Skip to content

Judicial Watch • Panel: Clinton Scandal Update – Emails and the Clinton Foundation

Panel: Clinton Scandal Update – Emails and the Clinton Foundation

Panel: Clinton Scandal Update – Emails and the Clinton Foundation

Page 1: Panel: Clinton Scandal Update – Emails and the Clinton Foundation

Category:

Number of Pages:31

Date Created:October 3, 2016

Date Uploaded to the Library:October 03, 2016

Tags:160929, DIGENOVA, CORSI, Comey, Clintons, event, fitton, people, Bill Clinton, hillary, Peter, Congress, Foundation, email, Hillary Clinton, Pentagon, Benghazi, clinton, Obama, State Department, White House, FBI, FOIA, American, department, united, IRS


File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!


See Generated Text   ∨

Autogenerated text from PDF

JUDICIAL WATCH
Judicial Watch Panel: Clinton Scandal Update
Emails and the Clinton Foundation
Moderator:
Tom Fitton
President, Judicial Watch
Featuring:
Jerry Corsi,
Senior Staff Writer, WND.com; Author, Partners Crime
Joseph diGenova,
Attorney and Former U.S. Attorney
Chris Farrell,
Director Investigations and Research, Judicial Watch
Peter Schweizer,
President, Government Accountability Institute; Author, Clinton Cash
Thursday, September 29, 2016
Judicial Watch
425 Third Street SW, Suite 800
Washington, 20024
This rush transcript. This copy may not its final form and may updated.
Transcript by: www.dctranscription.com
TOM FITTON: Good morning. Tom Fitton, president Judicial Watch. Welcome our special educational panel the Clinton scandal update. Joining expert panel
Clinton watchers who examined her career over the decades and have made some pretty
will have some pretty startling information for you begin this panel.
Judicial Watch non-partisan educational foundation. prosecute government
corruption wherever find it, whether Republican Democrat. And Judicial Watch
pleased able present you this special panel Facebook live through the One America
News Now network and C-SPAN. welcome. provide you some context before introduce our panelists, thought give you
brief update the Clinton e-mail matter which Judicial Watch has been heavily involved in.
Those you who don know, use the Freedom Information Act, the FOIA law,
uncover government records. were investigating few years ago the Benghazi scandal and noticed our lawsuits that Hillary Clinton didn have any e-mails that were coming
from the Obama administration. just sure, asked for Clinton e-mails related
Benghazi. And, sure enough, the government, towards the end 2014, started making noises
that there may other documents they needed look at.
And then February 2015, they told the court they gave everything Judicial Watch,
but there may other documents they needed look at. And then, few weeks later, the New
York Times reports that the Clinton about the basics the Clinton e-mail scandal that she
was using Clinton server, private server what she thinks private server and producing
thousands e-mails for herself and, evidently, the State Department, but not for the American
people since she was conducting all her government business this separate server.
And then, course, all bets were off terms the undoing the Freedom
Information Act, the obstruction congressional investigations, the obstruction and fraud
brought upon Judicial Watch and the courts its various lawsuits that were seeking information
that should have been covered the Clinton e-mails but weren produced. And Judicial Watch
quickly took the lead uncovering basically everything know date about the Clinton email scandal. And you see how even led the FBI terms investigating it. And was
one those cases that led discovery, which evidence gathering. took testimony
Cheryl Mills, Mrs. Clinton former chief staff the State Department, and Huma Abedin,
deputy chief staff, and many, many Clinton officials the State Department who knew
should have known about the Clinton e-mail scandal.
And, fact, one our cases Mrs. Clinton had submit statement under penalty
perjury that was produced the court saying that far she knew all the Clinton e-mails that
she had were turned over the government that were government related. Well, fact, now
know that 30,000 e-mails were deleted and many those were actually government related emails that shouldn have been deleted. And result all this litigation, the FBI was
pressured and the Justice Department was pressured undergo least begin least the
appearance criminal investigation into Mrs. Clinton handling the e-mails.
And learned over the last several weeks, obviously the FBI decided not
prosecute recommend the prosecution and the Obama Justice Department decided not
prosecute her based the alleged recommendation Mr. Comey, the FBI director. But
find out more details about the FBI investigation, found out that lot these investigations
that the FBI was undertaking didn take place but for Judicial Watch pressure from the
litigation. The witnesses weren questioned until became clear Judicial Watch was either
going get discovery was getting discovery and would questioning some these same
witnesses. was bad that just learned the latest FBI document dump that the FBI was using
documents produced Judicial Watch under the Freedom Information Act with redactions. they couldn even get the full document. And they were using those documents question
the witnesses. And, course, there lot outrage about the FBI immunity agreements
Department Justice immunity agreements granted Clinton aides issue this case, and get into that later.
But just you know, there will more Clinton e-mails coming out thanks Judicial
Watch litigation. Again, was our litigation that, again, forced the FBI the half-baked
investigation did, turns out, but did produce new Clinton e-mails, including 14,900 emails least that she didn want anyone see because she deleted them. And many those
deleted e-mails were uncovered the FBI and turned over the State Department, and several
thousand them are going turned over the American people result litigation, first Judicial Watch and news this week that VICE News, which Jason Leopold Vice News,
which separately pursuing litigation, getting even more e-mails, the litigation going
result Clinton e-mails that she didn want produced all the American people being
produced perhaps even before Election Day least portion them.
And top that, think should point out that these e-mails will produced even
after the election, matter what happens Election Day this Clinton e-mail scandal
going continue. There going continued pressure for criminal investigation what know went on, matter who elected president. wouldn necessarily count out criminal investigation Mrs. Clinton even under
Clinton administration because don think the attorney general that Mrs. Clinton would appoint
would have much the way argument stop special counsel from being appointed.
How can that person investigate Mrs. Clinton without obviously conflict interest being
apparent? That would require special counsel appointed. think the public would
demand it. And, obviously, under Trump administration, unless acts like every other
Republican administration has the past, seems committed doing more thorough
investigation well. matter what happens, think there going more significant
criminal investigation the new administration.
But also want call attention the fact that Congress has been making lot noise.
The FBI director was testifying earlier this week Congress, but let highlight the fact that
Congress can take steps that refusing take hold Mrs. Clinton accountable this e-mail
scandal. And think this something important remember. You know, Mrs. Clinton testified Congress that she turned over all her government e-mails. know that false. And
Congress, what did do? referred that question whether she committed perjury the
Department Justice for criminal investigation.
Well, who are they fooling? They know what going happen the Obama Justice
Department. They already know where the FBI director comes down that. Why isn there
contempt citation pending against Mrs. Clinton now? Why they have wait for the Justice
Department something they think that she was contempt Congress, the way they
treated terms her testimony being incorrect false the fact that e-mails were destroyed
after Congress subpoenaed them? Why that Congress isn holding Mrs. Clinton
contempt? The answer somewhat obvious. They have election and they don want
accountability the true sense the word get the way their quest for retaining
Congress, and talking about the Republican leadership.
And the other uncomfortable point going bring least from the point view
think any Republican leaders that they can also impeach Mrs. Clinton and they don have wait for her president impeach her. Congress retains the ability impeach federal
officer for conduct whether that officer was whether that officer still office not. they
can impeach Mrs. Clinton for misconduct secretary state right now. And you tell that
Republican member Congress and the general response you get stunned silence.
But true. And the sanction would this the way works the House you
impeach the member the official the House, and that kind like indictment and that
moved the Senate for trial. And the result the Senate trial, there conviction, one
the sanctions could ineligibility for future public office. Boy, wouldn that interesting
process least begin talk about, but you don want hear any Republicans talking about
that. But the fact Mrs. Clinton can impeached for her conduct secretary state. the next time you hear Congress complaining about the FBI and the Department
Justice, you know, and the cover-up and the wired investigation that resulted criminal
charges the Clinton e-mail matter, you know, that all fine and good, but remember: the
Congress has independent tools available under the constitution prosecute the Clinton
scandal. There are tools they refusing use. think there needs some accountability that.
