Hillary Clinton changed her position on a 2008 nuclear agreement between the United States and India after Indian business and government interests flooded various Clinton enterprises with cash, a highly anticipated new book alleges in a chapter obtained by POLITICO.

The book — “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Help Make Bill and Hillary Rich” — has become a major point of contention as Clinton kicks off her 2016 bid for the White House. She addressed the controversy surrounding it at a campaign stop in New Hampshire earlier this month, calling it one of many “distractions and attacks,” and her team has aggressively fought to both discredit its conservative author, Peter Schweizer, and to debunk its claims before publication.


Due for release on May 5, while Clinton is scheduled to hold campaign events in Nevada, the book promises a look at allegedly inappropriate financial arrangements between foreign entities and the Clintons, in particular focusing on the family’s $2 billion foundation and the Democratic front-runner’s years as secretary of state. Clinton’s team has responded to a series of reports about the book’s contents — including one in POLITICO about a chapter alleging that Clinton’s diplomatic role directly affected the business of major foundation donor Frank Giustra — by pointing out that Schweizer briefed GOP officials on his research, and that some of his sources have been proved false.

The newly obtained chapter, titled “Indian Nukes: How to Win a Medal by Changing Hillary’s Mind,” details a series of donations and overtures from Indians who supported the nuclear deal to the Clintons, and points to one case of an Indian-American Clinton donor — who in April 2014 pleaded guilty in an illegal contribution scheme for Clinton’s 2008 run — receiving an award from the Indian government for his work in securing the agreement.

“In 1998 the Indian government conducted nuclear tests, Bill Clinton imposed restrictions on the export of U.S. nuclear technology, because this violated the nonproliferation treaty — Hillary Clinton supported that position,” Schweizer said Tuesday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” outlining the chapter. “In 2005, the Indian government wanted those restrictions lifted. Hillary Clinton at that time supported a killer amendment to stop that from happening. After 2005, a number of Indian interests, including an Indian politician that admits now that his donation to the Clinton Foundation wasn’t even his money, those donations flowed. In 2008, she reverses course and supports the export of U.S. nuclear technology.”

While Clinton’s stance toward India evolved over the years, a review of then-Sen. Clinton’s statements and votes while the Indian nuclear deal was under debate shows that one of the key facts in Schweizer’s argument on the topic is false — Clinton actually publicly stated her support for the deal in 2006. Another is in dispute – Schweizer writes that Clinton voted to cap India’s fissile production, when she actually voted against a measure that did that, though she did support a weaker one that imposed some limits.

Schweizer, who wrote that Clinton voted for a “’killer amendment’ that would have effectively gutted the bill by capping India’s fissile production,” contends that the Clinton camp is trying to “blur” Clinton’s position. He says the “killer amendment” the book refers to is the one submitted by Sen. Russ Feingold that would have asked for Indian assurances that American nuclear fuel would not be used to increase fissile material production “in unsafeguarded nuclear facilities” – which Clinton did vote for. But as Feingold’s measure referred specifically to fissile material production within unsafeguarded facilities, it was less restrictive than the one proposed by Sen. Jeff Bingaman. Clinton voted against Bingaman’s measure, which would have mandated a presidential report stating that “India has stopped producing fissile materials for weapons pursuant to a unilateral or multilateral agreement.”

Chelsea Clinto, stands with businessman Sant Singh Chatwal during a private visit, in New Delhi, India. | AP Photo

Asked about the allegations by POLITICO, Clinton campaign spokesman Josh Schwerin said, “‘Clinton Cash’ is attempting to rewrite history to fit a predetermined partisan narrative. It only takes a quick look at Hillary’s actual voting record and statements to see that this conspiracy theory doesn’t even come close to passing the smell test.”

Schweizer writes in the chapter that in 2006, “Hillary was still a reluctant and questionable supporter of the bill.” But in June of that year Clinton, a founding member of the Senate India caucus, issued a press release announcing her intention to vote for the legislation and praising Sens. Richard Lugar and Joe Biden, who she said improved upon the Bush administration’s initial proposal.

“As India continues to grow stronger and to shoulder more of the responsibilities that come with being a leading nation in the world, we must continue to work towards greater cooperation with our Indian friends to deal with our common challenges in security, energy, economics and health,” she wrote. “I hope that this agreement is just the first step on that journey that our countries, and our people, will take together.”

Schweizer also alleges that in 2006 Clinton supported a “‘killer amendment’ that would have effectively gutted the bill by capping India’s fissile production.” While Clinton did support one measure that would have forced India to comply with nonproliferation and disarmament agreements, and another so-called “killer amendment” that insisted the deal “does nothing to directly or indirectly assist, encourage, or induce India to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices,” she voted against the “killer amendment” introduced by Bingaman.

Implying that a group of influential Indians directed money and attention to the Clintons in order to get them to support the nuclear deal, the book details the activities of Sant Chatwal, the New York hotelier who in December was sentenced to three years probation for his campaign finance violations.

Chatwal allegedly helped arrange one of Bill Clinton’s most lucrative public speeches — a $450,000 affair in London — and once said, “Even my close friend Hillary Clinton was not in favor of the deal [in 2006] … But when I put the whole package together, she also came on board. … In politics nothing comes free. You have to write cheques in the American political system.”

Schweizer writes that Chatwal arranged a dinner for Clinton in 2007 featuring Indian billionaires who soon thereafter donated to the Clinton Foundation, and that Chatwal played a large role in steering other money toward the Clintons. The Indian government gave him one of the country’s highest civilian honors in 2010, Schweizer writes, largely thanks to his role in getting Clinton to support the deal. Chatwal’s lawyer did not respond to POLITICO’s request for comment.

The chapter also examines the case of Indian politician Amar Singh, who hosted what an Indian newspaper called “a mega bash for former U.S. President Bill Clinton” in Lucknow in September 2005 and had a two-hour dinner with Hillary Clinton before an important vote on the bill in September 2008, Schweizer writes. Singh drew attention when the Clinton Foundation revealed in 2008 that he had donated between $1 million and $5 million — between 20 and 100 percent of his entire net worth — and then he insisted the money was not his.

Asked about the money as recently as this week, Singh told India’s Economic Times, “That is not my donation, I have not given that money to the Clinton Foundation.”

Some of Schweizer’s reporting has recently been called into question as chapters of the book have fallen into reporters’ hands. On Tuesday, for example, BuzzFeed reported that Bill Clinton was not, in fact, paid for a series of speeches that are identified by Schweizer as coming in return for a favor in Haiti. And a talking points memo circulated by the Clinton camp to its allies last week noted that one of Schweizer’s sources in the book is a TD Bank news release that was revealed as fake two years ago.

But Clinton continues to face scrutiny over her involvement with her family’s foundation, which has come under fire this year for accepting donations from foreign governments. The organization’s acting CEO admitted over the weekend that it had “made mistakes, as many organizations of our size do,” in disclosing its donors, but that it would likely review and refile some of its tax forms. The admission came less than two weeks after the foundation said it would limit — but not eliminate — donations from foreign governments while Clinton is pursuing the presidency.

Meanwhile Bill and Chelsea Clinton this week embarked on a foundation trip to Africa, where they are expected to remain, with an entourage of donors, until next Thursday — two days after the book is released.

Clarification: This story has been updated to clarify Schweizer’s contention that his book was referring to a different amendment than was originally indicated.