The world is too small,
our wisdom too limited,
our time here too short to waste any more of it
in winning fleeting victories at other people's expense.
The Clinton Global initiative,
which brings philanthropists and CEOs
together with non-profits to make concrete commitments
aimed at some of the world's toughest problems.
Almost 10 years in, they have leveraged billions of dollars
in assistance in more than 180 countries.
CGI was designed to tackle big global challenges
in bite-size pieces with the conviction that
regardless of size or scope, our problems will yield
to concerted action and innovative partnerships
of individuals, NGOs, businesses, and governments.
We have to now find a way to triumph together.
All the problems that we face,
from climate change to financial contagion
to nuclear proliferation, are too complex and cross-cutting
for any one government or indeed for governments to solve alone.
As we believe that ending hunger is not only possible,
but it is both a moral and strategic imperative.
Hillary Clinton is trying to shift the spotlight to global warming.
The presidential contender unveiling her plans
to combat climate change.
Together with innovative partners
from the public and private sectors,
we're working to make homes, universities, and cities
more energy-efficient.
We share a common future
and we are here to find common ground.
Women must be empowered.
It's classic Bill Clinton.
By using his birthday to help the causes he champions,
from combating climate change to obesity and even HIV/aids.
Help bring new dignity and respect
to women and girls all over the world.
And in so doing, bring new strength and stability
to families as well.
We are trying to do something
no one has ever done before.
A new report today claims that the Clinton Foundation
gives about 10% of its money that it raises
to actual charities and the services that they offer.
It has been reported you've made
5 million making speeches.
The president's made more than $100 million.
Well, if, if you,
you have no reason to remember, but
we came out of the White House
not only dead broke but in debt.
6 years ago, Hillary Clinton was
about to become Secretary of State.
Barack Obama had nominated her,
everyone knew she was gonna be confirmed by the Senate,
gonna be confirmed easily.
But there was a thought, there was a question,
there was a doubt out there
about a potential conflict of interest.
The Clinton Foundation dropping its self-imposed ban
on collecting funds from foreign governments and entities
and now the "Washington Post" reports total contributions
to that foundation amount to $2 billion.
There's a lot of money sloshing around,
everything is blurred, and it's not good.
The questions scream out at me.
What in the world happened with the foundation
and these ulterior motives and this money and the email server?
I'm sorry. Those scream out at me.
The amount of schmoozing involved and crossing lines
and one person putting money in a foundation
and then Clinton getting unbelievable amounts
for his speeches, contracts going one way or another.
It's not good.
I look forward to working with all of you,
particularly the appropriators.
Uh, we have a lot of work to do
and it is such important work that lies ahead.
We did this with a very simple strategy.
Africa is a continent that has been
a chamber of horrors for decades.
It's really not the fault of the African people.
It's largely a result of the kind of system
that's been perpetuated there.
You have these oligarchs, which dominate these countries
that oftentimes have natural resources
that can be very lucrative.
And these oligarchs strike deals
with foreign corporations or foreign governments,
who in effect prop them up and put them in power,
and in exchange, these oligarchs give these entities
access to rich mineral deposits.
And the Clintons you would expect to be
opposed to this sort of thing,
and that's at least what their language does.
Our countries have deepened our cooperation on many issues
including good governance and transparency, energy,
regional security, and advancing
peace and development in the Niger Delta.
The problem is, their words
are different from their actions.
But his critics say that far from
entrenching democracy in Rwanda,
he's actually eroding it by silencing his opposition.
Paul Kagame has been praised by
Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation.
But the fact of the matter is Paul Kagame
has a terrible human rights record.
He's accused of aiding military operations
in the neighboring Democratic Republic of Congo...
and that actually forced the recruitment of child soldiers.
The U.N. has identified him as being involved in activities
that entailed massive human rights violations.
Newer opposition parties that have been formed
in the last year or two have, one by one,
been silenced or otherwise excluded from the race,
and individuals, not only politicians
but even journalists, for example, and other Rwandans
who may have views different from those of the government,
have found themselves at the receiving end of what has become
quite a violent campaign of intimidation.
Well, Paul Kagame is a friend of Bill Clinton's.
I want to say a special word of appreciation
for the leadership of president Kagame.
I'm greatly humbled to receive
this Clinton Global Citizen award.
He's actually given awards by Bill Clinton
for his conduct as the leader of that country,
and they regale him as a great military leader.
This is the sort of legitimization
that we don't want of these kinds of dictators and leaders.
That's the kind of legitimization
that the Clintons have engaged in.
And they've done it in a way that creates
commercial opportunities for donors and friends and allies,
who want to do business in Africa.
Business in Africa means you are dealing with dictators who are
gonna give you access to, say, mineral rights,
or oil drilling rights, but you're going to
have to pay them off.
The Clintons partner with foreign entities
who want access to Africa, and specifically mining companies
or energy companies who need to get concessions
for access to oil or natural gas or the rights to mine for gold.
Those two make a powerful alliance because these companies
will give money to the Clintons,
either in the form of speaking fees or in the form of
donations to the Clinton Foundation.
And the Clintons will then, in effect,
do their bidding before the halls of power
and corridors of power in Africa,
and they will go to foreign governments and encourage them
to do business with individuals who are
putting money in their pocket.
And this leads to some amazing fits of behavior that, in a way,
are just reminiscent of 19th-century colonialism.
A perfect example of this is ambassador Joe Wilson.
Joe Wilson is a longtime friend of the Clintons.
In fact, he endorsed Hillary Clinton
in the 2008 presidential election.
And it was also thought that he might become a senior official
in Hillary Clinton's State Department.
