weapons and, so forth. >> you had millions of dead and where, you know, it was a very real possibility in one sense. it was deeply embedded in the psyche this could happen. a million dead perhaps. it's all radical. the wars that have occurred have been short and compared to what happened in europe over the last century they haven't had that kind of mass scale conflict. so maybe -- >> there's actually one piece of this, too, which is all of our ideas about what constituted acceptable damage came from the second world war whereas the idea'jñ of unacceptable damage south asia is actually very low, i think.

>> if that should happen i would imagine we would see a crisis to humanitarian crisis at a level that really we've never experienced before. implications for the international community. and it's preparedness to then be able to step in to something which would have go on for months, even years. was. >> i just hope we don't get there. bollywood movies. >> but we talk about it. i think that's the point. unless people talk about it, i don't think -- >> well, can i -- sorry. this is -- >> quick. >> quick.

this is just from my conversations with various commanders and strategic forces command. one of the very interesting things comes out is they're so terrified of the social chaos that emerges from this slightest whiff, you know, what is normality in indian society that i think they can't even manage jinl th gin that it's feasible to take any large-scale measure where'sby this society could insulate itself from nuclear war. i think there's disbelief that even if they did and took certain actions it would be possible to do anything. so maybe they don't, you know, i'm speculating here again. but that's what comes out in private conversations. >> thank you. i'm polly, independent consultant doing south asia for a long time. i wanted to raise the question 1-"control. and the -- what i perceive to be

the largely the absence of discussions of how if you take out the other sides command and control you may actually unleash worse results and how this isn't just a cyber issue, this has a great deal to do with the physical distribution of not just weapons but leaders as well and the continuity of government arrangements for senior decision makers, the ability -- their ability to communicate people in the field. so that whole issue seems to me to be another way in which at least in the public domain there's very little speculation, discussion, imagination. but i would like to hear your comments. >> who wants to go first? >> it's related. sort of piggybacks on the conversation that we had about

nuclear war fighting. so i think the pakistanis i think are aware of the fact that thinoa are going to be a ct that significant disadvantage when it comes to isr capabilities. and the other part about isr capabilities is they're not as observable as missile tests, things like that. isr doesn't show the potential for -- its that potential to enhance for a strike, as a potential to make a splendid first strike possible. it is something that we were pursuing during the cold war. there's interesting information done on this recently, put out the case that we thought we had ability for this because we were tracking soviet subs and mobile missiles and we had sufficient isr capabilities and scory ies e were able to contemplate this idea. because it's not observable it's possible that pakistan has a deep and abiding fear of this. and they have a sot of

potential -- they have to weigh this potential in the future. if they see4í-0 the trajectory the way the new military is going it's modernized and has the built-in capabilities in civil society. so i think they could be much more concerned about sort of this command and control issue faster than the indians would leading up to an installation. >> on the indian side, i think in the strategic forces command that handles the operation side of the arsenal and now also within the prmt's office to have the strategic planning group, there is growing organization about what this means but they won't talk about it. so it's, again, as samir said, the i visibles of that part of the arsenal, which is not visib visible, we really don't mow. i think they are paying attention but we don't know. it's very hard to extract information. >> i think you're right. it's a really esoteric issue.

and it's hard to know how the u.s. or others could have conversations with both isides about that issue. there are issues about the legality of the subjects that you might discuss given the mpt commitments. the whole palace thing. i don't know how far that extends. i'm sure the state department legal adviser has a view on that. so that it's a hard conversation to imagine. in public domain there's very little information. there's very little information about isr, too, and the kinds of capabilities being sought and what the implication of those capabilities are. as analysts, it's a very difficult space to work in but i think you're right to flag it. >> i just want to add one final question bringing back to the subject of this discussion, the bigger subject of this squu discussion and then we will have closing words if there are not

any other comments. i just want to -- you probably get this question quite frequently during the cold war about the amendments, way for pakistan, u.s. national security for reasons arguing that period pakistan violated the terms and conditions set out to it as well as the united states just to look the other way, too, because of national security considerations. and eventually in the 1990s the agreement went into effect ending all military -- government military cells to pakistan. you know, so hypothetically if we have the deal and the loose liberal sense, what are the institutional checks and balances and if such -- to prevent something like this and there was huge amount of bad blood that went into the whole u.s./pakistani relationship because of each side accusing the other of, you know, various issues. so how do you -- how would you

