Peter Schweizer, author of the new book “Clinton Cash,” was on my podcast Thursday to discuss his new book about The Clintons — and the response it has received.
And since our interview came on the heels of the NFL’s “deflategate” report, which found that Patriots quarterback Tom Brady “was at least generally aware of inappropriate activities,” I asked him if he saw any parallels between the two stories. After all, both involved circumstantial evidence. Here’s his response:
The Patriots case is a great example. … It’s the same question. It’s the question of ‘Who had access to the footballs? Who benefited from the decision that was made? You know, was there evidence that this handling took place?’ All of the circumstantial evidence. But you’ve got, you know, guys from the New York Times, and elsewhere, ready to suspend Tom Brady for half a year based on that. And yet, when you look at the same kind of pattern with the Clintons — on something far more serious — that includes huge amounts of money from people who have histories of bribing public officials and you have favorable actions taken on their behalf, they’re like: ‘Well, there’s no smoking gun here.’