Peter is the author who joins us from tallahassee. On page 183 of the book yout write that the clintons are perhaps the most politically sophisticated public figures of their generation. They know how things work in the corridors of power and aroundnd th the world. They know that Foreign Governments are trying to influence American Foreign policy committee and they know that bribery is rampant around the world. They have numerous avenues for making money. Some of them might not be as lucrative as giving getting a 700,000 each in nigeria but they would be much clearer. Yes. I think thats one of the defenses you hear from the clinton camp is that they are unaware of certain things were perhaps that there is nothing seriously afoot with all of this money flowing to the Clinton Foundation or to them in the form of the speaking phase. But the bottom line is that theyve been players on the International Stage for a law that the time and the people that contribute to pay for the speeches by bill clinton, you know they are not an Insurance Company in the uk or the Media Company in germany. These are companies that operate in places like nigeria, the congo, south america and some of these individuals have with say a sketchy history as it relates to issues involving financial crime. So they are not ones who would be shocked that theres gambling going on as it was said in the film. They know exactly whats going on and that is what is so troubling is that they dont seem to have a filter that prevents them from taking money from some pretty sketchy characters. Host why dont some of these Foreign Governments were leaders gave give money directly to their own countries where it is needed rather than give it to the Clinton Foundation . Guest that is a co. That is a great question. The late Christopher Hitchens a liberal writer asked that very question and wondered why is it that you have these oligarchs in the third world into places like india or africa. Why are they sending multimillion dollar checks 10,000 miles away to new york to do Clinton Foundation ostensibly to send that money back to do work in their own countries . And the answer that hitchens i think basically gave is that its because it was a way of influencing peddling within a former president and a former president whose wife is first a powerful senator and then by secretary of state. That is what i think is so mystifying. If you are in india for example and you are concerned about development, policy, you name it. It really doesnt make a lot of sense to send it to new york city. Why not work with a lot of the great legitimate charities that are doing the same thing. Thats just one of the things in addition to the timing of these donations but i think its so puzzling. Host cassock stand. Walk us through what happened in kazakhstan. Guest so kazakhstan is what happened in the oppressive government that is ruled since the collapse of the soviet union. They are very rich in minerals and one of the things they have this uranium that fuels the technology and also military Nuclear Technology and bill clinton is there with frank this canadian mining investor. And he wants uranium concessions. Bill clinton says very nice things about the dictator of kazakhstan and in a couple of days hes granted those uranium concessions. Weeks later he sends 30 million to the Clinton Foundation. Now this is where it starts to get very interesting, if thats not interesting enough. This uranium deposit becomes part of a Company Called uranium one. It is a Canadian Company and they start acquiring uranium rights in the United States. Whats also interesting is this is a small Uranium Company that not only frank but im sorry eight other individuals connected with this company also start making major contributions to the Clinton Foundation. The chairman writes multimillion dollar checks. Those contributions were never disclosed by the Clinton Foundation. We found them in canadian tax records. The financiers involved in the company are major Clinton Foundation contributors. Youve got a shareholder named frank holmes who essentially a shareholder in uranium one, but hes also an advisor to the Clinton Foundation and a major donor to the Clinton Foundation. All of these assets are accumulated, all of this money is flowing to the Clinton Foundation and then the russian government arrives and says we want to buy uranium because its had a long interest in cornering the uranium market. This is a personal desire laughing at him and he authorizes the release of the funds to buy this Uranium Company. In order for russia to acquire what amounts to 20 or 25 of all of the uranium assets in the United States it requires federal government approval. There is a process the committee on Foreign Investment in the United States that requires a number of Government Agencies including the state department to sign off on this deal. They do sign off on the deal. What i think is troubling about Terri Clinton in the midst of all of this is that no other Government Agency that approves this is headed by somebody thats received 145 million to the foundation from nine individuals connected with this firm. The second thing that is troubling is that Hillary Clinton had a history of to this point of opposing precisely these kind of deals. In other words where a Foreign Government wanted to buy a critical industry in the United States. So both of those things i think raising a lot of questions about what her involvement was in this. The Clinton Campaign of course says that she had no knowledge of this, she was not involved in this. With the National Polls showing that more than half of the American People questioned her trustworthiness and honesty i dont think that her verbal statement on this is going to be enough. And i think that there needs to be further investigation to see what their role was. I think that if three years from now we we have a secretary of defense a private foundation that received 145 million from shareholders in a Foreign Company that had business before the pentagon that wouldnt be enough to say did you do anything to help them. There would be an investigation and i think there should be. Host page five of the book given my previous focus on bipartisan selfdealing and corruption why am i now focused on one couple, you you ride by simply have it in for bill and hillary, and i somehow trying to derail her prospects of being elected president in 2016 . What is the answer to that question . Guest the answer is that the last five or six years my writing and research has been focused on following the money in politics. So in the throwing them all out i wrote about Insider Trading and members of both parties and how there was a pattern of stock that they were engaging and in the book that followed up on that old extortion i looked up what i regard as extorting fundraising practices by Political Parties on both sides. I got the displeasure of john boehner as a result of that book. The clintons are unique and fit into this pattern. No postpresidency has been marked by as much money making as bill clinton engaged in. They took between 2001 and 2012, 136 million. That is unprecedented in scale and scope but the second thing that i think warrants the particular discussion is that they have created a new model and this model if it is allowed to continue and is successful is going to be adopted by others and it is basically getting around the rules and laws that we have in place that prevent foreign entities from influencing american politics. If you are a Foreign Company, you cannot give campaign contributions. You cant get to the can skip to the Political Action committee. But with the Clinton Foundation and the ability to pay the speaking fees to the secretary of state, the foreign entities now have a way of giving money to families of elected officials in the hopes of influencing them and i think that is a very troubling development. Host as you know what youre referring for referring their account and media matters have both come out with lists of what they say are errors that you made in clinton cash. From hillary for america the entire premise of the book has been widely debunked. Hillary clinton didnt have enough power over the deal etc. From media matters he admitted that he omitted information about the Clinton Foundation donors and the accusation has no evidence. Is there anything that you think that hillary for america or media matters or any other group has gotten right from this . Guest what is surprising is they say that the book is a god that the actions to indicate thats what they be viewed and if you look at the list im glad if they want to bring them up i am glad to go into detail on them it is a classic example of misdirection. One of the things in the video that they put out from the spokesman was the statement that in this deal the shareholder sold his shares in the company before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state and i point that out in the buck we dont know if he has shares or not problem is he doesnt talk about each other individuals who are giving to the Clinton Foundation and who are shareholders in the deal and are the chairman of the company and who are engaged in that Company Giving to the foundation at the very time the state department is considering the deal so they want to selectively try to steer the conversation in one away without looking at the larger facts and they are hoping people will not actually read the narrative of the book and they will just sort of take their word for it which i think really is quite remarkable on their part. Host peter is the author. For numbers are on the screen and i want to point out the fact that if you would like you can go to our Facebook Page, facebook. Com cspan. We have a discussion there about the book and the topic. Lets begin with a call from john in great falls montana. You are on with peter. Caller i would like to begin off base just a little bit and speak to the fact of people like George Stephanopoulos and truthfully the host writenow today just attacking you personally on your ability to do research on the Clinton Project and all they look for his personal attacks. I would like you to defend yourself a little bit. Thank you. Guest i dont feel that the current conversation is a personal attack. I think it is fair to raise questions about the research into the project. I will say that the stephanopoulos interview this week was a little bit odd in that of course George Stephanopoulos worked for the clintons. He was part of the war room for the Clinton Campaign and of course he mentioned that for four months i was a speechwriter in the george w. Bush white house but he certainly served to the Clinton Administration longer than four month us. So i thought that was a little bit of an interesting decision on the part of abc news. I dont mind having a vigorous conversation. What has been troubling is the allies of the clintons, paul and james having engaged in sort of personal vicious attacks against me. They try to misinterpret or drudge up a book that i wrote 17 years ago and they dont want to talk about this. They want to talk about everything but this. Im very encouraged by the fact that i think a lot of Media Outlets outlets i share the material was early on the new york times, Washington Post, abc news investigative units have confirmed reporting this in the book and i think that its now incumbent upon the clintons to stop this sort of sly statement that the president said about me and engage in the conversation about a very troubling fact pattern. Host and you asked asked in the book i realize how shocking these allegations may appear. Are these activities illegal . Thats not for me to say you write. Guest yes i think if you look at the tone of this book as peggy noonan, the wall street journal has a call today about the book and she points out its a very somber tone. Contrary to what the clintons claim i am doing i am not making outrageous accusations. I am laying out just the facts. Thats what im doing. I am not an attorney. I dont pretend to be an attorney. What i will say is if you look at some of the recent cases of political prosecutions on corruption, whether it is in virginia, senator menendez of new jersey or if you look at the case in oregon, i heard the content and that from what we know now the fact pattern with the clintons is far more troubling than it was in any of those cases and thats why i think that this warrants an investigation by either the fbi federal prosecutor because ultimately you need to look at communication and have people under oath and ask serious questions about the flow of the fund and the decisions that were made about the secretary of state and how they benefited those that were giving the family money. Host oems in eureka california democrat. Caller i have one question for you and please cannot be short answer. I want an explanation. Would you show as much enthusiasm if you are writing about the coke brothers . Thank you. Guest i focus my research on elected public officials. I think that we could have a vigorous debate about the role of money in politics and we could have a vigorous debate about if theres too much water out of the restructurings. But they dont actually vote or start policy. I look at elected officials. Thats what i did and throw them all out and extortion. I took both Political Parties and i was criticized by john boehner and other republicans for the book. Hillary clinton was americas chief diplomat. She chartered americas foreignpolicy and had enormous power when it came to National Security and foster overseas. During her tenure her husband took in the tens of millions of of dollars from Foreign Governments and Foreign Corporations and from the foreign financiers that had business on her desk and the results are astonishing. To give you just one example the caller might be interested in hes a democrat and this is a very controversial issue. Consider this. Hillary clinton secretary of state is reviewing the Environmental Impact making a designation on the pipeline, which is a very controversial issue. During this time her husband signed up to do ten speeches from a Financial Firm in canada that happens to be one of the largest shareholders in that pipeline stock. They never paid a speech for him before when she wasnt secretary of state. When she wasnt revealing the Keystone Pipeline and suddenly they come up and offer him about 2 million to the speeches and he gladly does them. Three months after he gets the last payment re clinton gives the greenlight on the pipeline. You can look at this and say idiot is just a coincidence but the problem is you see that replicated over and over and over again so that i would ask the caller to do is not give me a short answer, yes or no as to whether he would read the books actually read the book and if you dont want to put money in my pocket and buy it go to the library and read it and give it a serious consideration because these are very troubling patterns of behavior. And they havent challenged any of them. They havent challenged the payments, the timing, who they got their money from and the decisions have frequent and has made. Host politico reported that you are looking into jeb bush for the potential book. Guest yes we are engaged in research and weve done it for about four months. Obviously as governor of florida you dont have the global scope as the secretary of state. Of course you have a longer time in Public Service than with jeb bush but we are following the same methodologies so we are looking at the flow of funds. For me it is always about follow the money its about the flow of the money and about those that benefit and contribute to campaigns that are given to the jeb bush foundation. Its about what he did a couple of years after he left the Governors Mansion connected to individuals that benefit from his actions when he was governor and we are looking at an airport deal and land deals and things related to educational reform and we expect to have a major report in september and we are following the same model that we did here which is partnering with major investigative units. Authors tend to get ignored by political figures. They dont take them seriously but if you get a call from the Washington Post, abc news, you want to engage because you kind of have to and thats part of the model that we have embraced. Host john in southampton pennsylvania. Caller just just cant think for having how things for having me. Youve done quite a patriotic duty. First of all, for you to partner with new york times, Washington Post these were far left organizations and clearly you are very credible. Ive been aware i was really troubled personally back as soon as possible and Clinton Left Office obviously there were legal issues but immediately he embarked on the page speechmaking and he went before the financial institutions, lobbyists getting 250, 200000 500,000. As you indicated earlier, they made book advances and speeches in ten years they made over hundred million dollars. On this foundation this is a whole new idea. They are getting all this money in the foundation and and the foundation and as i understand they are only spending on the actual helping the poor content person or 15 of the funds that come into the foundation and the rest of it is going to the salaries and headquarters host we got the point. Caller the caller brings up a lot of good points. For some the speaking fees we all recognize they are going to hit the lecture circuit and i think we might be certain level. Its always particularly troublesome because bill clintons wife at the time is first a powerful u. S. Senator in the second of and a second of all has become secretary of state and when you look at the pattern of the money that they are making in the speeches that is troubling. Consider one statistic. Bill clinton has been paid 13 times a total of 13 times in his entire speaking career. 500,000 or more to give a speech. That 13 times coming 11 times coming 11 of them occur while his wife was the secretary of state and some of them it is hard to not see them for what they are. For example bill clinton had never given a paid speech in nigeria when his wife wasnt secretary of state. She becomes secretary of state a businessman in nigeria very close to the Nigerian Government which is highly corrupt and contracts to give two speeches for 700,000 does the secretary of state one of the things is to look at the foreign aid recipients like the government in nigeria and if they have rampant corruption and they are not improving it, the federal law says they are not to get aid. The only way they can continue to receive the u. S. Aid is if the secretary of state grants them a waiver which were a clinton did. So again you can look at this and say say maybe that is a confidence that you find the pattern repeated over and over and over again. With regards to the question about the foundation, they give about 10 of the money to other charitable organizations. The Clinton Foundation model is incredibly unique. You look at the website and see bill clinton and chelsea and Hillary ClintonHolding Children in africa or asia but the Clinton Foundation really doesnt do a lot of handson work with people in those countries. They partner with other organizations that do. They function as a middleman as it were. And he needs a middleman but its not like Doctors Without Borders or American Red Cross or some of these other organizations actually doing the handson work. At the the Clinton Foundation is more like a Management Consultant firm working in the area of charity and this is why for example the Charity Navigator that as well regarded as an evaluator of charities you can look online they wont even rate a foundation because of what they call its unique Business Model and theyve been deemed by the Better Business bureau because they are lacking internal control as it relates to finances and governance etc. So there are real problems there. Host eugene in hickory kentucky. Please go ahead. Caller yes. First of all im not a republican democrat libertarian. Im an american and i dont believe in being affiliated with a party. My question is if you or i or any other average american were brought up with the question by congress and asked to give over information and we destroyed it would we be walking the streets or would we be behind bars . Out Congress Gives them 30 days the way that i see it and that can destroy everything and that is exactly what they did. If we did that host i think weve got the point. Peter. Guest you are referring to the emails and about servers and i think that is a huge problem. Remember Hillary Clinton was on the Watergate Committee as a Junior Lawyer and there were those 18 minutes i think it was that Richard Nixon decreased. We are talking about 30,000 emails that have just vanished. On top of that you have an additional problem as i pointed out in the book that Hillary Clinton as a condition of becoming secretary of state this is something president elect obama insisted on the required to disclose all of the contributors to the Clinton Foundation. Very basic requirements. Hillary clinton promised the same thing in her testimony before the Foreign Relations committee. Bill clinton went on cnn and said we will have complete transparency. As we were researching the book we found out that low and behold that is not true and there were undisclosed donors including the chairman of this russian owned company that gave 2 million. Those donations dont show up on the Clinton Foundation website. Its now been acknowledged that there are more than 1100 that have been non disclosed and i think that we are going to find there are more. So think about this for a second. The president elect of the United States signed a written and sworn agreement with him that you are going to share all of the contributing information that you have annually on the basis to the condition of you taking the job and almost immediately because some of the Solutions Start in 2009, almost immediately you violate that agreement. That is shocking. And really to me it raises huge amounts of questions and that is one of the reasons that you have such a High Percentage of the American People in the recent surveys is that they dont trust worthy of the shes honest. Host greg is calling from virginia here in the suburbs. Caller good morning. I appreciate the research that youve done here. I am a democrat but im against the clinton dynasty as i see it and also the bush dynasty and i have to ask this does sound really bad and im not surprised at all. I think it is one of those absolute power corrupts. But i have to ask if you are still set in your resources im wondering if you ever consider researching that cheney and george bush in regards to the iraq war and the halliburton connection and all those things where i feel like there was a lot of money made through the floor that we should never have gone in there. Thats why we went. It was a lie and its much worse than the corruption. We havent looked after things that are in the past looking at things that are contemporary. Im not suggesting that is the only calculation they made. There are coincidences that might occur and other things that factor into it. But what i am the most troubled by is looking at patterns. Thats what drew me to the Insider Trading in the stock market. Its one thing if they make a stock trade in a certain kind of thing you find any elected official that seems to be really good at predicting the stock market and hes buying stock in an area like healthcare on the committee that looks at health care that is a problem and what journey to the clintons is the cluster and the consistent pattern of the flow of funds it is always a legitimate issue that should be researched because any official, republican or democrat. He had enormous good ability to hurt people or help people and i think it is always fair to see who is being helped and hurt and if there is any financial motivation or connection. Host if you cant get through on the phone lines, go to the Facebook Page where the conversation is happening about clinton cash. Why dont they take some of that and help the American People with it. If the book is full of lies then they should sue for slander. And John Gutierrez posts quit making this guy credible. He is a conservative flamethrower from back in the day. But as some