As Democrat operatives have been rooted out in the Justice Dept 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 was a Canadian-headquartered company controlling roughly 20% 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% 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?
II. HUNTER BIDEN, BURISMA, AND THE SHOKIN FIRING (2014–2019)
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 Victor 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.”
III. 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 Cyprus 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.
IV. 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, 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.
The end.
StuinSD is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support his work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
This article originally appeared in Stu Cvrk’s Substack. Reprinted here with permission
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.
Substack: American Free News Network Substack
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA