At a Hillsdale College speech, Peter Schweizer was introduced as follows, “And his most recent book, which caused quite a stir when it appeared is ‘Clinton Cash, the Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Bill and Hillary Get Rich.’ I thought progressives are opposed to the 1 percent. For our final lecture of this Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar Topic Money and Politics, please welcome Peter Schweizer.”

Schweizer said, “Now for some of you of course, political intelligence, you would consider that an oxymoron. But political intelligence is very simply this. It’s usually an ex-politician or an ex-congressional staffer. They get paid by hedge funds to do what? To get information on what the government is going to do. So if there is a bill in the Senate that’s going to be beneficial to timber prices, you as a political intelligence operative would call your former colleagues and say hey, is this bill going to pass? Is it going to pass without amendment? You would share that information with the hedge fund, which would trade on that information. Or for example, if Medicare is going to change reimbursement rates on certain procedures that’s going to have a dramatic effect on the profitability of certain health care companies, that’s information traders want to know. And so political intelligence is creating opportunities for what? It’s creating opportunities for insiders to profit from the complexity and the difficulty of operating in Washington, D.C.”

So today, we are exercising our right of free speech in discussing the aspects of our extremely oversized government commonly referred to as the deep state or the swamp and various associated shenanigans. That’s secret maneuvering or dishonest activity. Political intelligence, or more commonly, influence peddling, is where someone essentially leverages some aspect of their experience in government to achieve some kind of self-enrichment.||cd350b5d3__

Ad will display in 09 seconds

Of course, wrongdoing can range from a seemingly innocuous liaison, to a violation of public trust, to an egregious felony, and it’s our job in the uncorrupted press like the BL to be ever vigilant in our effort to share only truthful accounts of news events with the American public every day especially given how this corruption is entrenched, widespread, and has already polluted today’s corporate media as they routinely turn a blind eye, disseminate disinformation, or just plain lie.

Add to that the general intellectual handicap of our universally low quality public-funded education affecting almost every American including myself and you have a disastrous recipe leading some citizens to legitimately doubt whether or not the swamp can be drained and our government rescued from depravity. Our socialistic secular school monopoly broadly denounces free market capitalism and generally graduates cookie cutter thinking often unable to detect, refrain from, or solve the challenges of corruption. That’s one reason the corruption is so extensive, deep, and often complicated.

This depravity has been growing like a cancer for years and requires a once common moral aptitude and attention to detail that many of us are unable to develop in our public school system. With God banished from the class room, attention deficit disorder (ADD) was often treated with drugs like Ritalin, former President Clinton was given a pass for his admitted crimes, and most graduates have no idea that Tammany Hall is a metaphor that describes 150 years of outrageous NYC political corruption by Democrats. Socialists just don’t teach students about the transgressions of American socialists or anyone else on the left.

In a Feb 2018 Hillsdale College speech titled “Political Corruption, Can the Swamp Be Drained,” Kimberly Strassel gave her assessment. As a member of the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, she writes for the weekly column Potomac Watch, and wrote a national bestseller titled “The Intimidation Game, How the Left is Silencing Free Speech.”

Strassel said, “But one of the problems of course with being a conservative is that you are a born optimist and that it is our job to solve problems. And so the answer is yes, the swamp can be drained but I think what everyone needs to understand is that this is not something that’s going to be a small or inconsequential endeavor. It’s going to take a long time. And to do it, we first have to define what we mean by ‘the swamp’ and what we mean by corruption. Because I think one of the problems that we have these days is that the definition of that has been defined by two extremes. On one side, we have a group of people that still have a dictionary definition of public corruption. And when we think of it in those terms, we tend to think of fraud, usually perpetrated for some sort of self-benefit, either for power or for money. And, while I wouldn’t say that those things don’t happen anymore these days, they’re pretty rare. We’ve actually come up with a lot of laws, anti-bribery laws, campaign finance laws, transparency laws that are designed to guard against such obvious things like the Teapot Dome Scandal or Tammany Hall or even some of the excesses of the Nixon administration.”