of the conversation happening online. Next call comes from peter. This investigation is going to go nowhere. As you recall to the lowest order situation he did nothing to investigate. Mrs. Clinton was part of the Obama Administration and his appointees wouldnt do anything to tarnish is the administration as you can see that former president clinton stated and was being interviewed you didnt say that they did anything wrong. What we did there would have been in that very day to confiscate your computer. As far as the justice is concerned, nothing would be done. I have proposed that they should change the way bees appointees are appointed and they should be either from the opposite party to get transparency that when a friend of the president as the attorney general there will never be any justice. Thank you sir. I think that he raises a good point and that is when the department of justice or fbi chooses to investigate or prosecute a. Of the evidence that we have in this case, in this book when you compare that to the cases whether its in virginia or senator menendez or oregon it is far more compelling here than in those instances and thats why i think that this information is crying out for attention im encouraged because i think theres a lot of news outlets pursuing these stories. They sort of get the structure now of whats been going on and they see how the system works so they are mining the information and i think we are going to continue to see stories on this. Then its just a question of political courage. Whether it is people at the department of justice were people on capitol hill. And whether it is a u. S. Prosecutor somewhere to have the courage to take on with, lets face it a very powerful political machines that aggressively goes after people. There is no question that its going to take courage but im an optimist by nature and that is how we have to approach these things that justice will win in the end. Host eugene calling from jackson on the democrats line. Your your guest has made a living from the entire republican party. The better off they are this book is one of the best things to Terry Clinton has to be elected president. You make a living off this. But clinton cashes what you are making. If you want to really change something, why dont you run for Public Office because you know theres not as much money in that is what you are doing right now. Host guest this is the first book ive written on the clintons and if the thesis is correct that this is the best thing that i look forward to book purchases from the super pack. Thats all i can say. Theyve done two things simultaneously. Theyve claimed there is nothing to this book and at the same time they mounted a very Aggressive Campaign against me. So is it a dud or something you were very concerned about . They have seen the recent poll numbers and the fact that well over half the American People dont consider trustworthy and their approach to this matter i think just reinforces it. She hasnt discussed these issues at all. Shes avoided if theyve asked questions about it. When the book was coming out they selectively linked it its two allies in the press and they had chelsea come out to vouch for the wonderful work the foundation is doing and the ethics of the family. When that didnt work they had bill clinton make these bizarre statements about me from africa and it still hasnt gone away so the question becomes does an individual who wants to be the leader of the free world, president of the United States, doesnt she want to just come out and answer some simple questions about this and that is really all that the people are expecting. Host but as the book will try to show you the speechmaking doesnt happen in a vacuum. Its part of a larger pattern of activity that has never been before exposed to public scrutiny. You go on to say that there is nothing illegal about these payments as the source, size and timing raise serious questions deserving a deeper investigation. The book is published by harpercollins and leanne e. Davis will be on this program on washington journal on monday morning to take your calls as well. Alex, please go ahead. Caller you try to create hate and discontent in the country over every little episode that goes on. But i recall you saying earlier that it was so long ago. Earlier you said you want to change the money that you dont want to go back to the front but if you go back to pardon you are dealing with halliburton and iraq and all that, weapons of mass distraction. But all you do is create hate and discontent in the country and make money off each and discontent. Guest i am not sure if they heard the part of the conversation we are doing an investigation of jeb bush and unlike dick cheney he is contemplating running for president and we think that is relevant and people want to see what information is there. So i would encourage him in september to be so inclined to see what the reporting and what information comes out. On the larger point, i would encourage him he probably obviously doesnt want to buy the book. Go to the library and read it. There isnt a hateful word in the book. Its very dispassionate. There is a column in the wall street journal today from peggy noonan talking about the fact that its basically just recounting the facts and laying out the narrative. You have those like the professor from Columbia University who is hardly a conservative that heads up the institute who was on msnbc this morning talking about the fact that yes, the clintons are blurring the lines and there is a flow of money going in and there were troubling things going on. I am not sure what to tell the caller i dont think it is hateful to bring up concerns about the foreign money flowing into the family of the secretary of state while shes making decisions that affect them. That is a legitimate story. Host page 113. The Ericsson Corporation decided to sponsor the speech by bill clinton and paid him more than hed ever been paid for a single speech and 750,000. According to the clinton Financial Disclosures in the previous ten years hed never sponsored a clinton speech, but