thank you all very much.

>> host: "clinton cash" is the name of the book peter schweizer joins us from tallahassee. mr. sub forum page 183 you 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 around the world. they know that foreign governments are trying to influence american foreign policy and they know that rivalry is rampant around the world. they have numerous avenues for making money. some of those avenues may not be as lucrative as even the 700 thousand dollars speech in nigeria. >> guest: yes one of the defenses you hear from the clinton camp is that they are unaware of certain things or

perhaps there is nothing seriously afoot with all this money flowing to the clinton foundation or in the form of speaking. but they have been playing on the international stage iv a long time. a lot of people but contributed and paper speeches by bill clinton they are not an insurance company in the u.k.. they are companies that operate in places like nigeria, the congo and some of these individuals have left a individuals have let's say sketchy histories as it relates to issues involving financial crimes. the clintons are not shocked that there's gambling going on. they knew exactly what was going on and i think that's troubling that they don't seem to have a filter that prevents them from taking money from some pretty sketchy characters.

>> host: one of these foreign governments or foreign leaders give money directly to their own countries where it's needed rather than the clinton foundation? >> that's a great question peter. the late christopher hitchens the great liberal reader asked the same question. when you have these oligarchs in third countries like africa. why are they sending multi-million dollar checks 10,000 miles away to the clinton foundation ostensibly to send out money back to work in their own country. the answer that hitchens basically gave this because it was a way of influencing peddling with a former president and a former president whose wife is first a powerful senator and secretariats date. that is what is so mystifying. you are an indian you are concerned about developing

poverty aids you name it doesn't make a lot of sense to send it to new york city. why not work with a lot of charities that are in india that are doing that very same thing? that's just one of the things the timing of these donations that i think is so puzzling. >> host: pakistan, walk us through what happened. guess to kazakhstan is in central asia. it is an oppressive government that is robair. they are very rich in minerals and one of the things that they have is a lot of uranium much of horse fuels nuclear technology and military technology and in september of 2005 bill clinton is there with this canadian mining investor and wants uranium connections. he says very nice things about the dictator in kazakhstan.

weeks later he sends $30 million to the clinton foundation. this is where it starts to get very interesting. as if that's not interesting enough, uranium deposits become part of a company called uranium one. uranium one is the canadian company had me start acquiring uranium right in the united states. what's also interesting is this is a small uranium company and not only frank juicer but eight other individuals connect with this company also start making major contributions at the clinton foundation. the chairman writes multi-million dollar checks. those contributions were never disclosed by the benton foundation. they found them in canadian tax records. the financiers involved in the country are major clinton foundation contributors.

you are a major donor to the clinton foundation. all this money is flowing to the clinton foundation and then the russian government arrives and says we want to buy uranium one because they have had a long interesting cornering the uranium market. this is a personal desire of lutemack putin. he asked -- authorizes the releases of funds to buy this uranium company. in order for russia to acquire what amounts to 20% or 25% of all uranium to the united states or requires federal government approval. there's a process -- foreign investment and united states that requires a number of government agencies including the state department to sign off on the deal. what i think is troubling about hillary clinton in the midst of

all this is no other government agency that approves this is headed by somebody who has received $145 million to their foundation from nine individuals connected with this firm. the second thing that's troubling is that hillary clinton had a history buff to this point of opposing precisely these kinds of deals. in other words were a foreign government wanted to buy the critical industry in the united states. so both of those things i think raised a lot of questions about what her involvement was in this. the clinton campaign of course said that she had no knowledge of this. she was not involved in this. with national polls showing that more than half the american people question your trustworthiness and honesty i don't think her verbal statement on this is going to be enough and they think there needs to be further investigation to see what what precisely the role was. i think three years from now if we have a secretary of defense

who had a private foundation that received $145 million from shareholders in a foreign company that did business for the pentagon it would not be enough to say did you do anything to help them? there would be an investigation and i think there should be here. pasco page five of your book my previous focus on bipartisan self-healing and corruption why am i now focused on one couple you write. do i simply have it in for bill and hillary? at my somehow trying to derail her prospects of being elected resident 2016? what's the answer that question gets to the answer is the last five or six years my writing and research has been focused on alone the money in politics so and throwing them all out i wrote about insider trading and that was both political parties how there was this pattern of stock trader engaging in. a book that follow that called extortion i looked at what i

