“Clinton Cash” author Peter Schweizer stated that the Clintons “almost immediately” failed to disclose donors the Clinton Foundation that they agreed with the Obama administration to disclose on Thursday’s “700 Club.”
Schweizer said, “it’s interesting, the Clinton Foundation says ‘oh, we’re the most transparent foundation out there.’ Well, they are because they were forced to, not by me or by conservative Republicans, but by President-elect Barack Obama. A condition for her becoming Secretary of State in early 2009 was that she agree to disclose all contributions to the Clinton Foundation, and that there be a process to vet donations that were coming in. The problem is…they violated that agreement almost immediately. They took multi-million dollar donations from foreign businesses that had interests before the State Department. Those were never disclosed. They have now come back and admitted that I’m correct, that those donations were not disclosed. But the problem is we don’t know what we don’t know, Pat. There was a report yesterday in the Washington Post and in Bloomberg, that they admit there are more than 1,100, 1,100 undisclosed donations. And that’s what they’re telling us. It could be even more than that.”
He added that for some of the Foundation’s donors, “there’s a sense that giving a contribution to the Clinton Foundation is a retainer. In other words, that it’s granting them access. And if you look at the pattern of conduct during her tenure as Secretary of State, it’s very, very clear that you have a pattern repeated dozens of times, which is, Hillary Clinton takes a position on an issue. There’s an influx of maybe tens of millions of dollars, even than $100 million in some cases, and then she ends up making a policy decision that is favorable to the people that have sent the money. And sometimes she is reversing course from the previous position that she had. The only thing that happens in between is there’s this large influx of money. So, it’s a very troubling pattern that goes to the heart of what kind of decision she’s making and why she’s making them.”
Schweizer then recounted Bill Clinton’s dealings in Kazakhstan with Frank Giustra, adding that Giustra has “very little experience in the uranium business, much larger companies, more experienced that were bidding for them [the uranium mines] did not get them,” and that Hillary Clinton “has a record on the issue of foreign governments owning critical industries in the United States, like uranium, she has a record of opposing these deals. But in this case, she actually comes out in favor of it.” He further described the Clinton’s dealings in Haiti as “crony capitalism on steroids.”
Schweizer also stated that, “when Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State, his [Bill Clinton’s] speaking fees, particularly from overseas interests went up three-fold, sometimes four-fold. He got huge big pay days from foreign entities that had business before the State Department. There’s only one of two ways to explain it. Number one, Bill Clinton all of a sudden got even more eloquent in 2009, or these entities recognized the fact that by hiring him as a speaker, they could have access to his wife, who is going to make decisions that were very important to them. And there’s a very troubling pattern there again. High speaking fees, paid by somebody who had never sponsored him before, Hillary Clinton shortly after takes favorable action for the benefit of those entities.”
He concluded, “I think they seem to believe that they are doing such good and virtuous things that the rules don’t apply to them.”
Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter @IanHanchett
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.