But the fact of the matter is Joe Wilson was up to
something far more nefarious during Hillary Clinton's tenure
as Secretary of State.
In 2009, shortly after she became Secretary of State,
when Wilson was the vice chairman
of a company called Jarch capital,
they took out a 50-year lease on
400,000 hectares in South Sudan.
South Sudan was in the middle of a civil war
and this lease was actually signed with warlords
who were involved in a civil war.
These individuals who are engaged in
massive human rights violations,
including the massacre of opponent tribes.
And basically, what Joe Wilson was engaged in
was something called investing in sovereignty changes.
They were basically cutting deals, lucrative deals,
worth potentially hundreds of millions of dollars
with these warlords,
and the expectation was simple,
these warlords would take power,
then they would give them access to these lands
where they could make huge amounts of money
exploring for natural gas, exploring for oil,
and for mineral rights.
Ambassador Joe Wilson isn't the only
Clinton friend and foundation donor
who was working in war-torn countries.
Swedish mining investor Lukas Lundin has pledged
$100 million to the Clinton Foundation.
He did that in 2007.
And his most lucrative mining operations
are in the war-torn country of
the Democratic Republic of Congo.
This is a country that perhaps has the most horrific
human rights situation on the face of the earth.
By the time Lukas Lundin made
his $100 million pledge to the Clinton Foundation,
his Congo operation was making, quote, staggering profits,
end quote, according to his own financial statements.
His overall capitalization was $20 billion.
But for those profits to remain staggering,
U.S. policy under Hillary Clinton had to remain unchanged.
That's a problem.
Hillary Clinton as a Senator back in 2006
supported something called the Congo Relief Security
and Democracy Promotion act.
As the law's name implied,
the goal was to bring reform to Congo.
That's not something that Lukas Lundin would want.
So, in 2009, when Hillary became Secretary of State,
she reversed course 180 degrees
and went from supporting reform in Congo
to supporting the status quo,
which is exactly what Lukas Lundin would want,
who of course had committed $100 million
to the Clinton Foundation.
But Congo isn't the only scandal-plagued country
where Clinton benefactors have made millions.
Africa's most populous nation,
Nigeria, is full of promise.
But fulfilling that promise is sometimes a struggle.
Plagued by corruption and mismanagement,
the resource-rich country has a poverty rate of over 50%.
Look at a country like Nigeria,
which is really a cesspool of corruption.
In fact, people will say it is perhaps
the most corrupt country in the world.
It's rich in natural resources.
It produces a lot of oil.
But that money never trickles down to the people.
It goes to the oligarchs who run the country,
who oftentimes take that money and put it in
Swiss bank accounts in a way that, of course,
the people of Nigeria can never benefit from.
And 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 anymore.
It's about transparency.
But there's a way around that law,
and you can get a waiver from that law.
How? By getting the U.S. Secretary of State
to grant you a waiver.
Uh, we intend to remain very supportive
on your reform efforts, uh, thank you for mentioning, uh,
the work we did together on the elections.
We're also very supportive of, uh, the, uh, anti-corruption,
uh, reform efforts, more transparency,
and the work that you and your team is also championing.
Uh, because we really believe that, uh,
the future for, uh, Nigeria is limitless.
So, in the case of Nigeria, they receive
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 two speeches, for $700,000 apiece,
by a businessman in Nigeria who just happens to be close with
the president of that country.
Keep in mind, by the way, that his normal speaking fee
is less than $200,000 a speech,
so, this was an enormous payday for Bill Clinton.
OK, now we will begin the panel.
One of the pinnacles of power in that country
is a gentleman named Gilbert Chagoury.
Gilbert Chagoury, who has committed $1 billion
to the Clinton Global Initiative,
is connected to another individual in the Clinton orbit,
that would be mark rich, the billionaire who was on
the FBI's 10 most wanted list
that was suddenly and surprisingly pardoned
by Bill Clinton in 2001.
Marc Rich, you might recall, is somebody who was trading oil
with the Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran
at the same time that the Ayatollah was holding
50 Americans hostage.
He also had a long history of busting U.N. sanctions
by trading oil with the apartheid regime in South Africa
and a whole host of other nefarious governments.
Well, Gilbert Chagoury, the high Clinton donor,
was business partners with Marc Rich.
Together, they sopped up oil assets in Nigeria
and sold them on the oil market
for the benefit of a corrupt individual
who was leading Nigeria at the time, named General Abacha.
Abacha smuggled by some estimates
$4 billion to $8 billion out of the country,
and put them in European bank accounts.
Gilbert Chagoury was indicted and convicted in Europe
for helping him to do that.
He was charged for aiding and abetting a criminal enterprise,
and on money laundering charges.
And the suffering that ends up being done here
is by the people of Nigeria, who see their leadership
getting a pass from the United States.
The elites in those countries are getting rich.
The Clintons are getting rich, and the money somehow never
trickles down to the people of Nigeria.
Sadly, this theme of resources not trickling down
to those most in need is a common one
when it comes to the Clintons.
As we told you at the start of tonight's program,
a major-magnitude earthquake has hit
the island of Haiti in the Caribbean.
The quake measured around 7 points on the Richter scale
and its epicenter fell just 10 miles
from the capital, Port-au-Prince.
Haiti's ambassador to the U.S. has described the event
as a catastrophe of major proportions.
So far, we have no information regarding the causalities.
The world is coming to an end...
it was a big earthquake.
It last like 15 seconds, I think.
Probably the most devastating humanitarian crisis
that Hillary Clinton faced during
her tenure at the State Department
was the tragic earthquake in Haiti.
It happened in January of 2010,
and literally in a matter of seconds,
250,000 people were estimated to have died,
and a large portion of the Haitian infrastructure
and economy was just decimated.
