What do you think?
Rate this book
Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich
In 2000, Bill and Hillary Clinton owed millions of dollars in legal debt. Since then, they’ve earned over $130 million. Where did the money come from? Most people assume that the Clintons amassed their wealth through lucrative book deals and high-six figure fees for speaking gigs. Now, Peter Schweizer shows who is really behind those enormous payments.
In his New York Times bestselling books Extortion and Throw Them All Out, Schweizer detailed patterns of official corruption in Washington that led to congressional resignations and new ethics laws. In Clinton Cash, he follows the Clinton money trail, revealing the connection between their personal fortune, their “close personal friends,” the Clinton Foundation, foreign nations, and some of the highest ranks of government.
Schweizer reveals the Clinton’s troubling dealings in Kazakhstan, Colombia, Haiti, and other places at the “wild west” fringe of the global economy. In this blockbuster exposé, Schweizer merely presents the troubling facts he’s uncovered. Meticulously researched and scrupulously sourced, filled with headline-making revelations, Clinton Cash raises serious questions of judgment, of possible indebtedness to an array of foreign interests, and ultimately, of fitness for high public office.
In his New York Times bestselling books Extortion and Throw Them All Out, Schweizer detailed patterns of official corruption in Washington that led to congressional resignations and new ethics laws. In Clinton Cash, he follows the Clinton money trail, revealing the connection between their personal fortune, their “close personal friends,” the Clinton Foundation, foreign nations, and some of the highest ranks of government.
Schweizer reveals the Clinton’s troubling dealings in Kazakhstan, Colombia, Haiti, and other places at the “wild west” fringe of the global economy. In this blockbuster exposé, Schweizer merely presents the troubling facts he’s uncovered. Meticulously researched and scrupulously sourced, filled with headline-making revelations, Clinton Cash raises serious questions of judgment, of possible indebtedness to an array of foreign interests, and ultimately, of fitness for high public office.
382 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2015
687 people are currently reading
2749 people want to read
About the author
Peter Schweizer
55 books397 followersPeter Schweizer is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. From 2008-'09 he served as a consultant to the White House Office of Presidential Speechwriting and he is a former consultant to NBC News. He has written for the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, National Review, Foreign Affairs, and elsewhere. His books include The Bushes, Reagan's War, and Do as I Say, Not as I Do.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 381 reviews
January 3, 2016
This is a nauseating exposé of the ethical enormities perpetrated by the Clintons via the Clinton Foundation... but more importantly, it is an X-ray of the hypocrisy that serves as a platform for the so-called US liberal leadership.
And these are supposed to be the good guys.
According to this thoroughly researched book, the Clinton Foundation is a colonial enterprise that operates almost exclusively at the fringes of the developed world. It takes advantage of the social, fiscal, and political shortcomings of developing countries to land multimillion dollar deals that benefit Bill and Hillary's friends (having previously made generous donations to the Clinton Foundation), and that are utterly detrimental to the democratic advancement of the countries where they take place. And all this under the cover of a narrative rife with humanitarian motifs and liberal goobedlygook.
As a citizen of a developing country, I've always known that first world riches are predicated on the subjugation of third world economies. That is the nature of the beast. War and conquest are not the techniques used to accomplish this anymore, of course. The new way is more of a nuanced, long con; the results are the same. The Clintons are a very successful pair of grifters that have perfected a synchronized scam using the US government as leverage.
Given what this book denounces, combined with what we already know of this couple (Whitewater, cattle futures, the Lincoln Bedroom rentals, Benghazi, etc.), the fact that they are not even under investigation is beyond me.
And these are supposed to be the good guys.
According to this thoroughly researched book, the Clinton Foundation is a colonial enterprise that operates almost exclusively at the fringes of the developed world. It takes advantage of the social, fiscal, and political shortcomings of developing countries to land multimillion dollar deals that benefit Bill and Hillary's friends (having previously made generous donations to the Clinton Foundation), and that are utterly detrimental to the democratic advancement of the countries where they take place. And all this under the cover of a narrative rife with humanitarian motifs and liberal goobedlygook.
As a citizen of a developing country, I've always known that first world riches are predicated on the subjugation of third world economies. That is the nature of the beast. War and conquest are not the techniques used to accomplish this anymore, of course. The new way is more of a nuanced, long con; the results are the same. The Clintons are a very successful pair of grifters that have perfected a synchronized scam using the US government as leverage.
Given what this book denounces, combined with what we already know of this couple (Whitewater, cattle futures, the Lincoln Bedroom rentals, Benghazi, etc.), the fact that they are not even under investigation is beyond me.
May 12, 2015
Anybody who thinks the Clintons should be allowed to participate in public office needs to read this book. And anybody who wants to criticize this book, needs to read it first. The author uses publicly available sources to paint a very ugly picture of the Clinton machine. No doubt many politicians are bribed and bullied into taking certain actions, but as you read about Hillary spinning her way through her political career, it could make your head explode. How anybody can believe anything they say, just shows the public's gullibility, and the Clinton's ability to play everybody.
Want to read
July 29, 2016In this searing exposé, award-winning journalist Peter Schweizer, grandson of the world-famous Albert, reveals that Hillary Clinton personally signed off on the treasonous sale of Uranium One to Vladimir Putin, a strong leader we can do business with who is thankfully taking the initiative in bombing ISIS into the ground while our useless military sits and looks ineffectual, er, where was I...
May 7, 2015
I read this page-turner in a very short time. It's well-researched and footnoted so Clinton coincidence-theorists are bound to spend a huge amount of time and effort denouncing it. Partisan politics aside, when will the American people decide enough is enough of the draft-dodging philanderer, his wife and their sham marriage? Bravo to Mr Schweizer on an outstanding piece of investigative journalism.
September 7, 2016
I found myself too depressed by this book to review it back in the depths of winter. But it's an important and timely read. I want to stress that this is not a hyper-partisan hatchet job. Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich is a meticulous, and to this Wall Street analyst, fascinating dissection of a complex interlocked group of corporate entities known collectively as the Clinton Foundations.
What the Clintons have managed to do, and very cleverly, is to monetize the intersection of charity and political influence--to the tune of over $2 billion dollars. It all works remarkably well as a way to bundle foreign and corporate donations, convene glitzy gatherings, reward loyal insiders with cushy jobs, and generate lots of great photo-ops. The Foundations (yes, it's in the plural) are so complex and opaque that it would take a massive investigation with full subpoena powers and the best forensic accountants in the business to figure out the cash flows.
Do they manage to do some good? Maybe but then again, maybe not. Mostly the foundations operate by partnering or subcontracting projects to other charity or business partner or touting Committments to Action from corporate donors. The Clintons act as brokers in the transactions and seem to take donations as finders fees for bringing power-people together. Often the Clintons will make a reciprocal donations to the 'charity' they are partnering with, or take speaking fees from related parties, or hire pals like Huma Abedin or Doug Band for both foundation and, say, State Department work. It's all rather incestuous and hard to untangle--and I suspect that the opacity is a feature, not a bug.
For those who don't want to read a whole book, I recommend this useful review and update of Clinton Foundation issues by David Sirota, a left-leaning investigative reporter with the International Business Times. Most of the critiques of Peter Schweizer's book cite the fact that Schweizer leans toward the right, but his work on the Clinton Foundations has held up to extensive scrutiny by more left-leaning publications like the New York Times, The Washington Post, IBT, Vox and the New Yorker, among others who have corroborated and expanded on Schweizer's original investigation.
Here are few highlights cribbed from Sirota's article, which covers in updated form much of the same ground as Clinton Cash:
There is nothing new about politicians using tax exempt 'foundations' and so-called charitable fundraisers to as a way to channel political influence and evade campaign finance laws. But the Clintons put a new spin on this process by raising much of their foundations' money from foreign donors. Contributions by foreign nationals or governments to US political campaigns are prohibited--but tax-exempt foundations like the Clintons' are a backdoor way to donate to a campaign or to curry favor with someone in a position of political power.
The recent punt by the FBI and the Justice Department on the email saga suggests that we may never learn the truth and the Clintons appear poised to return to the White House. But enough information is slowly leaking out to show patterns and raise clear ethical questions. The Associated Press analysis of two years of Mrs. Clinton's schedules revealed that
Meanwhile, despite this review, I'm trying to pay as little attention as possible to this train wreck of an election. I plan on escaping reality with lots of feel-good cozy British village stories, animal books and shoot-em-up Louis L'Amour Westerns!
What the Clintons have managed to do, and very cleverly, is to monetize the intersection of charity and political influence--to the tune of over $2 billion dollars. It all works remarkably well as a way to bundle foreign and corporate donations, convene glitzy gatherings, reward loyal insiders with cushy jobs, and generate lots of great photo-ops. The Foundations (yes, it's in the plural) are so complex and opaque that it would take a massive investigation with full subpoena powers and the best forensic accountants in the business to figure out the cash flows.