She continued, “That is unless your name is Hillary Clinton but that’s an entirely different speech. And then on the other end, we tend to have people, mostly commentators, whose definition of corruption is anything that they don’t like in politics whatsoever. Which of course isn’t really the way the world really works. They’re going to be things in politics that none of us like and so that’s not really a fair definition of corruption either. But I think we do need to talk about it because what we’re seeing in D.C. is a new type of everyday and pernicious corruption. And it comes, in my mind, from, as many things do, the new partisan environment that we live in, in D.C., in which all that matters to people is that they win. And so all of the norms, all of the rules, all the regulations, all of the things that you think ought to have applied to you, they don’t think apply to them anymore. All that matters is coming out on top and that’s the kind of corruption that now pervades Washington on a regular basis. It’s what I call regular corruption and nowhere did this corruption flourish more than in the past (Obama) administration, which infused the federal government with a whole new level of partisanship and moreover, managed to make tens of thousands of career bureaucrats, who we know from polls that we’ve done in surveys we’ve done, tend to share the ideological inclinations of the past administration, brought them along with it and we did have a new level of everyday corruption.”

I think this everyday corruption has been significantly disrupted by the election of the partisan outsider and accomplished billionaire, Donald Trump. Notice how Strassel mentioned what she calls “the new partisan environment where all that matters is that we win.” Anybody else wondering where this attitude comes from? I’m Matt Tullar and here’s my opinion.

By her own admission, Strassel recognizes that the complicated fraudulent behavior like that demonstrated by the Clintons is in a felony category not yet properly addressed by existing laws. As a fellow optimist and conservative with a responsibility to find solutions, I think deep-state corruption is a consequence of the ongoing leftist deconstruction of our moral foundation.

We require our citizens to attend secular schools that do not promote God fearing moral integrity and instead embrace a leftist ideology of selfish immediate gratification with no child left behind. So instead of encouraging people to always take personal responsibility for the consequences of their actions judged by God and thus affecting your soul eternally, the left encourages people to think of themselves, live for today, and care not for the consequences for they have no God and they have no soul.

American exceptionalism is based on liberty and a faith in God that encourages a selfless concern for the well-being of others. Our Founding Fathers created a government that depends on this altruism, on the concept of common decency, and on an understanding of expected trustworthiness. A man is only as good as his word. Otherwise, the greedy, the selfish, and the immoral establish a partisan environment where all that matters is that they win and continue their debauchery.

Meanwhile, as the swamp drains and more criminals are revealed, the Democrats become increasingly terrified. Think quid pro Joe and his boy Hunter. While I’m confident that eventually all perpetrators will be brought to justice regardless of party affiliation, I urge everyone to begin with Democrats for two significant reasons. The first one is that they have always embraced the wicked leftist ideology. I’m talking about big government and American socialism sold with lies like eliminating poverty, universal access to education, aggressively taxing the rich and so on.

The second reason goes like this. When you combine eight leftist Clinton years with eight leftist Obama years and eight years of business as usual with Bush Republicans, you have 24 years where government debt grew every year, almost 24 years of continuously increasing government spending, 16 Democrat years of increasing federal employees, and an environment rich in deep-state shenanigans. Now add the unprecedented and vicious fervor of the Democrats and their puppets in the dirty corporate media to do or say whatever they can to remove this duly elected President and you have arrived at an aha moment. You now have a better understanding of how we got here and why the Democrats must be dispatched first. This extensive group of scoundrels is clearly terrified by President Trump’s promise to drain the swamp and deliver each of them the punishment they so deserve.

To support our programing, please mail your check or money order made payable to The Beauty Of Life to 195 South St. Middletown, NY 10940 and help us keep America great. Thank you. So far, in part one of this multipart “Drain The Swamp” series, called “Promised Land Beaver Dam,” we explored how once God was removed from our failed public school monopoly, busy beaver socialists in education and other government entities damned up the river of personal responsibility and flooded the American promised land with socialism, and an increasing number of citizens too dumbed down to recognize more and more scoundrels of government, media, and moral degeneration in general.

