Peter Schweizer: Deleted Hillary Emails Probably Relate to ‘Clinton Cash’ Transactions


During a C-SPAN interview on Sunday, July 5th, Clinton Cash author and Breitbart News Senior Editor-at-Large Peter Schweizer addressed the renewed interest in Hillary Clinton’s private email server, saying the scandal “works hand in glove with the issues raised” by his bestselling book.

CALLER: I want to thank you for your passion and–I just–some people might think this is an unfounded witch hunt but, like Benghazi or a conservative attack on the Clintons, again, but my question is, why do you think that political adversaries of Hillary, particularly the 2016 presidential candidates–why do you think they haven’t taken action, especially legal action, against her, based on the accusations in your book?

SCHWEIZER: That’s a good question. The political opponents running for 2016 on the Republican side or on the Democratic side are not themselves in a position to take legal action. Legal action in this area basically comes down to very, very few entities. You’ve got the FBI which can do an investigation if they choose to do so. The FBI is under the Department of Justice, so there’s that question of political hijinks and whether they’d be willing to do that. The second possibility would be the Department of Justice itself, of U.S. Attorneys in, say, New York or elsewhere. Again, this is the Obama Department of Justice, so I think it’s highly unlikely that you’ll see legal action taken in this area.

And I think the third option would be a congressional committee, with subpoena power to ask questions. There was recently, Senator Grassley, who is the Chair of the Judiciary Committee, has written a letter to the Attorney General with a series of questions relating to this uranium deal, which was confirmed by the New York Times, the details of which. So I think there’s a possibility of those things taking place.

But, look, the Clintons are–if you talk to journalists, and I’ve talked to many of them–the Clintons are by far the most nasty and most aggressive people to go after. Journalists will tell you if you write a story exposing something related to the Bushes or related to other Democrats, you might get an angry email. You might get a complaint. If you write the same thing as it relates to the Clintons, you may have half a dozen Clinton operatives talking to your editor because they don’t like your story–literally in their office, talking to the editor. So when you’re grappling with the Clintons, you’re grappling with a very powerful political machine.

And whenever it comes to legal issues, when it comes to journalism, it’s a question of courage. A lot of people have to ask themselves and calculate, do I want to put up with what I’m gonna have to put up with to go after them on this particular issue because it’s warranted? And I think thus far nobody has demonstrated the courage to do that.

HOST: If you had the ability to ask Hillary Clinton one question, what would it be?

SCHWEIZER: […] What I think is probably most important would be to try to get to the bottom as it relates to the emails. Because to me, there’s never really been a straight answer to the question of the emails that were excluded–where they are. It’s clear now just based on some of the revelations that have come out with the Sidney Blumenthal emails that there are emails that were not given to the State Department, that were not of a personal nature, that were State Department related, and that the Clintons never turned over to the State Department. So I think that is a profoundly important question.

I wrote and finished Clinton Cash before the email scandal came out. And if you ask me now about the email scandal, I think it works hand in glove with the issues raised in Clinton Cash. I think those 30,000 emails that were erased were primarily related to transactions or the requests of Clinton Foundation donors or those who were paying speeches for Bill Clinton wanting something from the Secretary of State.


Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.