Do they manage to do some good? Maybe but then again, maybe not. Mostly the foundations operate by partnering or subcontracting projects to other charity or business partner or touting Committments to Action from corporate donors. The Clintons act as brokers in the transactions and seem to take donations as finders fees for bringing power-people together. Often the Clintons will make a reciprocal donations to the 'charity' they are partnering with, or take speaking fees from related parties, or hire pals like Huma Abedin or Doug Band for both foundation and, say, State Department work. It's all rather incestuous and hard to untangle--and I suspect that the opacity is a feature, not a bug.
For those who don't want to read a whole book, I recommend this useful review and update of Clinton Foundation issues by David Sirota, a left-leaning investigative reporter with the International Business Times. Most of the critiques of Peter Schweizer's book cite the fact that Schweizer leans toward the right, but his work on the Clinton Foundations has held up to extensive scrutiny by more left-leaning publications like the New York Times, The Washington Post, IBT, Vox and the New Yorker, among others who have corroborated and expanded on Schweizer's original investigation.
Here are few highlights cribbed from Sirota's article, which covers in updated form much of the same ground as Clinton Cash:
Uranium: In a 2015 investigative report, the New York Times reported that as Russia’s atomic energy agency assumed control of a multinational uranium mining conglomerate, “a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation” from investors with a stake in the deal. The sale of the company “gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States.” The paper noted that the Clinton-led State Department was one of the U.S. agencies that signed off on the transaction.There is much more both in the book and Sirota's excellent overview and unfortunately, it gets worse. The chapter on the Clintons' involvement with Haiti in the aftermath of the tragic earthquake of 2010 was sickening and, alas, has also been thoroughly investigated and corroborated . One of the most striking aspects of the Clinton Foundation projects is how often they involve developing countries with colonial-style extraction economies--and how often Bill Clinton and his pals had cozy dealings with kleptocratic oligarchs and dictators eager to cash in on their countries' resources.
Lobbying: A 2015 analysis by Vox found that “at least 181 companies, individuals, and foreign governments that have given to the Clinton Foundation also lobbied the State Department when Hillary Clinton ran the place.” IBT reported that Bill Clinton was paid more than $2.5 million by firms that were lobbying Hillary Clinton’s department.
Colombia: A 2015 IBT investigative report found that as a Clinton Foundation-linked project accepted contributions from a Colombian oil firm and its founder, Hillary Clinton did not respond to calls for her State Department to use its power to combat alleged labor abuses at the company. Clinton also switched her position to support the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement, actively pushing Congress to ratify a pact she had previously pledged to oppose.
Morocco: In May of 2015, Politico, ABC News and Yahoo reported that Morocco’s state-owned phosphate company OCP donated $1 million to the Clinton Foundation for a conference in Marrakech. The Politico story said “Hillary Clinton’s relationship with Morocco’s government was pivotal” in brokering the meeting and noted that “not long after stepping down in 2013, Clinton joined her family foundation’s board, and that same year OCP donated between $1 million and $5 million to the philanthropy.” Politico also noted that prior to the donations, “as protests raged on Moroccan streets, Hillary Clinton in a joint 2011 appearance with Morocco’s foreign minister praised the king for introducing constitutional reforms and said his country was ‘well-positioned to lead in this area because it is on the road to achieving democratic change.’” Additionally, Politico reported, in 2012 “even as the State Department continued to include Morocco in human rights reports and to flag concerns about government corruption, Clinton launched an ongoing U.S.-Morocco strategic dialogue, praising the country as “a leader and a model.”
Algeria: A 2015 Washington Post investigation found that the Clinton Foundation accepted $500,000 from the Algerian government at a time when that country “was spending heavily to lobby the State Department on human rights issues.” The Post reported that Clinton Foundation “officials acknowledged they should have sought approval in 2010 from the State Department ethics office, as required by the agreement for new government donors, before accepting” the money, which was earmarked for Haiti earthquake relief.
There is nothing new about politicians using tax exempt 'foundations' and so-called charitable fundraisers to as a way to channel political influence and evade campaign finance laws. But the Clintons put a new spin on this process by raising much of their foundations' money from foreign donors. Contributions by foreign nationals or governments to US political campaigns are prohibited--but tax-exempt foundations like the Clintons' are a backdoor way to donate to a campaign or to curry favor with someone in a position of political power.
The recent punt by the FBI and the Justice Department on the email saga suggests that we may never learn the truth and the Clintons appear poised to return to the White House. But enough information is slowly leaking out to show patterns and raise clear ethical questions. The Associated Press analysis of two years of Mrs. Clinton's schedules revealed that
More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money - either personally or through companies or groups - to the Clinton Foundation. It's an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president.Those who argue that there is no evidence of a quid pro quo miss the point that access is a form of privileged treatment, which in this case appears to have been bought. In the words of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens in his dissenting opinion in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission:
At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.
Corruption can take many forms. Bribery may be the paradigm case. But the difference between selling a vote and selling access is a matter of degree, not kind. And selling access is not qualitatively different from giving special preference to those who spent money on one’s behalf. Corruption operates along a spectrum, and the majority’s apparent belief that quid pro quo arrangements can be neatly demarcated from other improper influences does not accord with the theory or reality of politics.Sadly, Justice Stevens was in the minority and an already bad situation with money in politics was made far worse. And as for the Clintons? The big money fundraising never stops.
Meanwhile, despite this review, I'm trying to pay as little attention as possible to this train wreck of an election. I plan on escaping reality with lots of feel-good cozy British village stories, animal books and shoot-em-up Louis L'Amour Westerns!
August 1, 2016
In a perfect world, this should be required reading for all voters.
To the disappointment of Clinton sycophants, the author is not some biased conservative hack. Peter Schweizer is an experienced. dogged investigative journalist who has done the country an important service to expose the questionable activities the Clintons have taken to enrich themselves in the past 14 years.The book has over 50 pages of small print endnotes. The New York Times was unable to dispute Schweizer's claims.
In chapter after chapter Schweizer reveals one sleazy business deal after the other. The common pattern is someone donates money to the Clinton Foundation, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton makes a decision that benefits the contributor, the contributor invites Bill to come give a speech paying him upwards of $500,000. Many of the revelations are only known because of sources like Wikileaks. The Clintons had no plans to make their wheeling and dealing known to the public.
Most politicians would be forced out of office for taking actions the Clintons have taken on a regular basis. The mainstream media seems to turn the other way and not demand that Hillary answer for her questionable actions.
The chapter on Haiti is especially disturbing. After the big earthquake, Hillary arranged for the State Department to handle the distribution of aid. Then instead of hiring relief specialists she turned over the management of the funds to the Clinton Foundation. Schweizer tells example after example of funds being used to enrich Clinton cronies (including Hillary's brother) who had little if any relief effort expertise. Millions were diverted from the needed poor to line the pockets of Clinton friends.
The Clintons have no position that can't be changed if you pay them enough money. The Clintons were anti nuclear proliferation until pro-Indian agents donated big money to the Clintons. The Clintons flipped their position and Hillary green lighted an expansion in the Indian nuclear program. Similar actions happened in Africa and Columbia.
The number of criminals who have donated to the Clintons would fill a book of mugshots. Most politicians with any morals would avoid interacting with businessmen of questionable character. Doesn't seem to bother the Clintons, as long as they bring money.
Perhaps the scariest part of this story is that because of the secretive nature of the Clintons, there are probably many other examples of questionable behavior that will never be known. No wonder Hillary destroyed her email server.
To the disappointment of Clinton sycophants, the author is not some biased conservative hack. Peter Schweizer is an experienced. dogged investigative journalist who has done the country an important service to expose the questionable activities the Clintons have taken to enrich themselves in the past 14 years.The book has over 50 pages of small print endnotes. The New York Times was unable to dispute Schweizer's claims.
In chapter after chapter Schweizer reveals one sleazy business deal after the other. The common pattern is someone donates money to the Clinton Foundation, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton makes a decision that benefits the contributor, the contributor invites Bill to come give a speech paying him upwards of $500,000. Many of the revelations are only known because of sources like Wikileaks. The Clintons had no plans to make their wheeling and dealing known to the public.
Most politicians would be forced out of office for taking actions the Clintons have taken on a regular basis. The mainstream media seems to turn the other way and not demand that Hillary answer for her questionable actions.
The chapter on Haiti is especially disturbing. After the big earthquake, Hillary arranged for the State Department to handle the distribution of aid. Then instead of hiring relief specialists she turned over the management of the funds to the Clinton Foundation. Schweizer tells example after example of funds being used to enrich Clinton cronies (including Hillary's brother) who had little if any relief effort expertise. Millions were diverted from the needed poor to line the pockets of Clinton friends.
The Clintons have no position that can't be changed if you pay them enough money. The Clintons were anti nuclear proliferation until pro-Indian agents donated big money to the Clintons. The Clintons flipped their position and Hillary green lighted an expansion in the Indian nuclear program. Similar actions happened in Africa and Columbia.
