Here we go again. Clinton Cash—the widely-discredited hit piece by GOP hatchet man and Breitbart editor Peter Schweizer—is once again back in the news and the source of a new set of rumors and innuendo. Last night, The Wall Street Journal reported that the book was the inspiration for an expansive FBI investigation into allegations of pay-to-play at the Clinton Foundation. Fox News’ Bret Baier even reported that an “indictment” was imminent. And Trump repeated the claim on the campaign trail this morning.
Yet within hours, Baier’s reporting completely fell apart. This morning, multiple outlets reported that the allegations of pay-to-play at the Clinton Foundation were innuendo and there is no coming “indictment.” ABC News noted that senior FBI officials and the DOJ’s Public Integrity Section saw “no clear evidence of wrongdoing” when presented with the findings from the investigation into the Clinton Foundation (originally based on Clinton Cash’s claims). In fact, CNN had reported almost the exact same thing in August.
The real story here is that some within the FBI fell for Clinton Cash’s bogus conspiracy theories about pay-to-play at the Clinton Foundation. Since its publication last year, the book—which was funded by the Koch Brothers—has been completely discredited. Vox’s Jonathan Allen noted that Schweizer “couldn’t prove—or even assert—that Hillary Clinton took any official action because of contributions to the Clinton Foundation.” Amazon thought the book was so flawed that it took the unusual step of alerting readers about the volume’s errors. And Schweizer himself admitted that he had no “direct evidence” of any impropriety at the Clinton Foundation. Instead, Clinton Cash is nothing more than a desperate and unsuccessful attempt to slander the Clinton Foundation’s record of helping millions across the globe.
Debunking Baier and Trump: Fox News Reports of “Investigation” are “Inaccurate and Without Merit”
ABC News: Senior FBI officials and DoJ’s Public Integrity Section saw “no clear evidence of wrongdoing” when presented evidence for a potential investigation into the Clinton Foundation. “ABC News sources, however, indicated those statements — and the Fox News reports they’re based on — are inaccurate and without merit. The sources acknowledged that the FBI began looking into the Clinton Foundation after the controversial book ‘Clinton Cash’ was published last year. In particular, agents were trying to determine whether donations to the foundation may have been traded for access to Clinton while she was secretary of state. In February, FBI agents presented their findings to senior FBI officials and prosecutors in the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section, sources said. But the prosecutors and senior FBI officials agreed there was no clear evidence of wrongdoing, and that a criminal case tied to the Clinton Foundation could not be made, according to the sources.” [ABC News, 11/3/16]
-
ABC News: Evidence presented “was not impressive” and prosecutors did not feel additional investigative steps were warranted. “‘It was not impressive,’ one source said of the February presentation. ‘It was not something that [prosecutors] felt they could authorize additional steps for. They were not impressed with the presentation or the evidence — if you could even call it evidence to that point.’” [ABC News, 11/3/16]
NBC News Fact Check: “Trump Claims Clinton Indictment Is Near. It’s Not.” “Trump Claims Clinton Indictment Is Near. It’s Not. Trump claimed rival Clinton is ‘likely’ to be indicted over an FBI inquiry that senior law enforcement officials tell NBC News’ Pete Williams never made it past the initial stage. Based on a Fox News report entirely drawn from anonymous sources, Trump told a Florida crowd Thursday that ‘the FBI is conducting a criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s pay-for-play corruption during her tenure as secretary of state.’ ‘In other words,’ he continued, ‘the FBI is investigating how Hillary Clinton put the office of Secretary of State up for sale in violation of federal law.’ The expose-style book ‘Clinton Cash’ by conservative author Peter Schweizer first alleged such a scheme, while failing to prove it. An FBI inquiry never progressed past the preliminary stage and has not moved forward in months.” [NBC News, 11/3/16]
TPM: “Lotta BS in That Clinton Fdn FBI Story.” “But that is clearly not what Bret Baier, the Foxer who reported the story, said. Both times he reported this on the air he used very specific language. Once he said: ‘two separate sources with intimate knowledge of the FBI investigations into the Clinton emails and the Clinton Foundation.’ Another time he said: ‘two separate sources with intimate knowledge of what’s going with these FBI investigations.‘ (emphasis added) Some quick inside journo stuff. This may seem like a very fine distinction – sources inside the FBI versus sources with intimate knowledge of the investigation; it’s not. When you have information from FBI agents or people who are ‘in the FBI’ you say so. Baier clearly stuck to this precise formulation of ‘sources with intimate knowledge’ of the FBI’s investigation. That very likely means his sources are not in the FBI. If they were he would say so.” [“Lotta BS in That Clinton Fdn FBI Story,” Talking Points Memo, 11/3/16]
