During an appearance on CNN’s Reliable Sources on Sunday, Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer blasted ABC’s George Stephanopoulos for failing to disclose $75,000 worth of donations to the Clinton Foundation.
Speaking to Brian Stelter, Schweizer maintained that after his interview with the ABC anchor that he "thought he was simply asking tough questions. Now I think the revelations that have come out put the interview at least in my mind in a totally different context.”
Schweizer explained that when he sat down with Stephanopoulos last month he had no idea about the Clinton Foundation donations:
I sort of believed and assumed he had sort of put that in the past. And I thought he was simply asking tough questions. Now I think the revelations that have come out put the interview at least in my mind in a totally different context. I don’t mind tough questions, but you wonder what’s the motivation: is it the search for truth, or is it because he’s trying to, in a sense, do something to benefit the Clinton Foundation which he obviously has some affinity for?
Stelter tried to defend Stephanopoulos’ failure to disclose his donations and argued “[y]ou’re the kind of guy who said what you did in the past doesn’t affect your current work. Isn’t that sort of Stephanopoulos’ defense -- what is in his past is in his past, it’s behind him, it doesn’t affect his reporting work today?”
The Clinton Cash author pushed back and explained that when he spoke to Stephanopoulos he assumed that he was disconnected from the Clintons:
Well, I was operating under that assumption. I have no problem with people bringing up my past. I have no problem with people knowing Stephanopoulos’ past.
But I very much figure we need to judge him based on his journalism, except for the fact that we now know he has these entangling relationships with the Clintons, which doesn’t make it in the past, it makes it in the present. And that is, I think, a very, very different context for which to evaluate all of this.
Despite Stelter accusing Schweizer of trying to manufacture a “publicity ploy” by asking for another interview with Stephanopoulos, the Clinton Cash author reiterated the importance of allowing ABC’s audience to actually hear the details in his book:
But it puts everything that occurred in that interview in a very different context. I would welcome the opportunity to come and share with the audience what I uncovered in the book and have, you know, even an aggressive conversation with somebody there about it.
--
Part of the frustration there was I never really got a chance to explain or describe what is in the book. So, it was a very stuttered conversation. That’s what was very frustrating to me about it. And now, I think it’s incumbent upon them to allow their audience to hear the evidence that’s in the book.
See relevant transcript below.
CNN’s Reliable Sources
May 17, 2015
BRIAN STELTER: He asked you to respond to allegations of partisanship. Why didn’t you put him on the defensive there and bring up allegations against his partisanship?
PETER SCHWEIZER: Well, you know, I obviously didn’t know about the donations to the Clinton Foundation or the fact that he’s given multiple speeches and served on panels for them. But honestly --
STELTER: But you knew about his long history.
SCHWEIZER: Yes, I knew about the fact that he had worked for the Clintons, but honestly, I sort of believed and assumed that he had sort of put that in the past. And I thought he was simply asking tough questions. Now I think the revelations that have come out put the interview at least in my mind in a totally different context. I don’t mind tough questions, but you wonder what’s the motivation: is it the search for truth, or is it because he’s trying to, in a sense, do something to benefit the Clinton Foundation which he obviously has some affinity for?
STELTER: You’re the kind of guy who said what you did in the past doesn’t affect your current work. Isn’t that sort of Stephanopoulos’ defense -- what is in his past is in his past, it’s behind him, it doesn’t affect his reporting work today?
SCHWEIZER: Well, I was operating under that assumption. I have no problem with people bringing up my past. I have no problem with people knowing Stephanopoulos’ past. But I very much figure we need to judge him based on his journalism, except for the fact that we now know he has these entangling relationships with the Clintons, which doesn’t make it in the past, it makes it in the present. And that is, I think, a very, very different context for which to evaluate all of this.
STELTER: Earlier this week, you told Sean Hannity that you think a rematch is in order. Have you heard from ABC This Week?
SCHWEIZER: I’ve had no contact from ABC News. I have to also say, you know, the comment that he made about ABC News has looked into this and has found no direct action, ABC News’s investigative division has reported on findings in the book, and they talk about the troubling patterns. So, I don’t know where he’s getting that report from. But it puts everything that occurred in that interview in a very different context. I would welcome the opportunity to come and share with the audience what I uncovered in the book and have, you know, even an aggressive conversation with somebody there about it.
STELTER: It sounds like that’s a publicity ploy.
SCHWEIZER: No, it’s not a publicity ploy. Part of the frustration there was I never really got a chance to explain or describe what is in the book. So, it was a very stuttered conversation. That’s what was very frustrating to me about it. And now, I think it’s incumbent upon them to allow their audience to hear the evidence that’s in the book.
STELTER: Do you think a follow-up interview is actually likely or even possible?
SCHWEIZER: I think, you know, a follow-up interview in a sense would be an admission on the part of managers there that they’ve made a mistake. So I think it’s probably unlikely. I think it’s the fair thing to do. But I think there right now seem to be in cover-up mode.
STELTER: Cover-up mode, that’s a strong way to call it.
SCHWEIZER: Yes. I mean, I think it is because there’s no discussion about the larger extensive relationships that he has. I mean, he’s been on panels with Chelsea Clinton at Clinton Foundation events. He’s moderated debates and discussions at Clinton Foundation events. How can you do that and cover that same political family in the political season? I mean, to me, it’s mindboggling. I can’t imagine that CNN or other news organizations would tolerate that. And I think there’s embarrassment and a desire to just hope that this is going to go away, but I don’t think it is.
STELTER: I think to talk about ABC and Stephanopoulos is crucial here because the moment this was disclosed, ABC put out a statement saying they would stand by him. That has not changed in the past few days. It makes me wonder whether they’ll just be able to have this blow over.
SCHWEIZER: Yes. I mean, it’s hard to say. And of course, now you’ve got other reporters that are coming out. I think that Geraldo Rivera came out and said well, I was let go of ABC because of a donation or a contribution or something for far less than this. So, I think there’s frustration. And the question is, are journalists, in general, going to be held to the same standard at networks, or are you going to have superstars that are allowed to do things that, you know, regular reporters are not allowed to do? And if that’s the case, I think that’s very troublesome.
STELTER: That would suggest to me you think he’s going to go ahead and skate by.
SCHWEIZER: Well, it suggests to me that history suggests that perhaps he might as well. But I think the bottom line is there should not be double standards. I focus on the fact that I don’t think we should have double standards for politicians, and I think that applies in the media as well. I mean, it’s just inherently unfair.
STELTER: One thing I did wonder when this came out earlier in the week is whether your investigators ever came across this. How is it that you all did not notice when working on your book that Stephanopoulos had made these donations?
SCHWEIZER: That’s a great question. You know, I think if during the midst of our research a researcher had come to me and said, you know, I’m going to look on the Clinton Foundation database and see if George Stephanopoulos is a contributor, I would have laughed at them, honestly. I would have laughed at them because I thought it would be so sort of over the top that I couldn’t imagine that it took place. So when this came out, I just -- I was dumbfounded. I was absolutely dumbfounded. I never would have imagined that those donations had existed and would have, you know, laughed if my researchers had suggested we look into this.