respond? >> i think you're making the point that i started with, which is that the punitive side of this is unlikely to have any real effect on pakistan. other sanctions are -- i don't think there's any evidence to suggest those are forthcoming. there is some discussion you saw withholding of the coalition >q#yport funds. maybe there's some threat to, you know, military assistance to pakistan. but i don't think those kinds of measures would likely have any real effect. i think for me it's much more on the incentive side of the equation, you know, sustaining the possibility that there's a path to pakistan, to joinzhfl s of the nuclear regimes. if you close out that path permanently what incentives are there for pakistan to change the behavior we're concerned about? so it's finding ways to work with those incentives. that doesn't mean that things go absolutely smoothly. you know, the kinds of steps

that we suggested in our report were things that would be concrete and indicative of changing views about the utility of nuclear weapons. that's where we were looking for evidence of change. i think there's real questions about the feasibility of these kinds of steps. it's clear in the reaction to our report and then to the news that there may be some potential for discussion. the reaction in pakistan was quite superior and closing of ranks. the military rejecting the possibility of any kind of con strapts. the space for that if there was any even space the space is narrower now. so i think that there's -- the logic that i laid out is a simple one and i think that there's a rational for it. but again, that would require changes in pakistan that are difficult to foresee at this point. >> do you have any? >> yeah, sure, i'll just -- i'll

say it broadly that for all sort of the ideas that we put on the table today, whether we think that what's driving pakistani behavior is revisionism, whether we want to engage them on questions of deterrence, whether we to dissuade them about nuclear war fighting and all of these require some level of we gaugement or interaction, i don't think that changing the narratives or the discussion points on any of those areas will be advanced by cutting off ties or you trying to sort of maybe the course of threat of that might have some sort of value but the actual implementation of total cutoff of military to military or engagement and ties, i don't think there's any good evidence to suggest that works. and while i would say the evidence foreign gaugement is mixed it seems to be somewhat better. i also say that even if at the end of the day we're dealing with pakistan where there is a military with a dominant narrative that has a lot of

control over the public debate and social space, we know from experience, from dealing with a lot of regimes that are like much tougher to crack in some ways that these are not necessarily homage nous unit, always internal debates, moderates within the institutions even if they have professional incentives for advancement within them. and we've seen with pakistan there have been internal debates in the past, right? we know there's pushback on the strategic and tactical utility. we know now from sortst("ç of officers who have required that there was a lot of debate about whether they -- pakistan should proceed after operations in 2009, early 2010. so we see that there's evidence of these debates and i think we're more likely to have influence on them foreign gaugement with them rather than disassociating ourselves from them. >> yeah. i don't necessarily -- i agree with samir that we should engage pakistan. you have toñ(jw engage pakistan we should not sanction pakistan and isolating it in any way.

that is not going to have a but i think -- there are two issues. one is simply looking at these nonproliferation issues and movement on various treaties and norms and strategic arms control and arms control, you know, in isolation and the other is linking it to -- putting it into z of political context and within the context of the state's grand strategy. i don't think -- at least for me, i cannot understand how progress has been made on persuading pakistan to turn around on these nuclear issues without pakistan making m?qu't on its grand strategy. i think the united states needs to engage pakistan on both fronts simultaneously. >> i'll argue as of correlary to that that it's hard to imagine success in this area without also engaging india in some way. and there has to -- for a while now and for various reasons there hasn't really been any consideration of india in u.s.

policy stwatoward pakistan and versa. i think that's not helpful in a variety of ways and needs to be corrected. >> on that note, thank you. [ applause ]u "ép tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span congress year-end review. we'll look back at the major events of 2015 in congress. debate on the iran nuclear agreement, the historic papal address to a joint meetings of congress, john boehner resigning as speaker of the house and hillary clinton's testimony before the house benghazi committee.

secretary clinton you said by insent wags. i'm not insent waiting anything. i'm reading what you said. plain language. we know the attack in libya had nothing to do with the film. that's as plain as it can get. that's vastly different from vicious behavior on internet material. >> i did. if you look at my statement as opposed to what i was saying to the egyptian prime minister, i did state clearly and i said it again in more detail the next morning as did the president. i'm sorry that it doesn't fit your narrative, congressman. i can only tell you what the facts were. >> you can see more of hillary clinton's testimony before the 40us benghazi committee and other top stories from capitol hill in 2015. tonight on c-span at 8:00 p.m. eastern. tonight on american history tv