regarded as the fund-raising practices by political parties on both sides. i got the displeasure of john boehner as a result of that look. the clintons are unique and fit into this pattern. no post-presidency has been marked by as much money-making as bill clinton has engaged in. they taken between 2001 in 2012 some $136 million. that's unprecedented in scale and scope but the second thing that i think warrants particular discussion here is 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. the model is basically getting around rules and laws that we have in place that prevent foreign entities from influencing american policies. if you are a foreign company cannot give campaign contributions in american political elections. you can get through political

action committee but with the clinton foundation and this ability to pay speaking fees to the spouse of the secretary of state foreign entities now have a way of giving money to families of elected officials in the hopes of influencing them. i think that is a very troubling development. >> host: peter schweizer as you know hillary for american media matters have both come out with a list of what they say are errors that you made in "clinton cash." the entire premise of the book has been widely debunked. hillary clinton did not have veto power the uranium deal etc. etc.. from media matters schweizer admitted he omitted key information about clinton foundation donors. schweizer has no evidence. is there anything you think hillary for americorps media matters or any other earth has gotten right about an area made in this book lacks.

>> guest:lacksguest. >> guest: no. what's surprising is they say that the book is a dead but their actions don't indicate that is what they really believe. if you look at the list of the errors if callers want to bring them up i'm glad to go into detail on all of them. the classic example of misdirection. one of the things in the video that they put out from the spokesman was the statement that business uranium deal for shareholder sold his shares in the company before hillary clinton became secretary of state. i put that out in the book. we don't know he has shares or not. the problem is he doesn't talk about the eight other individuals who are giving to the clinton foundation to our shareholders and the deal they were the chairman of the company who are engaged with that company who are getting to the clinton foundation at the very time the state department is considering this deal. so they want to selectively tried to steer the conversation

one-way without looking at the larger facts and they are hoping people won't read the narrative of the book and they will take their word for it which i think really is quite remarkable on their part. >> host: "clinton cash" is the book and peter schweizer is the author. you can go to our facebook page facebook.com/c-span. we have a discussion going on there about the book and the topic. let's begin with a call from john in great falls montana. you are on with peter schweizer. >> caller: hi peter. i would like for you to speak to the fact that people like makia and george stephanopoulos just attacking you personally on your ability to do research on the clinton project and looking for personal attacks and i would like you defend yourself there

little bit. thank you. >> guest: i don't feel the current conversation is a personal attack. i think it's fair to raise questions about the research of a project that i will say the stephanopoulos interview this week was a little bit -- and that george is often opposed works for the clintons. he was part of the clinton campaign and he of course mentioned for four months i was a speechwriter in the george w. bush white house. but he certainly served the clinton administration much longer than four months. 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 is troubling is the allies james carville and engaging in vicious personal attacks against me. they try to misinterpret or dredge up at the 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 a lot of tv outlets i shared early on the new york times or "washington post" abc news have all confirmed reporting this in the book. i think it's incumbent upon the clintons to stop the statements that former president clinton has said about me and engage in the conversation about the troubling fact patterns. >> host: you ask in your your book there your book you realize how shocking these allegations may appear. are these activities illegal? that's not for me to say you write. >> guest: yes look. if you look at the tone of this book and peggy noonan of the wall street general had a call about the book. she points out i'm not bombed during contrary to what the clintons say i'm doing. i'm laying out the facts.

that's really what i'm doing and i'm not an attorney. i don't pretend to be an attorney. what i will say however is if you look at some of the recent cases of political prosecution on corruption whether that's in virginia or senator hernandez in new jersey or if you look in oregon with the governor's resignation i would contend from what we know now the fact pattern with the clintons is far more troubling in development then it wasn't any of those cases. that's why think it warrants investigation by either the app ei, the federal prosecutor or the congressional committee with subpoena power. ultimately we need to look at communications. you need to ask serious questions about the flow of funds and the decision she made the secretary of state and how they have benefited those who are giving her family money. >> host: william-ism and

lincoln california, democrat. >> caller: good morning. i only have one question for you you. it's not a short answer. don't answer that shortly. i want an explanation. would you show as much enthusiasm if you are writing about the koch brothers? thank you. >> i focus my research on elected public officials. i think private citizens, we could have a vigorous debate about the role of money in politics. we could have a vigorous debate on whether there's too much of their ought to be restrictions that the koch brothers don't actually vote. i looked out of lots of officials. that's why what i did in extortion. apec both political parties and got criticized by john boehner and other republicans for those books. hillary clinton was america's chief diplomat.