The number of criminals who have donated to the Clintons would fill a book of mugshots. Most politicians with any morals would avoid interacting with businessmen of questionable character. Doesn't seem to bother the Clintons, as long as they bring money.
Perhaps the scariest part of this story is that because of the secretive nature of the Clintons, there are probably many other examples of questionable behavior that will never be known. No wonder Hillary destroyed her email server.
December 18, 2017
Schweizer researches and lays out data on payment to the Clinton Foundation from non-US citizens/companies for Bill's speeches, and subsequent changes in Hillary's policy positions as head of the State Department. Readers are left to draw their own conclusions.
Either this kind of follow-the-money investigation interests you, or it doesn't.
Well-researched. The last third of the book is end-notes.
Schweizer's research has been cited by the New York Times, the Washington Post, Time, and other established media on both the left and the right. His previous work was on Congressional insider trading on both sides of the aisle.
Either this kind of follow-the-money investigation interests you, or it doesn't.
Well-researched. The last third of the book is end-notes.
Schweizer's research has been cited by the New York Times, the Washington Post, Time, and other established media on both the left and the right. His previous work was on Congressional insider trading on both sides of the aisle.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
May 11, 2015
Its very difficult to critique this book without slamming the Clintons at the same time,but I will try
Mr Schweitzer took all the pieces of the Clinton Foundations and put it all together so the reader could decided for themselves and answer the question: "Are the Clintons breaking the law?" I think he was as thorough as he could be.
The book itself is very short and does NOT encompass the entire Clinton scandals, to do that you would need a book the size of a dictionary. He did make his point though,choosing the timeline of Bill's presidency to the timeline of Hillary's Sec of State position.
I recommend this book to EVERY AMERICAN 18 AND OVER! If you vote, read this before the 2016 election.
Mr Schweitzer took all the pieces of the Clinton Foundations and put it all together so the reader could decided for themselves and answer the question: "Are the Clintons breaking the law?" I think he was as thorough as he could be.
The book itself is very short and does NOT encompass the entire Clinton scandals, to do that you would need a book the size of a dictionary. He did make his point though,choosing the timeline of Bill's presidency to the timeline of Hillary's Sec of State position.
I recommend this book to EVERY AMERICAN 18 AND OVER! If you vote, read this before the 2016 election.
May 1, 2015
This book is a quick read, but a powerful dissection of Bill and Hillary Clinton's techniques for using their private foundation and their public positions as former President and a sitting Secretary of State, respectively.
I was fortunate to receive an advance copy in manuscript form. The book was surprisingly readable, sweeps from Russia and Kazakhstan to South America and the Caribbean in tracing the trail of money, sometimes donated in huge sums to the Clinton Foundation, or thrown at Bill Clinton for six-figure private speaking fees, by corporate interests with business before the State Department. It's everything you fear goes on in the high-stakes world of international investing and political influence-peddling. The sale of Uranium One to a Russian government-tied firm is only the first story. The money flows from the Middle East, Canada, India and the Far East. The speeches become more and more lucrative, and the donations to the Clinton's family foundation larger still.
The book lays out a compelling case for further investigating these "coincidences." It is careful not to presume too much, and as you hear the reactions in the political world to Peter Schweizer's charges, you understand that these are very careful, crafty people who know how to hide what must stay hidden. As your mind turns over how these various deals must have gone down, you find it easier to understand WHY Hillary Clinton was so insistent on maintaining her email on a private server. You find it more and more frustrating to see that the government bureaucracy at the State Department exercised no oversight of her foundation's activities, even though they were specifically supposed to. You shake your head at the cronyism, nepotism and old-boy network shenanigans that jump off the pages.
Peter Schweizer and his research organization have done America a great service in exposing this, as they did in exposing congressional insider stock trading previously.
I was fortunate to receive an advance copy in manuscript form. The book was surprisingly readable, sweeps from Russia and Kazakhstan to South America and the Caribbean in tracing the trail of money, sometimes donated in huge sums to the Clinton Foundation, or thrown at Bill Clinton for six-figure private speaking fees, by corporate interests with business before the State Department. It's everything you fear goes on in the high-stakes world of international investing and political influence-peddling. The sale of Uranium One to a Russian government-tied firm is only the first story. The money flows from the Middle East, Canada, India and the Far East. The speeches become more and more lucrative, and the donations to the Clinton's family foundation larger still.
The book lays out a compelling case for further investigating these "coincidences." It is careful not to presume too much, and as you hear the reactions in the political world to Peter Schweizer's charges, you understand that these are very careful, crafty people who know how to hide what must stay hidden. As your mind turns over how these various deals must have gone down, you find it easier to understand WHY Hillary Clinton was so insistent on maintaining her email on a private server. You find it more and more frustrating to see that the government bureaucracy at the State Department exercised no oversight of her foundation's activities, even though they were specifically supposed to. You shake your head at the cronyism, nepotism and old-boy network shenanigans that jump off the pages.
Peter Schweizer and his research organization have done America a great service in exposing this, as they did in exposing congressional insider stock trading previously.
Want to read
December 26, 2016
http://www.breitbart.com/clinton-cash...
"How the Clinton Foundation Got Rich off Poor Haitians"
in:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article...
"HOW THE CLINTON FOUNDATION RIPPED OFF HAITI…Stunning VIDEO That Exposes America’s Most Selfish Couple"
in:
http://100percentfedup.com/clinton-fo...
Haitian President EXPOSES the Clinton Foundation: "Hillary Clinton tried to bribe me!"
in:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phKO2...
"FBI agents are ready to revolt over the cozy Clinton probe"
in:
http://nypost.com/2016/10/06/fbi-agen...
A fine review (and a superb discussion) of this book can be found here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
“A lot of people don’t realize it now, in parts of the Midwest American soil is owned by Vladimir Putin’s government because this deal [uranium deal] went through. It just stinks to high heaven and I think it requires a major investigation by the federal government.”
Peter Schweizer, June 28 july, 2016
May 15, 2015
I suspect that no supporter of Hillary will read this. That is unfortunate, not because it is exceptionally well written, but because the book deals with some fundamental issues that we should address. Are the Clinton's unique in their linkages between personal and political/business objectives? Of course not. They have simply brought this kind of
graft to a new level.
George Washington Plunkitt, who was a Tammany stalwart coined the phrase "Honest Graft" - to describe his behavior in steering contracts to his buddies. The book details a number of similar transactions where the Clintons have directed government policy for personal gain. Their "innovation" if you can call it that was to add a foundation whose accomplishments seem to have been tiny compared to the amount of money raised. The "work" of the foundation has been involved in includes some pretty shady deals. For example, although Kazakhstan has a very small HIV-Aids population, Clinton chose to highlight his efforts there to eradicate Aids. As the time of his visits, the former president's buddies tied up some uranium assets that are now in a story about a Russian company that has interest in American uranium. His Haiti initiative seems to have diverted a lot of money to friends and not accomplished a lot for the people of Haiti. There are some legitimate scandals here and even some where there is only the appearance of impropriety.
In the early 1980s Mancur Olson wrote a book about the increasing rigidities in democratic systems (https://books.google.com/books/about/... - The Rise and Decline of Nations). Schweizer's book details one aspect of the problem that Olson identified. The problem with these kinds of arrangements are not just that two major national politicians are enriching themselves and their buddies but because these kinds of diversions tend to increase transaction costs for all of us.
If you do not want to read the book (it is a quick read) at least consider perusing a recent Peggy Noonan column about the same subject - (How the Clintons Get Away with It - http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-the-c...) where Noonan compares the Clinton's behavior with Bonnie and Clyde (Billie and Hill). The Clinton's flaunting of ethical behavior undermines our trust in government and also increases the costs of getting things done. On both counts - that is far more serious than the millions they have stashed into their own pockets.
graft to a new level.
George Washington Plunkitt, who was a Tammany stalwart coined the phrase "Honest Graft" - to describe his behavior in steering contracts to his buddies. The book details a number of similar transactions where the Clintons have directed government policy for personal gain. Their "innovation" if you can call it that was to add a foundation whose accomplishments seem to have been tiny compared to the amount of money raised. The "work" of the foundation has been involved in includes some pretty shady deals. For example, although Kazakhstan has a very small HIV-Aids population, Clinton chose to highlight his efforts there to eradicate Aids. As the time of his visits, the former president's buddies tied up some uranium assets that are now in a story about a Russian company that has interest in American uranium. His Haiti initiative seems to have diverted a lot of money to friends and not accomplished a lot for the people of Haiti. There are some legitimate scandals here and even some where there is only the appearance of impropriety.