Vanity Fair: “Has the F.B.I. gone full Breitbart?” “So far, Republicans have failed to find a smoking gun, but the narrative has served its purpose: tarnishing the public perception of the Democratic nominee and her family’s namesake charity. For this, no one deserves more credit than Peter Schweizer, Breitbart editor-at-large and the author of Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich. The controversial, mostly discredited book has been held up by many as irrefutable proof of wrongdoing, or at least common venality, by the Clintons. It also found plenty of eager readers within the Federal Bureau of Investigation, The Wall Street Journal and New York Times report, galvanizing a number of F.B.I. agents to launch an investigation into the Clinton Foundation, based mostly on assertions made by Schweizer in the book. On Thursday, the Journal reported that last summer, shortly after Clinton Cash was published, a number of F.B.I. agents began investigating claims made against the Clinton Foundation in the book, ultimately prompting an internal battle between the agents and F.B.I. and Justice Department officials. The agents secretly recorded conversations with two informants—both of whom were involved in separate public-corruption investigations—about the Clinton Foundation, and believed that they had enough evidence to build a case. Senior officials in the F.B.I. and the Justice Department, however, were skeptical of the evidence and the primary source, Schweizer’s book. Public-integrity prosecutors reportedly ‘weren’t impressed’ and ‘thought the talk was hearsay and a weak basis to warrant aggressive tactics, like presenting evidence to a grand jury, because the person who was secretly recorded wasn’t inside the Clinton Foundation,’ according to the Journal’s report.” [“Has the F.B.I. gone full Breitbart?,” Vanity Fair, 11/3/16]
Esquire: “By far, the most astonishing revelation has been that, in launching their probe into the Clinton Foundation, the [F.B.I. agents] in charge relied for source material on Clinton Cash.” “Yeah, horses, barns, that whole thing. The important thing to remember is that one portion of the FBI seems to be at war with another portion of the FBI and that almost everybody has a gun. But, by far, the most astonishing revelation has been that, in launching their probe into the Clinton Foundation, the Feebs in charge relied for source material on Clinton Cash, the meretricious hit job by veteran GOP ratfcker Peter Schweizer, as The New York Times tells us. (Schweizer runs a rightwing chop shop founded by Steve Bannon, the Breitbart slug who’s running the Trump campaign.)” [Esquire, 11/3/16]
Mother Jones: “Holy crap. The field agents got started on this because they read Clinton Cash.” “Holy crap. The field agents got started on this because they read Clinton Cash, the latest in a 25-year stream of books insisting that the Clintons are our era’s Borgia family. Then they got even more interested because some guy—literally just some guy—was recorded blathering about the foundation. This is what Hillary Clinton has faced ever since 1992. It started in Arkansas, where this kind of character assassination is basically just political sport, and then got exported to Washington, DC, when Bill Clinton ran for the presidency. There’s nothing in Schweizer’s book except yet another CDS [Clinton Derangement Syndrome] victim insisting that if two things happened at the same time, somehow the Clintons were responsible for it and he’s got the proof right here!” [Mother Jones, 11/3/16]
Old News: CNN Reported in August that DOJ Concluded Allegations Were “More Political than Substantive”
In August, CNN reported that DOJ had looked into allegations surrounding the Clinton Foundation after the release of “Clinton Cash” and found the claims to be unsubstantiated and “insufficient evidence to open a case.” “FBI officials wanted to investigate whether there was a criminal conflict of interest with the State Department and the Clinton Foundation during Clinton’s tenure. The Department of Justice had looked into allegations surrounding the foundation a year earlier after the release of the controversial book ‘Clinton Cash,’ but found them to be unsubstantiated and there was insufficient evidence to open a case.” [CNN, 8/11/16]
Justice Department officials said the request to open an investigation into the Clinton Foundation “seemed more political than substantive.” “As a result, DOJ officials pushed back against opening a case during the meeting earlier this year. Some also expressed concern the request seemed more political than substantive, especially given the timing of it coinciding with the investigation into the private email server and Clinton’s presidential campaign.” [CNN, 8/11/16]
REMINDER: Clinton Cash Author Peter Schweizer is a Right-Wing Operative with a History of Peddling Discredited Conspiracy Theories
Schweizer is a Partisan Operative