It was a crisis on a massive scale.
United States is offering our full assistance
to Haiti and to others in the region.
Uh, we will be providing both civilian and military
disaster relief and humanitarian assistance
and our prayers are with the people who have suffered, uh,
their families, uh, and their loved ones.
In the days and weeks that followed the earthquake
in January of 2010,
Hillary Clinton made visits to Haiti.
And here is the latest on Haiti:
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
arrived in Port-au-Prince just about an hour ago.
She is the highest-ranking U.S. official in Haiti right now,
since Tuesday's earthquake.
She's meeting with Haitian leaders and international officials
to discuss the rescue and relief effort.
In fact, on her first visit,
which occurred days after the earthquake,
they literally had to stop traffic
going into the airport at Port-au-Prince.
There, of course, were relief supplies
that were being flown in, but that traffic was stopped
so the Secretary of State could come and assess the damage.
There is a perception,
there have been complaints or reports of bottlenecks,
that there is a lot of aid coming in,
but it's very hard to get it out
to the people who need it.
That's just not true.
The aid is coming in. We're getting it out.
There's just not enough of it yet.
She flew in with her political aides
on a large federal airplane.
She landed at the airport,
she made a large press conference,
made statements about her commitment
to rebuilding this country,
and then she was soon whisked away,
headed back to Washington, D.C.
theirs is a city in ruins.
A country which can do little but wait for help to arrive.
The international community responded in the way
that you would expect it to.
That is, large amounts of money were committed,
up to $13 billion from
international relief organizations, and of course,
you had the official role of the State Department,
which would be point on U.S. taxpayer dollars
going to Haiti for the purposes of relief.
I want to assure the people of Haiti
that the United States is a friend,
a partner, and a supporter.
Hillary Clinton's State Department would oversee
the reconstruction effort with Chief of Staff Cheryl mills
responsible for the allocation of
U.S. tax dollars through USAID,
and Bill Clinton, already appointed
special envoy to Haiti for the United Nations,
was named co-chair of the interim Haiti recovery commission
along with the former Haitian prime minister.
I hope that it will be rebuilt
in a much stronger and more sustainable way,
and I think the Haitians want that.
So, this was clearly a Clinton operation from the beginning.
Now, the Haitians had their own ideas
about how best to rebuild their country.
They wanted new roads.
They wanted buildings rebuilt.
And that's what you would expect.
This is how you recover from an earthquake.
The problem is that the Clintons had their own agenda...
the interests of major donors, who had a vested interest in
spending that money in Haiti,
in ways that would benefit them.
And so, you immediately had this clash
between the Haitians and the Clintons.
And Haitians complained almost immediately
that they were shut out of the decision making process,
that it was really Bill Clinton and a few of his friends
that were calling the shots in the IHRC.
And they made some monumentally bad decisions that not only
didn't benefit the Haitian people,
but ended up putting money in the pockets of
major Clinton donors who had economic stakes in Haiti.
We have been united behind a single goal:
making investments in this country's people
and your infrastructure.
So, it's a classic example of what some people call
disaster capitalism.
Disaster capitalism in that a natural disaster
creates opportunities for rebuilding to take place,
but also for self-enrichment to take place.
And if you look at the Clintons and the promises that were made,
and the results that actually followed,
it is a tragic story of crony capitalism gone awry.
The single largest relief project
that the United States committed taxpayer dollars to,
$124 million to be exact, was a project called Caracol,
a textile factory that was built
in the northern part of the country,
that was supposed to create some 60,000 jobs
and was supposed to create tremendous economic growth.
There's a problem here already.
You see, the earthquake affected the southern part of Haiti.
The northern part of the country was entirely unaffected.
But who were the beneficiaries of this?
Companies like Gap, Target, and Walmart, to name a few.
The Caracol factory was built.
It didn't create 60,000 jobs.
It created barely 5,000 jobs,
but the major American companies who got textiles tariff-free,
made at low wages, benefited enormously.
And the end effect on the Haitians was very, very minimal.
If you look at some of the infrastructure projects
that were undertaken,
the Clintons had
very grand plans to build large tracts of homes,
and there were contractors that were
selected for those projects.
Sometimes the contractors had experience,
sometimes they did not.
There's one company in Florida that spent a million dollars
getting equipment into Haiti.
They had experience in disaster relief,
but according to the owners of that company,
they only made a small donation to the Clinton Foundation.
And guess what?
They didn't get any relief contracts.
On the other hand, the contractors who did win the awards
were given the opportunity to build homes,
and in some instances were supposed to build
tens of thousands of homes for Haitians.
They ended up building a fraction of that.
For instance, new settlements program was supposed to build
15,000 homes for $53 million.
Instead, it built 2,600 homes,
less than a quarter of the original estimate,
for $90 million, or $47 million over budget,
and they got away with it.
So, you had contracts going to these relief organizations
that were also involved with the Clinton Global initiative,
and you had this one organization, Dalberg,
that was supposed to do an assessment for relocating people
that suffered from the earthquake.
They determined that people should be moved to a site
that happened to be on a cliff that was highly unstable.
USAID's inspector general reviewed Dalberg's recommendations
and found them basically unusable.
One member of the USAID shelter team
was quoted by "rolling stone" magazine as saying that
the recommendations were so bad, it looked like
the team never even got out of their SUVs.
Another person said that only one of the people
that was sent to Haiti by Dalberg actually spoke French.
Telecom mogul Denis O'Brien
is one of the world's richest people,
and he's finding opportunities in the poorest country
in the western hemisphere.
The Irish billionaire is the largest
private investor in Haiti through his company, Digicel.
