for coming. thank you very much. a plus >> here are some programs to watch for this weekend.

peter is the author who joins us from tallahassee. on page 183 of the book yout write that the clintons are perhaps the most politically sophisticated public figures of their generation. they know how things work in the corridors of power and aroundnd th the world. they know that foreign governments are trying to influence american foreign policy committee and they know that bribery is rampant around the world. they have numerous avenues for making money. some of them might not be as lucrative as giving getting a $700,000 each in nigeria but they would be much clearer. >> yes. i think that's one of the defenses you hear from the clinton camp is that they are unaware of certain things were perhaps that there is nothing seriously afoot with all of this money flowing to the clinton foundation or to them in the form of the speaking phase.

but the bottom line is that they've been players on the international stage for a law that the time and the people that contribute to pay for the speeches by bill clinton, you know they are not an insurance company in the uk or the media company in germany. these are companies that operate in places like nigeria, the congo, south america and some of these individuals have with say a sketchy history as it relates to issues involving financial crime. so they are not ones who would be shocked that there's gambling going on as it was said in the film. they know exactly what's going on and that is what is so troubling is that they don't seem to have a filter that prevents them from taking money from some pretty sketchy characters. >> host: why don't some of these foreign governments were leaders gave give money directly to their own countries where it

is needed rather than give it to the clinton foundation? >> guest: that is a co. that is a great question. the late christopher hitchens a liberal writer asked that very question and wondered why is it that you have these oligarchs in the third world into places like india or africa. why are they sending multimillion dollar checks 10,000 miles away to new york to do clinton foundation ostensibly to send that money back to do work in their own countries? and the answer that hitchens i think basically gave is that it's because it was a way of influencing peddling within a former president and a former president whose wife is first a powerful senator and then by secretary of state. that is what i think is so mystifying. if you are in india for example and you are concerned about development, policy, you name it. it really doesn't make a lot of sense to send it to new york city.

why not work with a lot of the great legitimate charities that are doing the same thing. that's just one of the things in addition to the timing of these donations but i think it's so puzzling. >> host: cassock stand. walk us through what happened in kazakhstan. >> guest: so kazakhstan is what happened in the oppressive government that is ruled since the collapse of the soviet union. they are very rich in minerals and one of the things they have this uranium that fuels the technology and also military nuclear technology and bill clinton is there with frank this canadian mining investor. and he wants uranium concessions. bill clinton says very nice things about the dictator of kazakhstan and in a couple of days he's granted those uranium concessions. weeks later he sends $30 million to the clinton foundation.

now this is where it starts to get very interesting, if that's not interesting enough. this uranium deposit becomes part of a company called uranium one. it is a canadian company and they start acquiring uranium rights in the united states. what's also interesting is this is a small uranium company that not only frank but i'm sorry eight other individuals connected with this company also start making major contributions to the clinton foundation. the chairman writes multimillion dollar checks. those contributions were never disclosed by the clinton foundation. we found them in canadian tax records. the financiers involved in the company are major clinton foundation contributors. you've got a shareholder named frank holmes who essentially a shareholder in uranium one, but he's also an advisor to the

clinton foundation and a major donor to the clinton foundation. all of these assets are accumulated, all of this money is flowing to the clinton foundation and then the russian government arrives and says we want to buy uranium because it's had a long interest in cornering the uranium market. this is a personal desire laughing at him and he authorizes the release of the funds to buy this uranium company. in order for russia to acquire what amounts to 20% or 25% of all of the uranium assets in the united states it requires federal government approval. there is a process the committee on foreign investment in the united states that requires a number of government agencies including the state department to sign off on this deal. they do sign off on the deal. what i think is troubling about terri clinton in the midst of all of this is that no other government agency that approves this is headed by somebody that's received $145 million to

the foundation from nine individuals connected with this firm. the second thing that is troubling is that hillary clinton had a history of to this point 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 those things i think raising a lot of questions about what her involvement was in this. the clinton campaign of course says that she had no knowledge of this, she was not involved in this. with the national polls showing that more than half of the american people questioned her trustworthiness and honesty i don't think that her verbal statement on this is going to be enough. and i think that there needs to be further investigation to see what their role was. i think that if three years from now we we have a secretary of defense a private foundation that received $145 million from shareholders in a foreign

company that had business before the pentagon that wouldn't be enough to say did you do anything to help them. there would be an investigation and i think there should be. >> host: page five of the book given my previous focus on bipartisan self-dealing and corruption why am i now focused on one couple, you you ride by simply have it in for bill and hillary, and i somehow trying to derail her prospects of being elected president in 2016? what is the answer to that question? >> guest: the answer is that the last five or six years my writing and research has been focused on following the money in politics. so in the throwing them all out i wrote about insider trading and members of both parties and how there was a pattern of stock that they were engaging and in the book that followed up on that old extortion i looked up what i regard as extorting fund-raising practices by political parties on both sides.

