Clinton Cash Crushed By Facts As Author Admits He Has No Evidence Of Clinton Crimes


When pressed by This Week’s George Stephanopoulos, Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer admitted that he has no hard evidence to support his allegations.


Transcript via ABC’s This Week:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you have any evidence that a crime may have been committed?

SCHWEIZER: Well, I think it’s — if you look at a couple of recent examples. For example, Governor McConnell down in Virginia, or you look at Senator Menendez, in these cases, you didn’t have evidence of a quid pro quo. What you had was funds flowing to elected officials, some of them gifts, some of them campaign contributions and actions that were being taken by those public officials that seemed to benefit the contributors.

Certainly, I think it warrants investigation. What that investigation will reveal, we’ll see.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But a criminal investigation?

SCHWEIZER: Well, we’ll see. I mean that’s what the Governor McConnell has faced and that’s what Menendez has faced.


SCHWEIZER: And I think the evidence here is far more widespread in terms of repeated action than there were in those two instances.

STEPHANOPOULOS: As you know, the Clinton campaign says you haven’t produced a shred of evidence that there was any official action as secretary that — that supported the interests of donors.


STEPHANOPOULOS: We’ve done investigative work here at ABC News, found no proof of any kind of direct action. And an independent government ethics expert, Bill Allison, of the Sunline Foundation (ph), wrote this. He said, “There’s no smoking gun, no evidence that she changed the policy based on donations to the foundation.”

No smoking gun.

Is there a smoking gun?

SCHWEIZER: Yes. The smoking gun is in the pattern of behavior. And here’s the analogy I would give you. It’s a little bit like insider trading. I wrote a book on Congressional insider trading a couple of years ago and talked with prosecutors.


STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you have any evidence that she actually intervened in this issue?

SCHWEIZER: No, we don’t have direct evidence. But it warrants further investigation because, again, George, this is part of the broader pattern. You either have to come to the conclusion that these are all coincidences or something else is afoot.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And that — that is that — the Clintons do say it’s a coincidence. As they say, you have produced no evidence. And I still haven’t heard any direct evidence and you just said you had no evidence that she intervened here.

Stephanopoulos asked Schweizer for hard evidence, and the author immediately tried to change the subject. The This Week host kept asking the author for a smoking gun, and all he could provide was a “pattern of behavior.”

It became very clear during this interview that there is no evidence that would merit a criminal investigation. Schweizer could not produce the smoking gun because there is no smoking gun.

Schweizer’s attempts to connect the Clinton Cash allegations and the McDonnell and Menendez cases were flimsy and did not hold up to the gentlest of inspections. In Gov. McDonnell’s case, there was evidence the governor promoted the donor’s company as a result of illegal gifts and loans. Sen. Menendez was charged because federal prosecutors believe that a case can be made that the senator used his position to intervene in Medicaid billing disputes in exchange for campaign contributions.

Schweizer’s argument that the three cases are equal is simply not true. There is no evidence that any donors to The Clinton Foundation received special treatment from former Sec. of State Clinton, which is why the mainstream press is not pushing the Clinton Cash scandal.

One of the main allegations in Schweizer’s congressional insider trading book had to be retracted after his claim that Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) committed insider trading was found to be factually incorrect and wrong.

The Washington Post and New York Times harmed their own credibility by attaching themselves to partisan conspiracy theory book that doesn’t measure up to the basic standards of journalism.

The Clinton Cash scandal will live on the ozone of right-wing conspiracy theories and conservative media, but there is no evidence to support these claims. ABC News can’t find it. The New York Times can’t find it. The Washington Post can’t find it.

By the end of the interview, Schweizer sounded like a conspiracy theorist, and it was clear that Clinton Cash is the latest in a long line of empty and time wasting right-wing conspiracies.

Clinton Cash has been crushed by the facts.

115 Replies to “Clinton Cash Crushed By Facts As Author Admits He Has No Evidence Of Clinton Crimes”

  1. “It doesn’t matter what I believe. It only matters what I can prove!” Lt Kaffee…And these dirtbags can’t prove a thing about HRC.

  2. “Proof? My readers and I don’t need no stinkin’ proof!
    We know what we know, and that’s all that we need to know.”

  3. The most important and informative information was that he is Financially backed by the Koch brothers to write this book. They will throw billions away to get the Republicans into power so they will profit. That includes spreading BS about any candidate that they think will win. They have been doing the same thing since Bill Clinton ran the first time and all during President Obamas terms. Spreading pure BS in an attempt to discredit anyone who will take money out of their pockets and give it back to the rest of the people (the 99.8%)!

  4. To them, they are not really throwing billions away if it will get them many billions more in profits. Evil. Greedy. Asshats.