But there lot talk about today. And been blessed with expert panel
individuals who have looked long and hard the Clinton scandals, who have studied them over
the years, and who have unparalleled expertise share with you and educate you about some
these pending issues, including ones that haven been able get today.
First up, terms introductions Joe diGenova, who the founding partner the
D.C. law firm diGenova and Toensing. And Joe has really tremendous experience law
enforcement official, but most notably former U.S. attorney.
Also joining our own Chris Farrell, colleague Judicial Watch, the board
directors Judicial Watch. our director investigations and research Judicial Watch. the one who starts all these investigations that end lawsuits. And, notably, Chris former Army intelligence officer and with specialty counterintelligence and human
intelligence. like know what human intelligence is. sure now that you
retired, that area work sorely needing help our military system our intelligence
systems generally. pretty scary these days.
Also joining Peter Schweizer, another friend Judicial Watch. author
multiple New York Times bestsellers. with the Government Accountability Institute.
And, most notably, the author the Clinton Cash, which the famous bestseller that
really broke open the conflicts interest Hillary Clinton and the Clinton cash machine.
And Jerry Corsi, another long-time student government corruption and Clinton
corruption specifically joining us. with WND.com, senior staff writer there. And
the author the new bestseller, Partners Crime. And don need tell you who Partners Crime reference is, but maybe do. But you see picture Bill and Hillary the cover that gives you idea. But pleased joined them all.
And what going do, just you know, they give you their thoughts and then talk amongst ourselves. And going interesting discussion because the scandal you know, there are probably things going now, speak, that need aware of.
But thought was important bring these experts that you have context. Because the
stories are moving forward quickly, thought important give you kind the long
view terms where were, where are now, and where going.
And, that end, going begin with Peter Schweizer, who will open with
his report, and then move Chris, Jerry and Joe.
So, Peter, the floor yours.
PETER SCHWEIZER: Thank you, Tom. appreciate very much. great here
with this distinguished group people. And want particularly say thank you Judicial
Watch just for the great work you guys have done over the years and particularly somebody
who Clinton Cash was investigating the Clintons before knew about the server, before had the FOIA information. You performed enormous public service exposing this, bravo for that. just wanted talk little bit about some the things that hear from people who are
getting more well-versed what the Clintons have been to, the flow money, the issues
related the e-mail server, and explain why think, first all, this different scandal than
the sort traditional money scandals that seen American political history. Second
all, sort explain why don think can just trust the political process to, sense, let
the voters decide this scandal. think there are very important legal matters that need
addressed. And then, finally, want make the point that there are larger implications beyond
simply the political future Bill and Hillary Clinton relates these particular scandals.
You know, first all, why this different scandal than others? And would say
really for two main reasons mind. First all the scale it, the scale not only the
efforts that the Clintons took evade avoid transparency setting this server, but also the
scale the flow the money that talking about. you look back some the historic scandals, whether Abscam others, the
quantity money that you are talking about flowing the Clintons dwarfs magnitude
sometimes one 100 one. You know, you talking about the Clintons who during
Hillary Clinton public service took around $250 million. The Clinton Foundation itself took billion. the amount money talking about much larger.
But the second point that would make that think even more important that what
the Clinton actions have represented really their successful efforts far evade the financial
controls that have had place for half century prevent foreign interests from influencing
American politicians. For those who don follow such things, you look the laws that
have the books prevent the influence American political figures, have things like
caps how much people can contribute political campaigns.
So, you know, you can individual give much more than $5,000 primary,
general election candidate. You can only give certain amount through political action
committee. But, most specifically, even though there are debates about those questions
money politics, one that never gets debated the fact that haven found anybody who wants
foreign entities influencing our political leaders. haven run across anybody who thinks
good idea have African oligarch, Russian oligarch, Latin-American country influence
our political figures. think about this context. you are one those individuals overseas that wants favor from the federal
government Washington, D.C., pretty much legal avenues are shut off you. You can make
politician campaign contributions Hillary Clinton gain access. You can make political
action committee contribution legally her campaign. But what the Clintons did
establishing the Clinton Foundation and setting the speaker fee apparatus they essentially
created avenue whereby foreign entities could just that. when Hillary Clinton was secretary state, she making decisions related Africa
policy, her husband was collecting $700,000 speaking fees from African entities that had
interests sitting her desk. That unprecedented.
And, will talk about the end comments, the dangerous implications this
are that this will become widespread allowed stand what the Clintons have done.
begin with, think people argue say, well, look, you know, they all corrupt
Washington they all this, that simply not the case. This financial scandal and think secrecy scandal that goes beyond anything that have seen American political history.
Second point would make that don think can just trust political process
this. People say, well, you know, look, the Clintons have learned now from the mistakes that
they made the past so, for example, Bill Clinton has said that the Clinton Global Initiative
not going take place anymore. stepping down from the board the Clinton Foundation. will now essentially run his daughter, Chelsea. So, basically, the argument that they
have learned their lesson that this looks bad, that maybe this even bad, and should just
allow the process forward.
Here the problem. You know, those commitments that Bill Clinton making now
unfortunately, they made commitments similar commitments back 2008. They signed
memorandum understanding with Barack Obama where they committed couple
very, very important things. One was complete transparency. think everybody this panel
thinks transparency great idea. they were required part this agreement disclose all their donations the Clinton Foundation.
Second all, they agreed that there would clear, bright line between the actions
the Clinton Foundation and the State Department. There would blurring the two. Those
were commitments that were made and the Clintons, all now know and everybody
acknowledges, they completely violated those commitments. any commitments that are being
made now going forward, think cannot have much faith simply because they don have
track record abiding these principles. me, the issue not just looking forward. have deal with her tenure
secretary state. have deal with the setting the server because simply cannot
trust going forward that these actions and activities will self-corrected.
And finally the point would make that, ultimately, this about more than the
Clintons. they are avoid legal jeopardy and the very real laws that they have broken, and sure Joe will have lot more say that, but they are evade this, there couple
things know about the rule politics think Washington, D.C.
Number one, that entities are looking for favors. And this particular case, foreign
entities are going continue look for favors from our political leaders Washington, D.C.
And, second all, politicians, you give them the opportunity self-enrich quasi-legal
way, they will take it.
And mark words, here what will happen. the Clinton Foundation and the
activities related the private server are not dealt with legal manner, going
imitated. And there simply reason why could not have secretary defense years
from now Republican Democrat, doesn matter secretary defense who charting
American defense policy, sets private foundation, takes donations from overseas entities,
puts their spouse the lecture circuit taking foreign dollars, and what are say? Are
say the Clintons can it, but you can
The point becomes that this creates extremely dangerous precedent that not dealt
with going have think huge implications for the country not just now, during her tenure
secretary state, but going forward.
MR. FITTON: Thank you, Peter. And, you know, just clear, she was these
promises she made terms her ethics agreement wasn just pro forma. Democrats and
Republicans were concerned about and President Obama demanded it. And there was
negotiation with the White House. was condition her being hired. she scammed not
only the American people, but Democrats and Republicans the Senate who voted for her and
the president the United States. highlighted that thought was scam begin with
2009 and were proven right. But, you know, President Obama didn listen our ethics
advice there.
MR. SCHWEIZER: Well, was just going add that, great point. You know,
look John Kerry, who was chairman the Foreign Relations Committee during her
appointment. raised these exact concerns about conflicts interest, the flow foreign
influence. you exactly right. This was not Republican witch hunt. People like John
Kerry, Democrat, now the current secretary state, had these very exact concerns all.
MR. FITTON: Because Democrats controlled the Senate the time.
