency by the Clintons versus reality, here’s a montage by David Rutz at the Free Beason, and another clip by Breitbart.

The full transcript of Jeb Hensarling with John Campbell is here. Let’s hope that the appearance of selling out one-fifth of this country’s uranium output for cash and speaking fees to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton slush fund, I mean, charitable foundation that has nothing but Haiti’s best interest at stake, except for a little gold mine that Hillary’s brother, Tony, now has a stake in. But that’s a different investigation for a different day in a different committee.