In part two, called “Impeachment, A Guide To Corruption,” we explored the deep state Democrat manipulation via impeachment attempting to stop the president from draining the swamp and revealing more of their criminal activity. In part three, called “Conflicts of Interest,” we focused on some unscrupulous activities of corporate media puppets and the Biden family via the insights of corruption crusaders Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) and author Peter Schweizer. In part four, called “Even More Shenanigans,” we look at the Clintons and start out with politicians creating a demand for their services with a bill designed to milk outside entities for money. Here’s a description from Mr. Schweizer.

Schweizer said, “So, my contention to you would be this. The problem for money in politics is not so much that you have got all these outside entities wanting to influence politicians and corrupt the process. What you’ve got are politicians who are creating a demand for their services by creating circumstances that force or compel outside entities to make contributions. Let me give you a couple of examples. First one, there is something in Washington, D.C., that is called a milker bill. Anybody here heard of a milker bill? Ok, a milker bill is something that has nothing to do with the dairy industry. It has nothing to do with cows. A milker bill is what it implies. It is a bill that is introduced to milk campaign contributions from either labor unions or from corporate entities. And so how does a milker bill work? Well if I’m a committee chairman or a powerful senator, I introduce a bill. Best thing to do is a special tax on a key industry. So I introduce a bill to the high tech industry saying ya know, I think Google and Microsoft in the high tech sector need to pay a special tax, a surtax because they are making too much money. So I introduce that bill with great fanfare. What’s going to happen? There’s going to be a rush of lobbyist coming to my office saying, ‘Wait a second. Why does Senator Schweizer want there to be a special surtax or tax placed on the high tech sector?’ And they are going to make all kinds of policy arguments about why it’s a bad idea. It’s going to hurt jobs. It’s going to hurt competitiveness, etc.”

He continued and said, “But that assumes that I am actually interested in the policy implications. If I’ve introduced a milker bill, I’m not interested in the policy implications. I’m interested in money. So after they make their arguments, I’m going to say that’s very interesting, thank you. I’m going to have to think about it. Well the lobbyist quickly gets the message that the way to get me to think about it is number one, maybe hire a family member as a lobbyist. A lot of people don’t realize. One out of three U.S. senators today, sitting U.S. senators, has an immediate family member, that’s a spouse or a son or a daughter, who is a registered lobbyist. And there are numerous examples to show how widespread this is and how ridiculous it is. But that’s the first thing I’m going to hope they’re going to do and that is hire maybe my son or my daughter as a lobbyist for their entity. The second thing I’m going to ask them to do is to raise money for me. And if they raise enough money for me and they show the commitment to me, I will withdraw the bill from introduction.”

Wow, I sure didn’t realize that one out of three sitting U.S. senators has an immediate family member who is a registered lobbyist. Imagine cross referencing a history of all relevant Senate legislation with that list of those thirty-some-odd lobbyists that are related to a sitting U.S. senator. Well, let’s move on to the changes with the high tech industry.

Schweizer said, “And that brings me to the question of the high tech industry itself when it comes to this whole model of extortion. And I think it’s a great example of how political fundraising and lobbying has become so extortive. Back in the 1990s, the high tech industry, Microsoft, Apple, and the others barely at all had a presence in Washington, DC. They didn’t make many campaign contributions. If they did, it was not an organized action by executives. It was something that individual employees made on their own behest. And they didn’t really even have a lobbying presence. Microsoft had somebody working in suburban Maryland that was selling software to the government that occasionally, when needed, would go and meet with people on Capital Hill. Then in 1998, the Justice Department said we might have to break up Microsoft as a monopoly. Now when this happened, forget the legal arguments for a second, that changed everything and it created an extortive environment to where the high tech industry which essentially would prefer to be left alone by Washington, DC, is today the largest contributor to political campaigns in Washington. And that is by design. There are numerous quotes over the years from Republicans and Democrats that said, ‘we need to let the high tech industry know that they need us and that they need to support us and they found a way to do that through these extortive practices.”