MR. SCHWEIZER: That exactly right.
MR. FITTON: That right. Next our Chris Farrell. Chris, said, has looked
started all these investigations are Judicial Watch with his colleagues there and probably other
than one the few folks the country who read all the Clinton e-mails that have been
released and knows what others are about released and can give great update and
certainly some unique insight the classification issues that have been been misled
about thanks John Kerry State Department, the Obama administration, and Mr. Comey.
CHRIS FARRELL: Thank you, Tom. And great with this panel. What great
opportunity for the American public get speed what the real story and not
necessarily talking points from the Clinton campaign from the Justice Department.
You know, come this investigation, this whole problem Clinton corruption from
the perspective intelligence officer. was commissioned Army intelligence officer,
became special agent Army counterintelligence, and then later was trained
clandestine human intelligence case officer. view these things both from defensive
standpoint, from counterintelligence perspective having conducted counterespionage
investigations, but also from the point view intelligence officer looking collect against target.
And when you look the track record, the pattern behavior, the conduct,
the vulnerabilities that have been exposed through this entire scandal, the American public
being misled and they being misled very deliberate fashion, which not just disturbing
from factual basis, but deeply corrosive the public understanding what been put
risk Mrs. Clinton and her conduct. special agent Army counterintelligence, directly personally responsible for
neutralizing, for stopping six foreign intelligence service agents. Those are cases that ran.
put people jail not just under the American legal system, but even under the German legal
system. worked with the attorney general Baden rttemberg put guy jail for
spying, for espionage.
And, particular, think everyone needs appreciate that Mrs. Clinton was the subject national security crime investigation. This wasn security review. wasn argument
over classification levels. This was violation Title the U.S. Code, Section 793F,
mishandling national defense information. And contrary what the American public has been
told repeatedly, intent not element the crime. There requirement prove any sort intent all. And so, when Mr. Comey talks about intent wasn able prove
there sort specification that showed intent, red herring. false argument.
isn requirement the crime. know from the inspector general the intelligence community that top secret
SCI, which sensitive compartmented information. special category intelligence
collection top secret SCI messages e-mails went across Mrs. Clinton unsecured server. fact. finding the inspector general. That the root the referral the
Department Justice that caused them begin this inquiry.
The fact that that has occurred puts the United States grave risk. That the definition
really for compromising top secret material. That the issue that really the focal point
what the FBI should have been looking at. And yes question. not, what did you
intend? not how did you feel about it. not what were you really trying accomplish. yes question. Did this event occur? Yes no. And did occur, who
responsible for it? What the proximate cause this event occurring? And you walk back find the person who made happen, that who prosecuted. And this whole intent thing
nonsense. Mr. Comey lying the American public when goes down that path.
The reason say that because there lots people sitting jail for doing just that. not speculative. not interpretation. Our colleague, Joe, sure will talk about the
idea that Mr. Comey calling the shots prosecutions, which last time checked was issue
for the attorney general U.S. attorney, not the FBI director.
But, nonetheless, this information passed. know passed. And anybody would
looking for that kind information server not just the Russians and the Chinese, but,
frankly, any kind first world intelligence service, whether the Germans, the Israelis, the
Japanese, any first-class intelligence operation would looking for that kind material
unsecured server.
Not only would they look for classified information like that. They even look for
unclassified information. when she tries talk away and say, oh, well, you know,
big deal because these were daughter wedding plans and her yoga routines, which
terrifying thought and itself, but that was what was her server, unclassified, look,
foreign intelligence service wants know that information. They want know what
occupying time and space her head. What she focused on? Who she talking to, about
what, when? That all part the mosaic. all pieces the puzzle that foreign intelligence
service looks trying put together what the secretary state the United States doing?
What important? What isn important? that just another kind component this larger
question.
Look, this investigation itself, there methodology that any counterintelligence
professional goes through when comes collecting evidence, interviewing people who are
either witnesses subjects. Anybody who has access sensitive compartmented information
subject polygraph. Have ever you heard anybody discuss Mrs. Clinton being polygraphed?
Not whisper, not word. And can assure you that there are hundreds thousands persons this country with security clearances whether law enforcement, the intelligence services,
the armed forces, who are all routinely subject polygraph exams. myself have been
polygraphed several times because had access not just SCI material, but also something
Mrs. Clinton was familiar with, and that SAP, special access program. And that wasn
even brought question issue. Why wasn she questioned about being polygraphed? requirement. think the most telling thing with respect Mrs. Clinton this national security crime
investigation that this sort brokered voluntary interview that seems have been
orchestrated David Kendall was not rights warning environment. wasn rights warning
event. That was first question when learned that she was being questioned that Saturday
morning, because federal law enforcement officer and have reason believe you
committed crime and questioning you concerning that, obligated give you Miranda
warning. have give you rights warning. not negotiable.
And not Mirandizing you, not giving you rights warning and law
enforcement officer who capable apprehending you for violation the law and don rights warning, don take too terribly serious, even you bring nine attorneys the
interview with you. That very telling moment that wasn rights warning.
The larger scale thing think also, sort the unintended consequence all this last
point wrap that the FBI director, Mr. Comey, personally compromised.
complicit this scandal. And there larger besides that very unfortunate, very sad
circumstance, the larger thing the institutional damage done the FBI. This not something
that the institution will get over. They been shamed this. corrosive the public
trust the justice system and law enforcement generally. There are unintended consequences this entire affair beyond Mrs. Clinton reckless treatment classified information and her
absconding with federal records.
There are long-term impacts and can talk more about it, obviously. But think the
public really needs appreciate the grave danger that she placed the United States in.
MR. FITTON: Before bring Jerry in, Chris that was excellent presentation could
you talk about retroactive classification, that new made-up term that lied about?
MR. FARRELL: Sure. There this attempt sort un-ring the bell, right attempt say that something that happened the past really wasn bad you think is.
deliberate obfuscation the record. The inspector general went ahead and analyzed this case,
course, the inspector general the intelligence community, and found these top secret SCI
messages that went across. hindsight, there supposed damage assessment that done whenever there
compromise national security information. Shockingly, the director National Intelligence,
General Clapper, has refused damage assessment. statutory requirement. The law
requires done. saying that not going it. Frankly, should sue him over
that, frankly.
But this notion that
MR. FITTON: take note.
MR. FARRELL: Yeah. Please do. good thing for do.
MR. FITTON: Anyone know good lawyer? (Laughter.)
MR. FARRELL: The instance here, though, that what they doing doing
damage assessment, they pointing out that stuff that was treated unclassified the time was fact classified. part damage assessment. nothing new. certainly does not
exonerate Mrs. Clinton any way. fact, compounds the problem. Again, another red
herring. false choice argument that being offered her surrogates say, oh, not bad you think kind like the whole Colin Powell thing. phony argument. attempt muddy the waters. The facts the ground are bad enough. And any other federal
government employee doing the exact same thing, you would see B-roll FBI agents dragging
cardboard boxes out their houses. That the way works for any other United States citizen.
MR. FITTON: Yeah. see the FBI interview notes that Mrs. Clinton thought was
okay discussing pending drone strike long didn actually happen. like she talked
about planned drone strike but long the drone attack never happened, okay despite
being highly classified itself. just
MR. FARRELL: Mind-boggling.
MR. FITTON: really disturbing.
MR. FITTON: Jerry Corsi, author Partners Crime, want ask you about the
current secretary state, John Kerry, whom you have fond relationship with going back long
ways.
JEROME CORSI: Right.
MR. FITTON: But, you know, you had you know, you excellent reporter
these issues and you really focused certain aspects the Clinton scandal, along the
lines that Peter has. And thought would worthwhile to, you know, hear your point view
that think more attention needs paid to.
