Image 01 Image 03

Joe Scarborough Erupts Over Criticism Of Peter Schweizer

Joe Scarborough Erupts Over Criticism Of Peter Schweizer

“Look what happened to Bob McDonnell”

Peter Schweizer’s book, ‘Clinton Cash’ has not even been released yet, but has created quite a stir in the DC community. With Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign officially launched, the book is raising a lot of questions about Hillary’s time as Secretary of State and the Clinton Foundation. 

Schweizer says his book lays out a pattern when foreign interests – both government and business – made large donations to the Clinton Foundation and paid Bill Clinton large sums of money while having business before the state department.

Schweizer was on Morning Joe today and was being peppered with questions from Mika Brzezinski and Mike Barnicle about “proof”, “evidence” and a “smoking gun” (like George Stephanopoulos did) Schweizer tried to remind them he’s just an author and doesn’t have the ability to do the digging to establish a legal case. They continued to press and that’s when Joe Scarborough had enough:

He’s right about the standards and he made a great point that nobody was going after Schweizer the way they are now when he wrote his book ‘Throw Them All Out’, his book on how people in Congress were benefitting from insider information to make money on stock deals. That’s because the book went after Republicans as well as Democrats.

It’s not unreasonable to believe Stephanopoulos, Brzezinski and Barnicle won’t be so concerned about evidence Schweizer has when he writes about Jeb Bush several months from now. 


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


PoliticiansRscum | April 28, 2015 at 11:33 am

Liars do what liars do. Welcome to the Democrat Party.

It boggles the mind that these progs are so hell-bent on their agenda that they’ll even CONTEMPLATE electing this lying whore. She has a 30+ year public track record of deceit and corruption. WTF?

    MarkS in reply to Paul. | April 28, 2015 at 2:11 pm

    That’s exactly why she is so valuable to the progressive agenda

    Estragon in reply to Paul. | April 28, 2015 at 11:58 pm

    Technically, it goes back at least to 1973, when Hillary Rodham was fired from the Democratic House Judiciary legal team for ethical violations.

    – –

    Can you name four public figures who surrendered their law licenses voluntary to avoid disciplinary procedures and/or disbarment?

    Bill & Hillary Clinton, Barry & Michelle Obama.

      Sammy Finkelman in reply to Estragon. | April 29, 2015 at 11:16 am

      Hillary Rodham was fired from the Democratic House Judiciary legal team for ethical violations

      Hillary Clinton was not fired, at least during the Nixon inquiry, although this is a common mistake.

      Jerry Zeifman, the chief counsel of the House Judiciary Committee did not have the power to fire her. (John Doar was a “special counsel” for the Impeachment Inquiry and reported directly to Peter Rodino and the committee)

      What he did was refuse to give her a letter of recommendation after it was all over (and perhaps he did fire her, or refuse to hire her, when he finally got the chance.)

      Jerry Zeifman considred her an unethical, dishonest lawyer, who produced a supposedly disinterested report on Nixon’s right to counsel that said there was no right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding.

      When Zeifman told her that during the impeachment inquiry on Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas in 1970, the Judiciary Committee had allowed Douglas to keep counsel, and that documents establishing this fact were in the Judiciary Committee’s public files, Hillary (under the authority of John Doar, but John Doar could only have known this was a problem because of Hillary) removed all the Douglas files to the offices where she was located and then proceeded to write a legal brief arguing there was no precedent for the right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding that ignored the Douglas case and treated it as if it had never occurred!!

      She did not do this on her own, of course. This was all under the orders of John Doar, who had hired her on Bill Clinton’s recommendation when he turned down the job, and the idea that the President was not entitled to representation by counsel had been endorsed by Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino.

      The Douglas files were actually put under John Doar’s exclusive custody (and away from minority counsel and anybody else who might wish to consult them and any legal arguments contained therein.)

        Sammy Finkelman in reply to Sammy Finkelman. | April 29, 2015 at 11:18 am

        It is also my opinion that Hillary Clinton was secretly responsible for some of the transcripts issued by the House Judiciary Committee and put words in Nixon’s mouth that he didn’t say. Like maybe “I want you all to stonewall it.”

      Sammy Finkelman in reply to Estragon. | May 1, 2015 at 10:54 am

      The CBS Evening News had a relatively long story about the Clinton money scandal well into the broadcast yesterday (April 30) and a story was promoted (probably the same story) on CBS This Morning at 7 am EDT.

In REALITY, there’s enough already on the record…ADMITTED by Ol’ Walleyes…to warrant opening a RICO prosecution.

This whole mess stinks of fraud, influence-peddling, and evidence spoliation.

And, like Barracula, they are so contemptuous of us, they don’t even try to be cute about it.

Sammy Finkelman | April 28, 2015 at 12:43 pm

Latest leak from the book:

Amar Singh, a member of the Indian Parliament, made a contribution (somewhere between $1 million and $5 million) to the Clinton Foundation that was so huge, relative to his net worth of about $5 million, that it raises suspicions that:

1) He was not the true source of the money ( as he himself in fact has claimed, saying that the listing of him by the Clinton Foundation as the contributor is erroneous, but he had only facilitated it. Apparently it is not on the public record who or what he says did give it, and he also has said the payment could have been made on his behalf)


2) This was in exchange for Hillary Clinton, while still a U.S. Senator, dropping her opposition to a nuclear deal with India.

Note: India, ever since it tested three nuclear bombs in 1998 – it had exploded one earlier in 1974 but then it didn’t explode any more for 24 years) had had some sanctions automatically placed on it by the United States in 1998. President George W. Bush waived them after September 11, 2001, and later negotiated an agreement in which the United States would help them with their nuclear energy program and all was forgiven.