i got the displeasure of john boehner as a result of that book. the clintons are unique and fit into this pattern. no post-presidency has been marked by as much money making as bill clinton engaged in. they took between 2001 and 2012, $136 million. that is unprecedented in scale and scope but the second thing that i think warrants the particular discussion is that they have created a new model and this model if it is allowed to continue and is successful is going to be adopted by others and it is basically getting around the rules and laws that we have in place that prevent foreign entities from influencing american politics. if you are a foreign company, you cannot give campaign contributions. you can't get to the can skip to the political action committee. but with the clinton foundation and the ability to pay the speaking fees to the secretary

of state, the foreign entities now have a way of giving money to families of elected officials in the hopes of influencing them and i think that is a very troubling development. >> host: as you know what you're referring for referring their account and media matters have both come out with lists of what they say are errors that you made in clinton cash. from hillary for america the entire premise of the book has been widely debunked. hillary clinton didn't have enough power over the deal etc.. from media matters he admitted that he omitted information about the clinton foundation donors and the accusation has no evidence. is there anything that you think that hillary for america or media matters or any other group has gotten right from this? >> guest: what is surprising is they say that the book is a god that the actions to indicate that's what they be viewed and

if you look at the list i'm glad if they want to bring them up i am glad to go into detail on them it is a classic example of misdirection. one of the things in the video that they put out from the spokesman was the statement that in this deal the shareholder sold his shares in the company before hillary clinton became secretary of state and i point that out in the buck we don't know if he has shares or not problem is he doesn't talk about each other individuals who are giving to the clinton foundation and who are shareholders in the deal and are the chairman of the company and who are engaged in that company giving to the foundation at the very time the state department is considering the deal so they want to selectively try to steer the conversation in one away without looking at the larger facts and they are hoping people will not actually read the narrative of

the book and they will just sort of take their word for it which i think really is quite remarkable on their part. >> host: peter is the author. for numbers are on the screen and i want to point out the fact that if you would like you can go to our facebook page, facebook.com/c-span. we have a discussion there about the book and the topic. let's begin with a call from john in great falls montana. you are on with peter. >> caller: i would like to begin off base just a little bit and speak to the fact of people like george stephanopoulos and truthfully the host writenow today just attacking you personally on your ability to do research on the clinton project and all they look for his personal attacks. i would like you to defend yourself a little bit. thank you. >> guest: i don't feel that the current conversation is a personal attack.

i think it is fair to raise questions about the research into the project. i will say that the stephanopoulos interview this week was a little bit odd in that of course george stephanopoulos worked for the clintons. he was part of the war room for the clinton campaign and of course he mentioned that for four months i was a speechwriter in the george w. bush white house but he certainly served to the clinton administration longer than four month us. so i thought that was a little bit of an interesting decision on the part of abc news. i don't mind having a vigorous conversation. what has been troubling is the allies of the clintons, paul and james having engaged in sort of personal vicious attacks against me. they try to misinterpret or drudge up a book that i wrote 17 years ago and they don't want to talk about this. they want to talk about everything but this. i'm very encouraged by the fact that i think a lot of media

outlets outlets i share the material was early on "the new york times," "washington post," abc news investigative units have confirmed reporting this in the book and i think that it's now incumbent upon the clintons to stop this sort of sly statement that the president said about me and engage in the conversation about a very troubling fact pattern. >> host: and you asked asked in the book i realize how shocking these allegations may appear. are these activities illegal? that's not for me to say you write. >> guest: yes i think if you look at the tone of this book as peggy noonan, "the wall street journal" has a call today about the book and she points out it's a very somber tone. contrary to what the clintons claim i am doing i am not making outrageous accusations. i am laying out just the facts. that's what i'm doing. i am not an attorney. i don't pretend to be an

