High dollar donors to the Clinton Foundation during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state “had every expectation of quid pro quo” in the form of access to the then-secretary, said the author of “Clinton Cash”.
“One of the most interesting things that came out of the (John) Podesta emails a few years ago, was an internal review that The Clinton Foundation data, actually at Chelsea’s behest they hired Simpson Thacher the law firm to sort of look at The Clinton Foundation,” Peter Schweizer said on Wednesday’s broadcast of Fox News’s Tucker Carlson Tonight.
“And what they found is, high dollar donators had expectations of what? They had expectations of quid pro quos. That is the word of Simpson Thacher in their internal review. So you are quite right, with all the discussions in Washington and the impeachment hearings, it’s remarkable to me that there is no interest in the Clinton Foundation. Just consider the testimony of Gordon Sondland and this whole issue of a meeting in the White House between the Ukrainian president and Donald Trump, which some have alleged was linked to them announcing these investigations. That’s a classic example of access. The Clintons did that every day when she was secretary of state.”
Schweizer, president of the Government Accountability Institute, also note the precipitous drop in donations to the Clinton Foundation following Hillary Clinton’s defeat in the 2016 presidential election.
“This the past year, the Clinton Foundation literally raised 10 percent of what it did in 2009, the first year that Hillary was secretary of state, and the international numbers were even worse,” Schweizer said.
“They had all this money flowing in when Hillary was the chief diplomat of the United States. Curiously in light of the testimony, the number one country for giving money to the Clinton Foundation was not Great Britain. It was not France. It was not Japan. It was Ukraine. All that money has now dried up, literally.”
The Clinton Foundation, Schweizer said, now “has had a hard time raising money because they don’t have the influence to sell. They don’t have power access to sell, and that, I think, is the primary evidence for what the Clinton enterprise was all about.”