Be clear. One of the defenses you hear from the clinton camp is they are unaware of certain things or perhaps there is nothing seriously afoot with all of this money phlog money flowing to the Flint Clinton foundation. A lot of people that pay for speeches by bill clinton are not an Insurance Company in the uk or a Media Company in germany. These are companies that operate in places like nigeria, the congo, south america, and some of these individuals have sketchy history as it relates to financial crimes. I think the clintons are not ones who would be shocked there is gambling going on. They know what it is going on and that is what is troubling. They dont seem to have a filter that prevents them from taking money from sketchy characters. Host why dont some of these Foreign Governments or foreign leaders give money directly to their own countries rather than give it to the Clinton Foundation . That is a great question peter. The late christopher hitchson a liberal writer, asked that very question and wondered why is it you have these third world people in india and africa and why are they sending multimillion checks 10,000 miles away to new york to the Clinton Foundation to send that work back to do work in their country and the answer given was because it is a way of influence pedaling with a former president and a former president whose wife is first a powerful senator, then the secretary of state. And that is what i think is so mystifying. If you are in india and you are concerned about development, poverty, aids, you name it it doesnt make sense to send it to new york city. Why not work with a lot of the Great Charities in india doing that very same thing. That is one of the things in addition to the timing of the donations, that i think is puzing. Kazakhstan walk us through what happened there. Kazakhstan is in central asia. It is on oppressive government and they are rich in minerals. They have a lot of uranium and in september of 2005 bill clinton is there with a canadian mining investor and he wants urani uranioum concession and bill clinton says nice things about the man over there and he gets the grant and thee days later pete sends 3 million to the Clinton Administration. This uranium deposit becomes part of a Company Called uranium one which is a Canadian Company and they start acquiring uranium rights in the United States. This is a Small Company but frank and also eight other individuals connected with this individual also start making major contributions to the foundation. They write multimillion checks and those contributions were never exposed by the Clinton Foundation. We found them in canadian tax records. The financers are con tributers. You have a shareholder named frank holmes who is an advisor for the Clinton Foundation and donor. And the assets are accumulated, all of the money is flowing to the Clinton Foundation, and the russian government comes and wants to buy uranium one, this is a personal desire of vladimer putin. He authorizes the release of funds to buy this uranium company. In order for russia to acquire what amounts to 2025 percent of all uranium assets in the United States it requires federal government approval. There is a process called the committee on Foreign Investment in the United States that requires a number of Government Agencies including the state department, to sign off on the deal and they do sign off. What is troubling about Hilary Clinton in the mist of this is no other Government Agencies approving this is headed by someone who received 145 million from their foundation from nine individuals connect would the firm. The second troubling thing is Hilary Clinton had a history of opposing precisely these kind of deals. In other words, where a Foreign Government wanted to buy a critical industry in the United States. So both of these things raise questions about her in valvevolvinvolvement in this. National polls showing half of the American People question her trustworthiness i dont think her statement is going to be enough. There needs to be an investigation to see what the precise role was. If three years from now we had a secretary of defense who had a private foundation that received 145 million from a company that had business before the pentagon it would not be enough to say did you do something to help them. There would be an investigation and i think there should be here. Page five of my book given the previous focus on bipartisan self dealing and corruption a, why am i now focused on one couple . Do i have it in for bill and hillary . Am i trying to derail her prospect of being president in 2016 . What is your answer to that. The answer is my last five or six years my focus has been following the money. I wrote about Insider Trading and members of congress, both polit calicle Political Parties were on n this. And distorted fundraising practices on Political Parties on both sides. I got the displeasure of john boehner as the result of that book. The clintons are unique. No postpresidency has been marked by these funds. They have taken in 136 million and that is unprecedented in scope. But they have created a new model. And this model if it is allowed to continue and it is successful, is going to be adopted by others. And the model is getting around rules and laws that we have in place that prevent foreign