she charted america's foreign-policy. she had enormous power when it came to national security overseas. during her tenure, her husband took in tens of millions of dollars in funds from foreign governments foreign corporations and from foreign financiers that have business on her desk to end the results are astonishing. to give you one example the caller might be interested if he's a democrat and this is of course a very difficult issue. consider this, hillary clinton as secretary of state is reviewing the environmental impact and is making an investigation on the keystone pipeline which is a very controversial issue. during that time her husband signed up to do 10 speeches for $2 million about financial firm in canada. which happens to be one of the largest shareholders in keystone xl pipeline stock. that never paid money before

when she was not secretary of state when she was not breathing keystone xl pipeline. suddenly they come up and offer him $2 million to do speeches and he gladly does them. three months after he gets the last payment hillary clinton greenlight the expo keystone pipeline. you can look at this and say maybe it's just a coincidence. the problem is you see that over and over again. what i've asked the caller to do was not give me a short answer yes or no as to whether he has read the book but actually read the book that if you don't want to put money in my pocket and buy it go to the library and read it and give it serious consideration. these are very troubling patterns of behavior and they have not challenged any of them. they have not challenge the payments the timing that they got their money from and i decision speculate once that's me. >> host: peter schweizer "politico" recently said that you are looking to jeb bush for potential book.

>> guest: yes we are engaged in research. we have done it for about four months. obviously as governor florida he don't have the global scope as secretary of state. with the clintons of course you have a longer time with publishers than you have with job bush but we are following the same methodology so we are looking at flow of funds. it's always for me but follow the money. it's about flow of funds. it's about decisions that benefited the campaign. it's connected to individuals who benefited from his actions when he was governor and we are looking at airport deals. we are looking at land deals. we are looking at things related to education reform and we expect to have a major report out in september. we are following the same model that we did here which is we are partnering with major investigative units of major newspapers and publications

because they have the capacity to sometimes get answers from political figures that i cannot as an author. authors tend to get ignored by political figures. they don't take them seriously but if you get a call from the "washington post" and "new york times" abc news you are going to engage because you kind of have to. that's part of the model. >> host: johnston from this -- >> caller: good morning thanks for having me. you have done quite a patriotic duty here. first of all for you to partner with the new york times and the "washington post," these are far left organizations and you are clearly you are very credible here. i have been aware -- timing i was really troubled personally as soon as president clinton left office and he obviously -- legal issues by the immediately embarked on a paid speech

making. he went eight for financial institutions, lobbyists, getting 250 200000, 500,000 and as you indicated earlier they made, the clintons between the two of them made advances in speeches they made in 10 years over $100 million. what you are talking about as far as the foundation, this is a whole new idea getting all this money in this foundation. i understand they are only spending on the actual you know 10% or 15% of the funds that come into the foundation and the rest of it is going to salaries and headquarters? >> host: all right john, we have got the point. >> guest: i think they caller brings up a lot of good points.

in the speaking fees i think we all recognize ex-presidents are going to hit the lecture circuit and i don't get reminded at a certain level. the clintons is particularly troublesome because bill clinton's wife at the time is a powerful u.s. senator and second of all has become secretary of state. when you look at the pattern of the money that they are making from the speeches that's very troubling. consider one statistic. the content has been paid 13 times, total of 13 times his entire speaking career $500000 or more to give a speech. of that 13 times a lebanon of them occurred while his wife was secretary of state. some of them it's hard to not see them for what they are. for example bill clinton had never given a paid speech in nigeria when his wife was not secretary of state. she becomes secretary of state. businessman in nigeria who is close to the nigerian government which is highly corrupt

contracts for him to give two speeches for $700,000. as secretary of state one of the things that hillary didn't have to do is look at foreign aid recipients like the government of nigeria and if they had rampant corruption and they're not improving it federal law says the only way they can continue to receive usaid is it that the secretary of state grants them a waiver which hillary clinton did. so again you could look at one of these and say maybe that's a coincidence that you find that repeated over and over and over again. and with regards to the caller's question about the foundation they give about 10% of their money to other charitable organizations. the clinton foundation model is incredibly unique. you look at the web site andy c. 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 those countries.

