CNN's Chris Cuomo did his best to downplay the emerging scandals about the Clinton Foundation on Thursday's New Day. Cuomo asserted that "the Clinton book was widely dismissed – about the money that goes into the CGI [Clinton Global Initiative]. And then...the left is pushing back hard on this book – saying, there's nothing there." He later underlined that the "examples that have come out so far" in the New York Times' coverage of the story were "not that impressive."
The anchor brought up the Clinton Foundation issue near the end of a panel discussion with two New York Times journalists – presidential campaign correspondent Maggie Haberman and political correspondent Patrick Healy. Cuomo led with his "widely dismissed" and "the left is pushing back hard" statements about the book, which is titled Clinton Cash, and continued by admitting, "It's not going away." He asked Haberman, "Do you believe that's because of the search for grist for the mill, or do you believe that there are real questions that we need better answers to than – I know we're going to get attacked, and this is the nature of politics?"
To her credit, the correspondent pointed out all of the stories on the controversy that came out that morning, as well as the fact that the book, by conservative writer Peter Schweizer, hasn't even been released yet:
MAGGIE HABERMAN, PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES: I think there is a – there are a bunch of stories out today, including from The [New York] Times; including in The Wall Street Journal. There was story in the Washington Post. Each one presents something a little different. And then, I think Reuters had a story this morning about the Clinton Foundation re-filing a bunch of their 990s, which is their tax declarations – that a charitable group has to do.
The collective weight of this, I think, is why it's not going away. And remember: the book you're talking about has not even come out yet. So a lot of people don't know exactly what's in it. I think it's going to be hard to totally dismiss until people see what it contains.
The author is apparently now also, incidentally, going through a scrub, of some sort, on, against, or about Jeb Bush. So I think that you are going to see this continuing for a while.
Co-anchor Alisyn Camerota then disclosed the name of the book, and summarized Schweizer's main claim about the book. Camerota asked Healy if anyone found any substance to the claim. As the political correspondent answered the former Fox News journalist's question, Cuomo interjected his "not that impressive" label of the Times's reporting on the story. Healy actually conceded the CNN anchor's point. He also played up Schwiezer's conservative politics:
ALISYN CAMEROTA: The book is called Clinton Cash, Patrick, and the headline from it is that – or at least what the author contends – is that the Clinton Foundation took inappropriate – basically, money – fundraising – while Hillary Clinton was at – head of the State Department, and that policy was affected as a result. Has anybody been able to connect those dots?
CUOMO: And that they got paid – and that the Clintons got rich off it-
PATRICK HEALY, POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES: People – and that they got paid – and that the Clintons personally got quite wealthy. I mean, look, I think this is what's going to be happening over the next ten months, as Hillary Clinton is possibly in a vacuum as the likely Democratic candidate – you're going to see reporting after reporting to look at whether the author of this book – who has ties to the right; who can be portrayed by the Clintons as a partisan, maybe, hatchet man, you know – but actually, may have turned up – you know, some – some – some real connections there.
You know, The Times, – as Maggie said, The Times, the Post, the Wall Street Journal, are all, sort of, looking at this to see – things that we know – the Clintons have gotten very wealthy over the years giving speeches both abroad and at home. You know, the Clinton Foundation has received money from overseas, certainly, after Secretary Clinton left office. I mean, the degree to which policy – you know, the degree to which policy was affected though I think-
CUOMO: Examples that have come out so far in your paper were not that impressive-
HEALY: No. There were not – right. They were not smoking guns. I mean, I think the hope on the Republican side isn't so much that Hillary Clinton was dumb enough to – you know, re-jigger policy in return for money. I don't think anybody believes that. I think it's more trying to reinforce this perception that the Clintons are different than the rest of us; that the Clintons care about money both, sort of, personally and – you know, for their foundation. And then, maybe, it leads to some kind of ethical issues that might echo with 1990s ethical issues that might make people uncomfortable.
CUOMO: Patrick Healy, Maggie Haberman, thank you very much.
