by Stu Cvrk
From Obama to the Present
As Democrat operatives have been rooted out in the Justice Department and FBI since January 2025, some very inconvenient facts have been discovered, leading to grand jury and congressional investigations into long-buried corrupt criminal activities of prominent Democrats.
This is a politically charged and contested area, with the legacy media running cover for Democrats at every opportunity. The summary below distinguishes between established facts, credible but disputed allegations, politically motivated claims, and investigative findings. It covers all known major threads.
Uranium One (2009–13)
Uranium One was a Canadian-headquartered company controlling roughly 20 percent of U.S. uranium mining capacity. In 2010, the Obama administration’s Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS)—on which Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sat—approved its sale to Rosatom, Russia’s state-owned nuclear company.
What is established:
Records obtained by the Senate Judiciary Committee detail that federal investigators believed there was “significant evidence worth pursuing related to criminal activity” involving the Clinton Foundation and the U.S. government’s approval of the Uranium One sale to Russian state-owned nuclear company Rosatom, a deal that resulted in the Russian government acquiring roughly 20 percent of U.S. uranium production capacity.
The FBI had already developed evidence, including recordings and documents, indicating that Russian officials were engaged in a racketeering and bribery scheme tied to the U.S. uranium market. FBI informant Douglas Campbell said he witnessed Russian nuclear executives planning to route millions to entities associated with Bill Clinton during the CFIUS review process.
The Clinton Foundation received $145 million from parties involved in the transaction. Was it a quid pro quo?
Suppression of the investigation:
Career agents and line prosecutors at the FBI and DOJ believed the saga may have been criminal, but orders from DOJ leaders such as then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe slow-walked and stonewalled the inquiry to the point where it could no longer be pursued.
A newly declassified FBI timeline argued that the statute-of-limitations conclusion “failed to include whether Acts of Concealment such as deleting emails in 2015 and making additional statements and representations about those deletions would have extended the statute of limitations” and pointed to possible RICO, major fraud, and bank fraud statutes.
U.S. Attorney John Huber was tapped by U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions in 2017 to review the allegations, but his work never rose to the level of a special counsel and quietly wound down by 2020 despite internal disagreements about remaining leads. Conveniently squelched for political reasons?
Hunter Biden, Burisma, and the Shokin (2014–19)
Burisma Holdings is an oil and natural gas company owned by Ukrainian oligarch Mykola Zlochevsky. Fourteen days after the 2014 Maidan revolution in Ukraine, Hunter Biden joined Burisma’s board. Over the next several years, he and his partner Devon Archer were paid millions from Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevsky—described as a corrupt Ukrainian oligarch. While Hunter served on the board, Zlochevsky allegedly paid a $7 million bribe to Ukraine’s Prosecutor General’s Office to close the corruption case against him.
As noted in a joint report by the US Senate Finance Committee, the Obama administration knew Hunter Biden’s position on Burisma’s board was problematic and that it did interfere in the efficient execution of U.S. policy toward Ukraine.
The Shokin firing:
In 2016, Viktor Shokin had an active and ongoing investigation into Burisma and Zlochevsky. At the time, Hunter Biden continued to serve on Burisma’s board. Then-Vice President Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees unless Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin, who was investigating Burisma, was dismissed—and Ukraine’s parliament fired him.
Biden publicly acknowledged this on video in a 2018 Council on Foreign Relations address.
Shokin himself stated under oath that he was pursuing the case. Was his firing a quid pro quo?
Devon Archer testimony (2023):
A business partner of Hunter Biden, Devon Archer, testified in July 2023 that the Biden family “brand” in business derived its punch from Joe Biden’s political power and that Hunter Biden—who was paid approximately $1 million annually despite lacking sector experience—put his father on speakerphone during business meetings on numerous occasions.
Republicans traced more than $20 million in profits from foreign deals that ended up in the bank accounts of Biden family members, including the president’s granddaughter.
IRS whistleblowers:
IRS whistleblower testimony outlined misconduct, including DOJ interference in the Hunter Biden investigation and retaliation against IRS employees. In testimony to the US House Ways and Means Committee in 2024, it was determined that top IRS officials issued illegal gag orders against the two whistleblowers. Supervisory IRS whistleblower Gary Shapley stated: “Every time that we needed to ask questions about President Biden’s involvement in relation to the business dealings, we just weren’t allowed to do that.”
