Hillary For America: “Schweizer Was Asked About The Multi-Agency Approval Process That Uranium One Underwent To Gain Approval For Its Sale And Was Forced To Admit That The State Department Does Not Control The Review Process.” “Schweizer was asked about the multi-agency approval process that Uranium One underwent to gain approval for its sale and was forced to admit that the State Department does not control the review process: ‘STEPHANOPOULOS: But the assistant secretary who sat -- the assistant secretary of State who sat on the committee said she never intervened on any CFIUS issue at all. SCHWEIZER: Well, I think that deserves further scrutiny. I would question that. ... STEPHANOPOULOS: But based on what? Based on what? SCHWEIZER: Well, I think based on her (INAUDIBLE)... STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you have any evidence that she actually intervened in this issue? SCHWEIZER: No, we don't have direct evidence.’” [Hillary for America, 4/26/15] Hillary For America: “At Multiple Points In The Interview, [Chris] Wallace Challenged Schweizer…Saying ‘You Don’t Have A Single Piece Of Evidence That She Was Involved In This Deal’ And ‘There’s No Indication That Hillary Clinton Or Bill Clinton Took Direct Action.’” [Hillary for America, 4/26/15] SCHWEIZER’S IMPLICATION THAT SECRETARY CLINTON SUPPORTED AN INDIAN NUCLEAR DEAL IN EXCHANGE FOR INDIAN DONATIONS WAS BASED ON FALSE AND DISPUTED CLAIMS Several Aspects Of Schweizer’s Claim That Secretary Clinton Changed Her Position On An Indian Nuclear Agreement After Donations From Indian Interests Were Cited As False Or In Dispute. “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 [by Peter Schweizer] alleges in a chapter obtained by POLITICO…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.” [Politico, 4/29/15] REPUBLICANS AND NEWS OUTLETS POINTED OUT THAT SCHWEIZER PRESENTED NO EVIDENCE OF A QUID-PRO-QUO Hillary For America: Speaking About Secretary Clinton’s Relationship To A Russian Uranium Company, “Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson Told Reporters That There Was ‘No Evidence Of A Quid Pro Quo,’ And That ‘Republicans Need To Be Careful Not To Overstate The Case.’” “Finally, even some Republicans sought to distance themselves from the book’s false allegations. On NBC, Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson told reporters that there was ‘no evidence of a quid pro quo,’ and that ‘Republicans need to be careful not to overstate the case.’” [Hillary for America, 4/26/15] TIME On Quid-Pro-Quo Allegations In “Clinton Cash”: “The Suggestion Of Outside Influence Over U.S. Decision-Making Is Based On Little Evidence — The Allegations Are Presented As Questions Rather Than Proof.” “Hillary Clinton’s allies are pushing back against the suggestion in a new book that donations to the Clinton Foundation influenced the handling of the sale of U.S. uranium mines to a Russian-backed company…The suggestion of outside influence over U.S. decision-making is based on little evidence — the allegations are presented as questions rather than proof. The deal’s approval was the result of an extensive interagency process that required the assent of at least nine different officials and agencies.” [TIME, 4/22/15] SCHWEIZER BRIEFED REPUBLICAN MEMBERS OF THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE—NOT DEMOCRATS—ON HIS BOOK ABC News’ Arlette Saenz: “At Least Two Senators - Bob Corker & Rand Paul - Were Briefed On The Clinton Cash Book Before Its Release.” [@ArletteSaenz, Twitter, 4/20/15]