attorney. what i will say is if you look at some of the recent cases of political prosecutions on corruption, whether it is in virginia, senator menendez of new jersey or if you look at the case in oregon, i heard the content and that from what we know now the fact pattern with the clintons is far more troubling than it was in any of those cases and that's why i think that this warrants an investigation by either the fbi federal prosecutor because ultimately you need to look at communication and have people under oath and ask serious questions about the flow of the fund and the decisions that were made about the secretary of state and how they benefited those that were giving the family money. >> host: oems in eureka california democrat. >> caller: i have one question

for you and please cannot be short answer. i want an explanation. would you show as much enthusiasm if you are writing about the coke brothers? thank you. >> guest: i focus my research on elected public officials. i think that we could have a vigorous debate about the role of money in politics and we could have a vigorous debate about if there's too much water out of the restructurings. but they don't actually vote or start policy. i look at elected officials. that's what i did and throw them all out and extortion. i took both political parties and i was criticized by john boehner and other republicans for the book. hillary clinton was america's chief diplomat. she chartered america's foreign-policy and had enormous power when it came to national security and foster overseas.

during her tenure her husband took in the tens of millions of of dollars from foreign governments and foreign corporations and from the foreign financiers that had business on her desk and the results are astonishing. to give you just one example the caller might be interested in he's a democrat and this is a very controversial issue. consider this. hillary clinton secretary of state is reviewing the environmental impact making a designation on the pipeline, which is a very controversial issue. during this time her husband signed up to do ten speeches from a financial firm in canada that happens to be one of the largest shareholders in that pipeline stock. they never paid a speech for him before when she wasn't secretary of state. when she wasn't revealing the keystone pipeline and suddenly they come up and offer him about

$2 million to the speeches and he gladly does them. three months after he gets the last payment re: clinton gives the greenlight on the pipeline. you can look at this and say idiot is just a coincidence but the problem is you see that replicated over and over and over again so that i would ask the caller to do is not give me a short answer, yes or no as to whether he would read the books actually read the book and if you don't want to put money in my pocket and buy it go to the library and read it and give it a serious consideration because these are very troubling patterns of behavior. and they haven't challenged any of them. they haven't challenged the payments, the timing, who they got their money from and the decisions have frequent and has made. >> host: politico reported that you are looking into jeb bush for the potential book. >> guest: yes we are engaged in research and we've done it for about four months. obviously as governor of florida

you don't have the global scope as the secretary of state. of course you have a longer time in public service than with jeb bush but we are following the same methodologies so we are looking at the flow of funds. for me it is always about follow the money it's about the flow of the money and about those that benefit and contribute to campaigns that are given to the jeb bush foundation. it's about what he did a couple of years after he left the governor's mansion connected to individuals that benefit from his actions when he was governor and we are looking at an airport deal and land deals and things related to educational reform and we expect to have a major report in september and we are following the same model that we did here which is partnering with major investigative units.

authors tend to get ignored by political figures. they don't take them seriously but if you get a call from the "washington post," abc news, you want to engage because you kind of have to and that's part of the model that we have embraced. >> host: john in southampton pennsylvania. >> caller: just just can't think for having how things for having me. you've done quite a patriotic duty. first of all, for you to partner with "new york times," "washington post" these were far left organizations and clearly you are very credible. i've been aware -- i was really troubled personally back as soon as possible and clinton left office obviously there were legal issues but immediately he embarked on the page speechmaking and he went before the financial institutions,

lobbyists getting 250, 200000 500,000. as you indicated earlier, they made book advances and speeches in ten years they made over hundred million dollars. on this foundation this is a whole new idea. they are getting all this money in the foundation and and the foundation and as i understand they are only spending on the actual helping the poor content person or 15% of the funds that come into the foundation and the rest of it is going to the salaries and headquarters -- >> host: we got the point. >> caller: the caller brings up a lot of good points. for some the speaking fees we all recognize they are going to hit the lecture circuit and i think we might be certain level.

