another indication of how slight role authentic security plays in state policy. >> you can watch this and other programs online at booktv.org. >> "clinton cash: the untold story of how foreign governments and businesses made bill and hillary clinton rich" is the name of the book and on page 183io write the clinton's are the most politically sophisticated and know foreign governments are trying to influence policy and know bribery is rampant. they have numerous avenues for making money and some not be as lucrative as giving a $700,000 speech in nigeria but they would

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 clinton's 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 don't seem to have a filter

that prevents them from taking money from sketchy characters. >> host: why don't 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 multi-million 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 doesn't 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 multi-million 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 20-25 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 don't 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 clinton's are unique. no post-presidency 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 didn't have veto power over the uranium deals. from media matters, peter schweizer admitted he omitted key information about donors peter schweizer's 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 don't 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 doesn't 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. let's 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 don't 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 clinton's 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 don't 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 clinton's 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 clinton's say i am doing. i am not making outrageous acquisitions. i am laying out the facts. i am not an attorney. i don't 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 clinton's 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. don't 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 don't 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 america's chief diplomat and charted america's 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 don't 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 don't have the same public stage. with the clinton's 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 bush's foundation. it is about what he did a couple years after he left the governor's 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 don't 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 clinton's 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 ex-presidents will hit the lecture circuit. we don't mind it on a level. but with the clinton's 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 caller's 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 clinton holding children

in africa or asia but they don't 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 example, a charity navigator won't rate the clinton fundation because of what they call their unique business model and they have been dinged by the better business bureau because they lack internal control retlated to finance. >> eugene in hickory, kentucky. go ahead. >> caller: i am not a

republican, democratic libertarian, i am an american. and i don't believe in being affiliated with a party. my question is if you or i or any other average american were brought up or the question by congress and asked to give over information and we destroyed it would we be walking the streets or would we be behind bars? our congress gives them 30 days. the way i see it, 30 days given to destroy everything. and that is what they did. if we did that, they would come into our home and they would not -- >> all right.

eugene eugene i think we got the point. >> guest: you are referring to the e-mail problems. hilary clinton was on the watergate committee as a junior lawyer and there were 18 minutes nixon erased. we are talking about 30,000 e-mails that vanished and on top of that you have a problem that hilary clinton as a condition of becoming secretary of state, this is something president elect obama insisted on they were required to disclose the contributor contributors to the clinton foundation and she promised this before the senate relations committee, bill clinton went on cnn and said we will have complete transparency. as we researched the book and went through canadian tax records we found out that wasn't true and there were undisclosed donors including the chairman of

the russian uraniun company giving $it 2 million. it is acknowledged there have been 1100 donors that are not disclosed and i think we will find more. the president of the united states you sign a written sworn agreement with him that you are going to share all of the contributor information you have annually as a condition for you taking the job, and almost immediately because some ofinose these started flowing in 2009 almost immediately you violate that agreement. that is shocking and really to me raises huge amounts of questions questions. i think that is one of the reasons you have such a high percentage of the american people saying they don't trust her or believe she is honest. >> greg is calling from norton

virginia. democrat. >> caller: good morning. i appreciate the research you have done here. i am a democrat. but i am definitely against the clinton and the bush dynesty. i think this is one of the absolute power corrupt situations and this doesn't surprise me in any way. i have to ask you with your skill set and resources to me i am wondering if you would ever considering researching dick cheney and georgiae bush in regard to the iraq war and haliburton and there was a lot of money made through the war. we should never have gone in and i think that is why we went and it was a lie. i think it is much worse than the corruption the clinton's, i am sure are involved in when we

have soldiers loosing their lives. that is far worse and i am wondering if you considered writing about that. >> peter schweizer, let's get a response. >> i have not considered looking at things that far in the past. but look i think it is a legit issue and fair path of investigation and i know people have done work in that area. i think it is legit to ask questions when analect elected official is making a decision who is making money off it. i think other things factor into it. maybe the money didn't matter. what i am most troubled and concerned by is looking at patterns. that is what drew me to the inside trader in the stock market. it is one thing if a guy makes a lucky trade. but when you find analect elected

official that is really good at buying stock and he is buying stock in health care when he is on a committee making decision about health care that is a problem. the cluster and consistent pattern of the flow of funds drew me to the clinton's. any elected official republican or democrat, when in a position of power they have the capability of hurting people or helping helping people. it is fair to see who is being hurt and if there is a financial connection there. >> you can go to our facebook page where the conversation is happening about "clinton cash." facebook.com/cspan. james said why don't they take some of that cash and help the american people.

