Peter Schweizer does it again. Schweizer is the author of “Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy”, which is a fabulous read if you haven’t already read it. It shreds numerous liberals who are utterly full of horse manure. Schweizer has also authored “Throw Them All Out”, another great read.
Schweizer’s new book “Clinton Cash” is due to be released on May 5, but copies have been leaked and the NY Times published an article about it yesterday, with ambivalence.
The book, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times, asserts that foreign entities who made payments to the Clinton Foundation and to Mr. Clinton through high speaking fees received favors from Mrs. Clinton’s State Department in return.
“We will see a pattern of financial transactions involving the Clintons that occurred contemporaneous with favorable U.S. policy decisions benefiting those providing the funds,” Mr. Schweizer writes.
His examples include a free-trade agreement in Colombia that benefited a major foundation donor’s natural resource investments in the South American nation, development projects in the aftermath of the Haitian earthquake in 2010, and more than $1 million in payments to Mr. Clinton by a Canadian bank and major shareholder in the Keystone XL oil pipeline around the time the project was being debated in the State Department.
Then author Amy Chozick laments how this book, unlike others targeting the Clintons, could land some heavy punches:
But “Clinton Cash” is potentially more unsettling, both because of its focused reporting and because major news organizations including The Times, The Washington Post and Fox News have exclusive agreements with the author to pursue the story lines found in the book.
Right on cue the Clinton campaign whipped out the vast right wing conspiracy card:
A campaign spokesman, Brian Fallon, called the book part of the Republicans’ coordinated attack strategy on Mrs. Clinton “twisting previously known facts into absurd conspiracy theories,” and he said “it will not be the first work of partisan-fueled fiction about the Clintons’ record, and we know it will not be the last.”
Calling Schweizer’s book “meticulously” documented, the Times notes that of the 13 speeches Bill Clinton gave for more than $500,000 each, only two occurred when Hillary was not Secretary of State.
Despise the obvious conflicts of interest, the Clinton Foundation announced it will continue to accept money from foreign donors.
There are numerous ethical questions about the Clinton Foundation’s donors as well, some of which can bee seen here and here, the second asks whether Hillary took “blood phosphate money” from Morocco.
The Morocco channel shows how the US is funding the Clinton Foundation indirectly. The US gives foreign aid to Morocco and in turn Morocco gives money to the Clinton Foundation. Your tax dollars help fund the Clinton Foundation.
For a $100 million donation to the Clinton Foundation Hillary decided to look the other way regarding human rights abuses:
At the same time that Clinton’s State Department was lauding Colombia’s human rights record, her family was forging a financial relationship with Pacific Rubiales, the sprawling Canadian petroleum company at the center of Colombia’s labor strife. The Clintons were also developing commercial ties with the oil giant’s founder, Canadian financier Frank Giustra, who now occupies a seat on the board of the Clinton Foundation, the family’s global philanthropic empire.
The details of these financial dealings remain murky, but this much is clear: After millions of dollars were pledged by the oil company to the Clinton Foundation — supplemented by millions more from Giustra himself — Secretary Clinton abruptly changed her position on the controversial U.S.-Colombia trade pact. Having opposed the deal as a bad one for labor rights back when she was a presidential candidate in 2008, she now promoted it, calling it “strongly in the interests of both Colombia and the United States.” The change of heart by Clinton and other Democratic leaders enabled congressional passage of a Colombia trade deal that experts say delivered big benefits to foreign investors like Giustra.
The Clinton Foundation takes a great deal of money from countries that routinely oppress women:
The department’s 2011 human rights report on Saudi Arabia, the last such yearly review prepared during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure, tersely faulted the kingdom for “a lack of equal rights for women and children,” and said violence against women, human trafficking and gender discrimination, among other abuses, were all “common” there.
Saudi Arabia has been a particularly generous benefactor to the Clinton Foundation, giving at least $10 million since 2001, according to foundation disclosures. At least $1 million more was donated by Friends of Saudi Arabia, co-founded by a Saudi prince.
Ever so predictably, Amanda Marcotte rushes to the defense of Hillary’s taking money from countries that oppress women. Sorry, Amanda, but this points once again to the propensity of liberals to demand that you do as they say and not as they do. Money gets Hillary to look the other way.
Someone ought to write a book about that.