they partner with other organizations. they function kind of as a middleman. the world needs its middleman but it's not like doctors without borders or american red cross were some of the other organizations that are actually doing the hands-on work to the clinton foundation is more like a management consulting firm working in the area of charity. this is the reason why for example charity navigator which is well regarded as an evaluating charities, they have been doing by the better business bureau because they lack internal controls as relates to the linux as an government etc. so there are real problems with that. >> host: eugene in hickory kentucky please go ahead eugene. >> caller: first of all i'm not a republican democrat or libertarian. i'm an american and i don't believe in being affiliated with -- my question is if you or i or

any other average american were brought up were questioned by congress and asks to give over information and we destroyed it will be walking the streets or would we be behind bars? congress gives them 30 days the way i see it he be given 30 days to destroy evidence and that's exactly what they did. if we did that they wouldn't need -- >> host: all right eugene think we got the point. peter schweizer. >> guest: you are fern odysseys to the e-mails in the servers and i think it's a huge problem. hillary benson was on the watergate committee as a junior

lawyer and there was of course those 18 minutes i think it was that richard nixon erased. we are talking about 30000 e-mails that it just vanished. on top of that you have additional -- that a i put on the book that hillary clinton this was something the president-elect obama had been on. they would require us to disclose all there for you to be be -- to hillary clinton promised the same thing. bill clinton went on "cnn" and said we will have complete transparency. as we were researching this book and went through canadian tax records we found out lo and behold that's not true that they were undisclosed donors including the chairman of this washington owned uranium company who gave $2 million. those donations don't show up on the clinton foundation web site.

it has now been acknowledge that there are more than 1100 donors that have been on disclose and i think we are going to find there are more. so think about this for a second. the president-elect of the united states barack obama you sign a written sworn agreement with him that you were going to share all the concerto information that you have annually on the basis is a condition for you taking the job and almost immediately because some of these donations started in 2000 almost immediately you by that agreement. that is shocking and really to me raises huge amounts of questions. i think that's one of the reasons why you have such a hype or senator the american people and surveys say they don't trust her and don't believe she's honest. >> host: greg is calling on virginia in the suburbs a democrat. >> caller: good morning. i appreciate the research you have done here. i am a democrat but i'm

definitely against the clinton dynasty and also the bush dynasty. i have to ask you this does sound really bad if i'm not surprised at all. it's one of those powerful -- this is not surprising in any way but i have to ask you your resources i'm wondering if you would ever consider researching cheney and george bush with regards to the iraq war and the halliburton connection all those things. i really feel like there was a lot of money paid for that war where we should never have gone in there. i think it was a lie and i think it's worse than the corruption that they are involved in what we have warned her for losing their life. i'm wondering if you have ever considered looking into that.

>> host: we will get a response. peter schweizer. guess going up and considered looking into things that far in the past. i think it's a legitimate issue and a fair investigation and i know people have done some work in that area. i think it's legitimate to ask questions about when an elected official is making a decision who is making money on it. i'm not suggesting that every elected official -- every calculation at me. there are coincidence is that might have occurred. i think they're there are other things that factor into it and maybe the money didn't matter but what i am most troubled i is looking at patterns. that is what germany to the insider trading and stock market. it's one thing at if a guy makes a lucky stock. but if you find an elected official that used to be really good in the stock market and he's buying stocks in an area like health care birdies on the committee that looks at health

care that's a problem. what germany to the clintons is the consistent pattern of the flow of funds. i think it's always a legitimate issue and should the research because an elected government official republican or democrat when they are in a position of power they have enormous capability to hurt people or to help people. i think it's always fair to see who is being helped and who is being heard in there is any financial motivation. >> host: if he can't get on the phone i do want to pursue it -- participate go to our facebook page where the conversation is happening about "clinton cash." so the comments james is why don't they take some of that cash and help the american people with a? josh says it the book is full of lies than the clinton should sue for slander and john gutierrez pose quick making this guy credible. he is a conservative flamethrower from back in the

day so that some of the conversations happening on line. the next call for peter schweizer comes from peter in valley cottage new york republican line. >> caller: thank you very much for what you done. i think you are a patriot but unfortunately this investigation is going to go nowhere. the fbi director will not investigate. the attorney general and not investigate. as you recall what they lois lerner's situation and director mueller did nothing to investigate. mrs. clinton was part of the obama administration and his appointees will not do anything that tarnishes his administration. as you can see former president clinton, he stated and when he was being interviewed that he didn't say they did anything wrong.