In the early 1980s Mancur Olson wrote a book about the increasing rigidities in democratic systems (https://books.google.com/books/about/... - The Rise and Decline of Nations). Schweizer's book details one aspect of the problem that Olson identified. The problem with these kinds of arrangements are not just that two major national politicians are enriching themselves and their buddies but because these kinds of diversions tend to increase transaction costs for all of us.
If you do not want to read the book (it is a quick read) at least consider perusing a recent Peggy Noonan column about the same subject - (How the Clintons Get Away with It - http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-the-c...) where Noonan compares the Clinton's behavior with Bonnie and Clyde (Billie and Hill). The Clinton's flaunting of ethical behavior undermines our trust in government and also increases the costs of getting things done. On both counts - that is far more serious than the millions they have stashed into their own pockets.
December 22, 2017
Update: Peter Schwweizer is a prominent Trump campaign official, and the book was funded by Steve Bannon. I'm not sure what in here I can believe and what is spin. Very disappointed. This is why we can't have nice things.
I picked this up on a whim - who can resist a cheap, sleazy conspiracy theory? I've always felt the Clintons were influence peddlers, but Schweizer places them in garden-variety Bond villain territory with anecdote after anecdote of State Department favors for foreign figures coinciding with donations to the Clinton Global Initiative or to Bill himself, through lucrative speaking gigs.
Personally, I don't need to connect the dots to form my conclusion about the Clintons, because the dots themselves are damning. Why is Bill flying around the world with a Canadian billionaire who made his wealth pumping and dumping penny stocks? Why are the Clinton's friends winning lucrative natural resource extraction rights every time Bill visits a developing country? And why was there no backlash when Hillary violated her agreement to submit all speaking invitations to White House approval, or to notify the White House of all foreign contributions to the CGI?
I'm starting to suspect that the email archives Hillary erroneously believes she erased do contain damning evidence that will derail her campaign. One can only hope.
Some of the accusations (copied from the synopsis):
the mysterious multimillion-dollar Foundation gift from an obscure Indian politician that coincided with Senator Clinton's reversal on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty;
how Secretary of State Clinton was involved in allowing the transfer of nearly 50 percent of US domestic uranium output to the Russian government, benefiting large donors to the Clinton Foundation;
how multimillion-dollar contracts for Haiti disaster relief were awarded to donors and friends of Hillary and Bill;
how Bill received large payments for speeches from foreign businesses and governments with matters pending before the State Department;
how the Clintons' joint visit to Colombia was followed by the grant of lucrative logging rights to a Canadian billionaire, a top Clinton Foundation donor;
how Bill received $2 million for speeches from the largest shareholder in the Keystone Pipeline project, even as Hillary played a role in approving it.
I picked this up on a whim - who can resist a cheap, sleazy conspiracy theory? I've always felt the Clintons were influence peddlers, but Schweizer places them in garden-variety Bond villain territory with anecdote after anecdote of State Department favors for foreign figures coinciding with donations to the Clinton Global Initiative or to Bill himself, through lucrative speaking gigs.
Personally, I don't need to connect the dots to form my conclusion about the Clintons, because the dots themselves are damning. Why is Bill flying around the world with a Canadian billionaire who made his wealth pumping and dumping penny stocks? Why are the Clinton's friends winning lucrative natural resource extraction rights every time Bill visits a developing country? And why was there no backlash when Hillary violated her agreement to submit all speaking invitations to White House approval, or to notify the White House of all foreign contributions to the CGI?
I'm starting to suspect that the email archives Hillary erroneously believes she erased do contain damning evidence that will derail her campaign. One can only hope.
Some of the accusations (copied from the synopsis):
the mysterious multimillion-dollar Foundation gift from an obscure Indian politician that coincided with Senator Clinton's reversal on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty;
how Secretary of State Clinton was involved in allowing the transfer of nearly 50 percent of US domestic uranium output to the Russian government, benefiting large donors to the Clinton Foundation;
how multimillion-dollar contracts for Haiti disaster relief were awarded to donors and friends of Hillary and Bill;
how Bill received large payments for speeches from foreign businesses and governments with matters pending before the State Department;
how the Clintons' joint visit to Colombia was followed by the grant of lucrative logging rights to a Canadian billionaire, a top Clinton Foundation donor;
how Bill received $2 million for speeches from the largest shareholder in the Keystone Pipeline project, even as Hillary played a role in approving it.
May 19, 2015
Is this why Hillary erased her emails?
Although Schweizer carefully avoids accusing the Clintons of illegal activity, he makes a strong case for conflicts of interest and unethical behavior. The Clinton's going from being "flat broke" to having over $100 million raises some questions as well as Bill receiving up to $700,000 for giving a speech while Hillary was Secretary of State. Bill's relationships with brutal dictators and other unsavory characters and the Clinton foundation receiving hundreds of millions of dollars while Hillary was Secretary of State raises further issues. I wonder if this is why Hillary has disappeared since announcing her candidacy for President. I certainly hope the media will follow up on these issues as the election nears.
Although Schweizer carefully avoids accusing the Clintons of illegal activity, he makes a strong case for conflicts of interest and unethical behavior. The Clinton's going from being "flat broke" to having over $100 million raises some questions as well as Bill receiving up to $700,000 for giving a speech while Hillary was Secretary of State. Bill's relationships with brutal dictators and other unsavory characters and the Clinton foundation receiving hundreds of millions of dollars while Hillary was Secretary of State raises further issues. I wonder if this is why Hillary has disappeared since announcing her candidacy for President. I certainly hope the media will follow up on these issues as the election nears.
April 10, 2023
This book made quite a splash in its day. as Peter Schweizer actually covered the news.
The stuff in the book has become so well known, it seemed like I took all the corruption for granted.
The stuff in the book has become so well known, it seemed like I took all the corruption for granted.
June 21, 2015
First of all, I was never going to vote for Hillary Clinton should the opportunity arise. I've read too much and know too much about her as a person to do that. In that sense, this book, changes nothing for me.
Secondly, the venality outlined in this book is nothing exceptional from a world view. The Clintons have nothing on the kleptocracies. Of course, it is interesting that much of their wealth comes directly from these kleptocracies, but that misses my point. The point is, while this level of bribery might unusual in the United States, bribery itself is not uncommon. Nearly our entire congress is bought and paid for. In that sense, I'm a little lenient toward the Clintons.
This book is important because it promulgates a strategy that a tandem can use to enrich themselves while selling US public interest, especially in foreign and business affairs. One person does all the collecting while the other one in power uses influence and decision making in a quid pro quo.
The author apparently decided to alter a few sentences in this book due to sloppiness. Conversely, many of the allegations in the book have long ago been confirmed and even admitted to by the Clinton Foundation.
There is simply too much in this book to simply dismiss. If only one single allegation is correct, and I suspect almost all of it is correct, it's enough for all of us to step back and ask if this sort of self-serving is in the best interest of the American public. It's safe to conclude that it is not.
Perhaps you'll draw a different conclusion. Recommended reading for anyone interested in politics or powerful US families, government corruption, and the sorts.
FYI: For further reading on Hillary's non-public persona, I recommend Ronald Kessler's First Family Detail, and Elizabeth Warren's Two Income Trap.
Secondly, the venality outlined in this book is nothing exceptional from a world view. The Clintons have nothing on the kleptocracies. Of course, it is interesting that much of their wealth comes directly from these kleptocracies, but that misses my point. The point is, while this level of bribery might unusual in the United States, bribery itself is not uncommon. Nearly our entire congress is bought and paid for. In that sense, I'm a little lenient toward the Clintons.
This book is important because it promulgates a strategy that a tandem can use to enrich themselves while selling US public interest, especially in foreign and business affairs. One person does all the collecting while the other one in power uses influence and decision making in a quid pro quo.
The author apparently decided to alter a few sentences in this book due to sloppiness. Conversely, many of the allegations in the book have long ago been confirmed and even admitted to by the Clinton Foundation.
There is simply too much in this book to simply dismiss. If only one single allegation is correct, and I suspect almost all of it is correct, it's enough for all of us to step back and ask if this sort of self-serving is in the best interest of the American public. It's safe to conclude that it is not.
Perhaps you'll draw a different conclusion. Recommended reading for anyone interested in politics or powerful US families, government corruption, and the sorts.
FYI: For further reading on Hillary's non-public persona, I recommend Ronald Kessler's First Family Detail, and Elizabeth Warren's Two Income Trap.
July 28, 2016
It's a shame that the issues raised in this book have been ignored by the broader media and more importantly by the voters. I guess ethics is no longer a criteria of a presidential candidate.
This is a well documented lesson in corruption at the highest levels and how money can change a politicians position on critical matters.
Hillary was right, there is a double standard being applied. I'm sure there are some former Illinois governors that would agree with her on that account.
This is a well documented lesson in corruption at the highest levels and how money can change a politicians position on critical matters.
Hillary was right, there is a double standard being applied. I'm sure there are some former Illinois governors that would agree with her on that account.
