Clinton-corruption muckraker DEMOLISHES Bill’s defense; Not a ‘shred of evidence?’ How about this?

During an interview that aired on CNN last week, former President Bill Clinton claimed that Peter Schweizer said he “didn’t have a shred of evidence” to back up assertions he’d made in his latest book, “Clinton Cash.”

“Fox & Friends Weekend” co-host Tucker Carlson gave the author a chance to respond Sunday.

“The book is chock-full of evidence,” Schweizer said. “It shows a pattern of behavior of self-enrichment.”

He noted that Bill Clinton’s speaking fees suddenly spiked after his wife became secretary of state, with the fees coming “from people who have business sitting on Hillary’s desk.”

Getting to specifics, Schweizer told Carlson that while Hillary Clinton was reviewing the Keystone XL Pipeline project, the former president was suddenly offered $2 million to give a series of speeches in Canada, paid for by one of the pipeline’s largest shareholders.

“He gives the last speech, and a coupler of months later she signs off on it [the pipeline].”

Carlson observed that the first publication that heralded the book and “took it very seriously” was the left-leaning New York Times.

What’s most amusing is that while Schweizer and all the GOP presidential candidates have submitted to multiple, probing interviews, Hillary Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner, has yet to submit to a single serious interview, and has answered only about a dozen softball questions.

She chooses instead to have her husband and daughter answer the tough questions.

Profile in courage?

Be sure to also check out:

Ex-Baltimore resident Ben Carson gives neurosurgeon’s take on Freddie Gray spinal injury

Brave reporter told she couldn’t cover public school meeting won’t back down from cop

We know first-hand that censorship against conservative news is real. Please share stories and encourage your friends to sign up for our daily email blast so they are not getting shut out of seeing conservative news.


2 thoughts on “Clinton-corruption muckraker DEMOLISHES Bill’s defense; Not a ‘shred of evidence?’ How about this?

  1. Charles Purvis says:

    To state that an accuser “doesn’t have a shred of evidence” can mean something entirely different than “I am innocent.”

    But, the Clintons were never ones to mince words or destroy evidence were they?

  2. Mary Brown says:

    Clinton’s need to be behind bars, I am fed up with liberal criminals in politics getting a pass for serious crimes against this country

Comments are closed.

Latest Articles