on c-span3 road to the white house rewind are archival coverage of past presidential races. at 8:00 p.m. eastern, then texas governor georging bush making his first presidential campaign trip to new hampshire in 1999. then vice president al gore, also making a campaign trip to new hampshire in 1999. after that, donald rumsfeld speaking in 1987 in new hampshire as he explored a run for president. and later, former massachusetts senator paul tsongas. we're joined by tom hamburger of the "washington post," a team of reporters working on today's front page story. two clintons, 41 years, $3 billion and growing. this is an extensive story but what's the headline? what did you learn? >> we tried to go back to the

very first -- very first donors to bill clinton, looking at the clintons as historical phenomenon, a couple who have both run husband and wife run for president, finding -- looking for and finding more money accumulated under their name and under their request fordfor donations than infy other people in our history. >> clinton's fund-raising operation, $3 billion, amassed by one couple working in tandem for more than four decades has no equal. by comparison, three generations of the bush family, america's other con temp rain jous political dynasty, raising about $2.4 billion. but also pointing out their campaigns of a half dozen charitabln to the postally of their fund-raising from 1988 through 2015, even though the family has collectively held it longer than the clintons. >> we emphasize in this piece, steve, that the largest category

of donations to clinton 4x gone to the clinton foundation. it's a family charity, a philanthropy. of the $3 billion, that charity has received about $2 billion. >> we're going to go through parts of the story. as i said, it is extensive. this is from the jump page. you say hillary is drawing on endorsements from silicon valley, the first industries to rally around her husband nearly a quarter century ago and there'sa:$é÷ a photograph of fo apple ceo john sculley, no relation with hillary clinton and fed chair alan greenspan sitting next to tipper gore. explain this early connection. here's the picture with john sculley and first lady hillary clinton. >> steve, one of the things that we found is the clintons and bill clinton in particular, this is in the 1980s, and 1990s, recognize that terrific growth of silicon valley reached out to key executives and personalities

and potential donors in silicon valley and the clintons started relationships and maintained them. steve skully was an -- sorry, skully then the ceo of apple was an important donor to the clintons' earlier campaigns. and today we find that another silicon valley resident eric schmidt, the ceo of the chief executive of alphabet, the parent company of google, is close to hillary clinton. and it has invested in a company thast that's helping the clinton campaign develop its digital infrastructure as it looks towards the fall. >> this is what you write about in regard to eric schmidt, that company is called groundwork, which is developing cutting edge technology to help engage hillary clinton's orders. elaborate? >> exactly. one of the things that clintons learned a couple of decades ago that the obama campaign really

picked up on and that republicans candidates understand as well and i think are struggling to keep up with is the importance of digital technology in a modern presidential campaign. both in developing and targeting lists of voters and potential supporters and reaching out to them through social media and so forth. silicon valley support critical to helping barack obama develop his winning campaigns in 2008 and 2012. and this year to have silicon valley icons like eric schmidt supporting hillary clinton is potentially an important asset for her campaign as well. >> hillary's sixth day money dash during a trip in late december raising more than ;vxñ million with stops in los angeles, san francisco, new york, new jersey, connecticut, and charlotte, north carolina. what did you learn? >> that was in just one short

week hillary clinton had gone from coast to coast raising funds from long-time supporters and some from the new generation. some were actually children of= families, family that supported the clintons in the past. one4á of the. events that was held in new york was john zaccoro, son of vice president candidate ferraro who his home. >> one of the photographs, i had to ask you why you included this and our apologies for our radio audience, but explain this 1979 pick chu chur of build and hillary clinton entering the white house meeting with then president jimmy carter. >> this was the very young governor of arkansas entering the white house. and you can see from the looks on their face that they're both

kind of scanning the room, may be a bit nervous. there's apparently a white house usher standing to the side as they enter the room. but you can tell that this is a -- we thought the picture was iconic, the young couple entering the white house where they -- their future home, looking about with some evident nervous excitement. >> what reaction have the clintons ties to wall street had among some of their traditional supporters, most notably, organized labor. >> one of the themes that we developed in this piece is the tension between labor support and wall street support, that the clintons have experienced throughout their political careers, going back to the first campaign and the first fund-raising effort of 1974. the clintons, we think the takeaway is sort of two things. one is that bill clinton has brought the democratic party closer to wall street than any

president -- any democratic president in modern history. at the same time, bill and hillary clinton were able to maintain ties with labor and labor support as is true for all democratic national candidates has been critical for the clintons. of this you and your colleagues at the wall street post write the following. the clintons kept big contributors in their orbit for decades by methodically wooing competing interest group, toggling between their liberal base and powerful constituencies, that according to donors, friends, and aides who have known the couple since their arkansas days. one person you quote is thomas mack mccarty. >> he grew up in hope, arkansas. childhood friend of bill clinton's, who stays close to president clinton. his really -- they remain close their entire lives. he goes on from -- in arkansas to become the ceo of the largest gas utility in the state a