And he is now leading the Clinton Global initiative
efforts down in Haiti.
Probably no one came out better
in the Haitian reconstruction effort
than an Irish billionaire named Denis O'Brien.
He was a Clinton Foundation donor, giving them
between $5 and $10 million.
He helped arrange speeches for Bill Clinton, too.
The interest of the Obama administration,
particularly former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, you know,
all the different things that have happened
to help Haiti get up off the floor have been led by the U.S.
and he was the owner of something called Digicel,
which is a cell phone company, at the time of the earthquake.
As part of that relief effort,
the State Department run by Hillary Clinton
wanted to fund a mobile money transfer service
that would allow Haitian citizens to transfer and receive
money on their phones.
Well, Digicel applied to be the recipient of that grant money.
4 weeks after their application,
Digicel actually sponsored a speech for Bill Clinton in Jamaica
and they paid him $225,000.
And as it turns out, within 4 months of that speech,
Digicel would receive the first installment of that grant money.
The earthquake actually has been great
for Digicel and Denis O'Brien.
More than 4 years since a magnitude 7.0 earthquake
devastated Haiti, and outrage there is growing
over the largely failed reconstruction effort
despite the hundreds of millions of dollars in aid
that has been collected, and spent, by the IHRC...
the interim Haiti recovery commission.
So, whether you're talking about housing or cell phones,
you see that the people that are
closest to the Clintons have made out
very well from the Haitian earthquake.
The rest of the country,
the ordinary people of Haiti, not so much.
Haitian activists stage a protest outside
Hillary Clinton's Manhattan office.
The demonstrators claim billions of dollars were stolen through
the Haiti reconstruction commission,
headed by Bill Clinton.
They also say Haiti was used as a cover for foreign governments
to funnel kickbacks of possibly hundreds of millions of dollars
through the Clinton Foundation.
They say it was done in exchange for favors
that Hillary was doing for them as Secretary of State.
The tragedy is, we had an opportunity to rebuild in a way
that would give the people of that country hope.
Sadly, that opportunity was squandered and what took place,
rather than rebuilding Haiti,
was the self-enrichment by friends of the Clintons.
For all of Bill Clinton's talk about
"building Haiti back better", the fact remains that
the most visible evidence of Clinton's role in the recovery
isn't the improvement of daily life for everyday Haitians
but the construction of new luxury hotels
just miles from the folks who have been living in tarps
USAID handed out immediately after the earthquake.
We are telling the world of the crimes that
Bill and Hillary Clinton are responsible for in Haiti.
Lost interest in Haiti's recovery,
the influence and connections afforded to
donors from the Clinton Foundation
appear to have been lessons learned by others.
So, how much did connections to the Clintons
matter when you're talking about Haiti?
Consider the case of gold mining.
The government of Haiti had not granted
a gold mining concession in 50 years.
They decided to do so during the reconstruction of their country,
which was being overseen by Bill and Hillary Clinton.
What company did they select to get this gold mining permit?
A company called VCS mining.
VCS mining had very little experience in gold mining.
But what did they have? They had connections.
Shortly after they got that concession,
someone joined their board of directors.
It just happened to be Tony Rodham,
brother of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
It was a true disaster.
A true disaster that followed the earthquake
which was the natural disaster.
This was the man-made, Clinton-caused
disaster in relief that led to the wasting of
enormous sums of money, the enrichment of elites
that were friends with the Clintons,
and the Haitians were left in a situation where their life
was really not much better than it was
the day after the earthquake happened.
An ambitious pipeline is firing off a war of opinions.
Environmental activists marched in Washington today
to protest plans for the Keystone XL Oil Pipeline.
A $7 billion project to transport
800,000 barrels of tar sands oil a day
from Canada down to the Gulf Coast.
In Washington, a showdown
on the Senate floor today
over the Keystone XL Pipeline.
The vote to approve the controversial pipe project
has big political implications.
The pipeline would create 20,000 jobs, but opponents say
the environmental risk is too great.
One of the touchstones of the climate change debate
has been the Keystone XL Pipeline.
It's designed to carry oil from Canada through the United States
to refineries in Louisiana and in Texas.
The environmental movement has wholeheartedly rejected
this deal from the beginning
because they believe that it's gonna further contribute
to the problems of climate change.
- One... - we are the people,
- two... - you can't ignore us,
three...
now, you would think that the Clintons would be opposed to
the Keystone XL Pipeline deal because of those concerns.
And perhaps they might be, except for one or two problems,
or should I say one or two million problems.
You see, when Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State
in late 2008, there was already an issue related to
the Keystone XL Pipeline sitting on her desk.
She was going to have to sign
an environmental and economic impact statement,
and decide whether the Keystone XL Pipeline should go forward.
At that precise time,
Bill Clinton gets a lucrative offer
of nearly $2 million to give 10 speeches in Canada,
for the first time ever, from a company called
TD Bank Investment Group.
He gave the last speech in may of 2011.
3 months later, Hillary's State Department releases
an environmental impact statement that was seen as
largely supportive of the Keystone XL Pipeline
in a way that was massively controversial.
Hillary Clinton, in effect, was betraying
the environmental movement by green-lighting this deal,
when she had in her hands the power to kill this deal
in its crib.
It was shocking.
Organizations like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth were stunned.
They wanted an investigation.
But everybody was mystified.
Nobody could understand why Hillary Clinton
would sign off on this deal,
particularly when she had been in favor of
dealing with climate change, and her boss Barack Obama,
by all indications, seemed to be opposed to this deal as well.
It's also a time for
a new approach to climate change.
We know we've got to deal with global warming.
We're seeing the effects of it.
