Hillary Clinton’s aspirations to become the next US president might not be based only on the desire to advance her political agenda. The author of the bestseller ‘Clinton Cash’ told RT she may also be seeking to increase fees for the family’s speeches.

With the Clintons having already announced that they are going to carry on with their Clinton Foundation and “take large inflated speaking fees from overseas,” the nation can expect that their paychecks will keep growing, Peter Schweizer, author and executive producer of the Clinton Cash documentary said.



“As an ex-president he [Bill Clinton] was making $175,000 a speech. She [Hillary Clinton] becomes secretary of state – literally overnight that triples. That will increase even more if she becomes president, so we are going to expect more of the same: larger flow of money, because, of course, when you are paying the spouse of the president you can expect more in return than when you’re paying the spouse of the secretary of state,” he suggested.





Read more

The money the Clintons have received “often comes from people and places... that have a history of corruption,” like from Africa or Indian politician Amar Singh, who is involved in bribery scandals and believed to have paid them up to $5 million, the author alleges, while wondering if all of “these individuals are throwing large sums of money at the Clintons” without wanting something in return.



“I think it’s naive to think that they are just doing this out of the kindness of their hearts,” he said.



The Clintons have managed to keep that system up and running despite controls US officials have tried to put in place to assure more transparency. In 2008, President Obama required the Clintons to disclose all donations to the Clinton Foundation as a condition of Hillary Clinton becoming secretary of state, Schweizer said, adding that the then-secretary of state to be also promised complete transparency to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.



“But we now know that... there are literally more than a thousand donations that they did not disclose, that they hid, oftentimes involving very questionable transactions. So those controls were set in place, but the Clintons ignored them,” Schweizer told RT, adding that legal punishment might even not be applicable in all the cases.



“The Clintons are very smart lawyers; they know where the legal lines are. By breaking these agreements they may not have broken the law per se, but they broke their agreement with the president of the United States, and yet they continue to just move along.”



READ MORE: Clinton campaign taps ex-Goldman Sachs partner for Asian fundraisers



“They’ve essentially said ‘Catch us if you can,’ we are going keep doing... this if she becomes president of the US, keep taking the speaking fees, and keep taking the donations to the Clinton Foundation,” the American author said.

Read more

There is also a “very real potential” that the Clintons have broken some laws as well, he added, saying that he’s been calling for an official investigation.



“In the US, we have laws relating to public servants that are pretty clear when it comes to accepting donations. If you are taking official government action on behalf of somebody who is giving you something of value that is a violation of federal law... The question is: Will the prosecutor take it on and will a grand jury in the US court system actually have an opportunity to hear the evidence?”



“So for the Clintons there are a lot of motivations for seeking this office. Part of it is political agenda and views, but I think part of it is perpetuating the Clinton Foundation and this wealth-creating system that they have developed,” Schweizer said.

READ MORE: Clinton tops list of candidates backed by US weapons-makers



The issue has led to a lack of personal trust for the Democratic presidential nominee, even among her own supporters, the author said, citing a poll that showed “almost seven out of 10 don’t believe that she is honest.” Despite there being many people who share and support her views on domestic and foreign policy, “when it comes to personal attachment to her, the numbers are not so great,” he added.



Schweizer also cited another recent survey in which less than half of respondents said they believed Hillary Clinton is seeking the presidency “for the good of the country.” Others “believe she is doing it for personal gain,” he said.



READ MORE: Clinton Fdn raised $26 mn in Sweden as gov’t lobbied Hillary on Iran sanctions – report

Saying that the Clintons have “made more than 200 million dollars” with their Clinton Foundation since Bill Clinton left the White House up to the present time, Schweizer claimed their public service has been “very profitable” for them, and thus has become at least one of the motivations to stay in politics.



When both of them leave the political stage, “they are going to have increasing difficulty getting people to donate to the Clinton Foundation, to pay large speaking fees, because they will not be as relevant any more, and they won’t have the reins of power in a way where they can do things that would be of benefit for potential donors,” he argued.