arclagas. supports bill clinton. is his chief of staff in the white house. >> and is contributed by your account about $366,000 over the years to the clinton campaign and the foundation. >> that number is correct. at least by our tabulations. it also understates the contribution of mack mccarty and others in arkansas who really provided the personal fuel, the energy for bill and hillary and their rise from arkansas to national prominence. >> before we get to calls i want to share with you what bill clinton, he was asked about the connection between the money the clinton foundation raised and secretary of state clinton's role as the chief diplomat in the first four years of the obama administration. this courtesy of+6 cnn. let's watch.

>> -- foundation for years, many before she was ever secretary of state. she was a senator when i left office. >> right. >> so they do this, they do philanthropy, too. no one has ever asked me for anything or any of that. >> well, let me ask you about that because i think a lot of people might say, okay, you say there's no evidence that anything was done for them. can you really say that these company, these wealthy individuals, these governments, none of them sought anything? i mean, some of them did have business before the state department. >> i don't know. you never know what people's motives are. but in this case i'm sure that everybody gave to haiti after the earthquake, saw what they

saw on television, were horrified and wanted to make a difference. >> you're saying you don't know if anybody sought any favor? >> no, i don't think hillary would know, either. she was pretty busy those years. . and i don't -- i never saw her study a list of my contributors or -- and i had no idea who was doing business before the state department. but what i will say this, she believed that part of the job of the secretary of state was to advance america's economic interests around the world. if she hadn't been doing thissic which diplomacy work, nobody would have been doing it. but i never thought about whether there was any overlap. >> that conversation with cnn's jake tapper back in june of this year. tom hamburger, your response. >> well, the including the clinton foundation donations in our study of the clinton's fund-raising through the years, was going to be, we knew going

into this project, controversial. after all the clinton foundation is a charity. it does good work around the world. our decision osf2wjournalistica editorially, is this foundation, very fast growing foundation, which has raised $2 billion in a very short period of time is something extraordinary to have associated with a former president, a secretary of state, and possibly a future president, the spouse of the initial candidate. and so we felt that our job at the "post" was to look at those who might have contributed to clinton causes across the ojdvb, those who might have sought to gain influence, whether they received it or not. the former president was just addressing. we thought it was important to note who these major donors werq and are so that our readers and voters would be aware of the extent to which the clintons happened reached out to potential interests, whether

they were wealthy u.s. entrepreneurs, heirs to other fortune, or other governments. we thought it was important to develop that list and offer it to readers. >> our guest is tom hamburger, you can follow him on twitt twitter @tham bugger. he began his career in arkansas as reporter for the "arkansas gazette" when bill clinton was first elected governor. >> that's right. bill clinton was attorney general when i got there and was on his way very clearly to the next high office of arkansas. >> he also worked in the past for the -- well, the "wall street journal," the "los angeles times," mcclatchy newspapers and minneapolis star tribune. talking about the clinton financial network is the front page story today and available online at washingtonpost.com, paul from appleton, wisconsin. good morning. democrat's line. >> hi. it seems to be a hitch on the

clintons again. a lot of that money went to the foundation to help poor people around the world. they make it sound like they're just pocketing all this money. clinton has done -- bill clinton has done more to help out poor people than trump could ever even imagine doing. and it just seems like another murdoch paper doing another hit job on the clintons to me. so maybe you should do a front page article on trump's bankruptcies, and then i'll believe your paper is not biased. >> paul, we'll get a response. >> thanks for that call. we think that reporting on both the sources of wealth and on interest groups and individuals that are contributing to candidates are an importantwdfbt of the job that we do and we are taking a look at the clintons in this piece and have done in the past with donald trump and all i can say in response is, sir,

watch this space, "the washington post" will be looking at candidates regardless of party or ideology. >> the headline, two clintons, 41 years, $3 billion. and the piece begins with these words. over four decades of public life, bill and hillary clinton have built an unrivalled global network of donors, while pioneering fund-raising techniques that have transformed and paved the way for them to become the potentiality the first husband and wife to win the white house. oñ total reaches at least $3 billion. the post identifying roughly 336,000 individuals, corporations, unions, and foreign governments in support of the clinton's political and philanthropic endeavors. anthony is joining us from new york. good morning to you. also on the democrats line. >> thank you, c-span, for doing an outstanding job. i would like to ask your guest, and if he's not pprivy to it pe