We need to invest in clean energy technology today so that
we can create new high-paying jobs to protect our environment,
to grow our economy, and to finally break
our addiction to foreign oil.
How did we go from the Clintons being in favor of
fighting climate change, and dealing with fossil fuel dependence,
to Hillary Clinton signing off on the Keystone XL Pipeline?
The evidence that we found was that it was about the money.
This was not a philosophical change.
This was not a new way of thinking about global warming.
This was a way of taking $2 million in cash,
to essentially buy a decision by the Secretary of State.
Why is the TD Bank Investment Group so interesting?
Because they just happen to be one of the largest shareholders
in the Keystone XL Pipeline itself.
When we looked at Bill Clinton's pattern of giving speeches,
we looked at who was paying him, when they were paying him,
and if they have ever paid for a speech before.
What's so stunning is that TD Bank
had never sponsored a speech by Bill Clinton before
and then suddenly in late 2008,
when Hillary Clinton has been announced
to be the Secretary of State,
and when sitting on her desk is the matter of
the Keystone XL Pipeline,
they suddenly decide to sponsor these speeches.
And when people realize that the Clintons had pocketed
about $2 million at the precise time
Hillary Clinton was making this decision,
it all now suddenly made sense.
Because as we've seen repeated over and over and over again,
when it comes to the Clintons, you have to follow the money.
And in the case of the Keystone XL Pipeline,
they seem to have abandoned their principles,
their commitment as it was to combating global warming,
and dealing with our dependence on fossil fuels.
They jettisoned that when $2 million showed up
and suddenly came out in favor of the Keystone XL Pipeline.
When you see this sort of pattern of behavior,
you can't come to any other conclusion,
that it's a system of pay-to-play.
And again...other entities appear to have
picked up on this business model, too.
Well, Bill Clinton has been paid enormous sums of money
over the years to give speeches.
On average, he gets a little less than $200,000 per speech.
But something happened in late 2008.
His speaking fees skyrocketed
after being out of office for years.
The reason was his wife had become Secretary of State.
In fact, 11 of the 13 speeches
for which Bill Clinton has been paid
half a million dollars or more occurred precisely when
Hillary was the most powerful diplomat in the world.
You will never contribute to an organization
that will give you a higher probability of having
your good intentions turn into real, positive changes
in other people's lives.
That will give you a better chance
than what you've done here tonight.
His single biggest speech payday
came from the Swedish telecom company Ericsson,
and it's a very, very unusual and troubling story.
Now, Ericsson is a Swedish telecom company
that in 2009 and 2010 was in trouble
with Hillary Clinton's State Department.
Because Ericsson was selling a lot of telecom equipment
to Iran, to Belarus, and to other oppressive governments,
about which the State Department was concerned.
Ericsson risked being put on a list by the federal government
in the United States for trading with an enemy state.
There was actually an effort being put forward in Washington
to broaden Iranian sanctions to include the very technologies
that Ericsson was selling to the Iranian government.
So, it's against this background that Ericsson decided
now might be a good time to hire Bill Clinton to give a speech.
They had never paid for a speech by him before
and they decided to go in big:
$750,000 for a single speech.
7 days after he gave that speech,
Hillary's State Department came out with a statement which said,
we are not going to broaden sanctions on Iran
to include technologies like telecom.
We are going to rely and expect companies like Ericsson
to police themselves.
It was a massive win for Ericsson.
Ericsson was able to avoid having to deal with
a regulatory battle in Washington,
giving up contracts that were
highly lucrative in these countries,
and being put on a list that would create
enormous diplomatic problems for them,
all because essentially, they paid Bill Clinton
to give a speech for $750,000.
Will you continue to give speeches?
Oh, yeah. I gotta pay our bills.
So, the question is, why do we see the Clintons reversing
decades of policy positions that they've held so closely
on issues like human rights and environment?
And a big clue comes from folks that are
giving the Clinton Foundation literally
tens of millions of dollars.
And one, if not the biggest donor to the foundation,
is a Canadian named Frank Giustra.
Giustra is in the mining business...
hardly something you'd call environmentally friendly...
and he has interests all over the world.
And he uses his relationship with the Clintons
to benefit those interests regardless of
the environmental concerns.
A great example of this is what happened in Colombia.
What's so interesting about the relationship that
the Clintons have with Frank Giustra
is they tend to show up in these foreign countries together
at the same time.
Frank Giustra's made billions of dollars over the years
in the so-called penny stock market in Canada,
which is highly open to manipulation.
He's been very successful in this area.
Now, the Vancouver stock exchange is not like
the New York stock exchange in the United States.
This is a stock market or an exchange
that is dominated by penny stocks.
Made up of a lot of natural resources stocks,
it's sort of the wild, wild west of investing.
It's called dodge city sometimes, and the reason is
because there's a lot of speculators,
there's a lot of misinformation that's put around,
and there are a lot of mining companies
that don't really have any assets,
but will proclaim to have gotten the rights
to some lucrative gold mine, let's say,
and then they send that news out to the public in the hope that
it will lead to a flood of people buying the penny stock,
so the shareholders can sell their assets.
So, in June of 2010, Bill Clinton and Frank Giustra
fly to Bogota, Colombia.
And who arrives there at roughly the same time?
Secretary of state Hillary Clinton.
The big thing from the news conference was,
where Bill and Hillary were dining
the other night in Bogota.
Uh, I had a chance to talk to her about her dinner experience
in the Zona Rosa and here's what she had to say.
Dinner was good?
It was excellent in every way.
So, it was like eating in the states
but eating in Bogota?
Well, uh... it was a real treat to be in Bogota
and, uh, to be with people who love this city so much,
including my husband.
