Transcripts For CSPAN2 Panel Discussion On Hillary Clinton 20161009

[inaudible conversations] good morning. One president of Judicial Watch. Welcome to our special Educational Panel on the clinton scandal update. Joining us is an expert panel of clinton watchers who have examined her career over the decades and have made some pretty, well have some pretty strongly information for you as we begin this panel. Judicial watch is a nonpartisan educational foundation. We prosecute government corruption wherever we find it wasnt the republican or democrat. Judicial watch is pleased to be able to present you this special panel on facebook live, and on cspan. So welcome to provide you some context before introduced our panelists i thought i would give you a brief update on the clinton email matter which Judicial Watch has been so heavily involved in. Those of you who dont know, we use the freedom of information act, the foia law, to uncover government records. We were investigating a few years ago and we noticed in our losses Hillary Clinton did not having emails are coming to us from the Obama Administration. Just to be sure we asked for Clinton Emails related to benghazi and sure enough the government towards the end of 2014 started making is that the many of the documents we need to look at. In february 2015 they told the court they give everything to Judicial Watch but there may be of the documents to at. A few weeks later the New York Times reports about the basics of the clinton email scandal, that she was using a clinton server, private server, she thinks to be a private server, and producing thousands of emails for herself and evidently the state department but not for the American People. She was conducting all of her government business on this separate server. Of course, all bets were off in terms of the doing of the freedom of information act, the obstruction of congressional investigation, the obstruction of fraud brought upon Judicial Watch at its courts and discourage lawsuits that were seeking information that shouldve been covered but were not produced. Judicial watch quickly took the lead in uncovering basically everything we know today about the email scandal. Gila city how we even led the fbi in terms of investigating it. It was in one of the cases that led to the discovery which is evidence gathering, we took a testament of cheryl mills, former chief of staff at the state department, a deputy chief of staff and many, many clinton officials at the state department who knew or should have known about the clinton email scandal and the fact one of our cases mrs. Clinton had to submit a statement under penalty of perjury that was produced to the court saying as for she knew, all the cleaning bill shepperton over to the government that were government related. In fact, we now know 30,000 emails were deleted and many of those are actually government related emails that should not eventually. As a result of all of this litigation the fbi was pressured and the Justice Department was pressured to undergo a least the appearance of a criminal investigation into mrs. Clintons handling of the emails. As weve learned over the last several weeks, the fbi decided not to prosecute a recommend prosecution, and the obama Justice Department decided not to prosecute her based on the alleged recommendation of the fbi director. As we find more details about the fbi investigation we found out a lot of these investigations that the fbi was undertaking didnt take place but for Judicial Watch pressure from the litigation. The witnesses were not questioned until it became clear Judicial Watch with you going to get discovery or what is getting discovered and would be questioning some of the same witnesses. It was so bad we just learned in the latest fbi document dump that the fbi was using documents produced to Judicial Watch under the freedom of information act with redaction. They couldnt even get the full document and they were using those documents to question the witnesses. Theres a lot of outrage about the fbi immunity agreements are department of Justice Community agreement granted the clinton aides at issue in this case. Well get into that later. Just so you know there will be more clinton in those coming thanks to Judicial Watch litigation. It was our litigation that forced the fbi to do the halfbaked investigation that did, as it turns out but it did produce new Clinton Emails including 14,900 emails at least she didnt want anyone to see because she deleted them. Many those of the emails were uncovered by the fbi and turned over to the state department, and several thousand will be turned over to the American People as a result of litigation first brought by Judicial Watch and new this week is vice news, simply pursuing litigation didnt even more emails. So the litigation result in Clinton Emails that she did want produce at all to the American People being produced perhaps even before election day, at least a portion of them. And october that i think we should point out that these emails will be produced even after the election. So no matter what happens on election day the clinton email scandal continue, there will be continued pressure for criminal investigation of what we now went on no matter who is elected president. So i wouldnt necessary to out a criminal investigation of mrs. Clinton even under Clinton Administration because i dont think the attorney general that mrs. Clinton would appoint without much in way of an argument to stop a special counsel for the appointed. How can that person investigate mrs. Clinton without obviously a conflict of interest being so apparent . That would require special counsel to be appointed. I think the public would demand it. Under a Trump Administration, unless he acts like every other Republican Administration has in the past, he seems committed to doing a more thorough investigation as well. No matter what happens i think there will be a more significant criminal