he can look into it. i read an article about governor clinton when he was in arkansas. there was an involvement with the cia and smuggling drugs. i believe there was a connection of oliver north and iran-contra. mena airport whereby they were i believe transferring weapons and drugs and laundering money and clinton was part of the operation. and i do believe as was the elder bushsv and oliver north. and i just wonder if your guest has any information on that and if not maybe he could do some research on that and get back to us in his paper or what have you. thank you, c-span. ñ are you familiar with this? >> i'm familiar of this claim. it's one of many that occurred, and they're associated with the clintons and their long rise in american politics. this one suggesting some involvement with the transport

of narcotics, i think, into the united states and there was an incident at an airport in rural arkansas, the clintons were tied to it in some ways by some accounts on my limited familiarity with it suggested that there was not. concrete signs that the clintons were tied to this particular incident. but i appreciate the caller reminding us of that and we'll take another look. >> in response to this story, a clinton campaign spokesperson said the following. it should be noted that it would be misleading, at best, to conflates donations to philanthropy with political giving and regarding the campaign contributions the breadth and decht of her support he says is an testament to the fact that they have both dedicated their lives to public service and fighting to make this country stronger. but the clintons did not respond directly to your reporting, did they not? >> well, we asked to interview

bill and hillary clinton for this story. and that request was denied. we did talk with the campaign and with the foundation for this story. and we had some extended back and forth with them. and we're aware of their objections to our including the fiphilanthropy in part of the total that the couple had raised in an article that would be -- that was really part of hillary clinton's ongoing presidential campaign. >> i'm curious, as a reporter, what was their hitch to you, what did they tell you? >> what they suggested is what you just quoted josh saying just now, is that the philanthropy is really separate from our political enterprises. and we think conflating them was the word that they used, he used in the quote you just read, is really inappropriate because on one hand we're seeking money to solve global problems, bill clinton i think mentioned the ee in haiti=cñl and hiv/aids aroune globe and to suggest that people

might be contributing these funds to create favor with us or a future political candidate really not right. >> how much money will hillary clinton raise if she is the democratic nominee in total? what's the estimate? >> we're expecting that the candidates from the two major political partys will each raise a billion dollars or more this psyche. >> let's go to ricky joining us from jacksonville, florida. republican line with tom hamburger of the "washington post." good morning. >> caller: so what is -- what do you think the purpose of the clinton global -- is and did you find anyone that could say anything bad about it, like they were not giving the money to where it was supposed to go? >> well, that's a sbrr interesting question and an important one. i have worked on other stories. this one doesn't really look into the clinton foundation and its operations generally the

foundation is both highly regarded and is considered to have done a great deal of good around the world. a as to if some funds were not used properly, there are allegations about that that occurs with this charity as with others. but we did not find in our look at "the washington post" that the clinton foundation, that there was, it in case of unentity you just mentioned, the clinton global initiative, that there was a misuse of funds. one of the things that interested us was the extent to which they provided us a platform for bill and hillary clinton and it became particularly interested because hillary clinton was one time as you know secretary of state and then a candidate for president of the united states. so this platform and the way that it provides both donors and

leaders and the u.s. electorate with something that we thought was important to note. >> bill clinton, first ran for the house of representatives, lose for arkansas in 1974 was theern to general and then governor. lost re-election. came back to serve as fov governor. first race for the house is outlined in the "washington post" and this chart accompanying the piece on the jump page, you track that his first campaign for governor raising about $174,000. now of course as you indicated hillary clinton needing to potentially raise as much as a billion dollars in her bid for the white house. let's go to susan next joining us from ft. myers, florida. independent line. good morning, suzanne. >> caller: good morning. i wanted to ask you, it's not so much about the donors. and the clintons. i'm just wondering, il=$1v real have a lot of respect for the clintons and i think there's been a lot of irrational talk about them the and what not. i'm still wondering if this

country will elect a woman as president because she should have had it last time and instead they put a neophyte male in charge of the country as opposed to a more competent woman. i'm just wondering if the voters are will actually vote for a woman this time. >> thank you. tom hamburger? >> that is a difficult and impossible really to predict what the voters will do in november. at the moment i just say unlike 2008 the race that was disappointing to hillary clinton that you just referred to, she appears to be very much in the lead for the nomination this time and all of the polling we see early on will be a very competitive candidate going into the fall. >> how much did you spend on this story? >> you know, we began looking at it as hillary clinton became a