Now, in her memoirs, Hillary Clinton says that
this is just a happy coincidence,
but when you see what follows,
you realize that this is no coincidence.
The following morning, Bill Clinton has a breakfast meeting
with the outgoing president of Colombia, president Uribe.
Then, like a tag team, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
has a noon lunch meeting with him,
and she grants him several favors,
including technical agreements
that the Colombian government wants.
In the days that follow, something dramatic happens.
Frank Giustra has 3 companies
that get major concessions from the Colombian government.
Pacific Rubiales, Petroamerica, and Prima Colombia properties.
One of those, Prima Colombia properties,
gets a concession to cut timber in a rain forest in Colombia
along the Pacific Coast.
And that timber is not intended to export to the United States,
but is intended for export to china.
There is an outrage and upset environmentalists
who realize what's going on,
and eventually that permit is yanked
by a future president of Colombia,
but not before Frank Giustra's company is able to profit
from cutting down these rain forests.
Which again is a behavior that runs so contrary
to what the Clintons profess to be in favor of.
We all know that in order to build
low-carbon economies for the future,
we need sustainable forests.
I also know the future of our planet
depends on healthy, standing forests.
They have talked about the problems of deforestation.
They've talked about the problems of...
the need for successful growing forests
to mitigate carbon dioxide in the air.
And yet when this commercial opportunity was presented
to a major donor of theirs,
they seemed to be very much supportive of that,
and in fact helped to get him those concessions.
He deserves the credit for this.
This was his idea, not mine,
and he raised the money.
And it's an astonishing achievement.
My job is to make sure that it's not in vain.
That he gets the return on his investment,
and his compassion, and his commitment.
The Clintons appear to have
changed their stance on issues
even more significant than the environment
in ways that benefit those
who have put money in their pockets.
I represent a president and a country
committed to a vision of a world without nuclear weapons,
and to taking the concrete steps necessary
that will help us get there.
The Indian nuclear deal, I think, is so troubling because
this is a core national security issue.
One of the signature achievements in foreign policy
for Bill Clinton was pushing the test-ban treaty
and the non-proliferation treaty.
Today in New York,
the United Nations General Assembly voted overwhelmingly
to adopt a comprehensive nuclear test-ban treaty
and open it for signature later this month.
The N.P.T. has been sort of the holy grail
when it comes to nuclear disarmament.
Something that the Clintons had been supportive of,
not just for years but for decades.
That was all thrown asunder in 1998,
when the Indian government tested
nuclear weapons underground.
India's action threatens the stability of Asia
and challenges the firm international consensus
to stop all nuclear testing.
These were tests that truly shocked the world.
Even the CIA was not aware that
these tests were about to take place.
Clinton's reaction was volcanic.
He felt betrayed by the Indian government.
And as a result, he imposed sanctions on India,
essentially saying, you're not going to get access
to U.S. nuclear technology until you sign the N.P.T.,
the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
In 2005, the Indian government
wanted to get these sanctions lifted.
Not only do they have an interest
in expanding their civilian nuclear base,
they live in a neighborhood where
some pretty tough customers and rivals
have nuclear weapons themselves.
First of all, you've got Pakistan,
which is right next door,
which is widely believed to have nuclear weapons,
and then you have China, a longtime rival of India,
which has a nuclear arsenal.
The Clintons said that they were in favor of
giving the Indian government some access,
but the problem is it didn't go
nearly as far as the Indian government wanted.
So, in 2005, they started making
donations to the Clinton Foundation.
This morning, yet another shady donation
to the Clinton Foundation has surfaced,
this time tied to a donor from India,
apparently a friend of Bill Clinton.
We're talking about tens of millions of dollars
and we're talking about at least hundreds of thousands
if not millions of dollars in speeches
that Bill Clinton was paid,
by interested parties in the Indian nuclear deal.
Amar Singh, according to Clinton disclosures, has given between
$1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation
in the push to get them to support
Indian access to nuclear technology.
He's a member of parliament who has gotten in
fistfights on the floor of the parliament,
who's been charged with bribing members of parliament
to get certain pieces of legislation passed.
You see, the problem is, when you ask Amar Singh,
he says, it wasn't my money.
I don't have that kind of money.
I couldn't have given him that amount of money.
And in fact, when you look at Indian public records,
you see that Amar Singh doesn't have a net worth anything close
to being able to give that amount of money.
So, where did the money come from?
Well, sometimes the most obvious answer is the correct one.
Sant Chatwal is an Indian businessman
who has been close to the Clintons for years.
He pledged to raise $5 million
for her 2008 presidential campaign
and Bill Clinton was at his son's wedding.
They actually named him as a trustee
of the Clinton Foundation.
When Hillary Clinton was first running for the Senate in 2000,
Sant Chatwal was in trouble with a federal agency
called the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
He basically owed them millions of dollars from unpaid loans.
Well, in 2000, Chatwal throws
a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton
and he brings in half a million dollars.
A few months later, with Bill Clinton
still President of the United States,
Sant Chatwal's case with the FDIC
was abruptly settled for a mere $125,000.
So, basically, the federal government
got pennies on the dollar.
He would actually go on to plead guilty
for funneling $180,000 in illegal campaign contributions
to Hillary Clinton, among others,
and no one seems to have made the connection.
Well, maybe one reason no one made the connection is because
the Clinton Foundation mysteriously erased any mention
of Sant Chatwal from the web site
once he had admitted to his illegal activity.
So, here we are, years later,
and we've got this donation and a guy's name
who swears he didn't actually make the donation.
And you've got this longtime Clinton benefactor who actually
gets the highest civilian award in India
because of his role in changing Hillary Clinton's mind
on this nuke deal.