investigation into the new administration. I also want to call attention to the fact congress has been making a lot of noise, the fbi director was testifying earlier this week to congress but lets highlight the fact congress can take steps to is refusing to take told mrs. Clinton accountable on this scandal. This is something important to remember. Mrs. Clinton testified to congress should turn over all overcome the emails. We know that to be false. Congress can what did it do . It referred the question of whether she committed perjury to the department of justice for criminal investigation. Who are they fooling . They know whats going to happen that the obama Justice Department. We know what fbi director comes down on that. Why isnt there a contempt citation pending against mrs. Clinton now . Why didnt the way for the Justice Department to do something . If they think she was in contempt of congress the way they treated in terms of her testimony being incorrect or false, in fact emails were destroyed after congress subpoenaed them, why isnt congress is holding her in contempt . The answer is somewhat obvious. They have an election and they dont want accountability in the true sense of the word to get in the way of the quest for retaining congress. Im talking about the republican leadership. The other uncomfortable point im going to bring up that they can also impeach mrs. Clinton. You have to wait for it to be president to in future. Congress retains the ability to impeach a federal officer or conduct whether the officer, whether the officer is still in office or not. They can impeach her for misconduct as secretary of state right now. You tell that to a republican member of congress, the general respond to get in stunned silence but its true. The sanction would be, this is the way it works in the house, you impeach the official in the house, and thats kind of like an indictment and that is moved to the senate for a drunkard the result of the senate trial in this infection, one of the sanctions could be in eligibility for future public office. Boy, wouldnt that be an interesting process at least to begin or talk about but you dont wonder if republicans talking about that. Mrs. Clinton be impeached for her conduct as secretary of state. The next time youre congress complaining about the fbi and the department of justice and the coverup and the wide investigation the result in no formal charges on the clinton email matter, thats all fine and good. But remember congress has independent tools available to it under the constitution to prosecute the clinton scandal. They are tools that are refusing to use. I think there needs to be some accountability on that. But theres a lot to talk about today, and weve been blessed with an expert panel of individuals who looked long and hard at the clinton scandals, have studied over the years and who have unparalleled expertise to share with you and educate you about some of these pending issues including ones that i havent been able to get to today. First up in terms of introduction is joe digenova who is a Founding Partner of the d. C. Law firm of digenova toensing. And joe is really tremendous experience as a Law Enforcement official but most notably as a former u. S. Attorney. Also joining us is our own chris farrell, my colleague of the board of directors at Judicial Watch, or director of investigations and research at Judicial Watch. Easily start of all these investigations that into the lawsuits. And notably chris is a former Army Intelligence officer, and with a specialty in counterintelligence and human intelligence. I would like to know what human intelligence is. Im sure now that youve retired that area of work is going to be slowly needing help in our military system. Our Intelligence System generally. Also joining us is Peter Schweizer, another friend of Judicial Watch. Hes an author of multiple New York Times bestsellers, hes with the Government Accountability institute, and most notably is the author of the clinton cash which is the famous bestseller that really broke it open, the conference of interest of Hillary Clinton and the clinton cash machine. And jerome corsi and a longtime student of government corruption and clinton corruption specifically is joining us. Hes with a senior staff writer and is the author of the new bestseller partners in crime. I dont need to tell you who partners in crime references but maybe i do. You see a picture of bill and hillary on the cover so the kitchen idea. We are pleased to be joined by all. What were going to do just so you know, they will give you the thoughts and then will talk amongst ourselves and this could be an interesting discussion because the scandal is, theres probably things going on now as we speak that we need to be aware of. But we thought it was important to bring these experts in so that you have context. The stores are moving so forward so quickly. We thought it important to you the long view in terms of where we were, where we are now, and where were going. To that end we are going to begin with Peter Schweizer to open us up with his report and then will move on to chris, jerry and joe. Peter, the floor is yours. I appreciated. Its great to be here with this distinguished group of people. I want to particularly say thank you to Judicial Watch just for the great work you guys have done over the years. Particularly somebody who in clinton cash was investing the clintons before we knew about the server, before we have the foia information. You perform an enormous Public Service by exposing this. So bravo for that. I just want to talk a little bit about some of things i hear from people who are getting more wellversed on what the clintons have been up to, the flow of money, the issues related to the no server, and explain why i think first of all this is a different scandal than the sort of traditional money scandal weve seen in american political history. Second of all this sort of explain why i