candidate and left the secretary of state. we realized in one of our editors at the post suggested to us, wouldn't it be interesting to trace all of the funds that the clintons have raised over time and it was in the context of talking about what a remarkable political couple this -- bill and hillary clinton are. first husband and wife to seek the white house and potentially climate. this extraordinary four decades of isf(qaé service. it was almost 18 months ago that the idea was first raised. we didn't work on it full time but it's been a long effort to search for these documents and the donation records. >> among the top ten political patrons, who is number one? >> among political patrons, we have different categories as you know because we are combining both the political support and

 philanthropic support. on the political side one of the veryssc0h top people is iam sabo is the well-known as inventor of the mighty power rangers which was an entertainment power of itself in hollywood. now the ceo of univision. he and his wich together gave about ,ml62. -- over $2 million the clinton campaigns and $10 million to the clinton foundation. >> other big supporters in fund rauzers include terry mcauliffe, now current governor of virginia and jerry and steven spielberg. let's look at the list courtesy of the "washington post" as we listen to jeff who is joining us from fayetteville, north carolina, republican line. good morning. >> caller: good morning. first of all, we need to be careful what we're saying. i'm sure hillary clinton is monitoring our phone calls.

like that comedian out of his job for making fun of him. but my question is, have there been any foundations set up for victims of bill clinton, like kat then for paula jones. >> it would not take a elaborate security apparatus to eavesdrop on our call after we're talking on television before tens of thousands of people right now. i'm not familiar with any of the charities that the caller was suggesting. >> david is next. springfield, vermont, independent line. good morning. >> good morning. i just had a couple of comments and questions. number one, i know that somebody maybe the media there or the person on control mentioned the

dealings of the hurricanes in haiti and how the foundation helped out there. and i had heard some reports of some ill use of the money over in haiti with contractors and some kind of shady reports that of how things were going on there with the clinton foundation. one thing i wanted to say was that i notice their foundation isn't called help save the world ;xbp peace to the world or anything. it's called the clinton foundation for a reason, because it's a foundation for the clintons. that's how they make their money, that's how they make their living. i think anybody from the clinton group should turn around and say to anybody that's investigating it that it's illegitimate to associate their political ideology with their foundation it's ridiculous and once it just the issue to get it off the table to nobody will take a good look at it to see if there is

any impropriety there with bill clinton speeches and hillary clinton, secretary of state, doing favors for people. i think it's definitely worth looking into and needs to be looked further into since they have amended their taxes a couple of times and haven't reported some money and came out and said they didn't report money. there's plenty of things to look at. >> david, thank you. nd you mentioned bill clinton's speeches and also hillary clinton both making millions in giving private speeches before announcing candidacy again. >> it's one of the things the caller referred to that caused was at "washington post" to decide it was a legitimate and important area to look into is that there is overlap in the foundation on the bill and hillary clinton have raised close to $150 million from speeches since bill clinton first left office. bill clinton raising most of that money, often, not always, the speakers are people, corporations or organizations,

who also contribute to the foundation. we also found that among the largest donors to the foundation is giving over a million dollars. about a third of them or good percentage of them were also donors to the campaigns. so there's a great deal of overlap here. the caller asked specially about haiti. my colleagues at "the washington post" roz and kevin actually took a pretty deep dive into the clinton foundation work in ha i haiti. as the caller suggested, not everything went perfectly there. and there are ongoing questions among haitians and what happened one of the time one of the world's most ambitious post disaster relief efforts. >> were there foreign government contributions to the foundation? is that legal or illegal? >> yes, there were foreign government contributions to the foundation and because and there are alsot87 contributions to

foreign corporations, individuals living overseas. perfectly legal. there were reported, again, the reason we thought it was important to note this was that foreign eptities and foreign individuals cannot give to u.s. campaigns. so one of the things we thought it important to note who is it that's giving to the clintons over time. can if i could just finish with haiti for a moment. >> certainly. >> while there is some controversy about the recovery effort and disaster response in haiti, people who were closely involved, including dr. paul farmer, defended strongly the clinton foundation effort and motivation in haiti. so i wanted to add that, too. it remains a controversy but there is not a sense that the foundation in a very difficult environment behaved -- there are

people who very strongly defend the foundation's efforts. >> two clintons, 41 years, $3 billion. the front page story of today's "washington post." tom hamburger, one of a team of reporters focusing on this topic. we'll go to paul next from rhode island, democrat's line. good morning. >> caller: paul, are you with us? >> caller: could you please tell me what the connection is with the uranium mine, either throughout the world, primarily canada, and the russians and the clintons buying. and selling the uranium mines and then that's kind of a vague area. >> are you familiar with that? >> i am. there has been some reporting in the "washington post" and extensive piece in the "new york times." looking at the interest of