  5. Robert McDonnell is going to prison based on far less circumstantial evidence than exists against the Clintons. For people so obsessed with Koch money in politics, you would think you would find the Clintons enriching themselves through “speeches” and the suspicious timing between donations and political actions as outlined in the book, at least the tiniest bit unsettling. The problem is that you look at politics like a sport and right or wrong is based solely on whether there is a D or R after your name and nothing else. So why bother even writing these lengthy posts? Just write, “Democrat good, Republican bad” and call it a day.

  6. How can you tell a republican is lying??? He or she starts to speak A report about Jeb??? Sorry if i sound a bit dubious but what he said made me think he was going to bust out the foil hat soon and talk about UFO`S and Bigfoot :O

  7. Well, erica, you’re living proof that you can fool some of the people some of the time.

    I guess, along with demonizing higher education, willful ignorance is valued by your ilk.

    When the author himself, backed by Koch Bros $$, admits he has NO PROOF of any Clinton crimes and you still find yourself defending those baseless allegations, it’s time for you to put down the Kool-Aid and take your pills.

  8. The New York Times and the Washington Post should be ASHAMED for giving this lying RW-snake a podium and free advertising for his book of lies that’s only goal is to “swiftboat” a Democratic candidate who is poised to make minced meat out of the passengers in the Koch Bros’ RW-Clown Car.

  9. Hillary is guilty of committing a crime. The U.S. Constitution prohibits donations from foreign governments to elected officials.

    Now….liberal democrats have decided that the Constitution has no current value, so they dismiss the charges. Obama has largely dismissed the Constitution as well.

    However, the truth is that Clinton is a criminal.

    If you watched the interview, you understand that he uncovered proof of illegal donations, and now the Clintons are going to revise their IRS tax filings.

    Evidence? The author is careful here.

    Evidence is something offered in a judicial proceeding to prove or disprove something in a trial. He wrote a book, based on careful research, and the Washingon Posto and the NY Times have confirmed his facts.

    Evidence might need a little more…proof of intent. The author is calling for an investigation.

    If you’re liberal Democrat, you put your head in the sand and attack. That is the liberal way.

    Have a nice jihad-free day.

  10. The “pattern of behavior” is conservative crybabies desperately trying to find ANYTHING they can to discredit Hillary Clinton so they can get her out of the race because they know good and well she will CRUSH whoever the Repub’s put up next year.

  11. If they can’t find evidence, they make it up.

    look at what O’Keeffe did to ACORN and illegals crossing the Rio Grande. Every bit of it based on innuendos and/or outright lies.

    And @erica, the Clintons are not trying to destroy our form of government with the money they, or their foundation, earn.

    I cannot say the same for the way the Koch brothers use their money to promote the destruction of the very foundations upon which this country was built. All one needs to do is read the mission statement of A.L.E.C., sponsored and run by the brothers, to know exactly what they stand for. You have no leg to stand on in your defense of them.

  12. Not only what ICH says, but your contention is wrong – McDonnell was convicted not on circumstantial evidence but on hard evidence substantiated by statements (confession) made by others involved – if Ms. Clinton has committed any crime, I’m sure that the manure sniffers would have something more than this loser’s book to base it on. And you yourself disprove your theory of R & D/right & wrong – Melendez is a D, and if he is found guilty (and if so, it won’t be on “circumstantial evidence”) then he deserves to be punished the same as anyone else, regardless of party affiliation.

  13. Clintstone & erica, obviously you poor rubes can’t spot a
    Koch contracted monkey throwing his own poop to you
    Pox newz dung beetles. Sorry the poop didn’t stick to the
    fact wall and your feeding frenzy spoiled.[WINK]

  14. The Republicans best slow down. It’s a long time until 2016. They’re going to run out of mud before the election. If anybody has been vetted and weathered the storm, it’s Hillary Clinton. She’s had everything thrown at her, and it only makes her stronger….

  15. I have a curious question for the gentleman. He is going to do a book on Jeb Bush is he — does he have a liberal co-author to give it some credibility? Someone with research knowledge who can “help” make sure the book is ACTUALLY an expose?

    I’d bet not.


  16. This is the beginning of Koch-funded and right wing propaganda pieces like the Swift Boat lies which were used to sink John Kerry. The Kochs will use any tactic to disseminate disinformation, lies, half-truths and smears to turn public opinion against anyone who challenges the Plutocracy.

  17. “You either have to come to the conclusion that these are all coincidences or something else is afoot.”

    I believe the Salem witch trials began with such rhetoric.

  18. There was HARD evidence on McDonnell but Faux Snooze ignored it.

    How do you live without a functioning brain??

    Conservatism as a Mental Illness
    Republican polls have recently exhibited 10 telltale signs of mental illness:
    Denial, Delusion, Hallucination, Disordered Thinking, Anger, Anti-social Behavior, Sexual Preoccupation, Grandiosity, General Oddness, Paranoia

  19. Wow- too bad George couldn’t have been as rigorous in his “investigating” these baseless allegations when President Obama was accused of lying about being born in the US.