Now just imagine that today’s Democrat legislators, related bureaucrats, and media puppets are the monopoly and that President Trump’s promise to drain the swamp is just like the 1998 Justice Department discussion of breaking up Microsoft. I think this promise has gotten their attention and that’s why they have attacked him almost everyday. Even many Republicans didn’t support him before he was elected president.

Schweizer said,“Now, why is it that I singled out the Clintons in my recent book ‘Clinton Cash’? And I want to tell you today, it is precisely because they represent a fundamental transformation in the way that money is flowing into politics. How can I say that? Don’t they have to abide by the same rules as everyone else? Well, yes and no. If there is one consensus point on money and politics over the last 40 years, it’s this. Politics is a dirty game. There’s money in politics but by golly, it’s a dirty game that ought to be played just by Americans. … So there is a consensus in our country. We don’t want foreign entities trying to influence our political process. Here’s the problem. The Clintons have found a way around it and we have a circumstance today where by there’s a massive infusion of foreign money going to the Clintons that is unaccountable for and has had a corrupting influence on the decisions that Hillary Clinton made as secretary of state. And going forward, I believe, would have the same affect on her as president.”

And of course, Schweizer was right and certainly not alone in his thoughts about Hillary as president. Fortunately, by the grace of God, America dodged that bullet and Donald Trump won the election. Meanwhile, let’s revisit some Clinton highlights, establish their character and try to explain why so many people voted for the Clintons in spite of being guilty of such egregious transgressions. How did they get away with it? We can learn a great deal about rectifying the deep state from these masters of corruption.

In 2016 special report called “The Hillary Clinton Problem,” Sky News U.S. correspondent Greg Milam said, “The presidency should be Hillary Clinton’s destiny but instead of a coronation it’s become a slog with familiar scandal and new controversies.” Political consultant Karl Rove said, “She is somebody who doesn’t think the rules apply to her and has consistently felt she doesn’t need to shoot straight with the American people.” Milam said, “Once American royalty, now one of the most polarizing candidates in history.” Atlantic staff writer Molly Ball said, “She’s quite unpopular. People don’t like her.” Milam said, “So what is the problem with Hillary Clinton. … She was first lady to one of America’s most charismatic and perhaps flawed presidents. A husband who turned their marriage into a soap opera for the world. Those White House years though became the foundation for what came next in her own political career. In 2016, the candidate who so many Americans just don’t like.”

While conducting interviews on the Washington Mall, Milam asked a mature woman, “What do you think of Hillary Clinton?” and she replied, “Oh my, I’ll just say I’m not voting for her, thank you.” Milam then asked, “Okay, is there anything in particular that you don’t like about her?” and the woman replied, “Pretty much everything.” Milam then asked a middle-aged man, “What do you think of Hillary Clinton?” and he replied, “I think she’s terrible. I think she should be in prison.” Milam replied, “Not a fan then?” and the man replied, “Not a fan.”

And to think that Hillary Clinton was almost elected president. What on earth would possess so many citizens to vote for this person? Did the corporate press let them down that badly? Were they not aware of her husband’s transgressions? Were they really okay with Hillary’s handling of Benghazi as secretary of state? Didn’t they question her integrity after all that business about keeping top secret emails on a private server and having key evidence destroyed by wiping the server clean?

Could it be explained by their cookie cutter education from socialist school teachers who preached identity politics where Hillary was the victim woman class treated badly by her male, white, privileged husband? Could it be that the leftist media bashing of the outsider billionaire Trump soundly resonated with their socialist schooling that denounced all capitalists as no good? How could well informed citizens vote for Hillary Clinton?

In that 2016 Sky News special report, Molly Ball said, “The striking thing to me about covering Hillary Clinton has always been that there are so many people who go to see her and aren’t enthusiastic about her. You have a crowd of thousands of people who’ve come out to cheer Hillary Clinton on the day she announces her candidacy and you wade into the crowd and half of them turn out to be sort of well I’m a Democrat. She’s okay I guess or I have serious issues with her but she’s famous so I came out to see her. There are people who are enthusiastic about Hillary Clinton but there are also a lot of people who are voting for her out of a sense of duty or sort of partisan obligation.”

