Unknown-1Unless you’re waking from a long coma* you’ve likely heard that the philanthropic endeavors of the Clinton Foundation may not just be for the common good.
But while TV’s talking heads have been discussing the book’s details, they’ve largely overlooked some of the fascinating stories inside Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.

Today on the Power Line Show, John, Paul, and Stephen have a wide-ranging conversation with the author, Peter Schweizer. During the show we hear some of the intriguing stories about the wealthy ne’er-do-wells who have been funneling hundreds of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation over the past decade. Are the Clinton’s a global crime syndicate? Who are the foreigners who are giving so much money to the Clintons? And what are they getting in return?

Subscribe to Power Line’s show here and never miss an episode.

* If you are waking from a long coma, welcome back. One of the first things you’ll want to do is check out all the great options there are now for Ricochet membership. 

Subscribe to Power Line in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.

Now become a Ricochet member for only $5.00 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing.

There are 15 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. user_278007 Inactive
    user_278007
    @RichardFulmer

    Author Peter Schweizer has amassed an impressive array of evidence against the Clintons and their foundation – enough to get even liberal reporters digging.  Perhaps things will start finally unraveling.  If so, expect to see their currently staunch supporters turn on them with a vengeance.  Some of it will be payback and some will just be a desperate scramble for self-preservation.

    • #1
  2. Larry3435 Member
    Larry3435
    @Larry3435

    I’m just so sick of the Clintons’ meme that “there’s no evidence of quid pro quo.”  Of course there’s evidence.  There’s a mountain of evidence.  The Clintons’ Foundation accepted hundreds of millions of dollars from the worst people on Earth – people who no one in their right mind would ever believe “just wanted to help the poor.”  They did this in violation of Hillary’s promise, as Sec’y of State, that she would not allow the Foundation to accept such donations.  And while she was Sec’y, the State Department took actions that these foreign interests wanted, including approving the sale of uranium interests to Putin’s Russia.  They filed false tax returns.  They funneled Foundation assets into their own pockets, and their daughter’s.  They accepted millions more for giving “speeches” in which they said nothing.  And to top it all off, Hillary then destroyed (despoiled) 30,000 e-mails which she knew were being sought as evidence in ongoing legal proceedings.

    Good Gawd, what would it take to be “evidence”?  Presumably, a videotape of Hillary cackling wildly as she handed over launch codes to the Ayatollah, while accepting bulging canvas bags with $ signs printed on them?

    By the way, compare this to Jim Wright, who was forced to resign as Speaker of the House because of the ethics scandal that consisted of him selling bulk copies of his book.  What a piker!

    • #2
  3. user_5186 Inactive
    user_5186
    @LarryKoler

    Richard Fulmer:Author Peter Schweizer has amassed an impressive array of evidence against the Clintons and their foundation – enough to get even liberal reporters digging. Perhaps things will start finally unraveling. If so, expect to see their currently staunch supporters turn on them with a vengeance. Some of it will be payback and some will just be a desperate scramble for self-preservation.

    I’ll make a prediction on this: they can weather this. I don’t see any chink in the MSM’s armor yet that indicates they will seriously go after one of their own. Sure, there’s a lot of talk about the differences between the Clintonites and the Obamaites but they always keep the goal in mind and principles always lose when it comes to issues of power. This Democratic-Media Complex is robust and just coming into its full power. We might be witnessing its high point but it has a long way to go yet.

    The comprehensiveness of the success that the left has had in this country is the problem. Any major issue can be swarmed and controlled if they really need to. They have the means, the will and the power. Every major issue — and especially a controversial one — has watchful eyes on it. We will see a success develop on the right against the left but if you watch it will slowly morph into a non event or an anti-climax.

    The high ground of controlling the media is the key: and delaying is one thing the media can do (and the left has learned to do) very well.

    • #3
  4. Ricochet Contributor
    Ricochet
    @TitusTechera

    Thanks a lot for the podcast–& to Mr. Schweizer for the work he’s done. I loved hearing about all this really unlovely stuff.

    About the UK elections, however, you guys need to read the Ricochet conversation conducted by Mr. Of England.

    I’ll give you some of the facts established in the general quarrel there, mostly by him, poached by myself for reposting here.

    1.Everything that’s not England in the UK has been over-represented, let’s say, since always. This has lessened because of devolution. (In Scotland’s case, that was 2005.)

    2.The next electoral reform was voted a few years back–2011?–but the final report of the commissions that deal with the boundary in the four British countries is due in 2018.

    3.Expect more devolution for Scotland, so less over-representation.

    4.UKIP has cost the Tories seats–maybe a dozen, maybe more, in marginal elections (Tories lose by less than the UKIP share of the vote…) We did not talk about whether UKIP cost Labour or the Libs any…

    5.Add all the lefty parties, they add up to less than the Tory number of seats. (232 Labour, 56 Scots, 8 Lib-Dems, 1 Greens &c. vs. 331 Tories.)

    6.Turnout was about what you’d expect–66% (its 65 in 2010). The Tories got about what they got last time as a share of the vote 37% (36 in 2010).

    • #4
  5. SallyVee Inactive
    SallyVee
    @GirlWithAPearl

    I listened and immediately sent this link around to friends & family with this note:

    Below is simply the best and quickest briefing (so far) regarding Clinton Cash.

    The excellent lawyers at Powerline (primarily John Hinderaker) speed-read the book and did a fantastic, extended, one-on-one interview with author Peter Schweizer yesterday.

    All I can say is, it left me reeling. And that’s from someone who expected the absolute worst, and never expected to be shocked. Afterall, I’ve got about a quarter century of Hill-Billy charades under my belt.

    It is beyond belief. It is graft and greed and bald avarice at a level that cannot be adequately described.