Biden’s pardon: President Biden issued a sweeping preemptive pardon for his son in December 2024 covering Burisma and other activities, saying, “No reasonable person who looks at the facts of Hunter’s cases can reach any other conclusion than Hunter was singled out only because he is my son.”
The Bobulinski / CEFC China / Rosemont Seneca Money Network
This is a critical thread detailed here and corroborated by multiple contemporaneous sources:
Rosemont Seneca and BHR Partners: Hunter Biden co-founded Rosemont Seneca Partners. He was one of four founding shareholders of a private equity firm called Bohai Harvest RST (BHR), backed by the Chinese state-linked Bank of China.
The CEFC deal and “the big guy”: A May 2017 email, subsequently verified by one of its recipients, outlines a proposed deal with Chinese oil giant CEFC, in which Hunter Biden would be “Chair/Vice Chair.” Equity in the new company would be distributed as “20” for “H” and “10 held by H for the big guy?” Hunter Biden business partner Tony Bobulinski confirmed “big guy” referred to Joe Biden.
A top CEFC official offered to wire $10 million into an account to begin operations, $5 million of which would be a non-secured, interest-free, forgivable loan to the “BD Family”—identified as the Biden family. The Senate Homeland Security Committee’s report indicates that $5 million was wired into the account just two weeks after the $10 million was received, and Hunter Biden’s firm then spent the next year wiring $4.8 million from that account into his own firm’s account.
Bobulinski described Sinohawk Holdings as “a partnership between the Chinese operating through CEFC/Chairman Ye and the Biden family,” and stated: “I realized the Chinese were not really focused on a healthy financial return on investment. They were looking at this as a political or influence investment.”
CEFC Chairman Ye Jianming gave Hunter Biden a 2.8-carat diamond valued at $50,000 and extended Hunter and Jim Biden (Joe’s brother) credit cards with a $100,000 limit. Ye was arrested by the CCP in February 2018 and has never been publicly heard from since. Patrick Ho, who headed a think tank funded by Ye and whom Hunter Biden called “the spy chief of China,” was arrested in New York for bribing UN and African officials.
The Moscow connection: Elena Baturina, the widow of the former mayor of Moscow, wired $3.5 million to Rosemont Seneca Thornton in February 2014 for a “consultancy agreement.” Bank records showed a Morgan Stanley-managed Rosemont Seneca account receiving a separate transaction of more than $3 million from Deutsche Bank in April 2014 and raised the question of whether that was connected to the Baturina payment.
FinCEN angle: An important structural point was described here: multiple law enforcement sources confirmed that the FBI seized Hunter Biden’s laptop in late 2019 as part of a federal money laundering investigation. The article noted that the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) collects all bank transaction data—including Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs)—and that transactions through Luxembourg and Latvian and Cypriot banks would likely be flagged for investigation. The Senate report confirmed that Biden family financial transactions with Ukrainian, Russian, Kazakh, and Chinese nationals generated SARs.
Joe Biden’s own S-corporations: The article also raised an unresolved question: Joe and Jill Biden routed approximately $13.5 million of their $17 million post-vice-presidency income through S-corporations (CelticCapri Corp and Giacoppa Corp), which are not subject to standard CTR reporting thresholds. Whether any foreign-sourced income flowed through these entities has never been publicly established.
DNC / Ukrainian Coordination in 2016
FEC records show DNC contractor Alexandra Chalupa’s firm was paid $71,918 by the DNC during the 2016 election cycle. A former Ukrainian embassy political officer stated he was instructed by the ambassador to meet with Chalupa, who was identified to him as “someone working for the DNC and trying to get Clinton elected.” She told him the DNC wanted to collect evidence that Trump, his organization, and Manafort were Russian assets.
The Ukrainian embassy proceeded to work “directly with reporters researching Trump, Trump campaign advisor Paul Manafort, and Russia to point them in the right directions,” according to an embassy official.
Concluding Thoughts
The financial network described above—Rosemont Seneca, BHR, Sinohawk/CEFC, Burisma, Privat Bank, Deutsche Bank, and the Baturina wire—is documented in emails, bank records, and sworn testimony. The direct connection of Joe Biden to the receipt of funds remains alleged but unproven—the “10 held by H for the big guy” email is authenticated, but no bank record has publicly confirmed Joe Biden received a payment.
The broader question of whether U.S. policy or elections were altered in exchange for these arrangements remains the central unresolved allegation across all of these threads. A corollary question is, just how thorough and unbiased were the investigations into these various allegations?
