Talk:Clinton Cash

Article Structure
Presently, the 3rd party reporting about the book, and the author's own comments during his publicity tour, are the only available information about what's actually inside the book. I created a "Publication" section for this type of material. The Times/WaPo/Fox "exclusive agreement" material should take a back seat to the material that is in the book, once it's available. Perhaps there should be a section about the book's impact on the political debate, but that seems premature at this point.Trumpetrep (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The book was published six weeks ago. Up until now, this page has been primarily concerned with the book's media strategy and reception and two confirmed factual errors in the first edition. Given that the book is now available, and the full breadth of its contents available for evaluation it seems proper to re-focus this page around the book's contents and overall thesis. Given the controversy around the book, I believe anchoring the page around the the contents make it easier to find the best POV balance. To that end I am executing a broad edit, particularly of the overview section, to give a summary of some of the major narratives in the book, and significantly, the major lens Schweizer applies in understanding the book's facts: the so-called "Clinton Blur." I am also replacing the errors/retractions section with an "evaluating the book's factual claims" section in order to reflect the fact that the book's factual narratives are much broader than the two documented errors concerning Denis O'Brien's speeches and the TD Bank stake the Keystone XL pipeline. A discussion of these errors remains. However, given the breadth of the book's claims, and that we now know that Hillary Clinton's campaign obtained an advance copy of the book, the book's claims as regards to fact have stood up well. Until further specific errors are documented pro and con discussion of the book ought properly to consist of how Schweizer interprets the facts he brings to bear.


 * I do not regard this as anything like a mature edit, and because of time constraints it will take a couple of days to properly cite everything.

(talk — Preceding undated comment added 20:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks!Trumpetrep (talk) 20:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I think you're leaving the article in some disarray. It currently has only 3 footnotes. Why not revert it back to it's original form and produce a more finished product in your Sandbox? Costatitanica (talk) 18:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If there's no further comment here or edits to the actual article in the next day or so, I'm going to revert to | this edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.2.61.10 (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Even that version seems generous. The entire "Overview" section contains no references... --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Then add a tag. The comment earlier was me; forgot to sign in. Costatitanica (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Or this one. Costatitanica (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I added a tag. This article needs help...! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Rather than delete anything, I'm going to fold the old info into page as a subsection. That's going to make the article better sourced but will also lead to redundancies that I don't have the time or patience to fix, so just gonna stick a repetition tag at the top. Costatitanica (talk) 15:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I still think this article may need to be reverted to a previous version. It just doesn't read well at this time. Anyone else have thoughts? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there a specific version you have in mind? I don't think this article has ever been anywhere near good article status. Unless you have a version that's really better, maybe it's better to just wait and hope that someone with more time comes by to spruce things up. Costatitanica (talk) 17:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Buzzfeed article
The quote here "BuzzFeed was able to disprove Schweizer's claim that Bill Clinton was paid for speeches by Denis O'Brien, the owner of the telecommunications firm Digicel. Schweizer asserts that shortly after these paid speeches, Digicel was awarded $2 million in USAID contracts. However, Clinton was never paid for the speeches in question." Doesn't seem to be in the source cited. It seems to quote clinton spokesmen. Also, if the article is cited, so should Schweizer's response found in same article.Costatitanica (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Schweizer admitted he made a mistake. The passage in the article paraphrases what is in the BuzzFeed article. Feel free to revise it as you see fit.Trumpetrep (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I've added more info using the same sources that were already on the page. I believe I've provided a more balanced perspective of what those actual very sources say. Costatitanica (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Good work.Trumpetrep (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Reworking article
Howdy, y'all. Stumbled upon this page and found it pretty jumbled and confusing, so I just gave it a quick and blunt first round of edits. Planning to do more research and add more sources and expand the article, but just wanted to say I'm open to feedback and I hope to collaborate with any other interested editors. Thanks! Safehaven86 (talk) 22:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Your improvements are very welcome. This article is a bit of a mess. If you want, you are welcome to revert to an earlier version and improve from there instead of trying to remove bad content along the way... --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

US Premiere date and location
The article currently states the file is to premiere in the US at the DNC next week. There is a screening planned in Cleveland on 7/19/2016 in conjunction with the RNC. See article below:

http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/07/15/milo-to-open-clinton-cash-screening-in-cleveland-ohio-tuesday/

76.189.68.39 (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)Gary

FactCheck.org
Greetings! SUPER new to the editing thing. I was wondering about the section under Reception concerning 'Schweizer's assertion that Clinton, as Secretary of State, could have stopped Russia from buying a company with extensive uranium mining operations in the U.S. to be false'. Upon reading the cite, the author actually makes this statement in an interview with Fox news and not in the book. Since this article is about the book, should this sentence be clarified somewhat? Or am I splitting hairs?Kagaseya (talk) 23:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kagaseya (talk • contribs) 22:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

List of Allegations
Hello, USan Wikipedians! Apart from my small administrative edit, I will not touch this article. However, as this film has been translated into Polish and is promoted by the well-known Polish weekly Wprost, please list the allegations. I found this: http://investmentwatchblog.com/clinton-cash-everything-is-for-sale/ which lists much higher speaking fees of Mr Clinton, btw: ...resulting in over $2mm in speaking fees.

Zezen (talk) 02:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Clinton Cash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6iGXZr0Zt?url=http://www.nytimes.com/books/best-sellers/paperback-nonfiction/?_r=0 to http://www.nytimes.com/books/best-sellers/paperback-nonfiction/?_r=0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

"Fact check" about "veto power" misstatement
I've removed the sentence about Schweizer's misstatement, which: was in a single interview and not in the book; he promptly corrected with an explanation; and actually contradicted correct information in the book. It's extremely confusing to include it here, not to mention irrelevant to the subject of the book (and actual errors within). Please see Talk:Peter Schweizer for a lengthy discussion. Thanks! ElleTheBelle 22:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)