Schweizer was “a Senior Editor-at-large for the conservative outlet Breitbart” and worked as “a fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution.” “Schweizer is a Senior Editor-at-Large for the conservative outlet Breitbart News and was a fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution think tank. He also worked with President George W. Bush’s speechwriting team in the last year of Bush’s presidency.” [CNN, 4/22/15]
Schweizer was formerly an adviser to Sarah Palin. “The Times, it seems, has decided to debase itself by following the breadcrumbs dropped by this former adviser to Sarah Palin because Schweizer devotes a chapter to Giustra and Kazakhstan, which the Times reported on back in 2008, and the Times plans to follow up on that. I remember reading that Times story at the time and going, ‘Wow, that does look bad.’ But then I also remember reading this Forbes (yes, Forbes!) debunking of the Times story, which was headlined ‘Clinton Commits No Foul in Kazakhstan Uranium Deal.’” [Michael Tomasky, The Daily Beast, 4/22/15]\
Schweizer ran the conservative “Government Accountability Initiative” largely funded by a major supporter of Ted Cruz. “‘I think this is a political put-up job, and I can smell it from a mile away,’ Brock said during an interview on MSNBC’s ‘Morning Joe.’ ‘Yesterday it came out that The New York Times and Fox News were both chasing promotional deals with the author. The Times hyped the story yesterday, praised it, they withheld publicly available information about the author,’ Brock said. ‘They noted that he runs something called the Government Accountability Initiative, but they don’t say that that’s funded by a prime funder of Ted Cruz’s super PAC, by Donor Trust, which is a Koch brothers pass through, so it’s subsidized by Hillary Clinton’s enemies.’’ [Politico, 4/21/15]
Schweizer’s Clinton Cash was Aided by Koch Brothers
Schweizer’s Clinton Cash was backed by a Koch Brothers-linked organization. “The Clinton campaign circulated a memo to its surrogates and allies on Tuesday night that details talking points and responses to the soon-to-be-published book ‘Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,’ by conservative author Peter Schweizer. ‘The book was backed by a Koch Brothers-linked organization and a billionaire family that is bankrolling Ted Cruz’s presidential campaign,’ writes national press secretary Brian Fallon in the memo, which was forwarded to POLITICO by one of its recipients. In the three-page note Fallon also writes that Schweizer has coordinated with Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, another presidential candidate and frequent Clinton critic.” [Politico, 4/22/15]
Schweizer’s Book Contained No Evidence to Back up His Claims
Vox: Schweizer “couldn’t prove – or even assert – that Hillary Clinton took any official action because of contributions to the Clinton Foundation.” “Author Peter Schweizer, whose book Clinton Cash is due out May 5, took his best shot but couldn’t prove — or even assert — that Hillary Clinton took any official action because of contributions to the Clinton Foundation. I haven’t read the book, but even Schweizer concedes that what he’s identified is a ‘pattern of behavior,’ not hard evidence of corruption.” [Vox, 4/28/15]=]
New Yorker: “Schweizer doesn’t back up his suggestions of wrongdoing with much in the way [of] concrete evidence.” According to the New Yorker’s John Cassidy, “Not having read the book, which comes out on May 5th, I am relying on accounts from journalists who have. But if their versions of what the book contains are accurate, then Schweizer doesn’t back up his suggestions of wrongdoing with much in the way concrete evidence, which would allow the Clintons’ defenders to go on the offensive. Indeed, this is already happening. On MSNBC’s ‘Morning Joe’ on Tuesday, David Brock, the founder of Media Matters, the liberal-leaning media watchdog, who recently appears to have morphed into a Clinton campaign spokesman, said, ‘I think this is a political put-up job, and I can smell it from a mile away.’” [Cassidy, New Yorker, 4/22/15]
Schweizer Himself was forced to Admit He Had No Evidence to Back his Claims
Schweizer admitted that he had no “‘direct evidence’ of any impropriety.” “The author of a book alleging that some donors to the Clinton Foundation received favors while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state said Sunday that he did not have ‘direct evidence’ of any impropriety, but argued the ‘pattern of behavior’ required an investigation into Clinton’s record.” [CNN, 4/26/15]
Fox News: “The author of ‘Clinton Cash’ acknowledged Sunday that his book has no evidence that Hillary Clinton as secretary of state directly influenced huge international deals in exchange for million-dollar contributions.” “The author of ‘Clinton Cash’ acknowledged Sunday that his book has no evidence that Hillary Clinton as secretary of state directly influenced huge international deals in exchange for million-dollar contributions to her family foundation but argued the numerous instances deserve an investigation.” [Fox News, 4/26/15]