Well, it sure makes one consider the possibility of a rigged election with massive voter fraud as the only way Hillary could possibly ever come close to being elected president. When Bill was president, didn’t these two practically get away with murder? What about Vince Foster’s supposed suicide in 1993 where he blew his brains out and then drove himself to Fort Marcy Park. Was that part of the deep state? The only thing I remember for sure was that Bill lied to America a couple of times on TV and a man really is only as good as his word.

And that 2016 Sky News special report shows Bill Clinton in a crowd hugging Monica Lewinsky and then Clinton said, “I want you to listen to me. I’m going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie not a single time never. These allegations are false and I need to go back to work for the American people. Thank you.” Then Clinton’s extra marital affair accomplice Jennifer Flowers said, “Yes, I was Bill Clinton’s lover for 12 years and for the past two years I have lied to the press about our relationship to protect him. The truth is I loved him.” Then Bill Clinton said, “I never ask anybody to do anything but tell the truth.” Then Hillary Clinton said on NBC News, “Bill and I have been accused of everything including murder.” Then a reporter said, “ABC News reported someone else at the White House may have caught President Clinton and Lewinsky in an intimate moment.”

In the next scene, Bill Clinton said, “The allegations are false.” Then Hillary said, “Be patient, take a deep breath, and the truth will come out … (Then sitting with Bill she said) I’m not sitting here like some little woman standing by my man like Tammy Wynette. I love him and I respect him.” Then Bill said, “It’s almost impossible to prove your innocence.” Jennifer Flowers said on the Larry King show, “And he would try to pay me a great deal of attention with her there.” Then Hillary said, “Everybody says to me how can you be so calm or how can you just, you know look like you’re not upset and I guess I’ve just been through it so many times.” Then a reporter is heard saying, “Instead of speaking out, she stood smiling at her husband’s side.”

But this time, her husband’s infidelity involved violating his constitutional oath, betraying the trust placed in him as president, and acting in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice to the manifest injury of the people of the United States with perjury and obstruction of justice.

According to a Feb. 12, 1999, CBS News video titled “Clinton Impeachment Trial- Senate Results,” Chief Justice Rehnquist proclaimed from the president’s podium of the U.S. Senate, “The clerk will now read the first article of impeachment.” CBS Dan Rather said, “This is live and this will be the vote.” The Senate Legislative Clerk David Tinsley read the following, “Article one, in his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and to the best of his ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of justice in that, on Aug.17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before a federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton, willfully provided perjurious false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or more of the following: One, the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate government employee. Two, prior perjurious false and misleading testimony he gave in a federal civil rights action brought against him. Three, prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a federal judge in that civil rights action, and four, his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action. In doing this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the presidency, has betrayed his trust as president, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit, under the United States.” Rehnquist then said, “The chair reminds the Senate that each senator when his name or her name is called will stand in his or her place and vote guilty or not guilty as required by rule 23 of the Senate rules on impeachment.”

Since the U.S. Senate was unable to produce a two-thirds majority or 67 votes of guilty on either of two articles of impeachment brought against Bill Clinton, he was acquitted. They missed finding him guilty of perjury by only 22 votes with 9 Republicans voting not guilty and one voting present. Why did 10 Republicans break rank, vote with the Democrats, and assure acquittal? Either they believed him to be not guilty or they believed that since they would not likely obtained the 67 votes, it was politically more valuable to vote not guilty.

While that sounds reasonable, it also sounds a bit selfish. Where’s their integrity? Weren’t they obligated to hold this public official accountable? I wonder if any of them owed Bill a favor? Meanwhile, did Bill Clinton right all his wrongs with the sincerity of this next admission of guilt or was he still the same old pathological liar? Did people forgive Bill and then vote for Hillary out of pity?