individual who is perhaps the largest donor to clinton causes over time. certainly one of the largest. and that's frank, canadian mining magnet living in vancouver, who had an interest, which he has sense sold, in uranium mines. and happened to have completed one of the deals while he was kazakhstan in central asia traveling with bill clinton. they provided not only his contributions to the foundation financially but also use of an aircraft that bill -- that bill clinton made extensive use of. sometimes that aircraft with frank onboard would land in places where they had mining interests including interests in uranium. the goods that -- the question that was raised about the uranium purchase in kazakhstan is whether there was anye w

impropriety in the fallout from that transaction. eventually the uranium mines in kazakhstan and elsewhere were purchased by a company that is tied to russia and the deal needed to be approved by a federal agency that reviews the sell of potentially strategicpe minerals to make sure it's in the interest of such a sell would be in the interest of united states. the deal was approved. the secretary of state is one of a number of people who sit on the board of that review organization. so there was some controversy suggesting perhaps there was a conflict of interest having accepted so much money from someone who is initially part of the rur uranium deal and then approving the deal. >> this is from jim.

does the $250,000 hillary clinton gets from her paid speeches is that considered income to the foundation or to bill and hillary? >> that's a good question. and it requires as questions in this realm often do, the answer is a bit complicated. first i'd say the fees run from a range. it's not just $250,000. some are accepted by the clintons as personal income and some are actually donated or given to the foundation. that particular gifting to the foundation or speeches donated to the foundation is one of the things that the caller referred to a moment ago which is required some adjustments to the clintons' tax filings. some are kept as personal income but some ends up in the foundation coffers. >> our friend norma yoin joining us from england on the bbcu7"ró parliament channel. go ahead, norma. >> caller: i'd just like to put something to the gentleman

because he's a journalist and i've written something, thoughts of the day, thoughts for every day really and i put it on a postcard, a full-size postcard and i'm going to post it tomorrow on one of our broad sheets for the general working on the broad sheets to read. and it goes, if the first of war, politics, philosophy and economics, is truth, then the second must be the sleep of reason by the masses not seeking out the first. and i think listening to your journalist talk about the clinton and all the things that he's questioning, the researching, i think it's probably relevant to what is going on now and has always gone on. and thank you for your program and, as the americans say, have a nice day. >> thank you, norma. >> thanks. we'll look forward to seeing your postcard. thanks so much.

>> share with you a headline in a competing newspaper, the "new york times." clinton battles the image of being soft on wall street. a photograph from last week in iowa. he was asked by a moderator on cbs news about her connection to wall street. here's a portion. >> so for me it is looking at what works and what we need to do to try to move past what happened in '08. i will go back and say again, aig was not a big bank. it had to be bailed out and it us. lehman brothers was not a big bank. it was an investment bank. and its bankruptcy and failure nearly destroyed us. so i've said if the big banks don't play by the rules, i will break them up. >> the big banks -- iw executives who are responsible for the decisions that have such bad consequences for our country. >> and yet the charge from senator bernie sanders and martin o'malley is that she has received an awful lot of money from wall street over the number

of years. how can she be tough on wall street? >> steve, we found in our research looking at both clin n clintoclinto clintons over time is that wall street, including securities, investment houses, and banks, had over 60 million to both clintons over time, and depending on how largest single sectors donating to the clintons. and that's been true for bill clinton, and it was equally true, maybe even more so, for hillary clinton who, as you know, was the senator from new york, the very home of wall street. so it's a problem for hillary reasons. one is the clintons, bill and hillary, have been very close to wall street, and to the iconic institutions of wall street, and two, this is a year when wall street is being closely questioned by people who are still experiencing some economic unease who those who are

worrying about the power of wall street. >> if you're joining us on cspan radio heard coast to coast on xm or listening on sirius xm's channel 124, our next guest is tom hamburger of t. he's a reporter for the "washington post." as we focus on the headlines, two clintons, $3 million, 21 years. good morning, tom. >> i was just listening on the radio to the various security questions and handling security classified information. i've worked in the nuclear field my whole life, and i'm 80 years old now,uiruza/ retired. but i have a good appreciation for the importance of national security, and i've had a

clearance probably for 50 of the last years. and i notice a number of republican people, general petraeus and some others, have been indicted by the justice department. does your guest know whether or not there are various investigations going on in the justice department and the fbi will result in some type of action against hillary? and i'll take your answer off line. >> george, thank you, from knoxville, tennessee. >> steve, the caller is referring to something that we've heard a great deal about since hillary clinton launched her presidential bid, and that's whether her use of a private e-mail system and her conduct in using that breached national