May 14, 2015
Every voting age American should read this book--whether you are on the right or the left or somewhere in between--to raise our country's political consciousness and to understand exactly who you are voting for or against in 2016.
September 10, 2018
CLINTON CASH is an astonishing book and I'm only sorry I didn't read it before the 2016 Presidential election. Author Peter Schweizer documents well how the Clinton Founda-tion, particularly as headed by Bill Clinton while his wife Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, evolved into an enormous mixer of money and power. Bill habitually gave speeches for which he was paid half a million dollars or more. (Generally, the more private the event, the bigger the honorarium.) Bill and friends developed quite a talent for hooking up investors who were heavy donors to the Foundation, helping them arrange permission to operate (frequently, mine precious metals) in less regulated, more corrupt countries such as much of Central Africa and Central Asia. It is astonishing -- if not downright jaw-dropping -- how often Bill and Hillary wound up simultaneously in the same or contiguous developing countries halfway around the world. And while the Clinton Foundation has undoubtedly given to many worthy causes, and instigated not a few, it has also been known to fall flat in environments like post-hurricane Haiti which one would not expect to pose so many challenges.
Author Peter Schweizer has been criticized, but misstatements of fact seem to have been ironed out before this paperback edition was published in 2016. Otherwise the criticism seems to hinge on the fact that he has an association with Breitbart publishing, which is no more useful than saying, "So's your old man." (I am very aware that in this era, both left and right hurl brickbats at their ideological opponents with great force if not great accuracy, but my purpose in reviewing this book is not to deal with the malfeasance of the American right.)
CLINTON CASH is a book that very much needs to be read. If you don't cringe a little upon hearing the term "public-private partnership," you will after reading this book. I consider it essential to an understanding of how money and power collude in the 21st Century. Now, what can be done in the way of reform, I confess I don't know. But when people who profess a desire to do good wind up doing astonishingly well for themselves and their generous friends, we all need to take notice and not stop asking questions.
Author Peter Schweizer has been criticized, but misstatements of fact seem to have been ironed out before this paperback edition was published in 2016. Otherwise the criticism seems to hinge on the fact that he has an association with Breitbart publishing, which is no more useful than saying, "So's your old man." (I am very aware that in this era, both left and right hurl brickbats at their ideological opponents with great force if not great accuracy, but my purpose in reviewing this book is not to deal with the malfeasance of the American right.)
CLINTON CASH is a book that very much needs to be read. If you don't cringe a little upon hearing the term "public-private partnership," you will after reading this book. I consider it essential to an understanding of how money and power collude in the 21st Century. Now, what can be done in the way of reform, I confess I don't know. But when people who profess a desire to do good wind up doing astonishingly well for themselves and their generous friends, we all need to take notice and not stop asking questions.
July 1, 2016
The degree to which money should, and indeed does, influence policy is a point of contention throughout the American political spectrum. Vicious disagreement is a foregone conclusion when the range of opinion spans from “money ought to have no role in the political process,” to those who openly embrace the financialization of governance. Nevertheless, there is virtually universal agreement regarding fiduciary transparency and accountability as necessities of an open and free society.
Clinton Cash, by Peter Schweizer, is an exposé of the corruption scandals that have plagued the Clinton dynasty since they first set foot on the political scene in Arkansas. It begs the question: have the Clintons pushed nepotism, as a base system that permeates the hallowed corridors of power, to its most depraved limits? And while political realists generally acknowledge the existence of “essential lies” and “non-essential lies” in all social hierarchies, even the most ardent of Clinton supporters would be hard-pressed to disregard their conduct as innocuous after reading the evidence presented in this book. Verily, most inhabitants of the world would consider their business deals as morally reprehensible, their behavior as unscrupulous, and their policy choices as potentially endangering the lives of those they are supposed to serve and represent.
The chapters of Clinton Cash are organized by scandal and tell a story of pervasive cronyism which can be summarized as follows :
1. Bill Clinton was involved in a fair share of dealings which drew bipartisan criticism during his presidency. As an example, he and life-long friend/business partner Frank Giustra, engaged President Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan (not long ago thrust into the humanitarian violation spotlight after greenlighting the murder of protestors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhanaoz...)) for preferential treatment in uranium mining deals. The concessions for the mines were given to offshore shell companies that were later confirmed to be tied to Giustra and fugitive financier Mark Rich (later indicted for financial crimes and subsequently pardoned by Bill during his last days in office). Meanwhile, the same entities funneled millions of dollars into the Clinton Foundation and provided an opportunity for the Clintons to load up on related stock options. In a truly ironic gesture, the Clintons then spearheaded an effort to have Kazakhstan placed at the head of OSCE despite UN reports stating that humanitarian conditions in Kazakhstan under Nazarbayev were undeniably worsening.
2. Following Hillary’s appointment as Secretary of State, the Clintons found themselves in a unique position where Bill, as a citizen, could act as a diplomat and well-paid speaker while Hillary advocated for specific foreign policies, while the Clinton Foundation was utilized as a slush fund. The most egregious example of this dynamic was the purchase of Canadian company Uranium One by the Russian state-owned nuclear agency Rosatom. As a senator, Hillary was unanimously considered a foreign policy hawk, and always considerate of national security. She had spent much of her senate years denouncing the 2005 purchase of US ports by UAE sovereign wealth funds and blocked several attempts by the Chinese to buy various American assets. Her position seemingly flipped a full 180 degrees, contrary even to her own prior statements regarding Russia, when it became profitable for her to do so.
The purchase of Uranium One was strategic for the Russians (it would allow them to control almost half of all US uranium production) and lucrative for the Canadians. Furthermore, it was widely acknowledged by defense and energy analysts that the Kremlin used this as an opportunity to control and increase their overall uranium supply such that surplus domestic nuclear material could be illicitly sold to countries openly hostile to the US like Iran and Venezuela. Salida Capital (wholly owned by Rusatom), the Fernwood Foundation, and US Investor Funds (again Frank Giustra) collectively dumped tens of millions of dollars into the Clinton Foundation in the months preceding US Cabinet approval of the purchase of Uranium One. CFIUS, led by Hillary, pushed the reticent group to sign off on the agreement. Shortly thereafter, Bill was paid $500,000 to give a speech at an event hosted by Renaissance Capital, a company registered in Cyprus that is populated by former Russian intelligence officers with close ties to Putin. Renaissance Capital had invested much time and effort into the Uranium One deal. They pushed the stock publicly and actively encouraged investment by the Clintons and their closest companions. To this day, there is no evidence that Hillary disclosed to government ethics officials, the white house, or cabinet colleagues the apparent conflicts of interest at play as she steered nuclear policy. Only a fraction of the foreign contributions that came through the Clinton & Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative; they were only discovered after an investigation of Canadian tax records was initiated. These nondisclosures violate the memorandum of understanding described in chapter 1 with the Obama white house and contradict Hillary's correspondence with the Senate foreign relations committee.
3. In the passage of Bill HR7081, the Clintons displayed a total willingness to undermine international security by shredding a bulwark against the spread of nuclear weapons in exchange for personal gain. The bill finalized the export of nuclear technologies to India and granted India all the privileges of an NPT member, and in return, the rest of the world received nothing in the form of concrete steps in nuclear restraint by the Indian military program. Why is this important? "Because," as the Times of India wrote, "for the first time somebody has decided to let India have its cake and eat it too. You stay out of the NPT, keep your weapons, refuse full scope safeguards, and yet get to conduct nuclear commerce in a system that is dead against such a formulation. That's the bottom line of this deal." After the deal had passed, as Hillary was nominated to the position of Secretary of State by Obama, she was required to disclose financial records of Clinton Foundation. Among the biggest donors was Amar Singh, whom had been listed as giving a 1-5 million dollar donation to Clinton just before his personal meeting with Hillary to discuss democratic senators' reticence about the Bill HR7081. Indian media picked up on this and questioned Amar Singh, whom they knew to have a personal net worth of <5 million. His response was that it was a mistake and that perhaps the payment was made on his behalf by some other group. Virtually all of the actors found to be involved in this incident were later arrested for various charges of corruption. Amar Singh paid out Indian politicians, was caught, sent to jail, and expelled from his party. Vikram Singh was caught smuggling cocaine and heroin in Fort Lauderdale. Sant Chatwal, who was initially was awarded prestigious civilian award by Indian government, was later arrested for campaign financing violations and said of his interactions with the Clintons: "nothing in politics comes free, you've got to write checks in the American political system." He was picked up by US authorities for soliciting contributions through various contractors and then reimbursing them with cash. "Nobody will even speak with you unless you've got cash. And with cash, there is no proof," he said, during FBI recordings.