Sant Chatwal says he's worked with everybody.
And even laid the foundation of the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal.
So, the Indian government says that
they have given you this award for your role
in pushing the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal forward.
How exactly would you describe
the role you played in this?
Well, I can tell you, the Indo nuclear power deal,
if you look at it, I am the first one
that laid the foundation.
On the eve of the vote in 2008
to approve Indian access to U.S. civilian nuclear technology,
Amar Singh, who barely knows Hillary Clinton,
had a two-hour meeting with her
where they discussed the Indian nuclear deal.
Amar Singh says that the dinner meeting
resulted in her telling him that she was supportive of the deal,
and that she was making efforts to make sure
that the deal did get through.
And lo and behold, by 2008,
Hillary Clinton was fully in support
and in favor of this policy, in a way that was
a complete reversal of the position
that she had taken before.
In other words, the flow of money had led the Clintons
to change their positions on the Non-Proliferation Treaty,
and specifically, India getting access
to U.S. nuclear technology.
This was a decision that was wholly out of step,
wholly inconsistent with the progressive liberal agenda.
Hillary Clinton made the decision of
reversing her previous position
after the flow of funds to the Clinton Foundation,
and her husband gave some speeches in India.
But this wouldn't be the last time Hillary reversed herself
regarding nuclear weapons technology.
Shockingly, Bill and Hillary would end up receiving money
from folks that were looking to make something happen
a lot closer to home.
I think the Russian uranium story
is perhaps the most shocking and most blatant example
of how the Clintons operate.
This is a story about the Russian state nuclear agency,
American uranium, $145 million in cash, and the Clintons.
At the end of the day, this is a story
about buying influence and selling influence.
The Clintons are the sellers of influence.
The Canadian investors and the Russians are the buyers.
Bill Clinton had gone to the central Asian country of Kazakhstan,
in 2005, with Frank Giustra.
Kazakhstan is a country that has been run,
since the collapse of the Soviet Union,
by a dictator named Nazarbayev,
who shuts down political opposition
and tortures political opponents.
The ostensible purpose of the visit to Kazakhstan
by Bill Clinton was to talk with Nazarbayev about aids/HIV.
The problem is, Kazakhstan really does not have
an aids/HIV problem, so, that explanation
really doesn't make sense.
What makes far more sense is that Frank Giustra wanted access
to very lucrative Kazakh uranium mines.
Kazakhstan is one of the largest producers
of uranium in the world.
Bill Clinton arrives there with Frank Giustra,
and they have a series of meetings with Kazakh officials.
There's a press conference where Bill Clinton stands
with the dictator of Kazakhstan
and he praises the human rights record.
He praises that elections that are being held in the country,
and he even says that Kazakhstan should head up
something called the OSCE, which is
the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
Think about that for a second.
Bill Clinton is saying that a known human rights violator,
who's been condemned by human rights organizations
around the world, should head up a human rights organization.
They go from a press conference to a dinner where
Frank Giustra, Nazarbayev, the dictator of Kazakhstan,
and Bill Clinton meet and talk.
Well, two days after that meeting,
Frank Giustra finally gets his uranium concessions,
worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
A couple of weeks after that,
Bill Clinton gets his $30 million from Frank Giustra,
the first payment in what will become
more than $100 million in pledges and commitments
and donations, made by Frank Giustra.
So, it's really in a way a simple story,
in that they all are walking away from the table
with something that they want.
Nazarbayev is getting the legitimacy of an ex-president
saying what a nice and kind leader he is,
Frank Giustra gets his uranium concession,
and Bill Clinton and his foundation get cold, hard cash.
Now let's move to chapter two of this story,
which is even more sinister.
You see, the international uranium market
is very competitive.
The Kremlin sees dominance and control
of the uranium market as a source of national power.
Frank Giustra takes that uranium concession he got in Kazakhstan
and puts it into a company in a so-called reverse merger,
which is one way for a private company to go public,
to form something called Uranium One.
It's a company traded on the stock market in Canada.
And they start acquiring uranium concessions
in places like Wyoming, Texas, New Mexico, and Utah.
And by 2009, they have what is expected to be
50% of future uranium production in the United States.
This gets the interest of Vladimir Putin and the Russian government,
and in fact there are State Department cables,
that were leaked through Wikileaks,
which show that Hillary was aware of the fact
that the Russians took great care to try to dominate
the international uranium market.
Well, the Russians wanna buy this asset,
and they offer a 40% overprice on the share of the stock,
and for this transaction to go through,
it has to be approved by the U.S. federal government.
Why? Because uranium is regarded
as a critical industry in the United States.
After all, this is used for our civilian nuclear reactors,
and goes into nuclear weapons.
So, it goes before the federal government,
where it needs to be signed off by a series of federal agencies,
including the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.
As Hillary Clinton is contemplating this,
shareholders in uranium one, including Frank Giustra,
have sent more than $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.
The chairman of that company at the precise time
is a guy named Ian Telfer,
who is also making donations to the Clinton Foundation.
As is Frank Holmes, who was another major
Uranium One shareholder.
And Hillary Clinton, who has a record of opposing
precisely these kinds of deals,
comes out and says, you know what?
I think this is a good deal.
Let's let Vladimir Putin take control
of what is now 20% of U.S. uranium production.
Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton
are the only figures in American politics
who are willing to do this deal,
and who could actually pull it off,
because they had a reputation that runs so contrary
to what they're doing.
I mean, this is what the Clinton Foundation does, right?
This is what they talk about politically,
their support for human rights,
their concerns about proliferation,
their concerns about issues related to Russian aggression.