Fortunately for Americans (but potentially very unfortunately for the involved parties), multiple parallel reinvestigation tracks are now active or accelerating, with varying degrees of seriousness, institutional legitimacy, and legal controversy. They span the DOJ, the FBI under Kash Patel, the Senate Judiciary Committee, and a major grand jury operation in South Florida.
These will be covered in Part II of this series along with a deep dive into the grand conspiracy grand jury investigation underway in South Florida.
Some Accountability May Finally Be Coming
In keeping with the “move on” narrative concocted by Democrat activists during the Monica Lewinsky scandal in 1998 to protect Bill Clinton from impeachment, Democrats in 2024 probably thought they had successfully delayed, obfuscated, covered up, and pushed past various statutes of limitations for potential crimes associated with the scandals detailed in Part I of this series.
Enter the second Trump administration, and some of these scandals and other cold cases are apparently being pursued with vigor by the U.S. Justice Department and several grand juries. Multiple parallel reinvestigation tracks are now active or accelerating, with varying degrees of seriousness, institutional legitimacy, and the omnipresent legal controversy via Democrat lawfare.
Let’s examine them carefully, as the legacy media are doing their best to keep them under wraps to protect the Democrat Party during the 2026 campaign season.
The “Grand Conspiracy” Grand Jury
This is the most structurally significant and far-reaching of the ongoing investigations/reinvestigations of cold cases involving Democrat corruption (and more).
What it is: For months, the DOJ has been preparing a vast grand jury investigation against an expansive list of Trump’s adversaries, located in the Trump-friendly Southern District of Florida. The investigation targets former intelligence and law enforcement officials who allegedly conspired over the past decade to prevent Trump from exercising his constitutional and federal rights. Attorney General Pam Bondi asserted that those officials had protected Democrats like Hunter Biden and Hillary Clinton from criminal investigations “while pursuing conservatives for their beliefs.”
Fort Pierce grand jury formally convened: A court order from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida shows that Chief Judge Cecilia Altonaga authorized a grand jury to convene in Fort Pierce beginning January 12, 2026. A top Trump ally has publicly said the grand jury will be used to look at evidence related to the alleged weaponization conspiracy. Legal advocates for the theory have noted that framing this as an “ongoing conspiracy” could eliminate statute-of-limitations barriers that might otherwise protect Obama-era figures.
Subpoenas issued: A federal grand jury in the Southern District of Florida has issued roughly 30 subpoenas to former Obama-era intelligence and FBI officials. Those subpoenaed include former CIA Director John Brennan, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and former FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. CIA Director John Ratcliffe’s review described Brennan, Clapper, and former FBI Director James Comey as “excessively involved” in a rushed and unconventional intelligence assessment on Russian election interference.
DiGenova appointment: Joseph diGenova—Trump’s former personal attorney and Reagan-era U.S. Attorney—was named counsel to the Attorney General to lead the sprawling South Florida-based criminal probe into those involved in prior cases against Trump. He replaced career prosecutor Maria Medetis Long, who was removed after she told supervisors the evidence was insufficient to support charges and allegedly resisted internal pressure to bring an indictment.
Uranium One / Clinton Foundation—Grassley’s May 2026 Demands
This is the most immediately active thread touching the original corruption allegations from Part I, and it is happening right now—this month.
Grassley’s April 27, 2026 letter: Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley sent a letter to Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and FBI Director Kash Patel demanding records related to the Clinton Foundation and Uranium One investigations, citing newly declassified FBI documents revealing a pattern of unresolved corruption allegations and repeated interference with federal investigators. Grassley is demanding a full accounting, including all investigative reports, interview transcripts, and the final disposition of every allegation raised in the probe.
What the declassified FBI records show: According to the released records, the FBI opened a preliminary investigation into the Foundation on January 29, 2016, focused on its alleged use by foreign entities to corruptly influence decisions before the State Department. The investigation was triggered by bank Suspicious Activity Reports suggesting that uranium industry figures and a federal public official may have participated in a scheme where large monetary contributions flowed to a nonprofit under Clinton’s control.
According to the 2016 FBI document, then-Secretary Clinton allegedly “failed to comply with” a Memorandum of Understanding regarding foreign influence concerns, specifically by “failing to disclose four foreign donations totaling $2.35 million that were given by Ian Telfer, the then-head of Russia’s uranium company, Uranium One.”