MR. CORSI: And want start also acknowledging the great work that, Tom,
you done, Chris, and Judicial Watch entirely because wouldn nearly far along
understanding the Clinton scams had not been for your diligence and very hard, tedious work:
FOIA requests, doggedly going after documents, documents produced Judicial Watch that
were not produced the FBI produced the Justice Department. And the American people think should owe debt gratitude Judicial Watch for your diligence. And think all
here personally thank you.
MR. FITTON: Thank you for that.
MR. FARRELL: Thank you, Jerry.
MR. CORSI: focus the Partners Crime, and you take look the subtitle, the Clinton scheme monetize the White House for personal profit. Now, that what
focusing on. mean, about two years ago, Charles Ortel, who good friend New York and
brilliant financial analyst, came and said, you never looked the audited financial
statements the form 990s, which foundation, 501(c)3 501(c)4, IRS form, needs file
every year, Charles said they fraudulent. They patently fraudulent. mean, first all,
was shocked because the Clinton Foundation has been existence since 1997. You would think
someone the federal government would have recognized this. course, now what know
about the IRS that been partisan IRS and will not apply the same standard justice
Democrats those the political left. began dig into it, the crime talking about Partners Crime what
called enormant (sp). want make that very clear, enormant. Enormant when you use
foundation, a501(c)3 501(c)4, the IRS allows you through determination letter, which you
have apply for, say that you get this determination letter for this specific purpose, you can
get funds raised tax favored way that people contributing you have tax benefit, and
that because you going after charity. You trying something that the public
good, and will allow you have tax benefit for that reason. The IRS very stingy
giving determination letters charities should be.
Now, the point enormant when you set foundation utilizing this great gift the
tax code, tax deferral tax any kind tax favored treatment and then you scam the
foundation stealing the money, diverting the money, making yourself rich. Enormant means
instead spending cents the dollar you get for the charity, you spend five cents, and the
rest goes yourself, your associates, your high style life five-star hotels, private jets,
cetera.
And what saying this book and detailed analysis, more almost
prosecutorial looking the evidence, although political scientist but really detailedly (sp)
looking the financial statements, the audited financial statements, and the form 990s.
Capone you know, you think the analogy gangster Chicago went jail not for
racketeering but for income tax evasion.
And what saying and book really complementary the work, the excellent
work that Peter Schweizer has done because Peter arguing case for pay play, which that
people paid the Clintons order get policy decision, either when Hillary Clinton was the
Senate secretary state, made their favor that otherwise would not have been made.
Policy decision, other words, was bought and paid for the money given the Clinton
Foundation.
Now, convinced, having looked the evidence myself, that Peter right. think the
difficulty that vulnerable argument because Clinton veteran defender like Lanny Davis,
can come television and say, Peter doesn have scintilla proof that there was nexus
between the contribution the foundation and the policy decision reached.
Well, Peter doesn have that proof large part because the evidence has been destroyed withheld, the e-mails destroyed, which know Clinton Foundation employees and Tanael
(ph) and other foundations the Clintons was complementary that these foundations shared
the information the highest levels the secretary state they were all one family, even
with the information being classified, confidential, cetera, and was shared the Clinton
Foundation could set events and utilize decisions and opportunities coming down the road
that could fact pay-for-play scandal.
The e-mails get are heavily redacted, key e-mails are destroyed withheld not
given. And Lanny Davis argument fails only because Peter can get the evidence needed
prove the case. sure there. From what have seen, certainly appears abundantly
there. get the goods.
Now, Partners Crime says have the evidence. The evidence the financial
statements, the audited financial statements and the 990s, where, for instance, point out,
Unitaid, which tax structure Europe that administered through the United Nations,
World Health Organization Geneva, gives huge amount monies. the biggest program
the Clinton Foundation runs the Clinton Foundation get AIDS combated, HIV/AIDS,
largely Africa and other third-world countries.
Well, there year could find when was doing the research where what Unitaid
reports they gave the Clinton Foundation what the Clinton Foundation reports receiving.
Some years higher, some years lower, but how could this record discrepancy exist?
And then the Clintons leave the White House begging that they desperately poor. course,
Hillary Clinton has million book contract from Simon and Schuster. They buy expensive
homes Chappaqua and Washington. They obviously not destitute. They going
have pensions president. Hillary Clinton aiming the Senate, cetera.
But the Clintons end with net worth over $100 million each. And even with the
speaking fees, there way they could have amassed that kind wealth the salaries
secretary state the Senate. The money comes from diverting money out the Clinton
Foundation. And the reporting Charles Ortel right. And also invite you look his
website, CharlesOrtel.com, which excellent for those who have accounting backgrounds,
where you can see diversion funds. other words, the Clinton Foundation says, got
gross number receipts this year revenue through our charity operations and the gross
number what they spent, but there detail. almost the financials were
intentionally set perpetrate scam. And you detailed analysis the financial
statements, you can see millions dollars, tens millions dollars being diverted. going end with the point that Bill Clinton has two private corporations, WJC LLC,
and WJC Investments. They filed Delaware. Now, WJC Bill Clinton initials. And
these were never fully disclosed. They were found out the process other investigations.
Now, these two are fundamentally function, especially WJC LLC, pass-through shell
corporation. That what money launderers set up. red flag for money laundering. Drug
cartels, terrorists, and the Clinton Foundation doesn give detail what monies into WJC.
And increasingly find WJC, these organizations mentioned and noticed the Panama
Papers, which are set documents that were released out Panama, showing offshore
transactions. And proceed the investigation, what happens earthquake happens Haiti.
Clintons rush in; opportunity have hundreds millions dollars flow through their hands
and the process divert the money money laundering operation that appears involve even
now John Podesta, the Russians, and other entities don know about fully.
With the Clinton Foundation would maintain being not only enormant scam make
the Clintons rich but also international money laundering scam that perpetrated with
various criminals that the Clintons business with. That how think book
complementary Peter book. And think the two together begin tell the whole story
what the Clinton Foundation all about.
MR. FITTON: Thank you, Jerry. lot there wrap your head around but discuss further. Next Joe diGenova, the former U.S. attorney, former independent counsel,
former special counsel for Congress, there not hat you haven worn that isn applicable
this situation. appreciate whatever you able share with the American people today.
JOE DIGENOVA: Well, want focus the scandal within the scandal. And that
mean what James Comey has done the FBI. This sad and terrible moment American
history law enforcement. Never before has there been such public and sad display poor
judgment, and, must say, political influence decision whether not recommend
charges. not believe this point that the Director Comey fit continue office. believe
that resolution confidence him should filed the Senate. believe that his recent
testimonies Capitol Hill are rife with the type arrogance and obfuscation that should
disqualify anyone with the kind power that the FBI director has from continuing office. believe that has violated his oath the director the FBI because after looking
the entire record that has made public, and not the entire record, very clear that from
the moment took control this investigation, decided that was not going recommend
the prosecution the first female nominee major party for president the United States.
The FBI director made political decision. did not make law enforcement decision. And
every step that took conducing this investigation, quote, unquote, which was not,
shows you categorically that was not legitimate investigation.
And say that with sadness. You recounted the number federal offices that held
that involved investigation. consider James Comey said that reasonable prosecutor would
bring the case that they had come with based the facts. That utter nonsense. His news
conference and wasn news conference because didn answer any questions, but
give him the benefit the doubt and call his news where explained all not all but most the details her transgressions and then concluded, the amazement most the FBI
agents that building and almost all the former FBI agents the United States that there was crime because there was intent, was absolutely ludicrous.
Not only was his news conference sophomoric its content and its delivery but
followed later, September the 7th, with e-mail his staff after took tremendous
criticism for his explanation. going read couple sentences from that memo the FBI
staff. And will assure you not memo that Edgar Hoover any other former FBI
director would have written. embarrassment piled upon embarrassment. has Valley Boy
quality that sad hear FBI director talk this way.