and if the book is full of lies the clinton's could should sue. and quit making this guy sound reasonable. he is a flame thrower from back in the day. next line is peter from valley cottage, new york. >> caller: i think you are a pat patriot and thank you for what you have done. unfortunately the investigation is going nowhere. the fbi will not investigate, the attorney general will not investigate, as you recall with the lois learner situation nothing was done to investigate. ms. clinton was part of the obama administration and his appointees will not do anything that tarnishes the administration. as you can see, former president

clinton stated when he was being interviewed that he didn't say they did anything wrong. he said there is no evidence. you know as well as i do that if it were you and i and we did this the fbi would have been in there that very day to take your computer. this is good because it exposes it. but as far as justice is concerned nothing is going to be done. i propose that they should change the way that these appointees are appointed. they should be from the opposite party to get a little transparency. but when the friend of the president is the attorney general there will never be any justice. thank you, sir. >> guest: i think the caller raises a good point. that is when the department of justice or fbi choses to investigation or prosecute there

are prolitical pressure brought to bear. there is no disputing that. i am not an attorney and i don't pretend to know how that process works. but i think by any standard if you compare the evidence we have in this case, in this book and you compare that to cases whether it is in virginia or senator menendez in new jersey or the senator in oregon it is far more compelling. that is why this information is crying out for attention. i am encouraged because news outlets are pursuing this story and get the structure of what has been going on, they see how the system works that the clinton's setup for self-enrichment and i think we will continue to see stories on this. then it is a question of political courage whether that is people at the department of justice or people on capital

hill with subpoena power or a u.s. prosecutor somewhere to have the courage to take on a very powerful political machine that very aggressively goes after people that question practices. there is no question it will take courage. i am an optimist by nature and that is how we have to approach this thing. >> eugene calling from jackson michigan on the democrat line. you are on with peter schweizer "clinton cash" is the name of the book. >> caller: yes "clinton cash," to me is what your guest is made a living from. the entire republican party is made a living off the clinton's for 25 years. and the more books and stuff like this the more poplar they are and the better off they are. this book here is one of the

best things that hilary clinton's got to be elected president. well, it just you make a living off this and that is clinton cash. what you are making. if you want to change something, why don't you have the 42 to run for public office because you know there is not as much money in that as what you are doing right now. >> peter schweizer? >> guest: well this is the first book i have written on the clinton's and if the caller's thesis is this is the best thing from the clinton i look forward to bulk purchases from the clinton super pac. they have claimed there is nothing to this book and that is it is a dud in their words. but they mounted a very aggressive campaign against me. so is it a dud or something you are very concerned about?

i think they are very concerned about it. they have seen the recent poll numbers and the fact well over half of the american people don't considered hilary clinton trust worthy and their approach to this matter reinforces that. she is not discussing the issues, avoided it when the press asked her about it when the book was coming out they selectively linked to it allies in the press they had chelsea coming out and then that didn't work and they had bill clinton make bizarre statements from me and it still is not going away. so the question is does the person who wants to lead the free world doesn't she want to come out and answer questions about this. >> as book will try to show you bill's speech making doesn't

happen in a vacuum. it is part of a larger part of activity that hasn't been exposed to public scrutiny. we go on to say there is nothing illegal about the payments but the source size and timing raise questions deserving of deeper investigation. peter schweizer book is published by harper collins and lani davis, long time clinton associate will be on the program on the washington journal on monday morning to take your calls. alex in flint michigan go ahead. >> caller: you know what you are doing the same thing. trying to create hate and discontent in the country over little episode that goes on. but i recall you saying earlier that you don't want to do bush and cheney haliburton but you

said it is all about chasing the money. if you go back too far you are dealing with cheney bush and iraq and all of the weapons of mass destruction and trying to find them but they were not there. no more fox news and you guys like you, all you do is create hate and discontent in the country like ambulance chaser lawyers and hustlers making money off hate and discontent. >> peter schweizer? >> guest: well i am not sure the caller heard the part of the conversation. we are doing an investigation of jeb bush and unlike dick cheney he is thinking about running for president and we think this is relevant. i would encourage him in september to see what our reporting and what information comes out. on this larger point, i mean i would encourage him he probably

obviously doesn't want to buy the book go to the library and read it. there is not a hateful word in the book. there is a column today talking about it recounting the facts and laying out the narrative. you have guys like professor jeffrey sacks from columbia university who is hardly a conservative and heads up the earth institute talking about the troubling things going onism. i don't think it is hateful to bring up concerns about foreign money flowing to the family of secretary of state while she is making decisions that affect them. i think that is a legit story. >> page 113, the erickson

