When President Barack Obama asked Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton to be his secretary of state in 2009, “everybody was concerned by the obvious fact that America’s chief diplomat, who charts our foreign policy with foreign governments … is taking all this foreign money” for her family’s foundation, says Peter Schweizer, author of “Clinton Cash.”
In this second exclusive video interview for The Daily Caller News Foundation, the best-selling author discusses the bipartisan scrutiny the Clintons got in January 2009 for taking foreign money for private gain. (RELATED: ‘Clinton Cash’ Author Details How Bill And Hillary Went From ‘Dead Broke’ To Multimillionaires [VIDEO])
So, when Hillary pledged extra disclosure and transparency to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee — then chaired by John Kerry — the Obama White House, and government ethics officials, it now appears she just lied to them all, says Schweizer.
Schweizer finds it “mind-boggling” that Hillary lied to Obama. He set out the specific conditions for her being secretary of state so as not to impugn his administration’s integrity and campaign promises on transparency. Instead, she created “the impression in a way that Barack Obama was working for the Clintons, not the Clintons or Hillary was working for him.”
Today, Schweizer connects the dots in this captivating interview between his 2015 research, the revelation of Hillary’s controversial private server, the WikiLeaks and Judicial Watch emails, and her effort to destroy thousands of emails.
He believes Hillary’s private and hidden emails connect directly to the favors for Clinton cash.
“They needed to have a means of communication on a global scale that allowed them to talk about favors that donors wanted, to talk about favors that could be done for donors, to talk about the flow of money in a way that could not be detected by anyone else,” he says in this video interview.
Unless held to the same rules as others, he says, this pattern by public officials using their offices for private gain will repeat itself. He notes that Obama appears already poised to repeat the pattern with his own foundation, with the help of Marty Nesbitt, a Chicago businessman.
Schweizer says for-profit education is an example of an industry targeted by government policymakers. He discusses the value of “protection money” given to connected family and friends when the government starts picking winners and losers. Schweizer uses the examples of the University of Phoenix, Laureate International and ITT Tech, which was shuttered in September. Just recently, Judicial Watch exposed a favor done for Laureate International and other Clinton Foundation sponsors.
Schweizer explains the biggest surprises about his explosive revelations in “Clinton Cash”: the lack of interest by the Obama White House in his disclosures, and the pliability of many within the mainstream media, naming CNN and Time Magazine for “doing the bidding of the Clintons.”
Since filming Schweizer on Sept. 29, WikiLeaks released thousands of Clinton confidant John Podesta’s emails. The email dumps exposed a plethora of favors done for Clinton donors and revealed surprising contacts between the Clinton campaign and officials from the Departments of Justice and State. The emails also showed an avalanche of examples of media collusion for Hillary, including that Donna Brazile leaked debate questions to Clinton while she was still with CNN.
The Clinton machine has responded to Schweizer’s book and research by “attacking the messenger,” claiming they are doing what everybody else in government does, and saying there is no evidence of any “quid pro quo,” he explains.
The interview ends with Schweizer discussing the need for Republican nominee Donald Trump to abide by greater scrutiny on his taxes, the Trump Foundation and Trump University.
In addition, Bernard Sansaricq, former president of the Haitian senate, says the charitable money that was supposed to go to Haiti was stolen by the Clintons. The Trump campaign also released this exposé of cronyism in Haiti by the Clintons.
Mrs. Thomas does not necessarily support or endorse the products, services or positions promoted in any advertisement contained herein, and does not have control over or receive compensation from any advertiser.