During the period when this was being negotiated and approval of legislative changed was taken up by Congress, the Clinton Foundation develped its connection with Amar Singh. After his first meeting with Bill Clinton in 2005, he was invited by Bill Clinton to be his guest at the Clinton Global Initiative held in New York and given a seat at the head table.

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to Sammy Finkelman. | April 28, 2015 at 12:54 pm

    The Clintons’ connections to India were so well known in 2007, that the Obama campaign attempted to covertly make use of it.

    campaign aide wrote a memo distributed to reporters, asking not to be named as the source that cited investments in India by former President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton; fund-raising for her campaigns among Indian-Americans; and Bill Clinton’s getting $300,000 in speech fees from Cisco, which it accused of outsourcing jobs to India, and called her “Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab).”

    They were outed by the Clinton campaign and Barack Obama apologized for it, saying it was “unnecessarily caustic.”

    And he said “It is not reflective of the longstanding relationship I have had with the Indian-American community.” and “The issue of outsourcing is a genuine and important issue; but to refer to one particular country was, I think, an error, and I let all of us know that we’ve got to be more careful about how we communicate.”

    Apparently it didn’t have the contributions to the Clinton Foundation, which didn’t just come from Amar Singh. Nor did it menton about the nuclear deal, which wasn’t all that controversial. Amar Singh was also accused of bribing 3 other Indian politicians to support the nuclear deal, but beat the charges.

    remember when Bill was running for re-election and it was disclosed that a lowly gardener made a six figure “contribution”?

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to Sammy Finkelman. | April 29, 2015 at 11:36 am

    I copied the wrong link here. (or the 2007 New York Times link twice)

    The New York Post has story about the contribution to the Clinton Foundation that an Indian politician would have been very unlikely to make (it’s too big) and which in fact he has disclaimed making.

    Today’s story is kind of a repeat. It’s about the for profit college (Laureate University in Baltimore) that made Bill Clinton an honorary chairman and paid him money for speeches. It also got a grant from the State Department.

    The Clinton campaign says Bush gave them money too, earlier. (but not directly from the State Department!)

    Most likely all of these things are a small part of something bigger.

    When Hillary Clinton attacked for profit colleges in Iowa two weeks ago, Bill Clinton terminiated his connection. The Clintons say no, the five-year contract expired.

    So make that, when Bill Clinton arrangement expired, Hillary Clinton attacked for profit colleges.

MouseTheLuckyDog | April 28, 2015 at 1:26 pm

So they want a “smoking gun”?

Well there is a traditional way to look for a smoking gun. that is to appoint a special prosecutor.

Are they suggesting that the DoJ appoint a special prosecutor?

    Ragspierre in reply to MouseTheLuckyDog. | April 28, 2015 at 2:16 pm

    Mouse, in the U.S., special prosecutors are critters of Congress.

    The AG can appoint a prosecutor charged with a particular prosecution, but that isn’t a “special prosecutor”.

Humphrey's Executor | April 28, 2015 at 1:43 pm

Forgive me if this qualifies me for tinfoil in my hat, but they waited three years to charge Menendez. OK, sure, they wanted to wait until after the ’14 election; and, sure, maybe it was payback for his support of Israel. But maybe also they — the hard left (no friend of Hillary’s) — wanted to provide a basis for the very comparison Scarborough is making here.

It wasn’t too long ago that the media were full of stories about the arrest and conviction of former Virginia governor Bob McDonnell and his wife for corruption. But that case was brought, and a conviction obtained, without any so-called “smoking gun” evidence of a quid-pro-quo. A pattern of monies and services flowing to the governor, and (compared to Hillary Clinton’s State Department) comparatively minor official government acts was enough to send the former guv to the big house.

Henry Hawkins | April 28, 2015 at 8:46 pm

Why wouldn’t criminal prosecutions be every bit as politicized as every other damn thing is?

The Clintonian defense to any accusation isn’t to deny it’s true, but to challenge the accuser to “prove it” or insist “there’s no evidence of that.” In a few cases, it later turned out that the evidence wasn’t available because the Clintons refused to comply with lawful subpoenas.

And with the email deal, they apparently learned from Nixon’s mistake in not just burning the damned tapes.

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to Estragon. | April 29, 2015 at 10:41 am

    ….Nixon’s mistake in not just burning the damned tapes.

    Not burning the tapes was NOT a mistake.

    If he had burned them, any accusation could have been made and might have been believed.

    The tapes saved Nixon from the accusation by John Dean that he had offered a pardon to Watergate burglar James McCord at a time when Judge sirica was pressing him to give testimony.

    Testifying before the Senate Watergate committee in 1973, Mr. McCord said he was told that the clemency offer had come from “the highest levels of the White House.” Mr. Caulfield also appeared before the panel.

    The account appeared to link Nixon directly to efforts to cover up the White House’s involvement in the break-in at Democratic National Committee headquarters in June 1972, the event that would lead to Nixon’s downfall.

    But Nixon denied the allegation, and transcripts of White House tapes did not show that he had been behind the offer. John W. Dean III, the White House counsel, told investigators that it was he who had authorized Mr. Caulfield to broach the matter with Mr. McCord, though Mr. Dean insisted that he had done so with the president’s knowledge.

    It wasn’t in the tape of the conversation where John Dean claimed Nixon had told him to offer a pardon to McCord.

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to Estragon. | April 29, 2015 at 11:21 am

    The Clintonian defense to any accusation isn’t to deny it’s true, but to challenge the accuser to “prove it” or insist “there’s no evidence of that.”

    That was a standard Communist Party tactic, during the time of Stalin.

    The Clintons have a bigger repertoire than that.