Peter Schweizer, the Republican operative who authored the forthcoming hit piece
Clinton Cash and became the
New York Times and
Washington Post's new buddy, has a
serious record of screw-ups—or things he got wrong on purpose to smear Democrats, figuring the retraction would get less attention than the allegation. That's why
billionaire Republican donors fund people like him. So it's no big surprise that, before
Clinton Cash has even been released to the general public, ThinkProgress has already
identified a major mistake.
Schweizer's book claims that foreign governments, companies, and individuals bought influence with Hillary Clinton in her role as secretary of state through their donations to the Clinton Foundation and through speaking fees to former President Bill Clinton.
[Schweizer] links the timing of the State Department’s generally positive report on the Keystone XL Pipeline with a slew of Clinton speeches paid for by TD Bank, a major shareholder in the project. As proof of how crucial Clinton’s support for the pipeline was to the bank, Schweizer quotes a press release that claimed TD Bank would “begin selling its $1.6 billion worth of shares in the massive but potentially still-born Keystone XL crude pipeline project” after Clinton left office. The press release was quickly revealed to be fake in 2013. Yet Schweizer, apparently unaware of the hoax, remarks, “Too bad for TD Bank. But the Clintons got paid regardless.”
This is the book that the
New York Times' Amy Chozick
described as "potentially more unsettling" because of its "focused reporting." ThinkProgress' Aviva Shen, by contrast, describes it as, uh, let's say
inconclusive at best:
Schweizer makes clear that he does not intend to present a smoking gun, despite the media speculation. The book relies heavily on timing, stitching together the dates of donations to the Clinton Foundation and Bill Clinton’s speaking fees with actions by the State Department.
Schweizer explains he cannot prove the allegations, leaving that up to investigative journalists and possibly law enforcement. “Short of someone involved coming forward to give sworn testimony, we don’t know what might or might not have been said in private conversations, the exact nature of the transition, or why people in power make the decision they do,” he writes.
The point, in other words, is to stir up speculation without any kind of proof. And apparently by citing hoax press releases where it's convenient, the kind of move that Schweizer has
long engaged in. This is what the
New York Times and
Washington Post are on board for.