it's always particularly troublesome because bill clinton's wife at the time is first a powerful u.s. senator in the second of and a second of all has become secretary of state and when you look at the pattern of the money that they are making in the speeches that is troubling. consider one statistic. bill clinton has been paid 13 times a total of 13 times in his entire speaking career. $500,000 or more to give a speech. that 13 times coming 11 times coming 11 of them occur while his wife was the secretary of state and some of them it is hard to not see them for what they are. for example bill clinton had never given a paid speech in nigeria when his wife wasn't secretary of state. she becomes secretary of state a businessman in nigeria very close to the nigerian government which is highly corrupt and contracts to give two speeches for $700,000 does the secretary of state one of the things is to

look at the foreign aid recipients like the government in nigeria and if they have rampant corruption and they are not improving it, the federal law says they are not to get aid. the only way they can continue to receive the u.s. aid is if the secretary of state grants them a waiver which were a clinton did. so again you can look at this and say say maybe that is a confidence that you find the pattern repeated over and over and over again. with regards to the question about the foundation, they give about 10% of the money to other charitable organizations. the clinton foundation model is incredibly unique. you look at the website and see bill clinton and chelsea and hillary clinton holding children in africa or asia but the clinton foundation really doesn't do a lot of hands-on work with people in those countries. they partner with other organizations that do. they function as a middleman as it were.

and he needs a middleman but it's not like doctors without borders or american red cross or some of these other organizations actually doing the hands-on work. at the the clinton foundation is more like a management consultant firm working in the area of charity and this is why for example the charity navigator that as well regarded as an evaluator of charities you can look online they won't even rate a foundation because of what they call its unique business model and they've been deemed by the better business bureau because they are lacking internal control as it relates to finances and governance etc.. so there are real problems there. >> host: eugene in hickory kentucky. please go ahead. >> caller: yes. first of all i'm not a republican democrat libertarian. i'm 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 with 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? out congress gives them 30 days the way that i see it and that can destroy everything and that is exactly what they did. if we did that -- >> host: i think we've got the point. peter. >> guest: you are referring to the e-mails and about servers and i think that is a huge problem. remember hillary clinton was on the watergate committee as a junior lawyer and there were those 18 minutes i think it was

that richard nixon decreased. we are talking about 30,000 e-mails that have just vanished. on top of that you have an additional problem as i pointed out in the book that hillary clinton as a condition of becoming secretary of state this is something president elect obama insisted on the required to disclose all of the contributors to the clinton foundation. very basic requirements. hillary clinton promised the same thing in her testimony before the foreign relations committee. bill clinton went on cnn and said we will have complete transparency. as we were researching the book we found out that low and behold that is not true and there were undisclosed donors including the chairman of this russian owned company that gave $2 million. those donations don't show up on the clinton foundation website. it's now been acknowledged that there are more than 1100 that have been non- disclosed and i think that we are going to find there are more.

so think about this for a second. the president elect of the united states signed a written and sworn agreement with him that you are going to share all of the contributing information that you have annually on the basis to the condition of you taking the job and almost immediately because some of the solutions start in 2009, almost immediately you violate that agreement. that is shocking. and really to me it raises huge amounts of questions and that is one of the reasons that you have such a high percentage of the american people in the recent surveys is that they don't trust worthy of the she's honest. >> host: greg is calling from virginia here in the suburbs. >> caller: good morning. i appreciate the research that you've done here. i am a democrat but i'm against the clinton dynasty as i see it and also the bush dynasty and i

have to ask this does sound really bad and i'm not surprised at all. i think it is one of those absolute power corrupts. but i have to ask if you are still set in your resources i'm wondering if you ever consider researching that cheney and george bush in regards to the iraq war and the halliburton connection and all those things where i feel like there was a lot of money made through the floor that we should never have gone in there. that's why we went. it was a lie and it's much worse than the corruption. we haven't looked after things that are in the past looking at

things that are contemporary. i'm not suggesting that is the only calculation they made. there are coincidences that might occur and other things that factor into it. but what i am the most troubled by is looking at patterns. that's what drew me to the insider trading in the stock market. it's one thing if they make a stock trade in a certain kind of thing you find any elected official that seems to be really good at predicting the stock market and he's buying stock in an area like healthcare on the committee that looks at health care that is a problem and what journey to the clintons is the cluster and the consistent

pattern of the flow of funds it is always a legitimate issue that should be researched because any official, republican or democrat. he had enormous good ability to hurt people or help people and i think it is always fair to see who is being helped and hurt and if there is any financial motivation or connection. >> host: if you can't get through on the phone lines, go to the facebook page where the conversation is happening about clinton cash. why don't they take some of that and help the american people with it. if the book is full of lies then they should sue for slander. and john gutiérrez posts quit making this guy credible. he is a conservative flamethrower from back in the day. but as some of the conversation happening online. next call comes from peter.

