¢linton ¢a$h

So . . . a guy named Peter Schweizer came out with a long hit piece on the Clintons, called Clinton Cash.  It was first released as a book, and then later as a movie.  After the Clintons left the White House in 2001, they started up a charitable organization called The Clinton Foundation.  They also both (but mostly Bill) made a lot of money giving speeches to various organizations.  None of this is in dispute.

The premise of Clinton Cash is that in return for large donations to the Clinton Foundation, or for large speaking fees for Bill, the Clintons used their influence --- as a former President, and as Secretary of State --- to assist various unsavory characters in various ways, usually in form of business contracts of one sort or another with foreign governments.

On the one hand, such accusations are very difficult to prove.  Suppose Sam Slimeball gives Bill Clinton $500,000 for a speech, and two weeks later, Hillary does something as Secretary of State which benefits Sam.  While that certainly looks suspicious, Hillary might have made the exact same decision even without the $500,000.  Unless she radically changes her position for no apparent reason, or there's a video/recording/email somewhere where Hillary tells Sam "I will support policy X if you pay Bill $500,000 for a speech", we can't know for certain that a quid pro quo was in place.

On the other hand, the right wing loves to make accusations like this, because they are literally IMPOSSIBLE to disprove.  Unless we can show that Sam Slimeball never gave Bill any money, or that Sam didn't benefit from any decision Hillary made, or there's a lot of evidence that Hillary would have made the same decision anyway, right-wingers like Schweizer can make all the accusations they want, and no one can say for certain that they're wrong.

Which is, of course, the reason Schweizer wrote the book in the first place.  How can I be so sure?  Because Schweizer has a history of supporting Republicans and conservative publications, while making misleading or inaccurate attacks on Democrats.  This doesn't necessarily mean that all of his charges in Clinton Cash are wrong, but it does mean that they should be analyzed with a healthy dose of skepticism.  That's what I plan to do in the coming weeks.