he said there's no evidence. you know as well as i do data for review and die and we did what we did with our server and are e-mailed the f. e. i would then and there that very day to confiscate your computer. so this is good if it exposes it as far as as justice is concerned nothing will be done. i propose that they should change the way these appointees are appointed. they should be from the opposite party in order to get a little bit of transparency but when a friend of the present is the attorney general there will never be any justice. thank sir. >> guest: i think the caller raises a good point and that is when the department of justice are at the i chooses to investigate or prosecute their political pressures that are brought to bear. i'm not an attorney. i don't pretend to know exactly how that process works but by

any objective standard if you compare the evidence that we have in this book and you compare that to cases whether it's in virginia were senator menendez in virginia it's far more compelling than it was in those instances. that is why this information is crying out for attention. i am encouraged because i think there are a lot of news outlets pursuing these stories. they sort of get the structure now for what's been going on. they see how the system works that the clintons have set up around themselves so they are mining these very rich veins for further information. i think we will continue to see stories on the senate is not going to go away. and then it's a question of political courage whether it's people at the department of justice, where there's people on capitol hill that have communication ability or a u.s. prosecutor somewhere. to have the courage to take on

what is let's face it a very powerful political machine that aggressively goes after people. there's no question it's going to take courage but i'm an optimist by nature. that's how we have to approach these things. justice will win out in the end. host who eugene calling in from jackson honored democrats mind. you were on with peter schweizer and sub vibe is the name of the book. >> caller: "clinton cash" to me is what your guest has made a living from. the entire republican party has made living off the clintons for 25 years and the more books the better off they are. this book is one of the best things that hillary clinton has got to be elected resident.

well, you make a living off this that's "clinton cash" is what you are making. you really want to change something why don't you have the fortitude to run for public office because you know there there's not as much money in that is what you are doing right now. >> host: mr. schweizer? guest of this is the first book that i've written on the clintons i look forward to bob purchases from the hillary clinton super packed. they have done things simultaneously. they have claimed that there is nothing to this book at the same time they have mounted a very impressive campaign. is it a dud or something you are very concerned about? they have seen the recent poll numbers and were all over half of the american people -- and

their urge to this matter reinforces this. she is not discuss these issues at all. she has avoided it in the press pool is asked her questions about it. and whenever book was coming out they selectively leaked it to the press. they then had chelsea, how to vouch for the wonderful work the foundation is doing. when that didn't work they had bill clinton make these frankly bizarre statements about me from africa and they still haven't gone away. 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? that is really a thank all the people are expecting. >> host: has this book will show you build speechmaking does not have been in a. as part of a larger activity that's never been exposed to public scrutiny.

you go on to say there's nothing clearly illegal about these payments that their source size and timing raise serious questions in the investigation. mr. schweizer's book is published by harpercollins and lanny davis longtime clinton associate will be on the prague prague -- program on the "washington journal" on monday morning. we'll take your calls as well. alex and flint michigan, please go ahead. >> caller: you know you guys are always doing this. you are trying to create hate and discontent in the country over every little episode. ever call you saying earlier that bush-cheney halliburton it's all about chasing the money. you want to chase the money but you don't want to go back to farc it if you go back to far

you will get only cheney and bush and halliburton in iraq and all that and weapons of mass destruction trying to find weapons in the first place but you guys, guys like you all the while to is -- like ambulance chaser lawyers and hustlers making money over hate and discontent. >> host: peter schweizer. >> guest: i'm not sure the caller heard the investigation about jeb bush. he is actually contemplating running for president we think it's relevant in people ought to see what information is there so i would encourage him in september if he is so inclined to see what our reporting and what information comes out. on this larger point i would encourage him he obviously doesn't want to buy the book, it go to the library and read it. there is not a hateful word in the book.

