90 Miles From Tyranny : Report Sessions Did Not Recuse in Uranium One, Investigation Ongoing

infinite scrolling

Tuesday, November 7, 2017

Report Sessions Did Not Recuse in Uranium One, Investigation Ongoing

Sarah Carter of Circa News reported that she knows as fact that Jeff Sessions has not recused himself in the Uranium One scandal despite reports that he has and that the case is being investigated.

At his confirmation hearing, Attorney General Sessions appeared to recuse himself from anything that had the word ‘Russia’ in it. The Democrats must believe he hasn’t recused because they’re accusing him of being a Russian operative again.

Carter also assured the panel on ‘Hannity’ last night that there is an ongoing investigation of Uranium One and, in her opinion, a Special Counsel will be appointed.

That’s big news.

A report form the free beacon recently stated that sources deny Jeff Sessions has recused himself from the Uranium One corruption scandal despite the fact that during the confirmation hearings he appeared to say three times he was recusing himself in all matters tied to Clinton and Russia.

DOJ officials told the Free Beacon that Sessions has not recused himself from deciding how the Justice Department should respond to recent reports raising questions about the Obama administration’s approval of a 2010 purchase of Uranium One, which controlled 20 percent of U.S. Uranium, by Russian energy company Rosatam.

Trump has been very frustrated by the probe into Russian meddling in the election and Moscow’s alleged ties to the Trump campaign while at the same time, the potential scandals around Uranium One and the dossier are ignored.

Sessions’ recusal in the Trump-Russia case left Trump subject to an endless and limitless probe.


 


Sessions’ defenders point to his decision last week to lift a gag order on an FBI informant with detailed knowledge of a Russian bribery scheme linked to the Uranium One deal as evidence that is has not recused himself from the issue. The Obama-era DOJ had imposed the non-disclosure agreement and reportedly threatened the informant with...

Read More HERE

No comments: