¢linton ¢a$h: Nigeria

In the latest chapter of the movie Clinton Cash, author Brian Schweizer makes two allegations about the Clintons in Nigeria: One demonstrably false and dishonest, and the other simply misleading.

FIRST: Schweizer correctly identifies Nigeria as a massively corrupt country, and then says (per my own transcription):

You see, there's a federal law in the United States which says, if foreign governments that receive U.S. assistance aren't transparent in how they spend that money, that they will not be able to get U.S. foreign assistance any more.  It's about transparency.  But there's a way around that law.  You can get waiver from that law.  How? By getting the U.S. Secretary of State to grant you a waiver.

(Nigeria received) hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. foreign assistance, they've not made progress in being more transparent, and of course they've gotten exemptions from Hillary Clinton while she was Secretary of State.  What's so curious about this is what was happening commercially to the Clintons while this was going on.  Bill Clinton for the first time ever gets paid, highly lucrative speeches in Nigeria, which had never happened before.  In fact, he gets paid to do 2 speeches for $700,000 apiece by a businessman (Nduka Obaigbena) in Nigeria who just happens to be close with the president of that country.

Pretty damning stuff, if true.  And it is true that Bill received $700,000 per speech from Nduka Obaigbena (actually from his media operation, Thisday) for giving separate speeches in Nigeria in 2011 and 2012.  Of course, Schweizer neglects to point out that Bill had a long-standing relationship with Obaigbena going back at least as far as 2009 --- and that other political luminaries such as Al Gore, Jeb Bush, Karl Rove and Kofi Annan have been to Nigeria for similar purposes --- all at the same 2009 event, no less.  Schweizer also neglects to point out that Bill has returned to Nigeria numerous times since Hillary left her position as Secretary of State (it is unclear whether Bill's other appearances were paid).

But paid speeches alone mean nothing.  Schweizer needs to show a quid pro quo and (are you ready for this?) there's not one.  So instead Schweizer makes something up and hopes no one will notice.

Schweizer doesn't explicitly cite which "federal law" requires transparency from foreign governments which receive aid from the U.S., but he DOES flash the following image up on the screen at about this point in the video:

Note the highlighted date.  The law he appears to be referencing wasn't even introduced into Congress until Hillary had left office.  So when Schweizer said Nigeria has "gotten exemptions from Hillary Clinton while she was Secretary of State", he had to be lying.  When Hillary was SoS, there was nothing to exempt Nigeria from.

But couldn't there have been a different law in effect when Hillary WAS SoS?  Sure there could be, but then why didn't Schweizer flash that law on the screen?  This article suggests that no such law existed before 2012, and a 2012 version of the bill died in the Senate.

So Schweizer is lying to us, and not only that, he doesn't even make it that hard to discover that he's lying.  It's almost like he doesn't expect anyone to fact-check his hit piece (hmmmmm).  And I don't like being lied to, so now I'm pissed.

You know what else pisses me off?  At this same juncture in the movie, Schweizer shows a video of Hillary talking about transparency and anti-corruption efforts in Nigeria, sort of mocking her, I guess.  It turns out that video is from her final visit to Nigeria as Secretary of State in 2012, when she announces additional U.S. support for Nigerian security forces against the Islamist terror group Boko Haram.

Think about that.  This guy is trying to get Donald Trump elected, and one of Trump's main arguments is that Obama (and by extension, Clinton) haven't done enough to defeat Islamic terrorism, and Schweizer uses video of Clinton actually announcing a policy change to fight Islamic terrorism in his hit piece trying to take her down.  Really infuriating.

But wait!  There's still more!

SECOND: Schweizer notes that Nigerian billionaire Gilbert Chagoury pledged $1 billion to the Clinton Foundation, and that Chagoury has also done some bad things in his life, some of which he's been convicted for.

My first reaction is: so what?  There are precious few billionaires in the world, and hardly any of them are saints.  What's more, the nefarious behavior Schweizer specifically cites, buying up Nigerian oil assets on the part of Sani Abacha, Nigeria's president from 1993 until his death in 1998, happened more than a decade before Chagoury's pledge to the Clinton Foundation.  So, even if Chagoury was engaged in some dirty dealing in the mid-90s, why does that mean anything about the Clinton foundation today?

Furthermore, Chagoury's $1 billion pledge is to help build the new Nigerian city Eko Atlantic, with the goal of providing homes for 250,000 Nigerians and jobs for an additional 150,000.  I don't know much about the project, but I don't find allegations of corruption anywhere, and it sounds like EXACTLY the kind of thing Nigeria needs to improve the quality of life for its people.

In short, it sounds like a Nigerian billionaire gave $1 billion to the Clinton Foundation to do good for thousands of people in his country.  What about this should the Clintons be ashamed of?

I know what Schweizer should be ashamed of, however.  Himself and this whole, clumsily-executed hit piece he's put together.

Bill's Speaking Fees

As I continue to slog through the allegations in Peter Schweizer's Clinton Cash hit piece, I want to pause for a moment to say a few words about the money Bill Clinton receives for making speeches.

It's no secret Bill Clinton likes to talk to people.  Since leaving office in 2001, he's given hundreds of speeches to millions of people, sometimes for a fee, and sometimes for free.  When he does receive a fee, sometimes that money goes to the Clinton Foundation (in which case he personally receives nothing), and sometimes it goes into his pocket.  As I've discussed before, I personally do not believe a contribution to the Clinton Foundation, no matter the size, indicates that Bill or Hillary are on the take.  Since they don't profit personally in that case, there's no reason they should do favors for the donor.

So let's focus on those occasions when Bill does pocket a fee.

Bill Clinton has made A LOT of money in speaking fees since leaving office.  And perhaps you already consider that a mark against him, which would be fair enough.  However, in the interest of fairness, you should also consider that most past presidents, and indeed most well-known politicians, trade off their fame in this manner.  Ronald Reagan famously received $2 million for giving two speeches in Japan.  George W. Bush, Clinton's predecessor, has earned tens of millions of dollars with such speeches.  And of course there's Hillary herself, Rudy Giuliani, Sarah Palin and Colin Powell, and even Donald Trump.

So if you want to condemn Bill (or Hillary) for the mere fact that they got a lot of money for speeches, go ahead --- just make sure you similarly mark down the folks on the other side of the aisle, including Trump.

If not, then what really matters is whether there's a quid pro quo, whether payments to Bill influenced anything Hillary did as Secretary of State.  Schweizer is great at throwing around big numbers, and he's not wrong that the Clintons have made A LOT of money from Bill's speaking gigs.  But unless the Clintons did more for that money than just give a speech, there's nothing scandalous about it.