Now, evident that what Mr. Comey should have done the beginning this
investigation was empanel Grand Jury. did not that. When you want investigate
crimes involving national security information, classified information, you don interviews.
You issue subpoenas witnesses, third parties for documents, you make people come into court
and fight them front federal judgment, and you worry about attorney-client privilege and
all and you work that out.
Director Comey didn that. Now, why did not that? didn because
didn want investigate. wanted conclude this investigation before the election. And the
only thing could conclude was find that she did not commit crime, Mrs. Clinton.
That conclusion again, anyone who looked this evidence, who reasonable prosecutor, absolutely ludicrous. There were multiple crimes here committed her. There were
certainly crimes committed lawyers involved the case, employees the Clinton
apparatus, the destruction evidence, the manner which witnesses were handled, one
lawyer representing three four witnesses. The Justice Department never permits that but
Comey and the attorney general allowed it. Deletion e-mails after they were subpoenaed
Congress, destruction evidence lawyers which Mr. Comey says found criminal intent that. must say, after watching Director Comey testify and give his news conference, one has
the sense Russian village. This like Potemkin village. This was fake investigation.
Everybody knows it. flew Los Angeles the beginning this week with former head
counterintelligence for the FBI, and chatted throughout the flight about this and bemoaning, bemoaned the performance the FBI director. And said the thing that hurt the most was
how embarrassed the employees were. That why sent out this silly memo September the
7th, where literally almost laughs them for being concerned and asks them not that. think what also very, very serious about this from public policy standpoint and from
good government standpoint, created double standard justice the highest levels
government. There are now two systems justice for people with classified information
clearances. The big shots get pass, the little people prison. simple that.
tawdry. disgusting. flagrantly violative (sp) his oath.
And when you destroy the concept the fair administration justice, you know what
the American people do? They get worried. They lose confidence. And the worst thing for this
country for the American people not trust the FBI. And they don right now. And there
reason for it. because James Comey heads the FBI. should gone. Now, not
going go. not going resign. Congress not going impeach him. But what they
should do, what Congress should they should pass resolution confidence. They
should tell him that his news conference, his memo his employees, his conclusion, his socalled investigation are not the kind things that they expect from real FBI director. must tell you that think that his performance almost brazen its cleverness
Hillary Clinton brazenness her destruction the e-mails. fascinating that the two
them seem traveling parallel way together, hand hand through the meadow. you
sit back and talk FBI agents around the country about this investigation and the way has
explained and described it, heard people call him the FBI agents the big building
Washington call him the cardinal.
One them said the other day that Mr. Comey heard that there was vacancy
the Holy Trinity and applied. has sense himself that pompous and arrogant and
you see and man great height and very impressive fellow, and knows it,
and uses tool and uses Congress.
His pretense yesterday and the other hearings that was deeply offended that anyone
would question the integrity his investigation, you have loon not question the
integrity his investigation. blatantly obvious that this was like cheap prize fight and took dive. mean, this the 1930s movie, you know, where bunch hoods pay some
guys off and the guy takes dive. That what this was. This was law enforcement dive.
And for him sit there and pretend members Congress that was offended
having the conduct him and his agency called weasely (sp) quite sad. think everyone
knows what did. took pass. took dive. And think what has done the agency what matters me. don care about James Comey. mean, will go. His term has
six more years whatever, and good riddance him when over.
But the truth this: has done damage that incalculable and irreparable this point the FBI because now what will people think the next classified information case when there
was grand jury this case, not single subpoena was issued, and grants immunity
number people who never should have been granted immunity. They should have been
thrown front grand jury, forced take the Fifth and then continue the investigation.
The absence grand jury the answer every one his questions his critics.
says, well, what did you expect do? Well, Mr. Director, expected regular order.
call that regular order. When you have serious criminal violation and there doubt that
what Mrs. Clinton says there was intent. And you absolutely right, Chris, intent was
not required under the statute. gross negligence. However, there were other parts that
statute that require intent that could have been met legitimate investigation.
And the director the FBI thinks that putting private server private home
Chappaqua, New York, with encryption, with multiple devices working off that are not
encrypted not violation 793, that another reason should resign. me, this one
the grossest miscarriages justice.
All these people sitting around the military who have lost their clearances, lost their
jobs, been prosecuted that poor submarine guy who took photograph which never sent
his family, the guy was prosecuted and was convicted and has year the brig, how can Comey sleep night knowing about that kid? must say, find Comey presence still the
directorship the FBI insult everybody federal law enforcement. And think should
go. And think violated his oath. And think that Congress should least something
manifest their outrage this clearly political decision made.
And, you know, think the fact that offended shows that knows how awful his
performance was federal law enforcement official. And all you have talk people
like James Kallstrom New York, the great assistant director, who called this farce because
that what is. This investigation was farce, and Comey knows it. Thank you, Tom.
MR. FITTON: Well, thank you, Joe, and everyone for your presentation. You know,
just few points, going back first Jerry comment about the lack evidence. mean, think seeing that evidence the degree necessary because the jails are full people put
there circumstantial evidence. But now have evidence the e-mails that Judicial Watch
has uncovered showing that
MR. SCHWEIZER (?): Yes. Yes, absolutely.
MR. FITTON: Clinton donors were given special favors the department despite
promises the contrary. And, clear, not just the foundation that benefited. You know, had uncovered these documents showing these conflict interest reviews that were not
really reviews all. They were just rubber stamps. China wants give you money speak?
Okay. You know, foreign potentate wants give you money speak? Okay. And these are
speaking fees that went the Clintons personally. Bill Clinton took the money but, obviously,
Mrs. Clinton married him and she benefits, the tune nearly $48 million speaking fees
that Mrs. Clinton earned through her husband work speaking every foreign potentate and
major corporation the United States while she was secretary state.
MR. FARRELL: You know, Tom, was July two years ago when got those
waiver documents from the State Department. And the 200 and some odd forget the exact
number the 200 and some odd, not single one was ever rejected, nor was there ever even
delay, you know, wait six months every single one was approved. And guess who the
approval authority was each one those forms: Cheryl Mills.
MR. FITTON: Yeah.
MR. FARRELL: Isn that convenient?
MR. FITTON: The person who negotiated the agreement was
MR. DIGENOVA: And the FBI director, who should very inquisitive about all this
sees nothing because wasn asked Congress so. This guy has nose for crime. got nose for publicity.
MR. CORSI: And much the take the e-mails from Huma Abedin, and was going
through those very closely, which Judicial Watch was instrumental obtaining. huge
proportion them are almost totally redacted, which means that there obviously sensitive
material here which sure would contribute not only proving Peter case but case
terms enormant and pay play.
But then, find out that Huma Abedin has private server Yahoo.com. And the
count these e-mails, two-thirds the e-mails you released, Tom, from Huma Abedin, she
forwarded her own Yahoo.com account with all the sensitive material redacted.
Now, what that means all she would have had have done given the password and
user name anyone Muslim Brotherhood, whomever you know, with her connections the
Muslim Brotherhood, and they could have been being read not only Russia but anywhere
the world full non-redacted form, real time, just because she was forwarding them herself.
And, Joe, would back you, mean, isn that violation security?
MR. DIGENOVA: You know, this whole scenario replete with lawlessness and
arrogance knowing that one will stop you. The reason this all occurred because there was impunity which came from the stature the Clintons. They felt, and, more importantly, they
knew that one would try stop them.
The question has been asked recently, apropos what you say, Jerry, where was the civil
service? Where was the civil service our government? You know where they were? They
were Clinton pocket and they were there because they all feared retribution. The Clintons
used retribution and this administration used retribution, whether was the IRS freezing you your job, failure get promotions, retaliation you raise issue. People finally decided that
they weren going have their careers ruined the Clintons and their little minions the
Justice Department, the enforcer, Cheryl Mills. They simply gave up. They stopped doing their
jobs.
