When Peter Schweizer’s book Clinton Cash debuted, even legacy media acknowledged the shady nature of global dealings by US royal couple Bill and Hillary Clinton. Schweizer’s book has been made into a documentary film that will debut in May at the Cannes Film Festival in France.
The film won’t be shown to legions of wealthy show biz types and their groupies. Clinton Cash will be shown instead to distributors.
While eyebrows had been raised about the Clintons’ family foundation dealings in countries like Haiti and Colombia, only Schweizer took time to research the path of money lining the Clintons’ journey in politics.
While President Barack Obama did set criteria for Mrs. Clinton’s tenure at the State Dept. because of her family’s foundation, Schweizer found, “The Obama administration put very few restrictions on the Clintons.”
As I’ve pointed out here at Day on the Day, one reason for Obama’s reluctance to rein in Mrs. Clinton could stem from the abundance of staffers who had served in the administration of Mr. Clinton or had worked with Mrs. Clinton on her campaigns.
Schweizer’s disclosures forced legacy media to look at the pattern of paid speeches for both Clintons and subsequent decisions in Congress and the State Department regarding foreign countries and pacts like the Colombia Free Trade Agreement.
Mrs. Clinton first vigorously opposed the CFTA deal as did Obama. Both the president and his secretary of state flip-flopped, approving the deal after Obama took the White House in 2008.
Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 campaign manager also, through his PR firm, said Schweizer, “was advising the Colombians on how to get the free trade deal through Congress.” [Clinton Cash, pg. 209]
As information was gleaned by various media, even media considered friendly to Democrats took note:
“Almost all the 82 corporations, trade associations, and other groups that paid for or sponsored [Hillary] Clinton’s speeches have actively sought to sway the government—lobbying, bidding for contracts, commenting on federal policy and in some cases contacting State Department officials or Clinton herself during her tenure as Secretary of State.” (Associated Press via Government Accountability Institute video on YouTube)
Schweizer also heads up the Government Accountability Institute, a group focusing on goals such as exposing crony capitalism and misuse of taxpayer money. Schweizer has also taken aim at the Bush family’s dealings in a new work, Bush Bucks, a fact often overlooked by his critics on the left.
The Clintons’ enthusiasm for lining their own pockets, despite Mrs. Clinton’s claims she and her husband were “dead broke” when they left the White House, is well known to anyone who lived through Mr. Clinton’s administration. As Schweizer pointed out in his book:
“[M]ore than one hundred ‘White House coffees’ were held in 1995 and 1996 at which large dollar contributors paid for face time with the president. White House officials initially denied that these were fundraisers, but schedules from Harold Ickes, the deputy chief of staff in the White House, referred to them as ‘political fundraising coffees.’ White House officials even tracked the ‘projected revenue’ of these events, including who paid and how much.” [pg. 245]
When Schweizer’s book was first released, it drew above the fold coverage for months. The film may well do the same. Few Americans younger than 30 are aware of the Clintons’ actual record while holding government offices and posts. Hopefully the film will draw attention as the book did, and make its way to various populations who don’t read books but may watch videos and films.
Another nugget Schweizer disclosed has to do with Bill Clinton’s fundraising for his second term. “Following the 1996 election,” wrote Schweizer, “the DNC was forced to return some $2.8 million in illegal or improper donations, most of it from foreign sources.” Schweizer said “almost 80 percent” of that total had been raised or contributed by two friends of the Clintons. [pg. 245]
Little political ammunition has been expended so far as both Democrats and Republicans carry out the process of making their nominee official. Once Mrs. Clinton is officially confirmed, there will be ammunition aplenty directed at her because despite Clinton data routinely going missing, there is still a very long paper trail documenting habits and practices of a couple bent on erecting a royal dynasty in US politics.
As for Mrs. Clinton’s claims she and her husband were “dead broke” in the late 1990s, even fact checkers friendly to Dems ruled her statement ‘mostly false.’ Had she been a Republican, those fact checkers would’ve omitted ‘mostly’ from their ruling and simply declared the statement a lie.
(Commentary by Kay B. Day/April 29, 2016)
Please help us continue to keep our site online by donating a small amount via the PayPal link in the right column. We don’t run ads from major search engines or third parties on this site. Follow us on Twitter @DayontheDay.