4. Clinton Foundation has been audited by several humanitarian assessment organizations, and each time failed to meet minimum transparency requirements. As such, they were deemed ineligible for qualification. The Clinton Foundation board of trustees is largely made up of the Clintons and their closest political advisors, four of which have been indicted and/or imprisoned in serious financial crimes. It also extends awards to dubious African leaders. Paul Kigami of Rwanda was handed Clinton Global Citizen of the Year in 2009. It is widely accepted that he has arrested political opponents and imprisoned journalists. He has also been accused by the UN of assisting militias responsible for the rape and murder of thousands of Hutu and for stoking the flames of a civil war in The DRC. When Congolese militia groups were later linked to Rwanda Government, Hillary sought to block the damning information contained in these reports.
As a senator, Hillary had been vocal about the role of the mineral/mining industry and said that these industries fueled conflict without making the lives of natives better. She went so far as to give a speech in the DRC about this precise topic. What happened between 2006 when she took strong positions against abusive mining companies and 2009 when she became SoS? We can't ultimately know, but we can notice where changes in policy conformed with the interests of large Clinton Foundation donors. When Hillary announced her intent to run for president, tons of foreign money came pouring in, much from repressive regimes in Africa. $100 million came from Lundin Group, which would later come under investigation for being complicit in crimes against humanity for activity in Sudan. The most lucrative mines for Lundin were in DRC, which they had acquired by striking bargain with Marxist Warlord, Laurent Kabila. Lundin paid 250 million for promises of future mine contracts if Kabila became ruler. US policy needed to stay the same if they wanted to maintain these ultra-profitable arrangements. The 2006 Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act, cosponsored by Hillary, threatened to flip these investments on their head because they threatened to overturn political leadership. However, she never implemented key provisions that she had previously advocated. Hillary not only failed to act, but in fact pushed for in the opposite direction, coinciding with massive campaign contributions and high speaking fees for Bill. Concessions were eventually granted through "questionable bribes" to DRC government officials and roughly 90% of the mines’ yield ended up in China.
5. Less than 3 months after Hillary's presidential bid announcement, Muhammad Al-Amudi pledged $20 million to The Clinton Foundation. Al-Amudi has made his money through nepotism with the Ethiopian government and his relationship with Meles Zenawi . In October 2007, the Ethiopia Democracy and Accountability Act (HR2003) passed. The US pledged to send hundreds of millions in taxpayer money and tied it to progress on human rights. This was less than opportune to Al-Amudi, whose interests were guarded by the establishment government. As the bill moved to Senate, many looked to see where Hillary Clinton fell. Ethiopian human rights organizations protested and sent a letter to Hillary saying: "local AIDS organizations that appealed to the billionaire for paltry sums were turned down. So why would a wealthy man from one of the poorest countries in the world say no to organizations in his country but easily cough up 20 million dollars for an American organization 10,000 miles away? Is it just a coincidence that the donation was made right at the start of US presidential elections? " The letter also stated that the Clinton Foundation had a close working relationship with Ethiopian Govt. Neither Bill nor the foundation ever responded to these allegations, but when Hillary became SoS, Al-Amudi’s companies were given special benefits, particularly in the form of exclusive land rights throughout the country. In 2007, on his way to a G20 convention he was invited to a Clinton Foundation event. Leaked DoS cables from WikiLeads show Maria Otero met with Zanawi about the arrest of opposition leader Burtookan Madexa. Zanawi said: "He will vegetate in jail forever. Opposition groups will be crushed with our full force." This was a shocking display of disrespect, given that the US was sending approximately 533 million per year to behave more humanely. He was also dismissive when diplomats raised questions about how the government restricted western food aid for political reasons. In 2012, the DoS looked over USAID contributions to countries based on fiscal transparency guidelines, and state officials determined they failed and didn't make any steps to improve. Despite non-compliance, Hillary granted the Ethiopian Government a waiver. Al-Amudi, who owns Dasham Bank, reaps financial rewards through USAID's Development Credit Authority.
6. In Haiti, the Clintons engaged in what Naomi Klein dubbed “disaster capitalism.” Clintons largely ignored the pleas of on-the-ground humanitarian groups and bestowed business privileges with taxpayer money to their industry connections. E.g. despite several highly qualified competitors, The Department of State, headed by Hillary, gave large sums of money to InnoVida, a Florida-based housing materials company which had a very small track record of actually building homes but whose board members and CEO were large contributors to Clinton campaigns and the Clinton Foundation. Claudio Osorio, the CEO was given 10 million to build 500 houses, not one of which was ever built. Instead the proceeds were spent on himself and his lavish lifestyle. He was arrested for financial fraud. Bill, heading the IHRS, received pushback in a memorandum stating "we are a rubber stamp to Bill's whims.” Later, other IHRC officials complained that they felt totally removed and that the only thing that mattered was DoS proposals and payment through USAID. Bill acted as viceroy to Haiti and was criticized for mixing politics with crony business deals. The Clintons also benefitted from a connection with former president and the head of Haitian telecom. The arrangement made between Fusion Communication and Clinton conspirators was supposed to be public based on FCC laws, but agreement was hidden and it took a WSJ journalist 8 years to receive the report.
Clinton Cash, by Peter Schweizer, is an exposé of the corruption scandals that have plagued the Clinton dynasty since they first set foot on the political scene in Arkansas. It begs the question: have the Clintons pushed nepotism, as a base system that permeates the hallowed corridors of power, to its most depraved limits? And while political realists generally acknowledge the existence of “essential lies” and “non-essential lies” in all social hierarchies, even the most ardent of Clinton supporters would be hard-pressed to disregard their conduct as innocuous after reading the evidence presented in this book. Verily, most inhabitants of the world would consider their business deals as morally reprehensible, their behavior as unscrupulous, and their policy choices as potentially endangering the lives of those they are supposed to serve and represent.
The chapters of Clinton Cash are organized by scandal and tell a story of pervasive cronyism which can be summarized as follows :
1. Bill Clinton was involved in a fair share of dealings which drew bipartisan criticism during his presidency. As an example, he and life-long friend/business partner Frank Giustra, engaged President Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan (not long ago thrust into the humanitarian violation spotlight after greenlighting the murder of protestors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhanaoz...)) for preferential treatment in uranium mining deals. The concessions for the mines were given to offshore shell companies that were later confirmed to be tied to Giustra and fugitive financier Mark Rich (later indicted for financial crimes and subsequently pardoned by Bill during his last days in office). Meanwhile, the same entities funneled millions of dollars into the Clinton Foundation and provided an opportunity for the Clintons to load up on related stock options. In a truly ironic gesture, the Clintons then spearheaded an effort to have Kazakhstan placed at the head of OSCE despite UN reports stating that humanitarian conditions in Kazakhstan under Nazarbayev were undeniably worsening.
2. Following Hillary’s appointment as Secretary of State, the Clintons found themselves in a unique position where Bill, as a citizen, could act as a diplomat and well-paid speaker while Hillary advocated for specific foreign policies, while the Clinton Foundation was utilized as a slush fund. The most egregious example of this dynamic was the purchase of Canadian company Uranium One by the Russian state-owned nuclear agency Rosatom. As a senator, Hillary was unanimously considered a foreign policy hawk, and always considerate of national security. She had spent much of her senate years denouncing the 2005 purchase of US ports by UAE sovereign wealth funds and blocked several attempts by the Chinese to buy various American assets. Her position seemingly flipped a full 180 degrees, contrary even to her own prior statements regarding Russia, when it became profitable for her to do so.
The purchase of Uranium One was strategic for the Russians (it would allow them to control almost half of all US uranium production) and lucrative for the Canadians. Furthermore, it was widely acknowledged by defense and energy analysts that the Kremlin used this as an opportunity to control and increase their overall uranium supply such that surplus domestic nuclear material could be illicitly sold to countries openly hostile to the US like Iran and Venezuela. Salida Capital (wholly owned by Rusatom), the Fernwood Foundation, and US Investor Funds (again Frank Giustra) collectively dumped tens of millions of dollars into the Clinton Foundation in the months preceding US Cabinet approval of the purchase of Uranium One. CFIUS, led by Hillary, pushed the reticent group to sign off on the agreement. Shortly thereafter, Bill was paid $500,000 to give a speech at an event hosted by Renaissance Capital, a company registered in Cyprus that is populated by former Russian intelligence officers with close ties to Putin. Renaissance Capital had invested much time and effort into the Uranium One deal. They pushed the stock publicly and actively encouraged investment by the Clintons and their closest companions. To this day, there is no evidence that Hillary disclosed to government ethics officials, the white house, or cabinet colleagues the apparent conflicts of interest at play as she steered nuclear policy. Only a fraction of the foreign contributions that came through the Clinton & Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative; they were only discovered after an investigation of Canadian tax records was initiated. These nondisclosures violate the memorandum of understanding described in chapter 1 with the Obama white house and contradict Hillary's correspondence with the Senate foreign relations committee.