When they saw Cheryl Mills signs the waivers, they all knew was over. There was
going ethical enforcement. The Clintons could whatever they want. And for James
Comey sit and tell Congress that there was evidence intent ludicrous
MR. FITTON: Well, clear, said she the violations law that don require
intent, would unfair apply her, which, you know, been applied others.
But want get back want connect Jerry point with Peter work Clinton
cash. And want you speak more about Frank Giustra, who had this Canadian entity set up,
associated with the Clinton Foundation, amass moneys from foreign entities that went into the
Clinton Foundation, and those foreign entities had specific interest and specific policy
decision Mrs. Clinton.
MR. SCHWEIZER: Yes. That exactly right. mean, think you know, Jerry makes great point, that proving pay play can difficult thing. But also think that, you know,
there are examples and maybe Joe and others can talk there are certainly individuals that,
you know, are put before grand jury and are, you know, prosecuted and convicted based
pattern evidence. And think one the things that the Clintons have tried create this
misnomer that you don have smoking gun that say, trade this for this. And absent that,
you have legal case.
MR. DIGENOVA: Peter book the smoking gun. That the bottom line here.
mean, nonsensical. mean, where your smoking gun? Read the book.
MR. SCHWEIZER: Thank you, Joe. But your point precisely. You exactly right.
This was global enterprise you had individuals like Frank Giustra, who has mining interests
around the world. And here the thing that know about, you know, trying develop mining
assets around the world. all about relationships with third-world governments. you
want get mining concession in, say, Kazakhstan the Congo, that concession granted the government there. Unlike the United States, where you have private entities that own
mines, government operation. you are somebody like Frank Giustra, who wants get lucrative mining concessions
around the world, who better have relationship with than America chief diplomat who
providing foreign assistance, who providing, you know, the kinds aid other policy
prescriptions that are important third-world elites. you had situation like the one
Kazakhstan, where the timing just overwhelming.
You know, Bill Clinton flies over with Frank Giustra, who been trying get uranium
concession Kazakhstan, has not been able get it. Bill Clinton shows up, has press
conference, says wonderful things about the dictator Kazakhstan, Nazarbayev, saying what
great human rights record has, which, you know, laughable. makes human rights groups apoplectic.
And three weeks after that, well, first all, Frank Giustra, two days later gets the
uranium concession Kazakhstan. Then three weeks later, the Clinton Foundation gets $30
million from Frank Giustra. And then you have the pattern move forward because this entity,
which becomes Uranium One, has this lucrative asset Kazakhstan. starts buying uranium
assets the United States. And what happens 2009 the Russians come calling, specifically
Arms (sp), which entity wholly owned Rosatom, the Russian state atomic nuclear
agency.
So, clear, Vladimir Putin Russia wants buy uranium assets the United States
and these lucrative assets Kazakhstan. That great, but requires approval from the federal
government, specifically nine government agencies that have sign off this deal, including
Hillary Clinton State Department.
What makes Hillary Clinton role this process, this CFIUS review, this national
security review, are two things. Number one, the agencies that are reviewing this Russian
purchase, only one agency head has record being opposed assets, critical assets the
United States being bought foreign entities, and that Hillary Clinton. She was opposed
the Dubai ports deal 2005. And 2008, she cosponsors and pushes legislation tighten the
screws and make far more effective the so-called CFIUS review process. she been hawk this issue
MR. FITTON: CFIUS that committee agency heads.
MR. SCHWEIZER: Correct. The Committee Foreign Investment the United
States. Correct.
MR. FITTON: Okay. Right.
MR. SCHWEIZER: And the State Department one entity. And she unique that all the other agencies that are reviewing this, including the Pentagon, including the Treasury
Department, only one has record opposing precisely these kinds deals. That Hillary
Clinton.
But the second factor that critical all the government agencies that are
reviewing this and agree this process, only one agency headed somebody whose private
foundation collects $145 million from shareholders that deal. Now, me, that enough
warrants investigation. mean, imagine take the Clintons out it. Imagine secretary
defense making national security decision similar this. And their private foundation takes
$145 million from foreign businessmen, mean, you can bet everybody would investigated.
MR. DIGENOVA: think Peter raises very important point which gets back
something that was said over here Jerry.
MR. CORSI: Right.
MR. DIGENOVA: All this has been the public record for some time.
MR. FITTON: Front-page New York Times story.
MR. DIGENOVA: Ask yourselves this question: why has not one FBI field office and
one U.S. attorney either Brooklyn, New York, California, Texas Boston, Washington
opened grand jury investigate all these transactions? And me, that why what Comey
did the Hillary Clinton e-mail case confirms without doubt that the Justice Department and
the FBI have been hopelessly politically compromised.
MR. FITTON: Well, there have been two stories there that one, investigation
ongoing, and then, secondly, investigation was
MR. DIGENOVA: But only recently. mean, that investigation allegedly only started
MR. FITTON: don know which one believe.
MR. DIGENOVA: the Southern District.
MR. FITTON: Right.
MR. DIGENOVA: Allegedly been started Preet Bharara, the U.S. attorney but
nobody knows that true not. think is.
MR. CORSI: See, the key point now know that President Obama access Hillary
Clinton e-mail server used alias. Now, that right there indication guilt, would
think, because why would you use alias unless you trying hide the fact that you using private e-mail server offline the State Department?
Now, the Giustra case interesting also because the
MR. SCHWEIZER (?): That the Russian uranium deal.
MR. CORSI: Uranium deal that Peter was just talking about. Because Giustra created
Canadian version the Clinton Foundation.
MR. DIGENOVA: Right.
MR. CORSI: And they took foreign donations which they bundled and did not
disclose because they tried argue the Canadian law didn require it. Now, what pointing
out find these companies showing the Panama Papers, the money laundering
operation remember, did lot the first research the HSBC showing they were money
laundering. Now, that was $9.9 billion fine which Loretta Lynch did not prosecute anyone for
when she was the Southern District New York.
And the point that everybody knew the money laundering was going the
HSBC system. bank manager came out with the data, 1,000 pages it. Now, you not
going say that the Clinton Foundation, including WJC, the highest levels government,
with international money laundering going on, the Panama Papers validating lot this, that
wasn known the Federal Reserve that the wire transfers weren seen.
But the highest level government involved, then clearly the Justice Department
can investigate because you going have get into the revelation the American people.
You know, been silent while drug cartels, terrorists, cetera, have used all our banking
facilities and international banking facilities with people like the Clintons quarterbacking for
their own personal gain.
MR. FITTON: clear, there been congressional hearing the Uranium One
scandal.
MR. SCHWEIZER: Correct.
MR. FITTON: Again, reported out the New York Times based Peter initial
work. Now, clear, Judicial Watch doesn take position the election. don know
what you all think about who vote for against but not saying vote for against
anyone. But people have pointed out that Donald Trump has played games with his foundation been alleged, and that not transparent should and may have something hide. you have any feedback the issue transparency?
MR. DIGENOVA: Well, Comey was asked about that yesterday. And demurred.
said, not liberty confirm deny any investigation. All sudden, the loquacious Mr.
Comey clams up. should telling much told about all these other things. quite you know, what it, dear friend, Mr. Comey? Are you doing something not? mean, don have any objection investigating Donald Trump. done something
wrong, have it. But expecting get exactly the same treatment that Hillary Clinton got,
exactly the same. subpoenas, grand jury, just sort light-touch interviews, maybe ask for few documents, you know, not too much. don want push this.
MR. FARRELL: The overarching thing think that most disturbing this very would
say sad but really not sad, shocking lack courage from senior professional staff
these various departments. This e-mail routine with Hillary Clinton went for years. And
people the deputy, the assistant, sort the division chief level, all knew this was going
on. was unavoidably obvious all them not single person, not peep and
MR. DIGENOVA: But there reason for that, you know. There somebody the
State Department who ruins, who ends people career. His name Patrick Kennedy. the
under secretary state for administration.
