NEW YORK – In an interview with WND, investigative reporter and author of the 2012 book “Clinton Cash” Peter Schweizer disclosed that after writing his book, Bill and Hillary Clinton sought to discredit him as the messenger while ultimately failing to refute his message.
“The Clinton attack on my book, ‘Clinton Cash’ was the classic Clinton attack,” Schweizer said. “So, what the Clintons did, instead of refuting my message, the Clintons attacked me as the messenger.
Advertisement - story continues below
He noted Clinton supporters sent out a 25-page dossier on him, calling him a crazy right-winger, with the goal of distracting from the material.
TRENDING: It's not about COVID, it's about control
“Their second position – one legitimized by the George Stephanopoulos interview – was to charge that because I did not have a smoking gun, I had not proved criminal conduct,” Schweizer pointed out.
“This is another classic Clinton technique involving the creation of a ridiculous standard that doesn’t apply to anybody else. In other words, when did it become the rule that the only news regarding a controversy and scandal was when the author could prove a crime had been committed? It’s a ridiculous standard.”
Advertisement - story continues below
A real threat to the Clintons
Schweizer concluded from the ferocity of the Clinton attack against him personally that his book, “Clinton Cash,” contained truths the Clintons could not bear for the American public to read.
“I try to remind people that prosecutors will tell you that in the vast majority of cases involving white-collar crime, there is not a smoking gun,” he said.
“For instance, on insider trading cases, when you’re prosecuting people for insider trading on the stock market, there is no email that says: ‘Hey, Fred, I’ve got inside information. Buy this stock on this day at this price.’ It just doesn’t work that way. On most insider trading, it’s just a pattern of well-timed trades. And the prosecutors say, ‘Look, nobody is that good.’ It’s the pattern of behavior.”
Schweizer argued the pattern of Clinton behavior was much more established than the patterns in the case of Gov. Bob McDonnell of Virginia, who was convicted for doing favors for a wealthy vitamin executive in exchange for more than $165,000 in gifts and loans, or Sen. Bob Menendez in New Jersey, who has been indicted for advancing the business interests of a longtime friend in exchange for luxury gifts, lavish vacations and more than $750,000 in campaign contributions.
Advertisement - story continues below
“And yet you have people in jail and people that are being prosecuted on far less information,” he said.
Did Hillary destroy evidence?
When asked if Hillary Clinton destroyed emails she claimed were personal in order to hide evidence of political corruption, Schweizer expressed his suspicions.
“I’ve always suspected that the 32,000 emails Hillary deleted claiming they were ‘private’ meant she got rid of about half of all the emails she sent on her home-based server while secretary of state,” Schweizer said. “So, I’ve always said that the half that Hillary deleted – that she claimed were of a personal nature – probably had the most compelling evidence in them.”
Advertisement - story continues below
Nevertheless, he said, the available evidence shows Clinton Foundation donors that were seeking favors.
"And, yes, there were people like Huma Abedin and others who worked both at the State Department and at Clinton-related organizations like Teneo that were blurring the lines,” he said, referring to Hillary Clinton's longtime aide.
“So, I think at the end of the day it strains credulity that the Clintons operate in some universe where all these facts are mere coincidences,” he stressed.
“The oldest rule in the book is ‘follow the money.’ People don’t throw money at politicians usually unless they want a favor in return. And when somebody throws money at a politician and then a favor is done a little bit later on, I think most people are sophisticated enough to know that the events are often connected, especially when you see that pattern repeated over and over again.”
Clintons exploit Third World for personal profit
Schweizer turned his attention to the extensive involvement of the Clinton Foundation in Third World deals.
“What I think is really stunning is that the Clintons latched onto this notion that in the developing world there are resource plays – whether you get access to oil, or you get access to mining assets – that are highly lucrative,” he said. “And the role that a former president or a secretary of state can play in securing or making those resources profitable is enormous.”
The irony, he said, is that many of the Clinton Foundation donors are not an insurance company in the United Kingdom or a media company in Germany but a mining company in remote Africa or an oil company working in the jungles of Columbia.
“That tells you something about the dynamic with which the Clintons operate, because the secretary of state has enormous power, and if you’re trying to drill for oil in Columbia, or you’re trying to exploit uranium assets in Kazakhstan, having that kind of influence and power … can make people very, very wealthy,” he emphasized. “And operators exploiting the Third World resource plays are very happy to pass 10 percent on to the Clintons.”
Schweizer focused on Canadian mining executive Frank Giustra as an example.