security requirements of the united states and rules of the state department. that is, as the caller suggested, under investigation still. it is not a criminal investigation, at least not at this point. we know that the fbi's national security division has been asking questions about it as they do routinely when there is the possibility of a spill, as they call it, of classified or other sensitive information. so they're looking at it. whether it leads to enforcement action of any kind, we still don't know. >> let's go through some of the numbers in terms of wall street, courtesy of your reporting in the "washington post." back in 1992 when bill clinton was running for president, he raised more than $11 million for an estimation of $28 million back in 2006. j million, tribbpling that to $6

million during her campaign for the white house in 2008, raising $14.6 million, and as of september, raising so far more than $6.5 million. let's go to ann visiting us from polaski, tennessee, republican line. good morning. >> caller: good morning. the navigator is an organization that studies chartablemyrgroups. they study the amount given to charity. how does a navigator rate the clinton foundation and its work in charity? thank you very much. >> thank you, ann. >> thanks very much for that question. we did look at the ratings of the clinton foundationñxñ from outside organizations. <

associations, one that you unknow. we also noted that the clinton foundation is unusual in that not only are they collecting money and distributing it, they also have a large staff on the ground, thousands of employees, and one of the things that they were doing at the initial -- at vet start of the foundation was distribute i distributing aids vaccines and other drugs toh/i5(qáj develope parts of the world. it required a huge infrastructure. so that there was -- if you contrasted spending by the organization to amount donated, you would see in some cases a high correlation. there is a large overhead at the clinton foundation, but that's necessary, arguably, to do the important work that they're doing in areas such as

distribution of aids drugs. there is one of the major charitable organizations that pult the clintons on a watch list. the watch was really a warning flag when a foundation or charity comes under scrutiny from news organizations. and so because questions had been raised by mainstream news organizations and also on-line critics and so forth, there was a warning to donors that some questions had been raised. but we did not find that independent organizations were creating warnings that dealt substantively with the work of the clinton foundation. >> and in case you're interested, tom hamburger says glen kessler has something in

hillary clinton look into joining the marines? it's also available on line at washingtonpost.com. our last caller is from new york city, kelly. >> caller: good morning. i'm a democrat for over 40 years and i drankgrñ the clinton kool-aid. i was a supporter in the '90s, but the clintons were a time bomb that actually hurt millions of americans. in 2007 when hillary was campaigning against obama, her daughter chelsea, who i believe was still in college, was working for a hedge fund. she was making a couple thousand dollars a year. i think the company's name was boutique. also when hillary was on the board of walmart, this is a company that encouraged other manufacturers, americans to make their products overseas so walmart c1cañ sell them cheaper. i don't remember her being concerned back then about the poor women that were working for walmart and what little salaries

they were getting. >> thanks for that call. our piece that we've been discussing this morning does discuss hillary clinton's invitation to join the board of walmart when she was first lady of arkansas. sam walton, the founder of walmart, liked hillary clinton very much while she was on the board, and one of the reasons she was named is because of her interest in look being out for and emphasizing women's[a39r is and concerns of women employees and also consumers at walmart. hillary clinton did, as the caller suggested, was on the walmart board for several years and received about $100,000 in stock as a board member. >> and one other important point. the fundraising landscape has changed significantly in part 3 and you write about that in your piece. can you briefly explain? >> one of the things we note in

the piece is that both clintons had been in the post watergate era at the forefront of developing and taking advantage of techniques in fundraising. since the citizens united decision of 2010, corporations, individuals, unions can write unlimited sums to affiliated superpacs. there are superpacs affiliated with hillary clinton's campaign, and she has taken advantage of that opportunity. she calls at the same time for campaign finance reform, steve, as you know, but she says i'm not going to t÷o a hand behind my back as we seek to take on a national political fight. >> an extensive story. did you do a word count, by the way, on this piece? >> our editors did, and even what you're seeing in the paper today, four pages, i guess, inside the "washington post," does not include the extensive

accompanied the story. so i would encourage readers to take a look at that. çç a great job putting that together. >> looking at how bill and hillary clinton have cultivated donors from little rock to washington and across the globe. tom hackbumburger joining us th sunday. we appreciate it. a look back at past presidential campaign appearances. next george w. bush campaigning in new hampshire as part of the 2000 presidential race. ,d donald rumsfeld talks about his 1988 campaign. and later the 1992 campaign of paul songas. each week until the 2016 presidential election, american history tv brings you archival coverage of past