dont think we can just trust the political process to innocents let the Voters Decide on this scandal. I think there are very important legal matters that need to be addressed. And then finally i want to make a point that there are larger implications beyond simply the political future of bill and Hillary Clinton as it relates to these particular scandals. First of all what is this a different scandal . Its really for two main reasons in my mind. First of all is the scale of the. The scale not only of the efforts of the clintons took to evade or avoid transparency by setting up the server but also the scale of the flow of the money that we are talking about. If you look back at some of the historic scandals, with its afghan others, the quirky of money youre talking about flow into the clintons dwarf this on the magnitude of sometimes tend one or 101. You are talking about the clinton during Hillary Clintons Public Service took in about 250 million. The Clinton Foundation itself took in 2 billion. Said the amount of money were talking about is much larger. But the second point i would make that i think is even more important is that what the clinton actions have represented really is there successful efforts so far to evade the financial controls that weve had in place for half a century, to prevent foreign interests from influence american politicians. For those who dont follow such things, if you look at the laws with on the books to prevent the influence of american political figures, we have things like caps on how much people can contribute to Political Campaigns. You cant as an essential give much one of 5000 a in a private which an election to a candidate. You can only give a certain amount to a Political Action committee. But most specifically even though there are debates about those questions of money in politics, one that never gets debate is the fact time that anybody who wants to foreign entities influencing our political leaders. I havent run across anybody thinks its a good idea to have african oligarch, and russian oligarchs, and latin American Country influenced our political figures. So think about in this context. If you are one of those individuals overseas that wants to favor from the federal government in washington, d. C. , pretty much legal avenues are shut off to you. You cant make Political Campaign contributions to Hillary Clinton to gain access. You cant make a Political Action Committee Contributions legally to her campaign but what the clintons did by establishing the Clinton Foundation and by setting up the speaker of the apparatus, they essentially created an avenue whereby foreign entities could do just that. So when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state shes making decisions led to africa policy. Her husband was collecting 700,000 speaking fees from african entities that interest sitting on her desk. That is unprecedented. As i will talk about at the end of my comments, the dangers implications of this are that this will become widespread if it is allowed to stand with the clintons have done. So to begin with i think if people argue say look, theyre all corrupt in washington, d. C. , they all do this, that is something not the case. This is a financial scandal and i think that secrecy scandal that goes beyond anything that weve seen in american political history. Second point i would make is i dont think we can just trust the political process. People say look, the clintons have learned from the mistakes they made in the past. So, for example, bill clinton has said that the Clinton Global Initiative is that going to take place anymore. He is stepping down from the board of the Clinton Foundation to it when the essentially be run by his daughter chelsea. So basically the argument is they have learned their lesson that this looks bad, maybe this is even bad, and we should just allow the process to go forward. Heres the problem. Those commitments that bill clinton is making now, unfortunately they made commitments, similar commitments back in 2008. They signed a memorandum of understanding with barack obama when he committed to do a couple of very, very important things. One was complete transparency. I think everybody on this bill thanks ken spence is a great idea. So they were required as part of this agreement to disclose all of their donations to the Clinton Foundation. Second of all the agreed it would be a clear bright line between actions of the Clinton Foundation and the state department, no blurring of the to the social commitments that were made and the clintons as we all now know and nobody acknowledges, a completely violated those commitments. Any commitments that are being made Going Forward, i think we cannot have much faith in simply because they dont have a track record of abiding by these principles. So to me the issue is not just looking forward. We have to deal with her tenure as sec of state provided you with the setting up of the server because we simply cannot trust Going Forward that the actions and activities will be soft corrected. And, finally, the point i would make is that ultimately this is about more than the clintons. If they are to avoid legal jeopardy, in the very real laws that they have broken, and im sure joe will have a lot more to say on that, but if they are to evade this theres a couple of things we know about the rule of politics i think in washington, d. C. Number one, that entities are looking for favors. In this particular case, foreign entities are going to continue to look for favors from our political leaders in washington, d. C. Second of all, politicians, if you give them the opportunity to soften rich in a quasilegal way, they will take it self enrich. Is what will happen. At the Clinton Foundation and activities related to the private server are not dealt with in a legal manner, its going to be imitated. And is simply no reason why we could not have a secretary of defense 10 years from now, republican or democrat, doesnt matter, a secretary of defense is charting American Defense policy sets up a private foundation, takes donations from overseas entities, puts their spouse on the circuit taking 4, and what are we to say . Are we to say the clintons can do it but you cant . The point becomes that this creates an extremely dangerous precedent, that if that dont with is going to i think huge applications for the country, not just now, during her tenure as secretary of state, but Going Forward. Thank you, peter. Just to be clear, these promises she made in terms of her ethics agreement wasnt just a pro forma. Democrats and republicans were concerned about an president obama demanded it. It was a negotiation with the white house, a condition of her being hired. So she scanned not only the American People by democrats and republicans in the senate who voted for her and the president of the United States. We highlighted we thought it was a scam to begin with in 2009 and we were proven right. Has obama at the door ethical advice. I was good at, a great point, look at john kerry who was chairman of the Foreign Relations committee during her appointment. He raised the exact concerns about conflicts of interest, the flow of foreign influence. This was not a republican witch hunt. People like john kerry, democrat of the current secretary of state, had these exact concerns. Next up is chris farrell, he has looked at, started all these investigations Judicial Watch with his colleagues and probably other than one of the few folks in the country that is what all the Clinton Emails that have been released, and knows what others are about to be released and can give us a quick update, and certainly some unique insight on the classification issues that weve been so misled about thanks to john kerrys state department, the Obama Administration and mr. Komi. Thank you. What a great opportunity to the American People to get a dispute of what the real story is, and not necessarily talking points from the Clinton Campaign or from the Justice Department. I come at this investigation at this whole problem of clinton corruption from the perspective of an Intelligence Officer. I became a special agent of Army Counterintelligence and then laid on i was trained as a clandestine human intelligence case officer. My view on these things is both from a defensive standpoint, from counterintelligence, also from the point of view of an Intelligence Officer looking to collect against a target. When you look at the track record, the pattern of behavior, the conduct of the probability that a been exposed to this entire scandal, the American Public is being misled and theyre being misled in a very delivered fashion, which is not just disturbing from a factual basis but is deeply corrosive to the publics understanding of what it would risk by mrs. Clinton, her conduct. As a special agent, i have direct personal responsible for establishing for intelligence agents, cases iran. I put people in jail not just under the american legal system but even under the german legal system to i worked with the attorney general ken feinberg to put a guy in jail for espionage. In particular i think apple needs to appreciate that mrs. Clinton was the subject of a National Security Crime Investigation. This wasnt a security review it wasnt an art but over classification levels. This is a violation of title 18 of the u. S. Code section 793. Mr. Scanlon National Information and contract with American Public has been told, intent is not an element of the crime. Theres no requirement to prevent any sort of intent at all. When mr. Komi talked about in 10 or wasnt to prove it or there was no sort of specification that showed intent, its a red herring, a false argument the it is a requirement. We know Inspector General of Intelligence Community that 22 top secret sei, sensitive to private information, a special category of intelligence collection, 22 top secret messages or emails with across mrs. Clintons unsecured server. Its a factor its a fine of Inspector General. Thats the root of the referral to the department of justice that caused them to begin this inquiry. The fact that has occurred puts the United States at great risk, thats the definition four, rising top secret which ago. That is the issue that is really the focal point of what the fbi should have been looking at. Its a yes or no question. Its not what did you intend. Its not how did you feel about it. Its not what were you really trying to accomplish. Its a yes or no question. Did this event occur, yes or no . If it did, hoosiers bonsall for it . What is the approximate cost of this event occurring. If you walk about to find the person who made it happen, thats who was prosecuted. This whole intent thing is nonsense. Mr. Comey as lying to the American Public when he goes down that path. The reason i said it because lots of people sitting in jail for doing just that. Its not speculative. Its not an interpretation. Our colleague im sure that but the idea that mr. Comey is calling the shots on prosecutions which was on i check was issued for the attorney general or u. S. Attorney, not the fbi director but nonetheless this information past. We know it passed and anybody would be looking for that kind of information on a server. Not just the russians and the chinese but, frankly, any first World Intelligence service, whether its the germans, israelis, japanese, any first class intelligence operation would be looking for that kind of vitriol on an unsecured server. Not only do they look for classified information, they would even look for unclassified information. When she tries to talk it away and say its no big deal because these were my daughters wedding plans and yoga routines, which is a terrifying thought in and of itself, that if thats what was on her server unclassified, look, a Foreign Intelligence Service wants to know that information. They want to know what is occupying time and space in her head. What issue focused on those who is she talking to about what, when . Thats all part of the mosaic. Its all pieces of the puzzle that a Foreign Intelligence Service looks at trying to put together what is to stick to a state doing quite whats important . What isnt important . Just another component of this larger question. On this investigation if so, theres a methodology any counterintelligence goes through when it comes to collecting evidence. Anybody who has access to that information is subject to polygraph. Headed over to discuss mrs. Clinton being polygraph . Not a word. I can assure you there are hundreds of thousands in this country with security clinches, whether its Law Enforcement, intelligence services, the armed forces who are all subject to a polygraph exam. I myself have been polygraph several times. Not just of Young Children also something this was the with thats a special access program. So that wasnt brought up as an issue why was she questioned about being photographed . Its a requirement polygraphed. The most telling thing into session security Crime Investigation is that this sort of brokered a voluntary interview that seems to be work string by David Kendall was not a rights warning environment. Environment. It was a rights werent figured that was my first question would learned she was being questioned that saturday morning. If im the federal Law Enforcement officer and a reason to believe you have committed a crime and unquestioning you concerned that, im obligated to give a miranda warning. Its not negotiable. It on on i give you a rights warning and not a lawenforcement officers capable of apprehending you for violation of the law, and i dont do a warning, dont take it too terribly sick. Even if you do bring ninth attorney to the interview with you. Thats a very telling mom that it wasnt a rights went to the larger scale, the other than the consequence of all this, my last point i will wrap on is the bedrock or mr. Comey is personally compromised. He is complicit in the scandal. Theres a larger and besides that, very unfortunate, very sad circumstance. A larger think is the institutional damage done to the fbi. This is not something the institution will get over. Over. They have been changed by this. Its corrosive to the Publics Trust in the Justice System and a lawenforcement generally. There are unintended consequences for this entire affair beyond mrs. Clintons reckless treatment of classified information and are absconding with federal records. There are longterm impacts and we can talk more about it, but i think the public really needs to appreciate the great danger that shes placed the United States in. That was an excellent presentation. Could you talk about retroactive classification, the new made up term weve been lied to about . Theres this attempt to sort of an ring the bell, attempt to say that something that happened in the past really wasnt as bad as you think it is. Its a deliberate obfuscation of the record. The Inspector General analyzed this case the Inspector General, intelligence you become and found his 22 top secret messages that went across. In hindsight that supposed be a Damage Assessment thats done. Whenever theres a government of National Security information. Shockingly the director of National Intelligence general clapper has refused to do a Damage Assessment. This is a statutory requirement of the law requires it to be done to he is saying hes not going to do it. Frankly, we should sue them over that, frankly. Ill take note. Please do. Do you know a good lawyer . Want to be doing is into the a Damage Assessment they are pointing out that stuff that was triggered as unclassified at the time was, in fact, classified. Its part of the Damage Assessment. Is nothing new. He did not exonerate mrs. Clinton anyway. It compounds the problem. I didnt its another red herring. Its a false choice that is being offered by her circuits to say its not as bad as you think it is. Kind of like the whole colin powell thing. Its an attempt to muddy the waters the facts on the ground are bad enough in any of the federal Government Employee doing the exact same thing, you would see fbi agents dragging cardboard boxes out of the house. Thats the what works for any other United States citizen. I see any interview notes mrs. Clinton but its okay to discuss a painting drone strikes on his it didnt actually happen. So if she talked about a planned drone strike that is the fact that happened it took a despite highly classified itself. Mindboggling. Really disturbing. Jerry corsi, author of partners in crime want ask you about the current suggested john kerry who got a fun relationship with that goes back a long ways. You are an excellent report on these issues, and youve really focused in on certain aspects of the clinton scandal along the lines pederast and i thought it would be worthwhile to hear your point of view peter has. These more attention needs be paid to. I want to start also acknowledge in the great work that tom, youve done, chris and Judicial Watch entirely because we wouldnt be nearly as far along in understanding the clinton camp had not been for your diligence and very hard, tedious work. Foia request, doggedly going after documents, documents produced i Judicial Watch that were not produced by the fbi for produced by the Justice Department. And the American People i think should all a debt of gratitude to Judicial Watch for diligence and i think we all personally thank you. Thank you. By focus on the partners in crime, if you take the look at the subtitle, its the clinton scheme to monetize the white house for personal profit or thats what im focusing on. About two years ago, a good friend in new york and a brilliant financial analyst came to me and said if youve ever looked at the audited Financial Statements or the form nine \90{l1}s{l0}\90{l1}s{l0} which foundation, a 501 c 3 or 501 c 4 , an irs form needs to file every year, charles said that are fraudulent. They are patently fraudulent. First of all im shocked because the Clinton Foundation has been in existence since 1997. You think someone in the federal government wouldve recognized this. Of course, now that we know about irans insistence of partisan irs and will not apply the same standard of justice to democrats or those on the political left. As i began to dig into it, the crime im talking about in partners in crime is called enormous. Thats when you use a foundation, 501 c 3 , the iris allows you to determination letter which up to apply for to say that if you get this determination letter for the specific purpose, you can get funds raised in a tax favored way. So the people contributing to you have a tax benefit and thats because youre going after charity, tried to do something that is the public good and we will allow you to have a tax benefit for that reason. The irs views very stingy on giving determination letters to charities, or it should be. The point is when you set up a foundation, utilizing this great gift of the tax code, tax deferral of any kind of tax favored treatment and then you scan the foundation by stealing the money, diverting the money, making himself rich, it means instead of spending 95 cents on the dollar you give for the charity, you spend 5 cents. The rest goes to yourself, your associates, drive south of life in five star hotels, private jets, et cetera. What im saying in this book, and a Detailed Analysis more of almost the prosecutorial looking at the evidence, although i am a political scientist the really detailed look at the finest statements, the audited Financial Statements and the form 990s. If al capone, you think of the analogy, a gangster in chicago to jail now for racketeering but for income tax evasion. What im saying, my book is complementary to the work comdex at work Peter Schweizer has done. Because peter is arguing a case for pay to play which is people hate the clintons in order to get a policy decision even when Hillary Clinton was in the senate or as secretary of state, made in their favor that otherwise would not have been made. Policy decision in other words, was bought and paid for by the money given to the Clinton Foundation. Im convinced have a look at the evidence myself that peter is right. I think the difficulty is that it is a formidable argument because a clinton veteran defender like lanny davis can come on television and say peter doesnt have a scintilla of proof that there was a nexus between the contribution of the foundation and the policy decision reached. Peter doesnt have that proof in large part because the evidence has been destroyed or withheld. The emails destroyed which we know Clinton Foundation employees, and today another Foundation Set up by the clintons one is complementary in that these foundations were shared the information at the highest level of the secretary of state, as if they were all one family even with information be classified, confidential, et cetera. And we shared so the Clinton Foundation could set of events and utilize decisions and opportunities coming down the road. That could, in fact, be a pay for play scandal. The emails we get are heavily redacted. The emails are destroyed or withheld and not given. Lanny davis argument failed only because peter cant get the evidence needed to prove the case. Im sure its there, but what we have seen it certainly appears up until he there, we get the goods. Abundantly. Partners in crime says when the evidence to the evidence is the Financial Statements, the audited Financial Statements, a 990s where as i point out a tax structure in europe that is administered through the United Nations World Health Organization in geneva gives a huge amount of money from the big program the Clinton Foundation runs. To the Clinton Foundation to get aids combat hiv and aids and largely in africa and other third world countries. Bears no here we define, when i didnt research where what kind one reports what they get to the Clinton Foundation is what the Clinton Foundation reports receiving. Some years its higher, some years its lower. About the this discrepancy exists . Been the clintons leave the white house begging that theyre desperately poor. Of course, Hillary Clinton has an 8 million book contract from simon schuster. They buy expensive homes in chappaqua in washington. They are obviously not destitute. They will have pensions as president. Hillary clinton is aiming in the senate, et cetera. But the clintons end up with net worth over 100 million each. Even with speaking fees theres no way they could have amassed that kind of wealth on the sellers of secretary of state or the senate. The money comes from diverting money out of the Clinton Foundation and the reporting, charles or tail is right there i also invite you to look at his website charles or dell. Com come which is excellent for those who have accounting backgrounds where you can see diversion of funds. In other words, the Clinton Foundation said we got a gross number of receipts this year in revenue through our charity operations, and the gross number of what they spent, theres no detrigger its almost as if financial or intentionally set up to perpetrate a scam. If you do a Detailed Analysis, a Financial Statement of you can see millions, tens of millions being diverted. I will end with the point that bill clinton has to private corporations, wgc llc and wgc investments. Their file into whether wgc is bill clintons initials. These were never fully disclosed the ever found out in the process of the investigation. Now, these two are fundamentally functions, especially wjc out ill see as a pastor shell corporation. Thats what a pass through or does that money set up as a red flag from Money Laundering. Drug cartels, terrorist. And the Clinton Foundation doesnt give detailed as to what monusco into wjc. And we recently im wjc and these organizations mentioned and noticed in the Panama Papers, which are a set of documents that were released out of panama showing offshore transactions. As i proceed in the investigation, what happens is earthquake happens in haiti. Clintons rushed in, opportunity took hundreds of millions of dollars flowed through their hands. And in the process divert the money. In a moneylaundering operation that appears to involve even now john podesta, the russians, and other entities we dont know about fully. With the Clinton Foundation i would maintain being not only an enormous scam to make the clintons rich, but it is also an international moneylaundering scam that is perpetrated with the various criminals the clintons do business with. Thats how i think my book is complementary to peters book, and to think the two together begin to tell the whole story of what the Clinton Foundation is all about. Thank you, jerry. A lot there to wrap your head around but we will discuss it further. Next up is the former u. S. Attorney, former independent counsel, therefore, special counsel for congress so its not that you ever worn that is applicable to the situations we appreciate whatever youre able to share with the American People today. I want to focus on the scandal within the scandal. And by that i mean what james comey has done for the fbi. This is a sad and terrible moment in American History of Law Enforcement. Never before has there been such a public instead display of poor judgment, and i must say, political influence in the decision as to whether not to recommend charges. I do not believe at this point that the director comey is fit to continue in office. I believe that a resolution of no confidence in him should be filed in the senate. I believe that his recent testimonies on capitol hill are rife with the type of arrogance and obfuscation that should disqualify anyone with that kind of power of the fbi director has from continuing in office. I believe that he has violated his oath as the director of the fbi because, after look at the entire record that he is made public, and is not the entire record, it is very clear that from the moment he took control of this investigation, he decided t he was not going to recommend the prosecution of the first female nominee of a major party for president of the United States. The fbi director made a political decision to he did not make a Law Enforcement decision. And every step that he took in conducting this investigation, quoteunquote, which is what not, should you category it was not a legitimate investigation. And i say that with sadness. You recounted the number of of e offices i felt that involve investigation. James comey said that no reasonable prosecutor would bring the case that they have come up with based on the facts. That is utter nonsense. His News Conference, and it wasnt a News Conference because he didnt answer any questions, but will give them the benefit of the doubt, where he explained all, not all tha but most of the details of her transgressions, and then concluded to the amazement of most of the fbi agents in the building at almost all of the former fbi agent in the United States, that there was no crime because there was no intent, was absolutely ludicrous. Not only was his News Conference sophomoric in this continent and in its delivery but he followed it up later on september 7 within enough to staff after he took tremendous criticism for his explanation, im going to read a couple sentences from that memo to the fbi staff and i will assure you its not a memo that j. Edgar hoover or any other former fbi director would have written. It is embarrassment child upon embarrassment. It has a quality to it that is so sad to hear and fbi director talk this way. It is evident to me that what mr. Commissioner that at the beginning of this investigation was impanel a grand jury. He did not do that. When you want to investigate Crimes Involving National Security information, classified information, you dont do images. Issue subpoenas for witnesses, third parties for documents. You make people come into court and fight them in front of a federal judge and you worry about attorneyclient privilege, and to work that out. Director comey didnt do that. Why did he not do that . Because he didnt want to investigate it. He wanted to conclude this investigation before the election. The only thing he could do to conclude it was defined that she did not commit a crime, mrs. Clinton. That conclusion again by anyone who has looked at this evidence is absolutely ludicrous. There were multiple crimes committed by her, so the crimes committed by lawyers involved in the case, by employees of the clinton apparatus, the destruction of evidence, the man in which witnesses were handled. One lawyer representing three or form witness, justice by the never permits that but they allowed it. Deletion of emails after they were subpoenaed by congress. Destruction of evidence by lawyers which mr. Comey says he found no criminal intent in debt. I must say after watching director comey testify and give his News Conference, one has the sense of a russian village. This is like this was a fake investigation Everybody Knows it. I flew to los angeles at the beginning of this week with the former head of counterintelligence for the fbi. We chatted throughout the flight about this. And bemoaning, he bemoaned the performance of the fbi director. And he said the things that hurt the most was how embarrassed the employees were. Thats why he sent out this silly memo on september 7 where he literally almost laugh at them for being concerned and ask them not to do that. What also is very, very serious about this from a Public Policy standpoint and from Good Governance standpoint county created a double standard of justice. At the highest levels of government. There are now two systems of justice for people with classified information clearances. The big shots get it passed. The Little People go to prison. It is as simple as that. It is contrary. It is disgusting. It is flagrantly