RUSH: Now we welcome to the program, Peter Schweizer, who has written the book called Clinton Cash, documenting all kinds of pay-for-play activity. Welcome to the program, Peter. Great to have you back here.
SCHWEIZER: Oh, thanks so much, Rush. It’s great to be on with you.
RUSH: I heard you say earlier today that your book, you never intended it to be a legal document, that it was simply a recounting, a recollection, an assemblage of behavioral patterns that really, really look curious. I think I read in the Wall Street Journal the FBI has interviewed you some two or three times about this?
SCHWEIZER: Yes. The book came out May of last year. I’ve had contact, really up until the earlier part of this year in February. I think they got essentially what they needed from me and —
RUSH: What did they ask you? What kind of questions did they ask you?
The Washington Post ran three front-page stories based on the material in the book, including the fact that Hillary’s brother scored a gold mining concession in Haiti. So those were the areas of interest. And, you know, what you said at the top of the hour, Rush, is absolutely right. I mean, the mainstream media’s approach to this has really shocked in a lot of ways because there are a lot of great investigative reporters at the New York Times, at ABC, at the Washington Post who broke this story, but now the political reporters don’t want to go there and don’t want to discuss this.
RUSH: Well, you wrote the book in 2015, May of 2015 it publishes. It’s a long time that has gone by now and even more information has come forward. A lot of what you wrote has been corroborated. Bret Baier report last night, the FBI much further along, perhaps being stonewalled, some of the foundation investigators being stonewalled by the Department of Justice. What is your take, you’ve got this body of work, you are, I’m sure, confident in your own reporting or you wouldn’t have published it. What’s your take on all this and what possible impact do you think it’s gonna ultimately have on voters?
SCHWEIZER: Well, here I think is what we have to keep in mind, who is handling the Clinton Foundation investigation, and that is the white-collar criminal division. These are the people that go after organized crime, you know, things done in the executive suite, et cetera. And they oftentimes in these sorts of cases benefit enormously from flipping an insider. If you look at the Anthony Weiner investigation, you look at now the renewed email investigation, you’ve got a couple of Clinton insiders, meaning Anthony Weiner and Huma Abedin, that are facing possible legal jeopardy.
My belief has always been that, of the investigations the FBI’s engaged in on the Clintons, the Clinton Foundation one has been the granddaddy, the one that they really believe they have the most compelling case for. So, if you’ve got two individuals, potentially others, that are legally vulnerable and looking at jail time, you are looking to flip those people and to get them to testify against the Clintons in terms of pay-to-play.
Yet you mentioned Huma, and you mentioned Weiner. Weiner is in big trouble for a whole host of other reasons that now find him intertwined in all of this. Is it possible, based on what you know — you’ve talked to the FBI, you’ve researched — is it possible that they can actually flip Weiner and have him turn on his wife and whatever it is he’s learned that she has been doing and knows? Is that really within the realm of possibility here?
SCHWEIZER: Well, let me just make very clear, Rush, I’m not saying this based on special inside knowledge. It’s just based on my perception and conversations. Look at the situation. You have Huma and Anthony Weiner, who have a child, a 4-year-old child, and both parents, both parents are in potential serious legal jeopardy. I think the calculus can change when you are talking about political loyalty and then also the situation that your child might be with both parents facing potential jail time. So that dynamic I think certainly is in play.
But, look, overall what is clear is, my experience is, the FBI has been highly professional about this. You know, what the Clinton campaign is putting out there, Rush, is that all they’ve done for 14 months is sit around and read my book. That’s not true. They’ve been very active. They’ve got lots more information, and you are exactly right, this is not gonna go away. If Hillary wins on Tuesday, this is not going to go away. This investigation is robust and ongoing.
RUSH: To build on a point you’ve just made, there’s a story out today, New York Post Ed Klein has it, that Obama is being pushed by Valerie Jarrett to fire Comey. Valerie Jarrett wants Comey gone under the context that he’s rogue and out of control when the fact of the matter is the Washington Post has a story today that Comey and other FBI leaders wanted to inform Congress for verification that the new emails found on Weiner’s investigation, his computer, they wanted to inform all the way back in October, and they have waited and waited until they knew they had something before they went public.
It’s the exact opposite of reckless. Comey has not been reckless. Nobody has. But Obama’s out there saying it’s all innuendo, it’s all rumor, none of it’s true. When I saw that Valerie Jarrett is encouraging Obama to fire Comey, I mean, all I could think of was Robert Bork and Nixon and all of this beginning to historically repeat itself.
SCHWEIZER: Yeah. No, that’s a great history lesson. You’re exactly right. And here’s the problem. I mean, technically Barack Obama can say what he wants, but you can’t really fire the FBI director as president. It is an independent agency. Comey does not work for Barack Obama. He works for the FBI. Now, they can try to, you know, trump up charges or whatever and it could get very ugly, but they can’t just dismiss Comey because they don’t like what he’s doing. And here’s the bottom line, I think, is, at the end of the day we need an independent agency looking into this, but the problem has been the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice has shown no interest in allowing the FBI to get subpoenas, to potentially use wiretaps or other techniques to continue this investigation.