entities from influencing american politics. If you are a Foreign Policy you cannot give Campaign Contributions in the american political elections. You cannot give to the Political Action committee. With the Clinton Foundation and the ability to pay speaking fees foreign entities have a pay of giving money to families of elected officials in the hopes of influencing them and that is a very Troubling Development i think. Hillary for america and media matters have both come out with list of what they say are errors you made in clinton cash from hillary for america, the entire premise of the book has been debunked. Hilary clinton didnt have veto power over the uranium deals. From media matters, Peter Schweizer admitted he omitted Key Information about donors Peter Schweizers acquisitions have no evidence. Is there anything you think hillary for america or media matters has gotten right about an error you made in this book . No. What is surprising is they say the book is a dud but their actions dont indicate that is what they really believe. If you look at a list of the errors and i am glad to go into detail on them. It one of the things they put out was the statement in uranium deal the shareholder shared the shares before Hilary Clinton became secretary of state. I point that out in the book. The problem is brian fallon doesnt talk about the eight other individuals giving who are shareholders and chairman of the company and giving to the Clinton Foundation at the very time the state department is considering this deal. They want to selectively try to steer the conversation one way without looking at the larger facts. They are hoping people want read the narrative of the book and they will take their word for it which i think is really quite remarkable on their part. Clinton cash is the name of the book and Peter Schweizer is the author. Phone numbers are on the screen. If you would like you can go to our Facebook Page. Facebook. Com cspan. We have a discussion going on there about the book and topic. Lets go to john in great falls, montana. Caller hi, peter. I would like him to speak to the fact of people like mika and the host today even attacking you on the ability to do research on the Clinton Project and all they look for is personal attacks. I would like you to defend yourself there. I dont feel that the current conversation is a personal attack. I think it is fair to raise questions about the research and the project. I will say the stefapolis interview was odd in that george worked for the clintons and was part of the war room for the Clinton Campaign and he mentioned for four months i was a speech writer in the george w. Bush whitehouse. He served the Clinton Administration longer than four months. So i thought it was an interesting discussion on the part of abc news. I dont mind have having a vigorating conversation but what is is troubling is the allies engage in vish vicious attacks against me and try to drudge up a book i wrote seven years ago. I am encouraged by the fact Media Outlets i shared the material with earlier on the washington post, abc news confirmed the reporting in the book. I think it is now incumbent upon the clintons to stop the fly statements former president clinton said about me and engage in a conversation about a troubling fact pattern. And you ask in the book i realize how shocking these allegations appear are these activities illegal . That is not for me to say. Yes look i think if you look at the tone of this book, peggy newman of the wall street journal has a column about this. I am not bomb throwing contrary to what the clintons say i am doing. I am not making outrageous acquisitions. I am laying out the facts. I am not an attorney. I dont pretend to be an attorney. I will say if you look at the recent faces of political prosecution on corruption whether that is mcdonald or senator from new jersey or the case in oregon i would contend from what we know now the fact pattern with the clintons is far more troubling than any of those cases. That is why i think it warrants investigation by the fbi, a federal prosecutor or by a Congressional Committee with subpoena power because you need to look at communication, have people under oath, and have serious questions about the flow of funds and the decisions she made as secretary of state and how they benefited those who were giving her family money. Williams in company. Democrat. Caller yes good morning. I only have one question for you. And please not a short answer. Dont answer this shortly. I want an explanation. Would you show as much excitement if you were writing about the coch brothers . I focus my research on elected officials. I think private citizens could have a debate about the role of money in politics if there is too much or ought to be restrictions but you know the coch brothers dont vote short policy. I look at elected officials in my books and got criticized by john boehner and other republicans for those books. Hilary clinton was americas chief diplomat and charted americas Foreign Policy and had power when it came to National Security. During her tenure her husband took in tens of millions in funds from Foreign Governments, Foreign Corporations and from foreign financers that had business on her desk. And the results are astonishing. One example the caller