this investigation is going to go nowhere. as you recall to the lowest order situation he did nothing to investigate. mrs. clinton was part of the obama administration and his appointees wouldn't do anything to tarnish is the administration as you can see that former president clinton stated and was being interviewed you didn't say that they did anything wrong.

what we did there would have been in that very day to confiscate your computer. as far as the justice is concerned, nothing would be done. i have proposed that they should change the way bees appointees are appointed and they should be either from the opposite party to get transparency that when a friend of the president as the attorney general there will never be any justice. thank you sir. >> i think that he raises a good point and that is when the department of justice or fbi chooses to investigate or prosecute a. of the evidence that we have in this case, in this book when you

compare that to the cases whether it's in virginia or senator menendez or oregon it is far more compelling here than in those instances and that's why i think that this information is crying out for attention i'm encouraged because i think there's a lot of news outlets pursuing these stories. they sort of get the structure now of what's been going on and they see how the system works so they are mining the information and i think we are going to continue to see stories on this. then it's just a question of political courage. whether it is people at the department of justice were people on capitol hill. and whether it is a u.s. prosecutor somewhere to have the courage to take on with, let's face it a very powerful political machines that aggressively goes after people.

there is no question that it's going to take courage but i'm an optimist by nature and that is how we have to approach these things that justice will win in the end. >> host: eugene calling from jackson on the democrats line. your your guest has made a living from the entire republican party. the better off they are this book is one of the best things to terry clinton has to be elected president. you make a living off this. but clinton cashes what you are

making. if you want to really change something, why don't you run for public office because you know there's not as much money in that is what you are doing right now. >> host: >> guest: this is the first book i've written on the clintons and if the thesis is correct that this is the best thing that i look forward to book purchases from the super pack. that's all i can say. they've done two things simultaneously. they've claimed there is nothing to this book and at the same time they mounted a very aggressive campaign against me. so is it a dud or something you were very concerned about? they have seen the recent poll numbers and the fact that well over half the american people don't consider trustworthy and their approach to this matter i think just reinforces it. she hasn't discussed these issues at all.

she's avoided if they've asked questions about it. when the book was coming out they selectively linked it its two allies in the press and they had chelsea come out to vouch for the wonderful work the foundation is doing and the ethics of the family. when that didn't work they had bill clinton make these bizarre statements about me from africa and it still hasn't gone away so the question becomes does an individual who wants to be the leader of the free world, president of the united states, doesn't she want to just come out and answer some simple questions about this and that is really all that the people are expecting. >> host: but as the book will try to show you the speechmaking doesn't happen in a vacuum. it's part of a larger pattern of activity that has never been before exposed to public scrutiny. you go on to say that there is nothing illegal about these payments as the source, size and

timing raise serious questions deserving a deeper investigation. the book is published by harpercollins and leanne e. davis will be on this program on washington journal on monday morning to take your calls as well. alex, please go ahead. >> caller: you try to create hate and discontent in the country over every little episode that goes on. but i recall you saying earlier that it was so long ago. earlier you said you want to change the money that you don't want to go back to the front but if you go back to pardon you are dealing with halliburton and iraq and all that, weapons of mass distraction.

but all you do is create hate and discontent in the country and make money off each and discontent. >> guest: i am not sure if they heard the part of the conversation we are doing an investigation of jeb bush and unlike dick cheney he is contemplating running for president and we think that is relevant and people want to see what information is there. so i would encourage him in september to be so inclined to see what the reporting and what information comes out. on the larger point, i would encourage him he probably obviously doesn't want to buy the book. go to the library and read it. there isn't a hateful word in the book. it's very dispassionate. there is a column in "the wall street journal" today from peggy noonan talking about the fact