    There was physical proof disputing this, but the “lamestream” media (yes, Sarah- it goes both ways) decided this was “news” and made it even moreso by relying on personal biases and opinions as facts.

  20. They have NO ACCOMPLISHMENTS and have NOTHING ELSE to go with besides throwing dirt at Hillary.

    Hillary will mop the floor with all of these tea bag/repubs.

  21. Hillary is completely innocent.The U.S. Constitution prohibits donations from foreign governments to elected officials, but Hillary Clinton has never accepted donations from foreign countries.

    Now…rabid republicans have decided that the Constitution has no current value, so they have ignored facts that exonerate her and instead declared her guilty of something they are not even sure of. Obama is, of course, a Constitutional scholar, knows the Constitution better than republicans who used the Constitution like toilet paper in the past administration,and has always upheld the law.

    However, the truth is Hillary is innocent.

    If you watched the interview, you understand that he uncovered no proof of illegal donations, and now the Clintons are going to amend three years of their IRS tax filings, as is perfectly lawfull and common. Americans, businesses and individuals do it all the time.


  22. This reminds me of a novel I read a few years ago. You can take established facts, weave in some subtle bullshit, combine with a few more facts, then twist and repeat. In the end, there are people who are gullible and will latch on. Schwietzer must think he can Dan Brown, Hillary Clinton. I don’t think his work of fiction will fool anyone except rethug idiots, who need another conspiracy.

  23. One Word in response to all this made up BULLSHIT….!!!!!!!!!!!!!!……HILARIOUS…!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  24. Part 2 continues here.

    The completely legal tax returns may not have to be amended because the money had been already disclosed to the IRS.

    “The foundation official, who spoke on background to explain the internal workings of the organization, also said foreign government donations were no secret and were reported in other ways: The money was included in the overall revenue figures reported to the IRS, he said, and the fact that the dollars came from government sources was noted in the organization’s annual audited financial reports, posted on its Web site. Plus, the names of governments that had donated were included in a list of donors posted by the foundation each year on its Web site.”

    Evidence? The author has none.

    Evidence is an available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.


  25. Erika….with all the false accusations and subsequent investigations against the Clinton’s the only thing they proved is a Husband will lie about sex outside his marriage….with that said how is this any different????

  26. Part 3 continues here…

    He wrote a book carefully cherry picking unrelated incidents and omitted any that would invalidate the conclusion he started with and the Washington Post and NY Times have repeated his fiction without acknowledging they have not vetted his accusations.

    Evidence might need a little more…evidence. Or proof or something like existing in reality. The author is hoping to become a media celeb with all the invitations to Sunday morning shows and parties with people who have more credibilty than he does.

    If you’re a rabid republican you keep on doing what you have always done. Lie, demand investigations and whine when those investigations don’t give you the results you feel you deserve. That’s the rabid right’s way.

    Have a very mediocre day, erica.

  27. So lets see,a “pattern on behavior” for a republikkan”: lie, spew made-up “facts” as gospel, take dirty money from big business inorder to let them demean the American work force, to pollute our nation, call every senior, disabled person, vet a TAKER, demand women become subservient to old white men, keep killing our young people with endless war inorder to keep Halliburton raking in billions forever and ever. THATS A PATTERN, fool.

  28. Confirmation Bias may work for the Republican Retards of America, but it doesn’t hold water for adults.

    Republicans going after Hilary reminds me of my housecat when I pull out a laser pointer.

  29. and yet you have no proof, schwiezer has no proof. I could accuse you of murder but if I can’t prove it than it’s a pointless allegation. WHERE IS YOUR PROOF? As George St points out – THERE IS NONE.

  30. WOW STEPHANOPOULOS seems really defensive here. He doesn’t seem to be trying to uncover what really might have happened, instead he seems to be on his heels, very defensive. He is too certain of an absence of wrong-doing when one cant know for sure at this point in time.

    Regardless of how these allegations ultimately pan out, this is poor reporting.

    Leave biases at home please.

  31. So…

    As the Obama “Birthers” ride off into the sunset, do we now see the rise of the Clinton “Cashers”? [WINK]


    Methinks, that “Khaleesi is coming to Westeros”.

  32. That is not the way the Bushes interpreted it a few years ago! With Citizen’s United, you Conservaturds thought you could bypass that law! Sorry, Scalia did you in too!
    Maybe you conservaturds will stop lying for a minute: er a …I take it as a no!

  33. Is there a there There with the KOCH Brothers spending billions of campaing contributions to their favorite candidates? In return for SOMETHING, yes?
    HGow does THAT stack up. The Koch brothers hould be investigated, I bet there are a lot of smoking funs and skeletons in the closet where those two are concerned, the recipients of those funds too. Whose ‘gonna investigate THAT? !!!