might be interested in. He is a democrat and this is a controversial issue. Considering this. Hilary clinton as secretary of state is reviewing the Environmental Impact and making a decision on the keystone xl pipeline which is a controversial issue. During that time her husband signs up to do ten speeches for about 2 million from a Financial Firm in canada that happens to be one of the largest shareholders in keystone xl pipeline stock. They never paid a speech for him before when she was not secretary of state. When she was not reviewing the keystone xl pipeline. Suddenly they come up offering him 2 million to do speeches and he gladly does that. Three months after getting the last payment, Hilary Clinton glean greenlights the keystone xl pipeline. You see this replicatted over and over again. I would like the caller to not give me a short answer on reading the book but read the book and if you dont put money in my pocket you give it serious consideration. These are troubling pattern of behavior. They have not challenged any of them. The payments the timing who they got money from her the decisions Hilary Clinton was making. Peter schweizer, politico said you are looking to jeb bush for a potential book. We are engaged in research and have been for about four months. As governor of florida you dont have the same public stage. With the clintons you have a longer time in Public Service than jeb bush but we are following the same methods. We are looking at the flow of funds. It is always about follow the money. It is about did decisions benefit those who were contributing to campaigns or giving to jeb bushs foundation. It is about what he did a couple years after he left the Governors Mansion and connected to individuals who benefited from his actions when he was governor. We are looking at an airport deal, land deals, we are looking at things related to educational reform. We expect to have a major report out in september and we are following the same model we did here which is we are part nothing with major investigative units of major newspapers and publications because they have a capacity to get answers from political figures i cannot as an author. Authors tend to get ignored by political figures and dont take them seriously. If you get a call from the washington post, new york times, abc news you mean engage because you have to. Jonathan from south hampton, pennsylvania. Caller thanks for having me. You have done a patriotic duty here. To partner with new york times, washington post, these are far left organizations and you are clearly very creditable here. I have been aware of the i was really troubled personally back from as soon as the president Clinton Left Office and he obviously was in debt but he immediately embarked on this paid speech making. He went before Financial Institutions lobbyist getting 250,000, 500,000 and as you indicated earlier they made the clintons between the two of them with book advances and speeches they made in ten years over a 100 million. What you are talking about as far as this foundation this is a whole new idea with their getting all of this money in this foundation. Are they only spending on the actual that helping the poor with 10 or 15 of the funds that come into the foundation . The rest of it is going to sal salaries and Head Quarters . I think the caller brings up a lot of good points. First on the speaking fees i think we recognize expresident s will hit the lecture circuit. We dont mind it on a level. But with the clintons it is troubling because his wife is a powerful senator and second of all became secretary of state. When you look at the pattern of money they are making from the speeches it is troubling. Consider one statistic. Bill clinton has been paid 13 times his entire speaking career 500,000 or more to give a speech. Of that 13 times, 11 of them occurred while his wife was secretary of state. And some of them it is just hard to not see them for what they are. For example, bill clinton never gave a paid speech in nigeria which his wife was not secretary of state. She becomes secretary of state, a business man in nigeria, who is close to the Nigerian Government contracts him to give two speeches for 700,000. As secretary of state, Hilary Clinton has to look at foreign aid recipients like the government of nigeria, if they have corruption and are not improving it federal law says they are not to get aid. The only way they can continue to get aid is if the secretary of state grants them a waiver which Hilary Clinton did. You can look at this and say maybe that is a coincidence but you find the pattern created over and over again. Regard to the callers question about the foundation they give about 10 of their money to other charitable organizations. The clinton model is unique. You look at the website and you see bill clinton and chelsea and Hilary ClintonHolding Children in africa or asia but they dont do a lot of hands on work with people in those countries. They partner with other organizations that do. They function as a middle man as it were. The world needs its middle man. But it is not like Doctors Without Borders or American Red Cross or other organizations doing the work. The Clinton Foundation is more like a Management Consulting firm working in the area of charity. This is the reason why, for exam