MR. FARRELL: Absolutely. Absolutely.
MR. DIGENOVA: You cross him, your career over. And everybody that building
knows it. And that meant you didn cross the front office Hillary Clinton.
MR. FARRELL: You know, had the opportunity interview couple people,
couple brave souls who provided with some information concerning devices that Mrs.
Clinton sought use her official capacity, other words, using particular iPad and the
fact that the technical services people within diplomatic security said, no, you can use it.
not secure. Essentially beacon constantly giving your location and the device itself
unsecure even for unclassified. won approve it. And they would send memo back
the seventh floor saying, no, you can use it. And then, about two weeks later, they get another
well, the seventh floor really wants use and they would laugh their staff meetings and
say, well, who writes the memo this week and send back up?
And there some institutional resistance lower levels that sort try least
enforce provisions. But what waiting for, and have reason believe occurring and
hopefully will manifest itself, that there are whistleblowers inside State and there are
whistleblowing FBI agents who know better and have been contact and communication with
the committees the Hill and that they going step and say, look, not buying it.
This the truth.
The problem there such lack leadership. There such reticence people the right thing. really sense there careerism.
MR. DIGENOVA: Sure.
MR. FARRELL: There people that are looking just get their retirement and screw
it. They not going anything beyond that.
MR. FITTON: Just quickly, just outside the criminal aspect this and whether Hillary
Clinton should jail prosecuted, there this fundamental issue about government
transparency that been put risk result this Clinton scandal. And don understand think take for granted how open and transparent our government relatively speaking
every other government the world. other country allows the courts groups like
Judicial Watch the way the United States does force the government turn over records. And
that whole process contingent good faith the part the government. not
about that.
But, generally speaking, when the government says, looked for the records and these
are the records, can and necessarily second guess every time they say they looked
and say, hey, you should look here there and everywhere. have rely the government
doing the job they been entrusted the American people.
Hillary Clinton tore that compact because now can trust anything the government
says, least the State Department says because they promised and they promised the courts
they looked everywhere they should have for records. And Mrs. Clinton, she gets away
there accountability whether she gets away personally not the issue. There
institutional accountability for the misconduct that Mrs. Clinton did secretary state and the
agency did.
FOIA may end practically speaking because you can rely the law being enforced
because the government officials may say, have way getting around these darned taxpayers
who want find out what because can text privately come with another,
whatever the innovation technically social media elsewhere business, the
people business secret.
MR. DIGENOVA: Well, that why this point that was made about the civil service
important because when they first responded the Freedom Information Act request, are they
suggesting, when they didn find any Hillary Clinton e-mails that that didn raise red flag
right away the first series responses? This beyond belief that one said, where the hell
are Hillary e-mails? And, that point, nothing happened? think the amount duplicity and deception and lying and perjury that has been
committed the freedom information lawsuits involving you and other people staggering. precisely why what Comey said his news conference and testimony offensive
people who believe good government and accountability because what Comey has done,
has piled this abuse the Freedom Information Act and has made less likely that
people will comply with judicial requests, subpoenas and other documents.
This this the scary part this. What Hillary has done with her private server and
then the lying about it, and what Comey has done with, essence, FBI cover up, official
cover this like the old Soviet Union. You know, let blot her out the photograph.
mean, this, what has done has undermined confidence the ability the government
investigate itself.
MR. FARRELL: Joe, let tell you that court hearings, where been front
Judge Emmet Sullivan one the principal FOIA cases, got very frustrated one point and
turned the government attorney representing the State Department and said, want one
question answered. should very clear who authorized use the server. basic
interrogative. And, this case, the dissembling, the double talk, the staring one shoes,
made Judge Sullivan really come out his seat this point because fundamentally
simple. Who authorized the use the server?
MR. FITTON: have questions pending. Wait second, Jerry. have questions
pending, you know, with Mrs. Clinton. had sought her deposition testimony which would
have required her come and questioned directly. The judge didn bite that but did
authorize give her questions writing, which did, questions which are simple and
available the public online.
MR. DIGENOVA: And the answers will written the same lawyers who deleted the
e-mails after they were subpoenaed.
MR. FITTON: And those answers are due October 13th. either way, there going further accountability.
MR. DIGENOVA: Good luck.
MR. FARRELL: had her under oath and the FBI didn even that.
MR. FITTON: Jerry, ahead.
MR. CORSI: want make point. Remember, the other negligent group this
clearly the mainstream media and the fourth estate, the press. take look remember,
learned about this private e-mail server through Guccifer, through hacker who first released emails and was clear that these were not the State Department e-mail system and that there
were addresses, the Clinton e-mail, and everyone saying, well, what this? That how
found out about this. didn come from civil servant. didn come from the mainstream
media. came from hacker. And, fact, gotten you know, the two ways
gotten information the Clinton e-mails, including the Clinton Foundation, have been from
people from Julian Assange and Judicial Watch, not from the Department Justice
MR. FITTON: the legal way, just clear.
MR. CORSI: Well, you the legal way. And, you know not trying justify
what Julian Assange anyone else doing hacking. But point that, you know, when
you have get down hacker who going tell the truth, you know, the criminal breaking
into the system telling the truth, where those responsible for making sure the system
legitimate FBI, civil service, law enforcement are not doing their jobs, this where Judicial
Watch and others have come in, and Judicial Watch especially with the FOIA requests,
demand and continuing demand that e-mails, those weren destroyed. just found them.
Well, how you find 14,000 e-mails
MR. SCHWEIZER: corruption. just corruption.
MR. FITTON: You know, just quickly, Peter, before you, you know, Jason
Leopold VICE News, his credit, you know, had the main case that resulted the 55,000
MR. CORSI: Yes. Yes.
MR. FITTON: May result more e-mails coming out before the election now. You
know, Jason participated the previous Judicial Watch panel, which also available online.
You know, made the point Hillary Clinton was important person and was just doing
what thought all reporters do.
MR. CORSI: Right.
MR. FITTON: Well, this important person who probably going run for higher
office, the presidency, give her e-mails. And didn think didn know what
was getting into when thought was just doing regular reporting work. And indeed
was but was the only reporter and the first court about the records and got them
result. And just shows you just how little effort takes the end get the accountability.
MR. DIGENOVA: And apropos what Jerry has said about the mainstream media.
How many FOIA requests have been filed the New York Times and the Washington
Post How many? There are nothing. mean, talk about AWOL. You know, Bob Woodward
talks about, have reporters working Donald Trump. Great. Give the e-mails
and let find out where they are and what happened them. Have you interviewed all these
guys who were part this process? mean, the notion that the mainstream media serves useful function under the First
Amendment really under attack.
MR. CORSI: The questions being asked you know, get the revelations, Judicial
Watch comes out with the series e-mails haven seen, you not going the New
York Times. You going the Internet sources, try WMD very hard keep
current, Twitter and Facebook, you going find people commenting. They asking
questions that the Justice Department refuses even look at. And they doing with great
skill that the Internet suddenly becoming the source which the debate really happening.
MR. DIGENOVA: Vox populi.
MR. FITTON: And, fair, the New York Times and the Washington Post and
this the problem that been for Mrs. Clinton are actually following our lead here and
covering this. And, Peter, you had
MR. DIGENOVA: They have written some good stories.
MR. FITTON: and you had some good relationships with the press the past.
MR. SCHWEIZER: Yeah. No. They have. think gets closer election, the
window closes. There great reluctance the mainstream media drop large story
report large story because fears might affect the election.
But getting back your original question about Trump, think the transparency
basically three levels. One just the general obligation that candidates have
transparent. There legal commitment. just general obligation. And think that,
people want know who their candidates, what their financial ties are, who they might owe
money to, where the sources income their wealth are coming from, who contributing
their campaigns, cetera. And believe that, you know, Mr. Trump and Hillary Clinton both
should transparent those areas. That the lowest one.