  34. There was never any “evidence” that Valerie Plame was an undercover spook either…but you moonbats ran with it. You hypocrites are always demanding investigations based on NOTHING when a Repub is involved, then when a Dim is involved…CRICKETS! I know, it’s just a “coincidence” that the Russians got the Uranium Mining deal shortly after a million dollar donation to the Clinton Slush Fund known as the Clinton Global Initiative. Nothing to see here folks…move along.

  35. Dumbass 8 US government agencies had to sign off on this deal.. Utah regulators had to sign off on this deal. If Clinton Accusations Are True, Who Bribed The Eight Departments Of Government?

  36. The author said he comes to no conclusions in the book. The book is intended to show a pattern of behavior to prove further investigation is warranted. He went to the NY Times, the Wall Street Journal, Fox News and ABC News to have them send their investigative teams out to confirm and vet what he wrote. And they did. From the author: “I don’t engage in theorizing. One of the big finds in the book is that you have multi-million dollar donations that were never disclosed. The thing we have to keep in mind is that the Clintons try to say that they are very transparent. The reason they are transparent with the foundation is the Barack Obama transition team in 2008 insisted on disclosure. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee insisted that they disclose donations, and as the Wall Street Journal and NY Times confirmed on Thursday, there are multi-million dollar donations that were never disclosed and those are the ones we were never able to find through Canadian tax records.”

  37. You know nothing about this authors history of lies, distortions and character assassinations so I let you keep living on fantasy island

  38. This is really a reply to Sam. What George Stephanopoulos was doing was real journalism. Defensive? He was asking direct questions about the “author’s assertions. That’s called being a journalist. I know you’re used to hearing hosts on “news” programs who are nothing but cheerleaders for their guests, so I will excuse you for the mistake. When your guest starts squirming because the host asks the hard questions which should be asked, it reveals them as what they are, untruthful or ignorant.

  39. Keep attacking the messenger, djchefron, to avoid the message. Read my post again. The author went to the major news outlets to get them to vet the facts he put in his book. And they did.

  40. Yeah it got vetted and it was vetted to be a pack of lies
    NBC News Just Admitted The NY Times’ Story Based On Clinton Cash “Doesn’t Hold Up That Well,” Here’s Why

    ABC’s Stephanopoulos Confronts Clinton Cash Author About Missing Facts And Overstatements

    Stephanopoulos: “There Is No Evidence At All That Hillary Clinton Got Directly Involved” In Russian Uranium Deal

    Now you tell me who all is involved in making this decision on the uranium mine

  41. The mistake you are making, djchefron (besides the fact that you are using mediamatters as your source), is that you (and mediamatters) are assuming that the author is coming to a definite conclusion that Hillary is guilty of a crime. He has said that is not the case. He is laying out a pattern of behavior. Another quote from the author. “Most people who engage in insider trading don’t send an e-mail that says, ‘I’ve got inside information. Buy this stock.’ The way they get prosecuted is by looking at a pattern of behavior. Did someone with access to the information conduct a series of well-timed stock trades that warrants further investigation, and that’s my contention here. That you see a series of actions that are enormously beneficial, in some cases Hillary Clinton is reversing course on policies that she embraced before, for the benefit of Clinton donors, and I’m saying this warrants further investigation.”

  42. The mistake you are making, djchefron (besides the fact that you are using mediamatters as your source), is that you (and mediamatters) are assuming that the author has come to a definite conclusion that Hillary is guilty of a crime. He has said that is not the case: “most people who engage in insider trading don’t send an e-mail that says, ‘I’ve got inside information. Buy this stock.’ The way they get prosecuted is by looking at a pattern of behavior. Did someone with access to the information conduct a series of well-timed stock trades that warrants further investigation, and that’s my contention here. That you see a series of actions that are enormously beneficial, in some cases Hillary Clinton is reversing course on policies that she embraced before for, the benefit of Clinton donors, and I’m saying this warrants further investigation.”

  43. Lies, Lies! Those damn Lies! Every Tbagger lies! They’re all liars I tell you!

    One of the blind sheep’s baaing too much and feeling salty.

    Enjoy your shame burger.

  44. @melehi, I’m really starting to believe that most republicans are seriously mentally ILL, because ANYONE gullible to buy the GOP’s KOOL AID truly needs professional help, PROOF? how did that “OBAMA isn’t a legal american citizen WORK? how did that “OBAMA is THE ANTI CHRIST, WORK ? how did that “OBAMA is a GAY male with a husband back in Africa, WORK ?how did “OBAMA is going to put WHITE PEOPLE in fema camps, WORK? how did “OBAMA is going to DESTROY the stock market! WORK? how did attacking the ACA over 54 times and wasting MILLIONS of american TAX DOLLARS!! WORK? how did BENGHAZI work out?? how did that IRS is going after conservative organizations! WORK? @melehi, I could do this ALL day! but whats the point? trying to reason with a severely mentally ILL republican NEVER WORKS! BTW @melehi, for ALL the GOP’s BULL$HIT, OBAMA, still beat the KKK major league affiliate, TWICE! by over 8 MILLION VOTES.