the book is very dispassionate. there's a column in "the wall street journal" today from peggy noonan talking about the fact that it's basically recounting the facts and laying out the narrative. you have guys like professor jeffrey sachs from columbia university who is hardly a conservative who heads up the earth institute who was on "msnbc" this morning talking about the fact that yeah the clintons are blurring the lines. there's a flow of money going in. there troubles some things going on so i'm not sure what to tell the caller. i think it's hateful to bring up concerns about money flowing to the family of the secretary of state while she is making decisions that affect them. i think that's a legitimate story. >> host: page 113, the erikson corporation decided to sponsor a speech by bill clinton and paid him more than he had ever been paid for a single speech, $750,000. according to clinton financial

disclosures in the previous 10 years erikson had never sponsor a clinton speech but now it apparently thought it would be a good time to do so. in your book what do you mean by this would would be a good time? was happening? >> while this was in 2011 when they decided on their single biggest payday ever. again as you were counted they had never paid for a speech before it. erikson swedish telecom company was in trouble with the state department at this time. they had and selling telecom equipment to iran. they had been gaming state department -- department reports about selling equipment to belarus and other oppressive governments. there are state department cables that came out through wikileaks that shows the state department officials under hillary clinton were pressuring the swedish foreign minister to deal with companies like erikson they were doing this. my question is why did erikson

decide at this point in time to pay bill clinton is outrageously inflated speaking fee that is higher than he had ever been paid before it. i think that context is extremely important. again you can look at that case and say well maybe it's coincidence but the problem is he at the same thing with the keystone xl pipeline. the uppercase and balding united arab emirates that takes place. there are multiple examples were the timing of these payments just does not pass the smell test. it deserves further scrutiny. as for the next call comes from taylor and spartanburg south carolina republican line. go ahead, taylor. >> caller: thank you for having me. i was wanting to eventually talking about big money in politics especially from foreign donators. that really raises my eyebrows who is donating in what they're donating for because that could

potentially inhibit the national security risk. we know when a certain bill comes around, they are like go this lingo that way. we should put a gap on the maximum amount. we could be a little bit more content that they are here for the american people and basically, another thing is like jeb was. >> host: taylor we are going to stick to the foreign money concept that you brought up. go ahead mr. schweizer. guess that the caller brings up a good point about is what is so troubling and would makes the situation of the clintons to unite. speech? should there be recessions on it? are the restrictions too low or too high? that is a vigorous debate that we are going to continue to have. what we do not have a debate on

is the fact that anybody seriously think scott have foreign money and living -- influencing our political process to there was a case brought a couple of years before the supreme court were couple of foreign nationals sued to say it was unconstitutional to prevent foreign nationals from intervening to campaigns. the supreme court came back 9-0. when was the last time that happened? nine have been zero to say no, this is an eminently sensible rule. we have this national consensus on foreign money. what you have of the clinton foundation and bill clinton's speechmaking is a conduit for foreign businesses, foreign governments, and foreign financiers around those rules. and to say they are tossing tens of millions and sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars of the clintons, but will have no effect strikes me as absurd. especially if you're the same person concerned about domestic

more -- money in politics here it. in one case you're dealing with u.s. citizens and the other case you're dealing with citizens who should have no role in influencing our leaders. host: michael from georgia. caller: good morning. this is really funny listening to this republican powwow. for the next year we're going up to listen to clowns like this here it i have worked in the government. there is no way publicans working in the state department because there are republicans working in the state department would sit back and allow hillary clinton -- president clinton to be bought off. this guy is going out a bunch of accusations and this and that. and he has no proof. c-span should be a ashamed for having him on for an hour with nobody to speak another side. thank you. guest: i'm sure lanny davis will

do an adequate job when he appears on monday. all i can say to the caller is i would encourage you to at least read the book. you condemned it before you even read it. your statement about people that were not allowed this to happen. one of the things i point out in the book is -- and a book called "the clinton blur" is how at the state department hillary clinton rot in people to senior positions and gave some of those people sge, special government employee status, which allows them to maintain their outside commitments. you have commit -- individuals doing the work for the clinton foundation that are also working for the state department at the same time. they did this by abusing a law that i've been set of years ago. this law was set up so if you had an astrophysicist at university that nasa needed their expertise and they would not have to give up their tenured