RUSH: They wouldn’t even impanel a grand jury.
RUSH: Well, let’s cut to the chase. Peter, what is this, really? We have the evidence that you have amassed and published in your book. We have additional evidence that has been learned via the Comey investigation. I mean, that indictment that he read did not feature a prosecution, but, I mean, he listed some crimes for which she’s exonerated only because he couldn’t find that she intended to commit them. But commit them she did. You have the ruling class or the establishment, whatever you want to call it, literally in front of everybody circling the wagons to protect themselves and one of their own. The rigged nature of things at the highest level of government is on full display for everybody to see here.
SCHWEIZER: It is. And also, frankly, the reaction to the media. Rush, as you know… I mean, I’ve done two stories with 60 Minutes on financial corruption involving both Republicans and Democrats, and that was widely hailed by these mainstream media outlets. I did a multipart series on CNN with Anderson Cooper based on my book Extortion, which got a lot of attention. When it comes to this, they are silent. And, frankly, some of these news outlets are doing the bidding of the Clintons in trying to say this is all about this book; they don’t have anything else. This is a discredited author. It’s mind-boggling to me how certain major media outlets — I’ll name them — MSNBC and, frankly, large sections of CNN, are not interested in talking about this issue at all.
RUSH: Well, Peter, I don’t think they’re news outlets anymore. I think they have become defenders and protectors of the state, certainly defenders and protectors of the Democrat Party, and certainly of the Clintons. I mean, that’s what’s obvious. That’s what’s on display here. They are simply not interested in reporting or helping upend or unpack or un-root any of this criminality. They have no interest. They’re interested in covering it up and making it appear as though it’s nothing but a bunch of innuendo and usual out-of-control rumors by a bunch of wacky Republicans and so forth.
That’s how they’re trying to treat it and report it. I can understand your frustration. But we find ourselves in this circumstance here five days out from an election, and a lot of people are very, very frustrated because we’ve been here before. We’ve been here before back during the 1990s. We’ve been here with Obamacare. We have been here with any number of Obamacare issues. And it’s like beating your head against the wall trying to get people to understand. And we see some glimmers of hope in pre-election polling here that maybe enough American people are waking up. So we’ve got some things to be somewhat excited about and anticipatory about. We’re all just hoping it manifests positively this time.
SCHWEIZER: Well, and, you know, Rush, what I tell people is you look at this Clinton corruption, this model they’ve set up with the Clinton Foundation and with these speaking fees. They’ve created a model to take hundreds of millions of dollars from foreign entities that are looking to curry favor. They can’t give to their campaigns ’cause that would be illegal. It’s a way around the law. And here’s what we know in Washington. The Clintons are doing this now. If this is allowed to continue and they are allowed to get away with this, this is going to be imitated by political figures from both sides of the aisle.
So what we’re really talking about here is a fundamental transformation of the whole problem with money in politics. But the problem’s not gonna be Wall Street or, you know, Big Oil or labor unions. The money’s gonna be Russian oligarchs, Nigerian businessmen who are corrupt, Chinese government entities. That’s what we’re talking about. We’re talking about losing control of our political system and who really has the ear of our political leadership. Those are the stakes. This is about more than Bill and Hillary Clinton. It’s about a whole new mode of corruption that is global in nature.
SCHWEIZER: Thanks so much, Rush, I appreciate the encouragement.
RUSH: Peter Schweizer and Clinton Cash, among others.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Folks, a reminder. I’m like everybody else engaged in this. I feel compelled to find ways to be persuasive with people who are not interested or who are not really believing any of this. Because it’s serious. It’s the undermining of our sovereignty and national security. The reason why Hillary Clinton set up this private server in the basement…
I look for the simplest ways for people to understand this. And for all this time we’ve been hearing about emails and Hillary emails and this. And that, I think, after a while, people say, “I don’t care about emails! Stop talking about emails! I don’t care about email. What do emails possibly have to do with this? You got nothing.” And I understand that point of view. I want to tell those of you still on the fence about this, the reason she set up that private server was specific.
She set up that server to make sure that any Freedom of Information Act request of the State Department would not reveal what she’s doing, because the real news is that she and her husband were selling U.S. foreign policy. Take a foreign entity, a foreign government, a foreign wealthy individual asking for policy considerations from the State Department. The Clintons were selling that — she as secretary of state and then on the come as maybe the next president — and people were paying big money for that. That’s what she was hiding; that’s what’s being investigated.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: What’s that? (interruption) Yeah. I think that’s true. I think Obama can fire Comey. The president can fire the FBI director if he wants. I don’t think he can fire the Fed chairman. Although, look, if it comes under the auspices of the executive branch, the president can fire anybody. The Fed chairman’s a little bit different. But he can clearly fire… I disagree with Mr. Schweizer on this, respectfully, of course. If they want to fire… I mean, Valerie Jarrett wouldn’t suggest it otherwise.