  45. Ahh I know you rode the short bus but mediamatters reported what NBC and ABC said. You and the rest of the rabid Reich fail to answer one simple question. If 9 other government agencies had to signed off on the sale with the treasury in charge and Utah regulatory agency had to signed off who bribed them?

    BTW Sec. Clinton didn’t give the yes vote from state.Jose Hernandez, who as former Assistant Secretary of State for Economic, Energy and Business Affairs was involved the deliberations on behalf of the State Department, denying that Clinton was involved in the matter at all.

    Before you dumbasses go off the rails at least know basic facts

  46. See my reply to your prior post above, djchefron. It hiccuped and posted twice. In addition to that post, let me say that I haven’t heard one specific fact presented in the book that anyone claims is false. The only thing Democrats are screaming about that they say is false is that there is no evidence Hillary is guilty of a crime, but that isn’t what the author stated in the book. He made no such claim. Look at it it this way. If there were currently solid evidence that she committed a crime, she would be charged with a crime. The author laid out information about Hillary, the foundation, and Bill’s speaking fees, and is saying there is enough of a pattern of behavior to warrant further investigation to see if sufficient evidence is uncovered, not that there is currently enough evidence to show a crime was committed. Investigations are done all the time when something is suspicious but not enough evidence is at hand to file charges against someone.

  47. Speaking fees?
    Rudy Giuliani, former New York City mayor — $270,000
    George W. Bush, former president — $110,000
    Dick Cheney, former vice president — $75,000
    Mitt Romney, 2012 Republican presidential candidate — $40,000-60,000
    To paraphrase Allen Iverson, ” Speaking fees?!! We’re talking about speaking fees!!!!

  48. The dems have put all of their eggs into Hillary’s basket, and you can expect more of the irrational and emotional outbursts from Dj et al as time moves forward.

    The real fear for them is that their corrupt and progressive philosophy will die immediately upon the demise of the current presidency.

    If was only back in 2008 that some knucklehead, media person was stating that conservatism has died for a generation. Funny how only 2 years later, obama and his views were rebuffed and the House was retaken. I won’t even go into the sore point about 2014.

    Perhaps they are thinking about the possibility of their own fate in 2016.

  49. Settle down, djchefron. Why do so many liberals go off with the ad hominem attacks when someone posts a differing opinion? Geez. Look, I’m not an investigator. I don’t have all the answers to Hillary’s past that are coming to light in the book and elsewhere. The answers to your questions would need to be answered by Hillary, herself. And she should answer them as quickly as possible if she wants to get past this. The longer she remains silent, the worse it will be for her. She should get up and have a two-hour press conference and answer all questions posed.

  50. So I give facts that’s irrational but you dumbasses lie and those are facts. Only in Reich wing America

  51. And that’s my point. Thanks for validating it. If you have a different view, you’re called a liar.

    If that doesn’t work, you’re called a dumbass.

    How classy. How typical. How embarrassing for your kind.

    Again, thanks for proving yourself irrational and emotional. Another shame burger to go?

  52. Do you even know anything about this hack of a writer?
    Media should be cautious with Republican activist and strategist Peter Schweizer’s new book Clinton Cash. Schweizer has a disreputable history of reporting marked by errors and retractions, with numerous reporters excoriating him for facts that “do not check out,” sources that “do not exist,” and a basic failure to practice “Journalism 101.”
    I know its media matters but click on the links. And we are supposed to believe this kochsucker?

  53. First off dummy, she wasn’t elected to the position, she was appointed and approved by the senate. Plus I don’t see any hard evidence, you are just running your mouth like all right wing jack*sses.

  54. Everything that you liars have said is a lie. Hillary approved the deal because of donations. Benghazzi, Obama is a Muslim from Kenya. Not only are you a liar but you are one dumb POS

  55. Come on, djchefron, you’re getting way too worked up. I haven’t said Hillary approved the deal because of donations. The author didn’t say it either. All he said is that there is a pattern of behavior that warrants further investigation. Are Hillary supporters getting all bent out of shape over this because deep down they fear that solid evidence is going to pop up soon proving Hillary did commit a crime? Nevertheless, you needn’t be mad at those who aren’t Hillary supporters. If you want to be mad, be mad at Hillary for putting herself in a position to be questioned about her ethics. Be mad at her for not being more careful to ensure all donations were disclosed. Be mad at her for not following proper procedure with her government e-mails. All of this scrutiny could have been avoided. She has done this to herself. As WSJ columnist Bret Stephens said, “The Clintons inhabit this area between outright corruption and actual ethical conduct, and that’s the world of sleaze.”