“What’s interesting about Frank Giustra is that Frank Giustra explicitly said that he was going to commit half of all of his profits in the future to the Clinton Foundation,” he noted. “Well, what does that do? That incentivizes the Clintons to help him be as profitable as possible in the developing world by pulling strings and performing favors, because it’s going to end up back in their pocket, because they’re going to get half of it.”
Next he turned his attention to the Clinton’s propensity to seek profit in natural disasters, including earthquakes in India and Haiti, and a hurricane in New Orleans.
“The Clintons after the horrific earthquake in Haiti in 2010 had basically complete control of the country,” he pointed out. “Hillary Clinton is secretary of state. Bill Clinton is the U.N. special envoy to Haiti. Then Bill Clinton gets appointed to that international Haitian Recovery Commission, and basically what the other members of that committee say is that Bill Clinton is running the whole thing, such that they have no say.
“So you have hundreds of millions and billions of dollars pouring into Haiti that the Clintons are in control of,” Schweizer stressed. “It’s a fascinating laboratory to look and see what are the results of those efforts.
“We all recognize that in the developing world, things don’t always go as planned, that relief efforts are not always successful. But what is stark in the case of the Clintons is that not only do the average Haitians not really benefit – so the relief effort is not a success – but the people tied to the Clintons actually find the relief effort to have been enormously personally profitable,” he concluded.
From this evidence, Schweizer concluded Haiti appears to be a blatant case of the Clinton family exploiting the human misery of a natural catastrophe to position the Clinton Foundation to benefit financially.
“The truth is that with Haiti we have a relief-effort failure, but we also find the so-called ‘Haiti recovery’ was an enormous financial success for the Clintons as well as their friends and allies. That, to me, can only be explained one way, and that is it was actually Clinton crony-capitalism.”
What really is the work of the Clinton Foundation?
Schweizer raised the important question of whether or not the Clinton Foundation accomplishes genuine philanthropic purposes or whether the impression of “doing good” is merely a front for a criminal scheme of enormous proportions.
“If you talk to the Clinton Foundation people about what the foundation actually does in Africa, you don’t get a straight answer,” he said. “What the Clinton Foundation people will say – they even put this in their literature – they use words like, ‘We’re a facilitator,’ or, ‘We supplement the work of groups like Doctors Without Borders,’ or ,‘We enhance the efficiencies of the work of groups like Doctors Without Borders.’ So, the Clinton Foundation in Africa is essentially a middleman.”
He acknowledged middlemen have a role to play, but said "the irony is that in the Clinton Foundation literature, you will see Bill Clinton holding a poverty-stricken child."
"You will see Chelsea and Hillary doing the same thing," he said. "That creates the impression that the Clinton Foundation is actually doing hands-on work with people in need on a regular basis with people in Africa or in Asia. And the simple fact of the matter is that’s not true.”
He said the Clinton Foundation provides support for groups such as Doctors Without Borders or Franklin Graham’s charity, Samaritan's Purse.
“The Clinton Foundation will provide support for relief efforts, but the Clinton Foundation themselves are not actually providing immunizations, they’re not actually performing surgeries on people – that’s being done by other philanthropic groups – and the Clinton Foundation says they are ‘enhancing’ what those other groups are doing.”
He charged that the Clinton family set up the Clinton Foundation to create a façade of charitable work to disguise the diversion of donations to the personal profit of the Clinton family and their close associates.
“I think what the Clintons do is they get some of the money they get from governments like Norway, and that’s for the actual purchase of the drugs,” he began. "But even here, I don’t think the Clinton Foundation is loading the drugs up on trucks or on ships. I think what they are basically doing is providing the funding, but really the funding is coming from the Norwegian government or another entity. And then those drugs are being shipped to either U.N. doctors or Doctors Without Borders, or other NGOs.
“So, the Clintons’ footprint or involvement in it is minor, to say the least,” he emphasized.
“My problem is really the deceptive nature of the way the Clintons present it. Again, if you look at the pictures last summer when Bill Clinton was in Africa responding to my book and there was some footage of him with NBC News and he was there with some children that were having work done because of some hearing problems. Well, the impression you would get is that the Clinton Foundation is performing those surgeries. The Clinton Foundation does not have people on staff that is performing medical procedures. That is not what they do.”
He said the foundation is more like a management-consulting firm that’s trying to make other groups more efficient.
“I don’t know enough about relief efforts to say how valuable that role is, but it is certainly not like the work they are portraying they are doing,” he said.