3. In the passage of Bill HR7081, the Clintons displayed a total willingness to undermine international security by shredding a bulwark against the spread of nuclear weapons in exchange for personal gain. The bill finalized the export of nuclear technologies to India and granted India all the privileges of an NPT member, and in return, the rest of the world received nothing in the form of concrete steps in nuclear restraint by the Indian military program. Why is this important? "Because," as the Times of India wrote, "for the first time somebody has decided to let India have its cake and eat it too. You stay out of the NPT, keep your weapons, refuse full scope safeguards, and yet get to conduct nuclear commerce in a system that is dead against such a formulation. That's the bottom line of this deal." After the deal had passed, as Hillary was nominated to the position of Secretary of State by Obama, she was required to disclose financial records of Clinton Foundation. Among the biggest donors was Amar Singh, whom had been listed as giving a 1-5 million dollar donation to Clinton just before his personal meeting with Hillary to discuss democratic senators' reticence about the Bill HR7081. Indian media picked up on this and questioned Amar Singh, whom they knew to have a personal net worth of <5 million. His response was that it was a mistake and that perhaps the payment was made on his behalf by some other group. Virtually all of the actors found to be involved in this incident were later arrested for various charges of corruption. Amar Singh paid out Indian politicians, was caught, sent to jail, and expelled from his party. Vikram Singh was caught smuggling cocaine and heroin in Fort Lauderdale. Sant Chatwal, who was initially was awarded prestigious civilian award by Indian government, was later arrested for campaign financing violations and said of his interactions with the Clintons: "nothing in politics comes free, you've got to write checks in the American political system." He was picked up by US authorities for soliciting contributions through various contractors and then reimbursing them with cash. "Nobody will even speak with you unless you've got cash. And with cash, there is no proof," he said, during FBI recordings.
4. Clinton Foundation has been audited by several humanitarian assessment organizations, and each time failed to meet minimum transparency requirements. As such, they were deemed ineligible for qualification. The Clinton Foundation board of trustees is largely made up of the Clintons and their closest political advisors, four of which have been indicted and/or imprisoned in serious financial crimes. It also extends awards to dubious African leaders. Paul Kigami of Rwanda was handed Clinton Global Citizen of the Year in 2009. It is widely accepted that he has arrested political opponents and imprisoned journalists. He has also been accused by the UN of assisting militias responsible for the rape and murder of thousands of Hutu and for stoking the flames of a civil war in The DRC. When Congolese militia groups were later linked to Rwanda Government, Hillary sought to block the damning information contained in these reports.
As a senator, Hillary had been vocal about the role of the mineral/mining industry and said that these industries fueled conflict without making the lives of natives better. She went so far as to give a speech in the DRC about this precise topic. What happened between 2006 when she took strong positions against abusive mining companies and 2009 when she became SoS? We can't ultimately know, but we can notice where changes in policy conformed with the interests of large Clinton Foundation donors. When Hillary announced her intent to run for president, tons of foreign money came pouring in, much from repressive regimes in Africa. $100 million came from Lundin Group, which would later come under investigation for being complicit in crimes against humanity for activity in Sudan. The most lucrative mines for Lundin were in DRC, which they had acquired by striking bargain with Marxist Warlord, Laurent Kabila. Lundin paid 250 million for promises of future mine contracts if Kabila became ruler. US policy needed to stay the same if they wanted to maintain these ultra-profitable arrangements. The 2006 Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act, cosponsored by Hillary, threatened to flip these investments on their head because they threatened to overturn political leadership. However, she never implemented key provisions that she had previously advocated. Hillary not only failed to act, but in fact pushed for in the opposite direction, coinciding with massive campaign contributions and high speaking fees for Bill. Concessions were eventually granted through "questionable bribes" to DRC government officials and roughly 90% of the mines’ yield ended up in China.
5. Less than 3 months after Hillary's presidential bid announcement, Muhammad Al-Amudi pledged $20 million to The Clinton Foundation. Al-Amudi has made his money through nepotism with the Ethiopian government and his relationship with Meles Zenawi . In October 2007, the Ethiopia Democracy and Accountability Act (HR2003) passed. The US pledged to send hundreds of millions in taxpayer money and tied it to progress on human rights. This was less than opportune to Al-Amudi, whose interests were guarded by the establishment government. As the bill moved to Senate, many looked to see where Hillary Clinton fell. Ethiopian human rights organizations protested and sent a letter to Hillary saying: "local AIDS organizations that appealed to the billionaire for paltry sums were turned down. So why would a wealthy man from one of the poorest countries in the world say no to organizations in his country but easily cough up 20 million dollars for an American organization 10,000 miles away? Is it just a coincidence that the donation was made right at the start of US presidential elections? " The letter also stated that the Clinton Foundation had a close working relationship with Ethiopian Govt. Neither Bill nor the foundation ever responded to these allegations, but when Hillary became SoS, Al-Amudi’s companies were given special benefits, particularly in the form of exclusive land rights throughout the country. In 2007, on his way to a G20 convention he was invited to a Clinton Foundation event. Leaked DoS cables from WikiLeads show Maria Otero met with Zanawi about the arrest of opposition leader Burtookan Madexa. Zanawi said: "He will vegetate in jail forever. Opposition groups will be crushed with our full force." This was a shocking display of disrespect, given that the US was sending approximately 533 million per year to behave more humanely. He was also dismissive when diplomats raised questions about how the government restricted western food aid for political reasons. In 2012, the DoS looked over USAID contributions to countries based on fiscal transparency guidelines, and state officials determined they failed and didn't make any steps to improve. Despite non-compliance, Hillary granted the Ethiopian Government a waiver. Al-Amudi, who owns Dasham Bank, reaps financial rewards through USAID's Development Credit Authority.
6. In Haiti, the Clintons engaged in what Naomi Klein dubbed “disaster capitalism.” Clintons largely ignored the pleas of on-the-ground humanitarian groups and bestowed business privileges with taxpayer money to their industry connections. E.g. despite several highly qualified competitors, The Department of State, headed by Hillary, gave large sums of money to InnoVida, a Florida-based housing materials company which had a very small track record of actually building homes but whose board members and CEO were large contributors to Clinton campaigns and the Clinton Foundation. Claudio Osorio, the CEO was given 10 million to build 500 houses, not one of which was ever built. Instead the proceeds were spent on himself and his lavish lifestyle. He was arrested for financial fraud. Bill, heading the IHRS, received pushback in a memorandum stating "we are a rubber stamp to Bill's whims.” Later, other IHRC officials complained that they felt totally removed and that the only thing that mattered was DoS proposals and payment through USAID. Bill acted as viceroy to Haiti and was criticized for mixing politics with crony business deals. The Clintons also benefitted from a connection with former president and the head of Haitian telecom. The arrangement made between Fusion Communication and Clinton conspirators was supposed to be public based on FCC laws, but agreement was hidden and it took a WSJ journalist 8 years to receive the report.
August 22, 2018
This investigative expose is a mishmash of some really good points and some general nonsense, and it's hard to review it succinctly, since there's a lot you can say about it. For the purpose of brevity, I think the reviewer Hadrian already made most of the points I would make. I will only add that while the description of money flow and campaign financing described here is certainly not something I approve of, and is rightly called out for engendering corruption...it's 100% legal. Every politician participates in this kind of pay-to-play political pirouetting. If the book had been about that, and the need for campaign finance reform and repeal of Citizens United, he would have been able to make a much stronger point. But his primary point - that the Clintons are corrupt - is not honed to the fine point that Schweizer clearly thinks it is. Hoping he might be willing to explore the ethical depravity of pay-to-play politics, I watched some interviews with him, but he is not only entirely partisan, but intentionally deceptive. His claims that even Charity Navigator cannot rate the Clinton Foundation because of shady finances is false, as anyone can discover by simply looking up the Clinton Foundation on Charity Navigator and discovering a 4-star rating. He also clearly doesn't understand how to run a non-profit, and many of his assumptions about international politics reveal his own ethnocentrism and naivete about other cultures. One can surmise that all he is trying to do here is perpetuate false or exaggerated claims in order to curry favor with right-wingers who want a peg on which to hang their unexamined hatred of Hillary.
Now, do I like the Clintons? Nope. I have written extensively on both of them elsewhere. I think Bill is morally bankrupt and Hillary plays the system to her advantage JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER PROFESSIONAL POLITICIAN. Do I think they did anything illegal or in fact put the country in jeopardy? I really don't. And I didn't find any more evidence for that here.
In fact, the best summary of the problematic nature of the Clinton's finances can be found on Last Week Tonight, so I suggest just watching that clip (it's also hilarious so points for that): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1Lfd...
Factcheck.org also examined other claims of corruption and the uranium scandal called out by Trump here: https://www.factcheck.org/2016/10/a-f...
In summary, I walked away with knowledge I already had: that the Clintons have legally leveraged the American political system and private corporate funding available to them in the same way that every other professional politician has. My disappointment was that Schweizer did not seem at all interested in investigating the entire system and calling it out, but only in feeding the Hillary hatred in order to aggrandize himself.