  56. TRUTH has a liberal bias to it, right??

    This book of propaganda was sponsored by ropert murdock of Faux Nooze fame, and that says it all.
    The author was wishy-washy about any truth in it and is designed to help fuel the tea bag/repub FEAR, of anything that isn’t like them.

    Conservatives Big on Fear, Brain Study Finds

    Conservatism Linked to Lack of Education

  57. @peter, be honest, if I went to a conservative website and said, the Earth was flat, the sun orbits the Earth or Germany won WW11, what would be their response? of course @peter, you’d call me a DUMBASS just for starter, so don’t to march YOUR happy A$S in here talking nonsense and expect a free pass! it’s the internet @peter, toughen up sparky!!

  58. Oh boy. Were you picked on by Conservatives when you were younger? Out of your obamacare, psychotropic meds? Just a plain lunatic?

    I can think for myself, and I don’t get wrapped up in all the Benghazis, or obama-is-a-muslim fanfare.

    Here’s another thing to ponder in your psychosis: If conservatism is so Reich wing, ala Hitler’s Fascism, why then does it keep coming back strong time after time? You would think that pure evil would be eradicated, ala Hitler’s Fascism, in a liberal, educated, connected and modern society. Yet, here it is again.

    If you haven’t figured it out (and judging by the nonsense you spew, you haven’t), America is a center-right nation. Your views, although they might be noble in intent, are the minority. The only solace you receive is being among the fellow thinkers here on this site.

    Close-minded, militaristic individuals like yourself might be better off in the worker’s paradises of China or North Korea.

  59. What pattern of behavior, djchefron? I’m sure you already know and are simply trying to engage me in argument. There is far too much information I have read and seen in the news to list. You might try google or youtube. Or you could wait until the book comes out. I’m sure there will be lots more information on it then.

  60. When you associate Reich-wing America, you imply Hitler and Nazi Germany. Surely you who are so enlightened and intelligent must see the connection, because all us illiterate folk and dumbasses can see that.

    You must model that behavior from someone, and I dare to think that your parents may have raised you like that. You harbor much anger and shame, that it appears the only course of action might be a frontal lobotomy. But then again, if you lose any more of your brain, I would be frightened by how much more liberal you’d become.

  61. hmmm….I was thinking more like ISIS, ISIL or what obama calls them: workplace violence-doers.

    I’ll hang up now and listen for your parent’s shame.

  62. Here. This will get you started. Pretend I’m speaking and am telling what the author is saying. You can look up yourself other articles or video clips of the author speaking. Remember, the book hasn’t been published yet, so I can’t offer any additional information to you at this point other than what I’ve heard and read, which I feel pretty certain you already know. :)

  63. You kind of late with that, it was already covered on here
    As Clinton Cash Collapses A Defeated Fox News Gets Seriously Desperate

    Wallace’s interview of Schweizer exposed the political agenda behind Fox News. There was no pretense or facade of journalism. The Wallace interview was a shameless hype vehicle designed to press for another Congressional investigation of Hillary Clinton.

    Now again where is this pattern of criminal behavior?

  64. I never said her pattern of behavior was criminal, nor did the author. He said it was suspicious and warrants further investigation. I don’t know what interview you were listening to. Wallace challenged the author several times. He kept asking ‘what evidence to you have?’ If you have read various news sources on this (besides politicususa and mediamatters) and have watched various interviews with the author, you know as much as I know. He went through the series of actions that ended in results very beneficial to the Clintons, and as he said, in some cases Hillary Clinton reversed course on policies that she had embraced before, which resulted in a benefit to Clinton donors, therefore warranting further investigation. I can’t tell you more than that. I’ll be interested to see what else happens over the coming weeks and how it affects her. A Quinnipiac poll last week asking if she is honest and trustworthy shows her upside down – 54% said no, 38% said yes. And that was before the b…

  65. Read my post again, djchefron, and hone in on this sentence, “I can’t tell you more than that.” I repeated what he said was in the book. You’re going to have to just wait until the book is released to find out more. Maybe by that time, we’ll know how the book has affected her in the polls. The poll I referenced shows the impact of her e-mail controversy, so it will be interesting to see the effects the book will have on the next poll about her “trustworthiness.” :)

  66. Maybe by that time, we’ll know how the book has affected her in the polls
    And that’s the whole point of this witch hunt. You have no facts just bullshit because you republicans have no issues or any thing positive to run on so lets dirty up the water with lies.

    Next you be trotting out whitewater, Vince Foster, the pretend firing in Watergate and my favorite Benghaziiiiiiii. Its just pitiful.