that it's basically just recounting the facts and laying out the narrative. you have those like the professor from columbia university who is hardly a conservative that heads up the institute who was on msnbc this morning talking about the fact that yes, the clintons are blurring the lines and there is a flow of money going in and there were troubling things going on. i am not sure what to tell the caller i don't think it is hateful to bring up concerns about the foreign money flowing into the family of the secretary of state while she's making decisions that affect them. that is a legitimate story. >> host: page 113. the ericsson corporation decided to sponsor the speech by bill clinton and paid him more than he'd ever been paid for a single speech and $750,000. according to the clinton financial disclosures in the previous ten years he'd never sponsored a clinton speech, but now it apparently 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 is when they decided to get the single biggest payday ever and again as you recounted they never paid him for a speech before. the swedish telecom company was in trouble with the state department at this time. they had been selling commenced to iran and they've been named in the state department reports about selling equipment to belarus and other governments. actually state department cables came out that show the state department officials under hillary clinton were pressuring the swedish foreign minister to deal with the companies that were doing this. so, my question is why he did eric did eric singh decided this point in time to pay bill clinton this outrageous speaking

fee that is higher than he has ever been paid before? i think that context is extremely important. again you could look at that case and say well, maybe it's coincidence that the problem is you have the same thing with the keystone xl pipeline and the case involving the united arab emirates and there are other examples where the timing of the payments and the size doesn't pass the smell test and deserves further scrutiny. >> host: next next call was from taylor insupportable north carolina. go ahead. >> caller: thank you for having me. i wanted to basically talk about the big money in politics and especially from the foreign donators that just raises my eyebrows of who is doing that and that could potentially inhibit a national security risk because you never know what their agenda is and we know when a certain bill comes out they are like go this way or that

way. i think taking foreign donations from anybody outside of the united states is a big no-no and especially that we should put a gap so that we can be a little bit more content that they are here for the american people and basically another thing is like -- >> host: we are going to stick to the foreign money concept that you brought up. go ahead. >> caller: >> guest: the caller brings up a good point and that is what troubling and makes the clinton situation unique. we have a vigorous debate about the role of money in politics. you know, is it free speech? should there be research and? archive destructions too low or too high? that's a vigorous debate we will continue to have. what we do not have a debate on is the fact that anybody thinks we ought to have the money

influencing our political process. there was a case a couple of years ago before the supreme court where a couple of the foreign nationals sued to say that it was unconstitutional to prevent the foreign nationals from contributing to the campaigns. the supreme court came back 9-0. when is the last time that happened tuesday this is an eminently sensible rule? so, we have a national consensus and what you have with the clinton foundation and speechmaking is a conduit for the foreign businesses and governments and financiers around those rules. to say that they are tossing tens of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars but it's going to have no effect strikes me as absurd especially if you are the same person concerned about domestic money in politics but in one case you are dealing with u.s. citizens and the other

case you are dealing with individuals that should be playing no role in influencing the leaders. >> host: michael in lydia springs democrat. >> caller: good morning. this is really funny listening to the republican powwow. i would ask for the next year we took us into clowns like this. i've worked in the government and there is no way that republicans working in the state department because there are republicans working in the state department would sit back and allow cory clinton is going to save president hopefully, to be bought off. i need he's just throwing out a bunch of accusations into this and that but he has no proof. c-span should be ashamed for having him on with nobody to speak on the other side. thank you. >> guest: i'm sure that when he many davis will do more than an adequate job when he appears on monday. all i can say is i would encourage you to at least read

the book. uconn damned this before you even read it. to the statement that there are people in the state department that would allow this to happen one of the things i point out in the book is about how at the state department hillary clinton brought in people to senior positions and gave some of those people special government employee status, which allows them to maintain their outside commitments. so, you have individuals that are doing work for the clinton foundation that are also working for the state department at the same time and they did this by abusing the law that had been set up your zygote. it was set up so that if you had an astrophysicist and a university that nasa needed their expertise and they wouldn't have to give up the tenured position they could come to work for six months to help them on a project and then go back. they abused the abused and put political operatives as the

employees. so again i understand people are passionate about their views and i understand the caller has his, but it is a little hard to come them something when you haven't read something and you are aware of what the book contains. >> host: in the clinton book chapter five has a story. here is the comfort of the book cover of the book and it is called clinton cash. peter schweitzer is the author. the untold story of how and why the foreign governments and businesses helped make bill and hillary which is the subtitle. peter schweitzer will be booktv guest on in-depth in july july july 5. he will spend three hours talking about all of his books and will be taking calls as well. leanne e. davis will be on the washington journal on monday to respond to some of the things

that mr. schweitzer writes about in the books. thanks for joining us from tallahassee. >> guest: it's always a pleasure. thanks peter. you're watching the tv on book tv on c-span2. here's a look at our primetime lineup. jackjack ross an independent historian talks now about his critical history and the socialis