Friday on CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” “Clinton Cash” author Peter Schweizer asked, “Do we want to have the same rules for all politicians?” Then he went on to point out that Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) faced prosecution by federal authorities and that “the Clintons have done multiple times, multiple times beyond.”
Schweizer said, “I think if you look at recent American political history when it comes to corruption investigation and prosecution, whether that’s the former governor down in Alabama or Senator Menendez, what you find is you need to show a pattern of behavior. You need to show that money was given by certain individuals and a political individual did unique favors for that individual. What the Clinton campaign has tried to say is that you have to have a quid pro quo, that you have to have an email, which probably would have been deleted, or a recorded phone call conversation that says I will do this if you give me that. That is not the case and has not been the case. As I demonstrate in the book, there are three things that went on during the tenure as secretary of state. Number one, they made a lot of money, either through the Clinton Foundation or into their pockets in the form of speaking fees. Two, a lot of that money came from foreign entities. And number three, that those foreign entities got favorable action from Hillary Clinton. I think all three of those events are related.”
Giving an example of the Clintons’ corruption in his book, Schweizer continued, “So here’s what happens. Laureate Education hires Bill Clinton as the honorary chancellor. He gets $16 million dollars. The head of Laureate Education, a guy named Douglas Becker, also runs a nonprofit called the International Youth Foundation, which is less than a mile away in terms of where the Laureate offices are. The State Department sends $55 million dollars on the International Youth Foundation, which then does joint projects with Laureate Education. That to me is something that warrants serious investigation.”
He added, “When we reach a point that the Clinton defense is you can’t prove a felony was committed by us doing this—that is a presidential campaign’s candidate. That’s their defense. That, I think, is a serious problem. We all have to step back and say, look, do we want to have the same rules for all politicians? What Senator Menendez did that warranted prosecution by federal authorities, the Clintons have done multiple times, multiple times beyond. And that’s really the question. This is not about the Clintons ultimately. It’s about who—what are the rules, who has to comply with them, and how are they complied with and are we going to have consistent standards for everyone?”
Follow Pam Key on Twitter @pamkeyNEN