Clintons are 'money-driven'
He noted a current member of the Clinton Foundation board of directors from the Dominican Republic, Rolando Gonzalez Bunster, is under indictment for the rigging of government contracts.
“Why is it the Clinton Foundation has this problem over and over again, but the Red Cross and the United Way do not seem to have their board members being charged with crimes?” he asked. “You don’t find a history of the members of the board of directors of the Red Cross being under indictment, but you do find it with the Clinton Foundation, and the question is why?”
“The Clintons made a conscious decision very early on that the Clinton Foundation was going to be about the money,” he answered. “So, you have individuals like Sant Chatwal and Rajat Gupta and others, who are willing to throw money at the Clintons, and the Clintons don’t really want to ask questions about where that money is coming from or who these individuals donating the money might really be.
"The pattern we see with the Clintons is that they are money-driven and that’s what is of most interest to them,” said Schweizer.
“Those issues – earthquakes, etcetera – create a mask for which they can conduct the rest of their behavior,” he explained. “So, Bill Clinton tapped into the issue of HIV and the availability of drugs. When you talk to people who are in that area, they will say the Clinton Foundation takes credit for a lot, and that they were kind of late to the game, but they got involved in that area, which is fine.
“The problem is that you see them pulling out the HIV/AIDS card when, for example, they take the trip to Kazakhstan in 2005,” he said. “Why is Bill Clinton meeting with the dictator of Kazakhstan in November 2005? Well, he’s there to help Frank Giustra secure a uranium deal. But he uses the cover that he’s there to help on HIV/AIDS issues.”
He pointed out that according to the World Health Organization, AIDS was almost non-existent in Kazakhstan at that time.
"But yet it provided a convenient cover behind which Bill Clinton could say, ‘Oh, no, no, no. I’m not here helping somebody do a mining deal. I’m just here to help people deal with the impact of AIDS.’ It provides a camouflage for the other activities in which the Clintons want to engage.”
He said the Clintons "return to the same well over and over again."
“It’s common to find somebody who was providing large soft-money checks to Bill Clinton when he was president, then that’s the same person they tap for Hillary’s Senate campaign," he said. "They end up being Clinton Foundation donors, as well as sponsors to the Clinton Global Initiative, and then they end up being clients of Teneo. So, the Clintons milk them on a regular basis to cover all these areas. I forgot speaking fees to Bill – they tap them for that as well.”
In return, he said, the donors get "access to the highest quarters of power and they get access from people – namely, the Clintons – who are pretty shameless about the extent to which they are willing to go to make sure that the favors are done for their friends."
“So, it ends up being an enormous amount of money – an enormous cash stream for the Clintons – but I bet if you asked a guy like Frank Giustra, if you asked him in a candid moment if it was worth it, he would say, ‘Absolutely.’ If you look at the amount of money Giustra has made from the crony deals that the Clintons have arranged, and it’s pretty clear it was profitable for Giustra.”
Schweizer extended the discussion to include the Clinton Global Initiative.
“All that you need to know about how the Clinton Global Initiative works is that it is a networking session for donors and NGOs,” he argued. “I talk about in the book a gold mine deal that Hillary’s brother is involved in. He says it came together at Clinton Global Initiative. So, the Clinton Global Initiative is an opportunity for Clinton family members to strike mining deals with mining companies in Haiti – that’s what’s going on at the Clinton Global Initiative.”
In 2012, Hillary Clinton’s brother, Tony Rodham, sat on the board of a mining company that received one of only two “gold exploitation permits” from the Haitian government – the first issued in over 50 years. It was after the State Department, according to USAID, had disbursed $3.1 billion to Haiti, supposedly to assist the 2010 earthquake recovery effort.
“I fear that if Hillary were to become president – given the way the Clintons operate – her presidency would create a kind of Third World situation for the United States, where the kind of corruption we associate with Latin American dictatorships, or with corrupt Third World nations – that mode of corruption, that massive scale of corruption – would be coming to the United States,” Schweitzer concluded.
“For the Clinton family, donations to the Clinton Foundation are definitely transactional,” he stressed. “Some of the donations involve a quid pro quo arrangement where you get paid for services rendered. That’s one way the money flows into the Clinton Foundation coffers.
“But then there are other cases where I think it is actually more of a retainer kind of relationship,” he added. “Here there is a regular flow of cash, and the donors may not need something right now, but, ‘You know, I might need something 18 months down the road, so I’m just going to kind of keep just them on retainer for when I really do need them.’
"I think both of those methodologies of using the Clinton Foundation have proven to be very lucrative for the Clintons.”