The Hill: “Even Schweizer admits he has no smoking gun proving that either Hillary Clinton or former President Bill Clinton sought to further the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation in improper ways.” “With the controversy around donations to her family’s charitable foundation growing, Democrats are bracing for more attacks on the former secretary of State — just the beginning of what they expect to be an 18-month assault on their party’s front-runner. […] Those attacks for now revolve around the upcoming book Clinton Cash by Peter Schweizer of the conservative Hoover Institution at Stanford University. Even Schweizer admits he has no smoking gun proving that either Hillary Clinton or former President Bill Clinton sought to further the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation in improper ways.” [The Hill, 4/28/15]
Clinton Cash Contained a Number of Significant Errors that Further Disprove the Book’s False Allegations
An independent review of source material by ABC News uncovered errors in “Clinton Cash.” “An independent review of source material by ABC News uncovered errors in the book, including an instance where paid and unpaid speaking appearances were conflated. Schweitzer said the errors would be corrected. But those same records supported the premise that former President Clinton accepted speaking fees from numerous companies and individuals with interests pending before the State Department.” [ABC News, 4/23/15]
ThinkProgress: Schweizer relied on a fake press release in an attempt to support his debunked claims of a quid pro quo on the Keystone Pipeline. “Schweizer also fingers Bill Clinton’s speaking fees, a favorite target in conservative circles, as a potential avenue to influence Hillary. He links the timing of the State Department’s generally positive report on the Keystone XL Pipeline with a slew of Clinton speeches paid for by TD Bank, a major shareholder in the project. As proof of how crucial Clinton’s support for the pipeline was to the bank, Schweizer quotes a press release that claimed TD Bank would ‘begin selling its $1.6 billion worth of shares in the massive but potentially still-born Keystone XL crude pipeline project’ after Clinton left office. The press release was quickly revealed to be fake in 2013. Yet Schweizer, apparently unaware of the hoax, remarks, ‘Too bad for TD Bank. But the Clintons got paid regardless.’” [ThinkProgress, 4/21/15]
Schweizer incorrectly claimed President Clinton was paid for three speeches for which he actually received no compensation, further disproving claims of special treatment. “In the book’s chapter on Haiti, dubbed ‘Disaster Capitalism Clinton-Style,’ which was obtained by BuzzFeed News, Schweizer writes that O’Brien, whose company Digicel was attempting to secure a contract for mobile phone service in Haiti, paid Clinton $600,000 for speeches in Ireland on Sept. 29, 2010, Oct. 8, 2011, and Oct. 9, 2013. Schweizer argues ‘the timing of these paid speeches is notable’ because they came during the contract awarding process — and goes on to note that starting in 2011 Digicel began receiving contracts in Haiti that would total $2 million from USAID, the first time the company had received grants from the organization. Schweizer also cites a fourth speech in the book that he says occurred in October 2011 in Kingston, Jamaica, just weeks before Digicel received its first grant. But according to Clinton spokesperson Matt McKenna, neither the former president nor the Clinton Foundation was paid for two of the three speeches Clinton gave in Ireland, and that while the Foundation did receive a donation following his Sept. 29, 2010 speech, Clinton himself was not compensated.” [BuzzFeed, 4/28/15]
The book incorrectly reported that Hillary Clinton supported a particular amendment when she actually voted against it. ‘‘In 2005, the Indian government wanted those restrictions lifted. Hillary Clinton at that time supported a killer amendment to stop that from happening. After 2005, a number of Indian interests, including an Indian politician that admits now that his donation to the Clinton Foundation wasn’t even his money, those donations flowed. In 2008, she reverses course, and supports the export of U.S. nuclear technology.’ While Clinton’s India stance evolved over the years, a review of then-Sen. Clinton’s statements and votes while the Indian nuclear deal was under debate shows that two key facts in Schweizer’s argument on the topic are false, as Clinton actually publicly stated her support for the deal in 2006 and in fact voted against a ‘killer amendment’ that the book reports she supported.” [Politico, 4/29/15]
Amazon Had to Alert Purchasers of “Significant Revisions” Due to Numerous Errors
Amazon alerted purchasers of the book that “significant revisions” were made to correct “seven or eight” passages that were incorrect. “Amazon on Tuesday blasted out an alert to purchasers of the book — which investigates connections between the Clinton Foundation donors and Hillary Clinton’s work at the State Department, and debuted at no. 2 on the New York Times’ bestseller list for the week of March 24 — notifying them that ‘significant revisions have been made.’ ‘An updated version of your past Kindle purchase…is now available,’ reads the email. ‘The updated version contains the following changes: Significant revisions have been made.’ Schweizer corrected ‘seven or eight’ passages that were revealed to be inaccurate after the book was released, according to publisher HarperCollins.” [Politico, 5/14/15]