Then you start move commitments that candidates have made. You know,
Hillary Clinton made commitment, signed agreement with Barack Obama, this
memorandum understanding 2008. This was not general obligation somebody made up. was you know, non-binding but written agreement with the president the United States,
which she completely violated. And, you know, talked about how civil servants have
been kind of, you know, complicit not raising it. me, the great mystery here Barack Obama. you look that 2008 commitment,
memorandum understanding, Barack Obama clearly knew what was going on. fact, the
Frank Giustra entity Canada listed one the entities that they are required disclose
donations for. think about this for second. You tell the president the United States
written agreement, will disclose all contributions, now comes out that they completely
thumbed their nose President Obama. President Obama doesn seem care. doesn
seem care that his secretary state essentially said, signed agreement with you but
don care.
MR. FITTON: Well, because he, many ways, would unindicted co-conspirator
MR. SCHWEIZER: Yes, lot ways.
MR. FITTON: for allowing this take place and not doing anything about it.
MR. CORSI: And the abuse the foundation. mean, here you got people Haiti.
And, you know, the outreach the Democratic Party the African-American community has
been decades long. And you look what done the Clintons Haiti, where they come
and clear that only pennies the dollar donated got any the Haitians who were today misery conditions and protesting Hillary Clinton actively today because, again, the
enormant (sp). the transfer money and pay play because you had, you know, the Irish
criminals that they dealt with for years and years coming and cornering the telecom market Haiti, building luxury hotels when the people don even basically have drinkable water. You
know, the U.N. comes and creates cholera and denies that does it. mean, these crimes
you know, this what can have happen that Hillary now the White House and the
price Clinton speech goes you know, Bill will give speech but now million.
MR. FITTON: Oh, sure. Yeah.
MR. CORSI: And, yes. Well, there another disaster tomorrow country.
Great. Let rush because here another chance for the Clinton Foundation make, you
know, not billion but raise billion.
MR. FITTON: Roger will back, Roger Clinton, the Clinton
MR. CORSI: And our net worth will whatever. Our net worth $100 million will $500 million.
MR. FITTON: And Rohdam brothers.
MR. SCHWEIZER: Yeah. And Tony Rodham will get another gold mine.
MR. FITTON: You know, let just say this Trump. You know, with Mrs. Clinton, think the crisis she created for herself and her new presidency, she indeed wins, that the
conflicts interests have been cast stone. all the companies that gave money the
foundation, all their interactions with the Clinton administration are going given extra
scrutiny, and there going less confidence that the administration, even acting
innocently acting innocently.
Now, the problem that Mr. Trump has that probably thinks, suspect and would
encourage him think otherwise, well, Donald Trump, not Bill Clinton. Why would Hillary Clinton. Why would anyone think that would anything wrong? Well, you know, the owner major corporation. And may think, well, don not going
influenced, but people will try influence him. And needs aware that and needs take steps about opposed the typical arrogant way thinking that seen with the
Bush administration that not Bill Clinton, not the Clinton administration so,
therefore, the ethics rules and the sensitivities that anyone else ought have don apply
because not the bad guys.
When, point fact, the temptation for corruption never leaves, especially when you have
the government much possible. And would foolish for people not try influence
Trump from the corruption point view. They going try because the way
easiest path the path least resistance getting good with the Trump administration
taking care his companies people close him. And not aware that, needs aware because guarantee you, you think the media has been soft Clinton, they
not going soft Trump. And the right thing and going held account
for it, unlike the way that Mrs. Clinton obviously won from ideologically sympathetic
media.
MR. CORSI: Right now, the magnitude all mean, the Trump Foundation
relatively small compared the magnitude the Clinton Foundation. not billion
entities. Transactions that have been questioned are like $20,000 and $30,000 $40,000
transactions, not hundreds millions dollars.
But think the and, you know, first all, yes. There should transparency. The
Clintons tend play gotcha. they can find $20,000 transaction that they want
criticize Trump foundation for, they think frees them from scrutiny billion worth
transactions.
MR. FITTON: Right.
MR. CORSI: And the point is, you know, think, ultimately, going have
really raise the question, should every two-bit dictator anywhere the world, who graduates
from being head state now then into creating their own foundation and play the will exploit
misery for our own gain and profit game. And that game legitimated, what stake here
the integrity charitable giving.
MR. SCHWEIZER: Yes. And add that point, lot people you know, the
defense made the Clinton supporters oftentimes is, well, the Clinton Foundation, they don
actually get salary from the Clinton Foundation, which technically true. They get lot
side benefits.
But the other thing point out that Bill Clinton speaking fees for where paid
$500,000, $750,000 oftentimes goes precisely talk about the Clinton Foundation. And
actually wrote book called Giving, about the great work the Clinton Foundation.
MR. DIGENOVA: me.
MR. SCHWEIZER: Yes. Yes. For which, the way, received million royalties
which did not the foundation.
MR. CORSI: Peter, you can prove diversion funds out the financials. the book,
Charles Ortel work, you can see tens millions dollars disappearing. Now, with Clinton
having WJC pass-through corporation, that don have audited reports on, finding that these
show the Panama Papers, what happened that money?
MR. FITTON: Okay.
MR. CORSI: You know, those are legitimate questions. How you get $100 million
net worth? Certainly you don even the excessive speaking fees. You certainly don
get the secretary state U.S. Senate salary the president pension.
MR. FITTON: Okay.
MR. CORSI: And so, you know, got take just take look the money
involved and say, where did go? Because you can see years where, literally, the Clinton
Foundations spent five cents dollar charity.
MR. FARRELL: There going competition because there will the Obama
Foundation shortly.
MR. FITTON: Yeah. sure that the biggest problem Mr. Obama has with Mrs.
Clinton that (inaudible).
MR. DIGENOVA: They created the template. going copy it. won have any setup work.
MR. FITTON: Well, you know, going have bring this close.
remiss not promoting Judicial Watch book. have great book out, Clean House,
which provides key background the Clinton e-mail scandal and the Benghazi scandal and the
IRS scandal and pretty much every other major scandal the last several years. New York
Times bestseller and encourage you pick addition Jerry book, Partners
Crime, and Peter book, Clinton Cash, which not only great book but now graphic novel
and there DVD movie available widely the Internet for free. You can look and
view for free. just great work that being done all around. You know, like give Judicial
Watch credit not involved but great work that doing. And that leverage
you know, educate the people and put the material out there. People like Jerry take
with what they will.
MR. SCHWEIZER: Absolutely.
MR. FITTON: You take with and what they will. The FBI takes and does
won And important work. And great have you know, think that easy for
someone like Joe come out and complain strongly does about the FBI director,
criminal defense lawyer, not like you not doing some risk your professional career.
MR. DIGENOVA: That very kind you.
MR. FITTON: You credited for taking this very public point view the
misconduct the FBI, some which you have deal with your professional life otherwise.
MR. DIGENOVA: You know what? Once you cop, you always cop. And
when you see dirty cop, which what have here, you got say something about it.
MR. FARRELL: And the damage the country horrendous, horrendous.
MR. DIGENOVA: Oh, incalculable what Comey has done, incalculable.
MR. FITTON: Well, thank you, gentlemen. And you want follow the new
Clinton e-mails that are going released over the next several weeks, our website
JudicialWatch.org and, course, they coming out after the election well. matter
what happens, the case.
Thank you for all you joining us. And, hopefully, have panel like this soon
again. stay tuned. But you can track the web JudicialWatch.org. And, course, Facebook and Twitter well. And you can learn more about all the panelists our
website well and find out more about them and figure out how get their books and other
information. thanks again for joining us. And have great week.
(END)