WikiLeaks Proves that the Clinton Team Directed George Stephanopoulos to Attack the Author of “Clinton Cash”!

On April 26, 2015 Peter Schweizer appeared ABC’s This Week as part of the promotional tour for his newly released book, “Clinton Cash.” From the very beginning of the interview George Stephanopoulos (who worked in the administration of Bill Clinton) attacked Schweizer, not on the merits of his research but in an attempt to damage Schweizer’s credibility. Many thought that Stephanopoulos’ was simply protecting Clinton because of their long-term relationship. But in today’s Wikileaks dump Team Clinton brags about their work helping the ABC anchor to put down Schweizer. Another email indicates that “testimony” of the Stephanopoulos/Team Clinton’s witness claiming Ms. Clinton had no involvement with the Uranium One deal was made by someone who was asking campaign head John Podesta for a job within the Clinton campaign.

Before we proceed in the interests of transparency that neither Team Clinton or George Stephanopoulos cared about, when I was writing for Breitbart years ago Peter Schweizer was one of the editors I worked with. However as you are about to see, this story is based upon the words and emails of the people involved not any relationship I may have with Mr. Schweizer.

From the very start of the April 2015 interview with Peter Schweizer, George Stephanopoulos was serving the Clintons by attack rather then serving the audience of the program by seeking information.

take our poll - story continues below

Should Jim Acosta have gotten his press pass back?

  • Should Jim Acosta have gotten his press pass back?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to The Constitution updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: Watch Obama Trash the USA 18 Different Times During His Recent Trip Abroad

Stephanopoulos: You know, I was looking at a  the book jacket right here and you say that, here in the book jacket, that your reporting raises serious and alarming questions about judgment of possible indebtedness to an array of foreign interests and ultimately, a fitness for high public office. So how does your reporting show that Hillary Clinton may be unfit for the presidency?

Schweizer: Well, I think the real question here, George, is when you ever have an issue of the flow of funds to political candidates, whether that’s to their campaigns, whether that’s to private foundations, whether that’s to their spouse, is there evidence of a pattern of — of favorable decisions being made for those individuals?And I think the — the point that we make in the book is that there is a troubling pattern. There are dozens of examples of that occurring.

Some people, I think particularly the Clinton camp, would say that these are all coincidence. I don’t think, when you’re talking about 12 instances, you’re talking coincidence. I think you’re talking trend.

Stephanopoulos: But you take it pretty far. You write that, “The pattern of behavior is troubling enough to warrant further investigation by law enforcement officers. ..Do you have any evidence that a crime may have been committed?

Any objective reporter reporter might say, “Wow, 12-incidences! That’s may be a pattern. It at least should be investigated.”  And perhaps that objective reporter would follow up by asking questions that would help him (and the audience) understand how the author researched the incidents in question.

But not George, he had a different agenda. Stephanopoulos asked if Schweizer had evidence a crime has been committed as if he was interviewing Lt. Joe Kenda of Discovery ID instead of Peter Schweizer, author. If Stephanopoulos watch some news reports (or Kenda’s show) he would understand that the very purpose of an investigation is to determine if a crime has been committed. But the ABC host wasn’t being a reporter….he was being a member of Team Clinton.

Stephanopoulos continued to attack without asking any questions about the content of the book.

Stephanopoulos:  : As you know, the Clinton campaign says you haven’t produced a shred of evidence that there was any official action as secretary that — that supported the interests of donors. …We’ve done investigative work here at ABC News, found no proof of any kind of direct action. And an independent government ethics expert, Bill Allison, of the Sunline Foundation (ph), wrote this. He said, “There’s no smoking gun, no evidence that she changed the policy based on donations to the foundation.”

Finally Stephanopoulos got into the content of Clinton Cash.  tried to tear apart one element of one person involved in the Uranium One story.  Then he followed by pointing out that the State Department was only one of nine votes needed to approve the deal. And besides he explained,  the State Department employee most involved with considering the Uranium One deal which gave a Russian company control of 20% of America’s uranium reserves,  Jose Fernandez said Mrs. Clinton was not involved. So who cares if at the very same time the Clinton Foundation was receiving millions of dollars from people connected to the sale of Uranium One? That’s just a coincidence.

Stephanopoulos wasn’t done, he decided he couldn’t attack Schweizer’s research so he did his best to go after the author’s credibility…


Read the Rest of the Shocking Story from Jeff Dunetz at the Lid…


Please leave your comments below

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.