    Ask yourself a serious question, what have republicans done for the majority of the citizens in the last 40 years? And we compare that to Sec.Clintons record. That’s where the debate should be at

    That’s why you cannot answer my simple questions

  67. Oops. I think I struck a nerve. Well, sorry to disappoint but I’m not “taking the bait” in your attempt to start an argument or make me angry. I don’t allow ad hominem attacks to ruin my day. The events in the book that I do know about from having read them in the news were confirmed by other news outlets so they are not lies. As I said before, no one has refuted the events the author laid out. That is what is making the left berserk. The only thing that has been challenged by the left as untruthful is that Hillary is guilty of a crime, which is arguing a point that the author never made to begin with. He only believes further investigation should be initiated in order to determine if there was criminal wrongdoing. It’s clear you don’t like that, but that’s just the way it is. Come back in a couple of weeks when the book comes out. Until then, you’re just ranting about everything BUT the book.

  68. OK, if these events were true in any way, shape or form, why is the author admitting there is no evidence to support his theories that the foundation got special treatment from Hillary?

    Look, you seem like a smart person melehi. I’m going to give you the chance to defend your opinion here. The floor is yours, sir.

  69. It’s ma’am, Dustin. I’m getting kind of weary after posting so much on this thread. It would probably be good to review my prior posts because I think they will answer your questions. In a nutshell, the mistake that so many people are making is that they assume that the author accuses Hillary of a crime in his book. Hence, the cries that “there is no evidence!” But the author has stated he does not theorize in his book. He comes to no conclusions. He simply lays out events and facts, such as the fact that there were multi-millions in donations that didn’t get reported on the foundation’s tax returns. He states that his research shows the events and facts are not coincidental, but rather, show a trend or pattern of behavior that is suspicious. Therefore, he believes they are sufficient to warrant further investigation in order to develop and advance the facts he has thus far uncovered in order to prove or disprove wrongdoing on her part.

  70. Knight4444

    I didn’t realize we had a WW11? Actually, I don’t think we had a WW3. But yes, going onto a conservative website saying Germany won WW11 will get you the expected response. Toughen up and give it a try though.

  71. Sorry about that. Kinda hard to tell what sex a person is on the internet, you know.

    Anyway, you do provide a good argument. Problem isn’t with the author… it’s with the right wing. Even though the author is taking every precaution he can on trying to make this seem believable, the people on the right are just chomping at the bit make this an all out devastation on her character.

    Let’s see this play out first. If there is any truth to what he is saying, then he might be on to something… but, he has a history of making things up, so do you really believe what he is trying to sell?

    Not to mention that news organizations like ABC and NBC have already said that the accusations, while not totally proven, are false. I don’t know if what I’m saying will sway you, but I hope that I’ve been reasonable enough as to not make you too unhappy because it’s nice to see people on here who are on the other side and isn’t a total mental case.

  72. Dustin, you’ve been very nice and I appreciate it as well. I don’t have an opinion either way on this book. Do I believe that the facts are true? If the investigative teams at other news organizations have uncovered the same facts, then sure, I believe them. For example, do I believe the foundation failed to disclose multi millions in donations from the Canadian company involved in the uranium deal? Yes. Obviously this is true or the foundation would not be refiling the last 5 years of returns, maybe more.

    Now, do I believe the facts and events laid out by the author tell a narrative, one that is suspicious, smells of a quid pro quo and begs for additional investigation? That I don’t know. I don’t have enough information. Maybe when the book comes out I will be able to form an opinion. If the author has gotten facts wrong before, then by all means, we should scrutinize the book. But the book must stand on its own merits. It can’t be disqualified based on other writings.

  73. “The U.S. Constitution prohibits donations from foreign governments to elected officials.”

    First: Hilary Clinton was appointed, not elected. But that makes no difference because…

    Second: The Constitution prohibits any person holding an Office of Profit or Trust from accepting donations from foreign governments without the consent of Congress, regardless of how they came to hold such an office. But that does not matter because…

    Third: Hillary Clinton joined the board of The Clinton Foundation after she left office. But that does not matter because…

    Fourth: Donations to The Clinton Foundation are received by The Clinton Foundation, a nonprofit corporation that has never held the office of Secretary of State. Try as they might, Republicans have yet to find a way to appoint corporations to office.

    That said, your confusion is understandable, given the Republican propensity to view corporations as personal pocketbooks. This is precisely what gets them in trouble.

  74. It is always amusing to see Hillary worshipers bow down at her feet and express their blind, undying loyalty. Meanwhile, anyone with a heartbeat and an IQ above 75 knows that she is dishonest, opportunistic, and narcissistic. Still, this is America, and I believe in Freedom of Religion. So worship on.