    But it goes so far beyond mere redneck thieving and the occasional cattle future jackpot for the Little Lady.

    This is pure treachery and involves breaches of national security that will make you seethe. And the using of real, live human beings will make you want to retch.

    I honestly think it is my duty to buy this book, though I may never read it. It might just turn out that Peter Schweizer saves the Republic. At the very least, his magnificent effort should not go unnoticed or unsupported. At this point, it’s a better investment than any campaign donation.

    Pour yourself a tall, cool drink and get ready for a really dirty story.

    • #5
  6. user_278007 Inactive
    user_278007
    @RichardFulmer

    Larry Koler:

    Richard Fulmer:Author Peter Schweizer has amassed an impressive array of evidence against the Clintons and their foundation – enough to get even liberal reporters digging. Perhaps things will start finally unraveling. If so, expect to see their currently staunch supporters turn on them with a vengeance. Some of it will be payback and some will just be a desperate scramble for self-preservation.

    I’ll make a prediction on this: they can weather this. I don’t see any chink in the MSM’s armor yet that indicates they will seriously go after one of their own…

    It depends.  Right now the media is fishing around for a new candidate – maybe Elizabeth Warren.  If they can come up with a successor, Hillary will be thrown to the wolves.  If not, all will be forgiven.  She’ll be dusted off and placed back on her pedestal.

    • #6
  7. Podkayne of Israel Member
    Podkayne of Israel
    @PodkayneofIsrael

    Not a pleasant situation, but an excellent podcast. As Girl With A Pearl says, thanks, John, for speed-reading this for us.
    My favorite summation is Charles Krauthammer’s, “The Clinton camp is telling us, “There’s not a shred of evidence.” Of course there isn’t. SHE shredded it!”

    • #7
  8. SallyVee Inactive
    SallyVee
    @GirlWithAPearl

    Guys, I am not sure Hillary can be so easily tossed aside. I imagine she has more “goods” on her fellow Corrupt-O-Crats than they have on her. Obama World is as rife with duplicity and treachery as Clinton World. And remember Hillary had her agent Podesta placed inside the Obama WH for a reason.

    Think back to how hot the temperature got during the 2008 primary. Think back to Ed Klein’s book Blood Feud. If we imagine Billy Jeff and Barack have “Daddy issues,” I think combined, they pale beside Hillary’s monstrous psychological You Owe Me and Dammit, It’s My Turn complex. Nope, I don’t think Hillary has stayed in the game this long to be dismissed without a lot of bloodshed. She didn’t put up with 50 years of men dumping on her to be denied her rightful throne and recognition for her genius.

    • #8
  9. The Unreasonable Man Coolidge
    The Unreasonable Man
    @TheUnreasonableMan

    I love the closing music- Victoria by the Kinks.  Is there any particular reason for the choice of this song for inclusion in Powerline’s podcasts, other than the fact that its great?

    • #9
  10. Podkayne of Israel Member
    Podkayne of Israel
    @PodkayneofIsrael

    I love it too. I just assumed it was a tasteful restatement of traditional values.

    • #10
  11. Ricochet Contributor
    Ricochet
    @TitusTechera

    Podkayne of Israel:I love it too. I just assumed it was a tasteful restatement of traditional values.

    It’s a mockery of Victorian morality & the suggestions is that all that morality was a cover for class exploitation–it just sounds like something normal people might like to hear.

    Then again, Born in the USA is not exactly America the beautiful either.

    It seems to be the case that rock music has very little good to say about such things.

    • #11
  12. Podkayne of Israel Member
    Podkayne of Israel
    @PodkayneofIsrael

    Titus Techera:

    Podkayne of Israel:I love it too. I just assumed it was a tasteful restatement of traditional values.

    It’s a mockery of Victorian morality & the suggestions is that all that morality was a cover for class exploitation–it just sounds like something normal people might like to hear.

    Then again, Born in the USA is not exactly America the beautiful either.

    It seems to be the case that rock music has very little good to say about such things.

    Sorry, was I supposed to use a special font for irony?

    • #12
  13. Ricochet Contributor
    Ricochet
    @TitusTechera

    Podkayne of Israel:

    Titus Techera:

    Podkayne of Israel:I love it too. I just assumed it was a tasteful restatement of traditional values.

    It’s a mockery of Victorian morality & the suggestions is that all that morality was a cover for class exploitation–it just sounds like something normal people might like to hear.

    Then again, Born in the USA is not exactly America the beautiful either.

    It seems to be the case that rock music has very little good to say about such things.

    Sorry, was I supposed to use a special font for irony?

    No, that would probably be self-defeating. Then again, so is this. Better luck next time–maybe no one will step in your frame-

    • #13
  14. La Tapada Member
    La Tapada
    @LaTapada

    GirlWithAPearl:The excellent lawyers at Powerline (primarily John Hinderaker) speed-read the book and did a fantastic, extended, one-on-one interview with author Peter Schweizer yesterday.

    I, too, appreciated getting our own, personal (through Ricochet), conversation with Peter Schweizer. Thank you Powerline and Ricochet!

    • #14
  15. jzdro Member
    jzdro
    @jzdro

    It was great to be able to listen in on this conversation.  Thank you all.

    So the book has no footnotes?  That lack hurts credibility, and is an aid to our political opponents.  Are there plans in the works for a second edition, with notes?

    About the prevalence of ignorance of GS’s past as a high-level Clinton White House staffer, let’s remember that during the 1990s a hefty chunk of the population consisted of Boomers raising teenagers, which is absorbing, and also that internet sources of news feed were still in development.  So probably there is fairly widespread obliviousness to this history.  That’s a depressing thought, but one that makes the present job more clear.

    • #15
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.