corporation sponsored by a speech by bill clinton paying him more than every, $750,000 according to disclosures erickson had never sponsored a clinton speech but now it thought it would be a good time to do so. in your book what do you mean by this would be a good time. what was happening >> guest: this was in 2011 when they decided to give him $750,000 for a single speech. and they had never paid him for a speech before. erickson the swedish telecom country was in trouble with the state department selling equipment to iran named in state department reports about selling equipment to other oppressive governments, they are sate department cables that came out to wiki leaks showing state department officials under

hilary clinton were pressuring the swedish foreign minister to deal with companies like erickson who were doing this. my question is why did erickson decide at this point in time to pay bill clinton this outrageous speaking fee that is higher than every paid before. i think that context is extremely important. you could look at that case and say well maybe it is coincidence. but maybe you have to same thing with the keystone xl pipeline i brought up you have a case with the united arab emrites that takes place there are examples where inthe timing and size doesn't pass the smell test and deserves scrutiny. >> next call from taylor in south carolina republican line. go ahead. >> caller: thank you for having me. i want to talk about big money in politics especially from

foreign do foreign donators. they raises eyebrows on who is donating and what they are donating for because they could in hibit a national security risk because we don't know their agenda and when a bill comes around they could say go this way. i think taking foreign donations from anybody outside of the united states is a big no-no. and we should put a gap on the maximum amount you can donate that way we can be a little more content they are here for the american people and not bought and that basically -- another thing is like jeb bush -- >> taylor we are going to stick to the foreign money concept that you brought up. go ahead and answer that. >> guest: i think the caller brings up a great point and that is what is so troubling and makes the clinton situation unique. we have a debate about the role of money in politics. is it free speech should there

be restrictions are they too low, are they too high, that is a vigorous debate we will continue to have. what we don't have a debate on is the fact that really anybody seriously thinks we ought to have foreign money influencing our political process. there was a case brought a couple years before the supreme court where a couple foreign nationals subsued to say it was unconstitutional to prevent foreign nationals from con contributing to the campaign. the supreme court came back 9-0. when was the last time that happened? 9-0 saying no this is an unsensible rule. we have this agreement on foreign money. what you have with the clinton foundation is a way for foreign businesses, foreign governments, and foreign financers around those rules. and to say they are tossing tens of millions in some cases hundreds of millions at the

clinton's but it is going to have no effect strikes me as absurd especially if you are the same person concerned about domestic money in politics. it is all money in politics. one case is u.s. citizen and the other is individuals who should be playing no role in influencing leaders >> michael from georgia, democrat. >> caller: good morning. this is funny listening to this republican. are we going to have to listen to clowns like this for the innext year? there is no way republicans would sit back and allow hilary clinton to be bought off. this guy is just throwing out a bunch of accusations there is no

proof. c-span2 should be ashamed of having him with no one speaking on the other side. >> guest: i am sure davis will do a good job on monday. all i can say to the caller is i would encourage you to read the book at least. to the statement about people in the state department that would not allow this to happen one of the things i point out in a book called the clinton blur it is about how at the state department hilary clinton brought in people to senior physicians and gave them so-called sge special government employee status which allows them to maintain their outside commitment. so you have individuals who were doing work for the clinton foundation who were also working for the state department at the same timeism and they did this by abusing a law that was setup years ago. this was was setup so if you had

appear astro doctor and nasa needed their help and they didn't want to give up their ten tenure they could go to nasa and come back. ... aware of what the book contains. host: in the clinton book blurb chapter chapter five has a story about going. -- boeing. peter schweitzer is the author. the untold story of how and white foreign businesses made bill and hillary rich is the subtitle. peter sweitzer will be both tv's guest on july 5. he will spend the hours talking

about all of his books and taking calls as well. lanny davis will be on the washington journal on on monday to respond to some of the things that mr. schweitzer writes about. thank you for joining us. >> always a pleasure. thanks, peter. >> every weekend book tv brings you 48 hours of nonfiction authors and books on c-span2. keep watching for more television for serious readers. >> well, there is a new book out on several bestsellers lists, and it is called "ghettoside: a true story of murder in america". it is written by los angeles times reporter jill leovy. she she is joining us now at the la times festival of books. books.

who was bright in l.a.? >> guest: brands finale isn't 18-year-oliving in s los >> he is the son of an lapd homicide detective comic black, his mother is actually an immigrant from costa rica. mother was an anagram from costa rica. he was murdered in 2007 and the story of his murder is the central narrative of the book at her side. throughout the case the investigation of the case and the eventual prosecution to defendants. >> host: the fact his murder was solved was that rare? was that you need? >> when i calculated the 20 years prior to his dad was particularly for black men if you use 40% or 45%, you would be in the right territory. it depends the way you look at it. you can look at how many a