In that 2016 Sky News special report, Bill Clinton said, “Indeed, I did have a relationship with Miss Lewinsky that was not appropriate. In fact, it was wrong. It constituted a critical lapse in judgment and a personal failure on my part for which I am solely and completely responsible. I misled people even my wife.”

In 2001, the Clintons left the White House supposedly broke, founded the nonprofit Clinton Foundation, and saw Hillary elected to the U.S. Senate serving for eight years. Bill spent time with his friend Jeffrey Epstein and gave speeches. Finally, Hillary left the Senate to serve as Obama’s secretary of state from 2009 until 2013 and in terms of money, that’s when they found their stride and really managed to accumulate the numbers. Here’s more from Peter Schweizer at Hillsdale College in 2016.

Schweizer said, “Ah, what are we talking about in terms of numbers? Well on the speaking fees, we’re talking about $160 million. And when it comes to the Clinton Foundation, we’re talking about $2 billion. How does this work? What am I talking about here? You’re basically talking about they use two mechanisms for money to come in to them. One is through the Clinton Foundation. The other is through speaking fees for Bill Clinton. Let me give you just a couple of examples of how this process works. First of all, I want to tell you a story. It’s a story about four things. It’s about Hillary Clinton. It’s about the government of Russia. It’s about uranium and it’s about $145 million in cash.”

And of course, we all love a good story about our most popular politicians and how they worked hard to make the world a better place for everyone, right? This one begins with the Clintons in 2005.

Schweizer said, “And the story is really quite simple. Back in 2005, a Canadian financier named Frank Giustra wanted to get uranium concessions in a country called Kazakhstan which is run by a very nasty brutal dictator named Nazarbayev. Giustra had wanted these concessions for a long time. They were worth about $500 million and he couldn’t get them. So he decided to get on his plane and bring Bill Clinton with him. Why not bring an ex-president, right? They will give you the sort of prestige that you want. They showed up in Kazakhstan and Bill Clinton went about publicly in a press conference praising the leadership of Nazarbayev. Now, Nazarbayev has won every election by 90 some percent. He throws political opponents in jail. He’s a brutal dictator but you wouldn’t know it from the press conference that Bill Clinton gave. Bill Clinton not only praised him for his enlightened leadership, he actually said that this man should become the head of an international human rights organization. Something that had been rejected by both the Bush administration and Bill Clinton’s administration in the 1990s. Bill Clinton praised him and guess what? The next day, Frank Giustra got the uranium concessions. Three weeks after that, Frank Giustra sent a check to the Clinton Foundation for more than $30 million. Now the story does not end there because what Frank Giustra does there is he takes that uranium concession, he puts it in a company called Uranium One and he starts buying uranium assets in the United States in places like Utah and Colorado and Texas. When it was to the point where he had now purchased about 50 percent of U.S. future uranium production.”

And then he said, “Flash forward to 2009, somebody is interested in buying Uranium One and they are prepared to pay top dollar for it but there’s a problem. You know who wants to buy Uranium One, the Russian government. An entity called Rosatom, which is the Russian state atomic nuclear agency. Rosatom, these are the guys that built the nuclear reactors in Iran. They do nuclear technology exchanges with wonderful people like North Korea. This is the government entity in Russia that controls their nuclear arsenal. And Vladimir Putin believes that uranium is a way for Russia to exert its international control and its international strength. So the Russians want to buy Uranium One. What’s the problem? The problem, uranium is a critical industry and for that reason it falls under the rubric of federal regulations that require several government agencies including the State Department to approve the deal. Now as the Russians make this announcement in 2009, something strange happens with the Uranium One shareholders. Uranium One in Canada, that owns all this uranium, is not a very big company but you suddenly have this massive uprising of philanthropy. The nine shareholders in this company decide this would be a great time to increase their charitable giving and even better yet, they decide to increase their charitable giving to the Clinton Foundation. So they pony up $145 million to the Clinton Foundation and lo and behold three months later, what happens? Hillary approves the transfer of US uranium assets to the Russian government. The Canadian financiers make out well, the Clintons make out well, the Russian government makes out well, the rest of us are all screwed. But that is an example of how the Clinton Foundation has operated and in a way that has lead to the self-enrichment, has lead to influence peddling. By the way, the individuals involved in Uranium One, they couldn’t make campaign contributions to the Clinton campaign, they couldn’t set up a super PAC to help her candidacy but they could give $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.”