The SAR angle specifically: Part of the justification for opening the Uranium One investigation was an intelligence memo that included “information received from several bank Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs).” Grassley is now demanding all SARs reviewed, produced, and associated with the FBI’s Clinton Foundation/Uranium One investigation—exactly the FinCEN/SAR thread discussed in Part I of this series applied to the Clinton side.
Internal disputes surfaced during the earlier investigation, with one DOJ official describing the department’s reaction to FBI briefings as “hostile,” while a DOJ Public Integrity official maintained the FBI presentation lacked sufficient basis. Even after Trump first took office, a 2020 investigative update showed key requests remained unresolved nearly two years after submission.
The Patel factor: With Kash Patel now leading the FBI, Sen. Grassley’s demand lands in a very different Washington than the one that handled the Clinton Foundation file in 2016. Whether Patel’s FBI will produce the records—or has already accelerated the underlying investigation—is the central unknown as of this writing.
Russia Probe Origins—Obama Official Grand Jury
Former Attorney General Pam Bondi directed federal prosecutors to launch a grand jury investigation into accusations that members of the Obama administration manufactured intelligence about Russia’s 2016 election interference, following a referral from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who declassified documents she alleges undermine the Obama administration’s conclusion that Russia tried to help Trump defeat Hillary Clinton.
Republicans have seized on a newly declassified July 27, 2016, email in Special Counsel Durham’s classified annex, which purportedly said Hillary Clinton had approved a plan during the campaign to link Trump with Russia. Durham’s earlier investigation found serious flaws but produced only one conviction—a guilty plea from an FBI lawyer for a false statement. Was he the fall guy who let others slip through the prosecutorial net?
This probe is significant for the Ukraine threads because the Chalupa/DNC-Ukraine coordination, the Manafort ledger leaks, and the origins of the FBI’s counterintelligence work against the Trump campaign are all potentially within its scope.
Biden Mental Capacity / Pardon Abuse Investigation
President Trump ordered Attorney General Bondi to investigate whether the Biden administration conspired to cover up Biden’s mental state while in office. This is primarily a domestic governance probe but may touch on who was actually directing Ukraine policy and the Burisma-related decisions during the period when Biden’s cognitive capacity was clearly in decline.
What Is Not Yet Active
Despite the above activity, several threads from Part I do not yet appear to have dedicated, confirmed grand jury activity (but almost certainly should!):
- Hunter Biden’s financial network (Burisma, Rosemont Seneca, PrivatBank, the Baturina wire, CEFC flows): The special counsel investigation by David Weiss effectively ended with Hunter Biden’s 2024 conviction and subsequent pardon. The pardon was broad enough to block most new federal prosecutions of Hunter specifically. However, it did not cover co-conspirators, and the Joe Biden S-corporation question (CelticCapri Corp) remains theoretically open (refer to Part I).
- DNC/Chalupa-Ukraine election interference: No dedicated criminal investigation confirmed yet, though it falls within the scope of the broader Russia-origins probe.
- The FinCEN/SAR angle on Biden family transactions: The more than $20 million in traced foreign funds documented by House Oversight has not yet been publicly tied to an active grand jury—though the Grassley precedent on using SARs as predicate for the Clinton Foundation probe suggests this is a viable pathway the current DOJ could deploy.
Concluding Thoughts
There is cause for optimism that investigations that were previously swept under the rug by a Democrat-friendly Justice Department are being (or will be) reexamined under the new management of the Trump Justice Department.
The most important of these is the “grand conspiracy grand jury” whose purpose is to examine allegations of a coordinated, multi-year effort by former high-level intelligence, law enforcement, and DOJ officials—such as James Comey, John Brennan, Peter Strzok, and others—from the 2016 Russia investigation (Crossfire Hurricane) through subsequent probes and prosecutions of Donald Trump (including the Mar-a-Lago documents case and election-related matters) to undermine his candidacies and presidencies.
The intent is to investigate claims of a broad “conspiracy” involving alleged abuses of power, misleading FISA warrants, leaks, and politically motivated actions, potentially using a unified conspiracy theory to overcome statutes of limitations by linking events with recent “overt acts.”
Whether this investigation, as well as the other active reinvestigations summarized above (and hopefully those on the “dormant list” noted above), produces indictments of major figures, or collapses under the weight of political appointee involvement and insufficient evidence, is the defining legal drama of 2026.
– – –
Stu Cvrk retired as a Captain after 30 years in the U.S. Navy, with operational tours in the Middle East and Western Pacific. A U.S. Naval Academy graduate with a background in oceanography and systems analysis, he writes on politics, national security, and foreign policy.