now it apparently would be a good time to do so. In your book what do you mean by this would be a good time . What was happening . Guest this is when they decided to get the single biggest payday ever and again as you recounted they never paid him for a speech before. The Swedish Telecom company was in trouble with the state department at this time. They had been selling commenced to iran and theyve been named in the state Department Reports about selling equipment to belarus and other governments. Actually state Department Cables came out that show the state Department Officials under Hillary Clinton were pressuring the Swedish Foreign minister to deal with the companies that were doing this. So, my question is why he did eric did eric singh decided this point in time to pay bill clinton this outrageous speaking fee that is higher than he has ever been paid before . I think that context is extremely important. Again you could look at that case and say well, maybe its coincidence that the problem is you have the same thing with the keystone xl pipeline and the case involving the United Arab Emirates and there are other examples where the timing of the payments and the size doesnt pass the smell test and deserves further scrutiny. Host next next call was from taylor insupportable north carolina. Go ahead. Caller thank you for having me. I wanted to basically talk about the big money in politics and especially from the foreign donators that just raises my eyebrows of who is doing that and that could potentially inhibit a National Security risk because you never know what their agenda is and we know when a certain bill comes out they are like go this way or that way. I think taking foreign donations from anybody outside of the United States is a big nono and especially that we should put a gap so that we can be a little bit more content that they are here for the American People and basically another thing is like host we are going to stick to the foreign money concept that you brought up. Go ahead. Caller guest the caller brings up a good point and that is what troubling and makes the clinton situation unique. We have a vigorous debate about the role of money in politics. You know, is it free speech . Should there be research and . Archive destructions too low or too high . Thats a vigorous debate we will continue to have. What we do not have a debate on is the fact that anybody thinks we ought to have the money influencing our political process. There was a case a couple of years ago before the Supreme Court where a couple of the foreign nationals sued to say that it was unconstitutional to prevent the foreign nationals from contributing to the campaigns. The Supreme Court came back 90. When is the last time that happened tuesday this is an eminently sensible rule . So, we have a National Consensus and what you have with the Clinton Foundation and speechmaking is a conduit for the foreign businesses and governments and financiers around those rules. To say that they are tossing tens of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars but its going to have no effect strikes me as absurd especially if you are the same person concerned about domestic money in politics but in one case you are dealing with u. S. Citizens and the other case you are dealing with individuals that should be playing no role in influencing the leaders. Host michael in lydia springs democrat. Caller good morning. This is really funny listening to the republican powwow. I would ask for the next year we took us into clowns like this. Ive worked in the government and there is no way that republicans working in the state department because there are republicans working in the state department would sit back and allow cory clinton is going to save president hopefully, to be bought off. I need hes just throwing out a bunch of accusations into this and that but he has no proof. Cspan should be ashamed for having him on with nobody to speak on the other side. Thank you. Guest im sure that when he many davis will do more than an adequate job when he appears on monday. All i can say is i would encourage you to at least read the book. Uconn damned this before you even read it. To the statement that there are people in the state department that would allow this to happen one of the things i point out in the book is about how at the state department Hillary Clinton brought in people to senior positions and gave some of those People SpecialGovernment Employee status, which allows them to maintain their outside commitments. So, you have individuals that are doing work for the Clinton Foundation that are also working for the state department at the same time and they did this by abusing the law that had been set up your zygote. It was set up so that if you had an astrophysicist and a university that nasa needed their expertise and they wouldnt have to give up the tenured position they could come to work for six months to help them on a project and then go back. They abused the abused and put political operatives as the employees. So again i understand people are passionate about their views and i understand the caller has his, but it is a little hard to come them something when you havent read something and you are aware of what the book contains. Host in the clinton book chapter five has a story. Here is the comfort of the book cover of the book and it is called clinton cash. Peter schweitzer is the author. The untold story of how and why the Foreign Governments and businesses helped make bill and hillary which is the subtitle. Peter schweitzer will be booktv guest on indepth in July July July 5. He will spend three hours talking about all of his books and will be taking calls as well. Leanne e. Davis will be on the washington journal on monday to respond to some of the things that mr. Schweitzer writes about in the books. Thanks for joining us from tallahassee. Guest its always a pleasure. Thanks peter. Youre watching the tv on book tv on cspan2. Heres a look at our primetime lineup. Jackjack ross an independent historian talks now about his critical history and the socialis