  75. Of course, Dustin, I’m sure you are not surprised that those who seek to discredit Hillary are going to capitalize on this, and as you say, are “chomping at the bit”, hoping and praying that she is proven as having taken part in something illegal and brought down as a result. Keep in mind that if she were a Republican, the Democrats would do the same thing. I can just see Harry Reid talking about it on the Senate floor.

    Many Hillary supporters are crying “it’s a lie!” but many of them are probably also very worried. After all, Hillary and Bill have a history that’s not all above board. The ethics of it are truly troublesome. A quarter of Bill Clinton’s speeches, $26 million, came from people who made contributions to the foundation. So these people gain access to a former President whose wife is the Secretary of State and tremendous influence in the American political process.

    Still, everyone needs to relax and take a deep breath. A conclusion cannot be made at this point.

  76. It’s obvious most of the responses here are from people that are just voting, period. They have no knowledge of the facts because they don’t have the capacity to seek or understand the facts, or to check out a story. They close their eyes when they see something they just disagree with, and bury their heads in the sand. If they vote “D” it’s because they’ve always voted “D”. If they vote “R” it’s because they always vote “R”. They jump to conclusions based on their own prejudices. Most will never learn how to get to the truth and will never think for themselves. They will always just be followers. Sorry, but just go through and read some of the comments above. Some are really pathetic.

  77. In other words, a book of fiction that anyone can write about anyone. How about a book about Mitt Romney’s tax evasion on his hidden assets in Swiss banks? Or the money the Koch brothers throw at the Republicans? Shame on the news media for giving a book of fiction any attention.

  78. CarolO, we are blessed to live in a country where free speech is protected. Anyone can write a book about anything they choose. Of course the media is going to discuss this book about a Presidential candidate. I get why you are upset about it. People who are “all in” for Hillary don’t want anything to stand in the way of her getting elected. But it doesn’t appear that you have considered, even for one second, that there is a possibility Hillary has done something wrong. I know if she were my candidate, I would want to know everything about her, good or bad, so I could make an informed decision. The information the author put in his book has been vetted by several news outlets and no one has contradicted his research, so you can’t call it fiction. What you CAN object to is those who have “connected the dots” to conclude she’s guilty of a crime. But even the author acknowledged he cannot do that based solely on what he has found thus far. He only calls for further investigation.

  79. Yes, she committed a crime in regards to her destroying her E-mails

    18 U.S. Code § 2071 – Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

    18 U.S. Code § 1519 – Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations

  80. No need for name calling.. She said she deleted them also, 30,000+ plus e-mails. It’s not up to her to decide which ones are personal or government related since she used the server for government work ANYTHING on it belongs to the U.S. Government regardless of content

  81. You people have no issues to run so you come up with this bullshit. According to her the emails were personal and I believe her because you people would take some innocent email to her daughter talking about how to raise her kid would turn that into a faux scandal like you sad sacks did with Vince Foster. Shooting watermelons in the backyard? Sorry and just pitiful.

  82. Just as I figured believe ANYTHING that is told to you.. good sheep you are. No, it’s not a fake scandal. She deleted e-mails that belonged to the government regardless of content they still belonged to the government.. so YES she broke the law by deleting them especially when an on going investigation is going on. So believe what you want even if your wrong. If the only candidates we have to choose from is another Clinton or Bush this country is in deep trouble!

  83. Its you’re not your. See I have seen this play before since the 90’s. Richard Mellon Scaife remember him? Whitewater remember that? Now you say she was wrong Okay. I have search the intertubes too see where was your outrage when bush and rove “lost” over 2 million emails. Couldn’t find it. Just in 2012 Romney destroyed not only emails but hard drives. Your response NADA.

    My point is you people have selective outrage. Show me the criminal intent then you got my ear but when you made a whole grifting industry of Mena airport and cocaine deals then you can kiss my ass with your false outrage

  84. You are blinded by partisanship, djchefron. ANYONE who has ever deleted government e-mails was wrong. Can you acknowledge that instead of trying to rationalize HRC’s bad behavior as acceptable by comparing it to others’ bad behavior? There is no question she did the wrong thing. You say she turned over all her official business e-mails. Did she? There is no way for us to know. She decided which e-mails to turn over to the government but IT WAS NOT HER DECISION TO MAKE. The government is the custodian of government records, not its employees. By concealing all of her e-mails on her own server, all of the FOIA requests, subpoenas and other legal requests for her e-mails that the government received for 6 years were unable to be processed. That could be deemed concealment and thereby illegal. She used terrible judgment. And now, those 30,000 deleted e-mails, when viewed within the context of her new controversy, look even more suspicious.

  85. The author doesn’t have subpoena power so how can he provide evidence? What he has done is laid out a pattern of questionable behavior on the part of the Clinton’s. There was no evidence Bob Menendez did anything wrong at first either, just a pattern of behavior. Only after the DOJ investigated with subpoena power was he indicted.

Comments are closed.