O man, that Peter Schweizer is just getting warmed up. Now let’s hear how Bill was able to totally turn around his sagging speaking career on the lecture circuit and really pull in the big bucks.

Schweizer said, “Let me give you now an example now from the speaking fees in the same way in which it works. Now Bill Clinton, like every president since Eisenhower hit the lecture circuit after he left the White House and nobody can fault him for that. At least I don’t. Ex-presidents can do that. But in the Clintons case it’s a little bit different because Bill Clinton left office as his wife was going into office. First, she was an influential U.S. senator then she became secretary of state. And so Bill Clinton in 2001 was giving paid speeches. He was making about $175,000 per speech, nice pay day. But something strange happens in early 2009. Now this is eight years after he’s left office. For most people on the lecture circuit, especially if you’re a government official, an ex-president, your speaking fees tend to go down after time, right? You’re not as exciting. You don’t have great inside stories to tell anymore. It’s just the way that things kind of work. But in early 2009, something great happened to Bill Clinton’s speaking fees. They went up by about threefold. Now what else happened in January 2009? Anybody remember? That’s of course when Hillary Clinton became secretary of state. Now, you know, you could perhaps argue that Bill became three times more eloquent, that he was three times smarter and that’s the reason his speaking fees went up. I think it had something to do with his wife now being at the center of U.S. national security decision-making.”

And then he continued, “Let me just give you just one example how this works. There’s a Swedish telecom company called Ericsson. Now Ericsson has this habit of selling telecom equipment to oppressive governments around the world. They sell telecom equipment to Belarus, they sell to Venezuela, and of course most notoriously, they sell it to the government of Iran. And this was a problem for them. First with the Bush administration and then increasingly with Hillary Clinton’s State Department. As I point out in the book, there’s lots of State Department cables where we are brow beating the Swedish foreign minister telling them you need to get Ericsson in line. They need to stop selling this kind of equipment to the government of Iran. There’s a movement on Capital Hill to ban the sale of any telecom equipment to the government of Iran and to basically force Ericsson’s hand. There is mounting pressure as this company is named in State Department reports and all evidence points to aggressive action taken by the federal government against Ericsson. Well, Ericsson thought at this time, it might be a great idea to pay Bill Clinton for a speech. Now they had never paid Bill Clinton for a speech before. He had been on the lecture circuit for 10 years. They had never paid for a speaking fee before but they decided this would be a great time to do it and you know, if you’re going to do it, you might as well go big. So they paid him $750,000 for a 20-minute speech. That’s the most that Bill Clinton had ever been paid for a single speech before, by Ericsson. Bill Clinton gave a speech and something happened nine days later.”

And he completes his story with, “Nine days later, the State Department, Hillary’s State Department issued a statement under her name, which said we are not going to take action to restrict the conduct of companies like Ericsson. We are going to count on them to ‘police themselves.’ Which is exactly what Ericsson wanted. Now, some people might say, you look at these examples, the Clintons know a lot of people. They’re very busy. These are probably just coincidences. The problem is this pattern of behavior occurs over and over and over again. And you are left with one of either two conclusions. First of all, maybe the Clintons operate in a parallel universe that is dominated by coincidence in a way that none of us could imagine or the old adage of politics is right. Follow the money and when you follow the money with the Clintons, what you end up with is a circumstance of rampant corruption and self-enrichment. And where does that leave us? That leaves us simply with the case that this is not only about the Clintons, it’s about the future of the country because if something is not done about the apparatus that the Clinton’s have set up to take in this large influx of foreign money, this is going to become the wave of the future.”  Next time, it’s all about some deep state remedy with Drain the Swamp – P5: Corruption Rectification.


Categories: Opinion Politics