Now, do I like the Clintons? Nope. I have written extensively on both of them elsewhere. I think Bill is morally bankrupt and Hillary plays the system to her advantage JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER PROFESSIONAL POLITICIAN. Do I think they did anything illegal or in fact put the country in jeopardy? I really don't. And I didn't find any more evidence for that here.
In fact, the best summary of the problematic nature of the Clinton's finances can be found on Last Week Tonight, so I suggest just watching that clip (it's also hilarious so points for that): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1Lfd...
Factcheck.org also examined other claims of corruption and the uranium scandal called out by Trump here: https://www.factcheck.org/2016/10/a-f...
In summary, I walked away with knowledge I already had: that the Clintons have legally leveraged the American political system and private corporate funding available to them in the same way that every other professional politician has. My disappointment was that Schweizer did not seem at all interested in investigating the entire system and calling it out, but only in feeding the Hillary hatred in order to aggrandize himself.
May 9, 2015
Peter Schweizer certainly fits the definition of a muckraker; a reformed-minded journalist whose investigations dip into crooked politicians, unpleasant social issues, and ill-gotten money. He even heads up an organization that specializes in exposing such malfeasance. And, although muckraker is an ugly word, it’s not necessarily an offensive moniker.
“Clinton Cash” is a bomb-tossing look at a couple of public figures who have long been targets of such investigations. Bill and Hillary Clinton; the two names stir up a brouhaha of sentiment that is either highly derogatory or prompts breathless admiration.
Schweizer’s book, as has been widely reported, is not complimentary but relies on solid information coupled with tireless research. I’m sure he wears his title with head held high.
In a complicated, well-grounded expose, the author delves into the seamy world of politics, bribery, greed, and favoritism. The Clintons, if one believes what is written, are stars of a world where backs are scratched, huge amounts of money change hands in questionable deals, and powerful people ride the backs of those with immense influence.
One of the questions that Schweizer asks repeatedly in his book is why do the Clintons get involved with so many people of ill repute? He answers it with illustrations of the vast amounts on money the couple have accumulated through the years, particularly when Hillary was Secretary of State and could exert tremendous influence on worldwide decisions. Bill has been paid millions of dollars to give speeches, mostly complementary, of scabby world leaders and corrupt public works processes, and has received huge donations to the family foundation along with immense speaking fees. Shortly thereafter, Hillary makes favorable decisions in her official capacity that garner lucrative returns to the cash cows that more than justifying the initial investment.
There are some who claim the Clintons could care less about money and influence. The laughter that follows such declarations is loud and raucous. Their storybook rise from rags to riches, haunted along the way with shady deeds, is not one of innocence and purity.
There has been tremendous research into the premise of the book, all duly noted in the book notes. The convoluted arrangements are mind-numbing but clearly laid out by the author. Of course the reader’s political persuasion will dictate the believability. It is both informative and stomach turning
December 15, 2017
So with Uranium One back in the news, I decided to give this a read.
First, all that Schweizer writes has been confirmed by WaPo, and the NYT. The Times even built from this book to do a further examination of the Clinton's Russia entanglements.
Regardless of how bad this makes the Clinton's appear, and it truly does. What I see emerging is a kind of Crony Colonialism.
If it's disasters in Haiti, oligarchs in Kazakhstan, or warlords in Africa, the Clintons are there. As former president, and with Hillary as Senator and the Sec of State, they are positioned perfectly to take the icing from the cake.
Either these countries need legitimacy from the US, or they need tax payer relief, or they want to continue enjoying America's largesse, Hillary is at the nexus to continue the flow of cash or to cut it off.
Invariably, these countries for the first time start inviting Bill to give insanely over priced speeches. Or in the case of businesses wanting to exploit the national resources of Ethiopia or Columbia, businesses give out the invites.
Hillary, who previously had seemed to be against those interests, does a 180 and suddenly supports these decisions, citing evidence that human rights organizations characterize as patently absurd.
This goes on and on. From the UAE to Columbia and Haiti to Kazakhstan and Ethiopia. A kind of colonialism where the resources are tapped by well funded businesses that give exorbitantly in money and access to politicians and their associates. Hillary's failed brother suddenly finds himself on a company's board after it gets one of only two gold mining contracts ever issued by the Haitian govt. The fact that her bro has absolutely no experience, and the company itself is inexperienced in mining is just a coincidence.
Truly, it's not the corruption of the Clinton's that makes even the cynical Me depressed. It's that this corruption is so vast and so endemic to Washington. The Clinton's are an outlier only in that they were so perfectly situated to take advantage of so many fouled money streams. Other politicians follow the same course, just less lucratively.
First, all that Schweizer writes has been confirmed by WaPo, and the NYT. The Times even built from this book to do a further examination of the Clinton's Russia entanglements.
Regardless of how bad this makes the Clinton's appear, and it truly does. What I see emerging is a kind of Crony Colonialism.
If it's disasters in Haiti, oligarchs in Kazakhstan, or warlords in Africa, the Clintons are there. As former president, and with Hillary as Senator and the Sec of State, they are positioned perfectly to take the icing from the cake.
Either these countries need legitimacy from the US, or they need tax payer relief, or they want to continue enjoying America's largesse, Hillary is at the nexus to continue the flow of cash or to cut it off.
Invariably, these countries for the first time start inviting Bill to give insanely over priced speeches. Or in the case of businesses wanting to exploit the national resources of Ethiopia or Columbia, businesses give out the invites.
Hillary, who previously had seemed to be against those interests, does a 180 and suddenly supports these decisions, citing evidence that human rights organizations characterize as patently absurd.
This goes on and on. From the UAE to Columbia and Haiti to Kazakhstan and Ethiopia. A kind of colonialism where the resources are tapped by well funded businesses that give exorbitantly in money and access to politicians and their associates. Hillary's failed brother suddenly finds himself on a company's board after it gets one of only two gold mining contracts ever issued by the Haitian govt. The fact that her bro has absolutely no experience, and the company itself is inexperienced in mining is just a coincidence.
Truly, it's not the corruption of the Clinton's that makes even the cynical Me depressed. It's that this corruption is so vast and so endemic to Washington. The Clinton's are an outlier only in that they were so perfectly situated to take advantage of so many fouled money streams. Other politicians follow the same course, just less lucratively.
May 11, 2015
The Clintons. Either you are a fan or you're not so I don't believe this book will be enjoyed by all and most that look up to the Clintons will not take the time to read it. Those that are not a fan will for sure want to check it out. The contents of the book contains eleven chapters within about a hundred and fifty pages which is about 67% of the book while most of the rest of the book is "Notes" which explain more details of the info and where said info came from. It is full of facts of places, people and times and events which creates a image of what is a very ugly picture. One must wonder how the Clintons get away with even a small percent of what this book implies. It was a very fast read for me and if you are like me and believe the Clintons are the "best of the bad" and want to know how bad they are you're going to love this book.
August 15, 2015
Another reviewer writes that this should be suggested reading for all American voters. The Clinton Foundation and how it uses tragedy and association, both to the Chicago Crony degree superb is not less than appalling. The Haitian cut as detestable as any I have come across, and in my lifetime I have come across some dandies where I live.
Cannot the Democratic Party come up with a field of worthy candidates? Not only for the Presidency but in my home state of Illinois. PLEASE!
Cannot the Democratic Party come up with a field of worthy candidates? Not only for the Presidency but in my home state of Illinois. PLEASE!
February 8, 2016
Investigative journalist Peter Schweizer connects the dots in this audio book which will fascinate and irritate you at the same time. How did Bill and Hillary Clinton go from flat broke when they left the White House to a lucrative speaking career? The answer is inside these pages. I heard this book cover to cover in a short amount of time but found the book insightful and worth listening. Highly recommended.
May 22, 2015
Selling out
Ask yourself how many private foundations have you heard of that have received multiple millions of dollars from unrelated business connections, foreign national, and how many have had board members investigated for corruption in their home countries? How many speakers get $500,000 and up for a speech? Answer: one and one, both named Clinton.
Read this book.
Ask yourself how many private foundations have you heard of that have received multiple millions of dollars from unrelated business connections, foreign national, and how many have had board members investigated for corruption in their home countries? How many speakers get $500,000 and up for a speech? Answer: one and one, both named Clinton.
Read this book.
October 18, 2016
A shocking revelation of how the Clintons have amassed their fortune.....and it's not an op ed piece. The author has documented everything. I truly believe if you are going to vote, you need to read this book.
April 29, 2015
Lucky I got an advanced copy. Interesting book, sort of reminds me if "looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck" but sub greedy above the law politician instead of duck
Read
May 6, 2015While the evidence presented is circumstantial it is pretty damning and shows the hypocrisy of the Clintons.
May 16, 2015
An excellent tale of influence peddling. My only complaint is that reading about the Clintons invariably makes me feel unclean, like I just swam through sewage.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 381 reviews