There's doubt that when Putin came back in and said
he was going to be president, uh,
that did change the relationship.
We have to stand up to his bullying and...
what's so interesting when you consider this uranium deal
are the actions of a small Canadian investment firm
called Salida Capital.
Salida Capital, in 2010, as this deal was going down,
committed to give millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation
and they also sponsored a speech by Bill Clinton in Canada.
Salida capital is also the name of
a wholly owned subsidiary of Rosatom.
Who is Rosatom?
Well, this is the government agency in Russia
that controls their nuclear arsenal,
that built nuclear reactors in Iran,
and engages in nuclear technology exchanges
with rogue countries like North Korea.
What this means in essence is that the Russian government,
specifically Rosatom, was funneling money
through a subsidiary directly to the Clinton Foundation.
But the payday didn't end there.
4 months before Hillary Clinton's State Department
would sign off on the Russian purchase of Uranium One,
Bill Clinton got paid $500,000
to give a single speech in Moscow.
He was being paid by a firm called Renaissance Capital,
which has a long history of association with
Russian intelligence services.
What makes this speech stand out
is not only the timing of when he's being paid,
but the amount that he's being paid.
You see, the last time Bill Clinton gave a speech in Russia
was 5 years earlier.
At that time, he was paid about
1/3 of what he was being paid this time.
Why is Russian control of 20% of U.S. uranium so troubling?
If you're in an era where nuclear weapons are a reality,
where nuclear energy is an important component
of energy production in the United States,
and increasingly around the world,
control of uranium is absolutely crucial.
And unlike oil or natural gas
can be found so many places around the world,
there are precious few places where you can find
significant and large amounts of uranium
that you can produce on a commercial scale.
What we've essentially done is handed this
precious resource to Vladimir Putin
and the Russian government.
They're not only engaged in aggression
in places like Ukraine,
but they've been very aggressive in fighting
American interests around the globe.
Russia's not an ally. Russia's not a friend.
Vladimir Putin's Russia is a rival of the United States,
and yet we've given them control over this precious resource.
This is what's gonna power America.
I think a lot of people in middle America
would be surprised to know that the Russian government
is doing business in places like Colorado or Wyoming or Utah.
These are small mining towns.
These are operations that have existed for a while,
that have been under the control of American companies,
or for a while Canadian companies,
but it's now Russian companies that control this,
and those companies are controlled
by the Russian government.
Having read through the archives of the KGB,
the files that have been released,
i can tell you that they look at the United States
as weak and ineffectual.
This is a thuggish government
that is engaged in massive human rights violations.
There are opponents of this regime
that have been killed or have disappeared.
There's been persecution of human rights organization.
There's been persecution of homosexuals.
And it's shocking and stunning to me that there has not been
more attention focused to this fact,
that we have given this critical resource
to somebody who is engaged in so much nefarious behavior.
Greetings from Washington.
I want to thank all of you for your work to root out corruption
that weakens economic development,
feeds black markets and organized crime,
and undermines the promise of democracy.
As we work together to eradicate corruption in our own country,
we should also maintain the highest standards of
transparency and accountability
in our development efforts around the world.
Corruption in emerging markets and fragile democracies
undermines the confidence of citizens and investors alike,
while responsible governance helps to foster
sustainable economic development and political stability.
I believe in the oldest adage in American politics,
which is follow the money.
Enormous amounts of money have flowed to the Clintons,
from foreign governments, foreign financiers,
and businesses.
Some of that money lands in their pocket,
some of it lands in their foundation.
It's a pattern we've seen repeated over and over
and over again all around the world.
It's not a coincidence.
Money exchanges hands and favors are done.
Now, Clinton friends and supporters
will say there's no smoking gun.
But look at American political history.
People are convicted all the time for a pattern of behavior,
where, for example, they're engaged in
insider trading on the stock market.
So, for example, you have a foreign corporation
or a foreign government that wants something
from the State Department while Hillary Clinton
is Secretary of State.
They will make a large payment to the Clinton Foundation.
That will be followed by
favorable action on their behalf.
If that happens one or two times, you might say,
look, it's just a coincidence.
But when you see the pattern recreated
over and over and over again,
you have to recognize that these events are connected.
They've created a model for massive self-enrichment,
that allows you to go into so-called public service,
but get extremely rich at the same time.
And when friends and allies say that the Clintons
aren't really that interested in money,
their actions show otherwise.
What's so shocking to a lot of people
is that making of that money requires them
to betray their progressive values.
The environment, labor unions, women's rights, human rights.
The Clintons are doing business and growing rich,
with the favor of the very individuals
who you would expect to be their political opposites.
For a very long time in American history
and probably still to this day,
one of the worst things that could be said
about you as a politician is that you are
on the take from foreign interests.
What the Clintons have essentially done
is busted down the door
and robbed the bank of that concept.
So, when people think of the Clintons taking foreign money,
they think it's maybe an insurance company from great Britain,
or they think it's from a supermarket chain in Canada.
The fact of the matter is a lot of that money
comes from the darkest, worst corners of the world.
Are countries like Nigeria and Russia
in the habit of giving money to politicians
and not wanting something back?
The Clintons are glad to take this money.
It's made them fabulously wealthy.
But what has it done for us?
Before we had to worry about
money from Wall Street and big labor,
now we have to worry about it coming from around the world
and infecting our politics, and damaging our politics.
Everything from our uranium policy
to our human rights policy.
Nothing seems to be safe anymore.
This is a corruption. This is a crime.
With the Clintons, nothing is sacred.
Everything is for sale.
But we are the ones who are paying the price.
Maybe, just maybe, the American people
are tired of being sold out.