violated, violative of his oath. And when you destroyed the concept of the Fair Administration of justice, do you know what the American People do . They get worried. It is confidence. The worst thing or this country is for the American People not to trust the fbi. And they dont right now. Theres a reason for it. Its because james comey heads of the fbi. He should be gone. Hes not going to go. Is not going to resign. Congress is not going to impeach him. Of what they should do, what congress should do is ask a resolution of no confidence. They should tell him that his News Conference, his memo to his employers, his conclusion, this socalled investigation are not the kind of things that they expect from a real fbi director. I must tell you that i think his performance is almost as brazen in its cleverness as Hillary Clintons brazenness in her destruction of emails. It is fascinating that the two of them seem to be traveling in a parallel way together, handinhand through the meadow. If you sit back and talked to fbi agents around the country about this investigation and the way he has explained it and described it, ive heard people call them, the fbi agents in the big building call him the cardinal. One of them said to me the other day that mr. Comey heard there was a vacancy in holy trinity and he is applied. He has a sense of himself that is so pompous and arrogant, and you see it, and hes a man of great height, hes a very impressive fellow, and he knows it. And uses it as a tool and he uses it in congress. His pretense yesterday and that the other hearing that is deeply offended that anyone would question the integrity of his investigation. You would have to be a little not to question the integrity. Its so obvious that this is like a cheap price fight and he took a dive. This is a 1930s movie where bunch of goods pay some guys off and the guy takes a dive. Thats what this was. This was a Law Enforcement dive. And for him to sit there and pretend to members of congress he was offended by having to convict him and his agency called weasels come is quite sad. I did anyone knows what he did. He took a pass turkey took a dive. I do think what he has done to the agents is what matters to me. I dont care about james comey. He will go. He has six more years or whatever, good riddance to him when its over. The truth is this. He has done damage that is incalculable and irreparable at this point to the fbi. Because now what will people think of the next classified information case when there was no grand jury in this case, not a single subpoena was issued, and the grants immunity to number of people who never should been granted immunity. They shouldve been thrown in front of a grand jury, forced to take the fifth and continue the investigation. The absence of a grand jury is the answer to every one of his questions of his critics. He says what did you expect me to do . Well, mr. Director, we expected regular order we call the regular order. We have a series criminal violation, theres no doubt that, he said no so intent. Youre right, intent is not required. Its gross negligence. However there are other parts of that statute that required content that couldve been met by a legitimate investigation. Its the director of the fbi thinks that putting a private server in a private home in chappaqua new york with no encryption, with notable devices working off it, not encrypted, is not a violation of 793, thats another reason he should resign. It is to me, this is what of the grossest this characters of justice. All of these people sitting around in the military who have lost their clearances, lost their jobs, prosecuted that poor summer and i took a photograph which he never sent to his family, the guy with prosecutor and was convicted and as a year in the break. How can jim comey go to sleep at night knowing about that kid . I must say, i find his presence still in the directorship of the fbi and insult to everybody in federal Law Enforcement. I think he should go and i think he is violate this code editing congress should at least do something to manifest their outrage at this clearly political decision he made. I think the fact that he is offended shows that he knows how awful his performance was at as a federal lawenforcement official. All you have to do is talk to people, the great assistant director called this a farce. Because thats what it is to this investigation was a farce, and james comey knows it. Thank you. Thank you, joe. And everyone for your presentation. Just a few points. Going back first to jerrys comment about the lack of evidence. I think were seeing that evidence to the degree this message because the jails are full of people who are put there on circumstantial evidence. Now that evidence of the emails Judicial Watch has uncovered showing clinton donors were given special at the department this by promises to the contrary. And to be clear its not just the foundation that benefited. We had uncovered these documents showing this conflict of interest reviews that were not really reviews at all. It which is rubberstamped. China wants to give you money to speak . Okay. Speaking fees that went to the clintons personally, bill clinton took the money but obviously mrs. Clinton is married to him and she benefits to the tune of nearly 48 million in speaking fees that mrs. Clinton earned through her husbands work speaking to every Major Corporation in the United States. While she was secretary of sta state. It was a july 2 years ago when we got those waiver documents from the state department, and of the 200 some odd, i forget the exact number, not a single one was ever rejected, nor was there ever even a delay, wait six months. Every single one was approved the guess who the Approval Authority was on each one of those forms. Cheryl mills. Isnt that convenient . The person who negotiated the agreement. And fbi director who should be very inquisitive about all of this sees nothing because he wasnt asked by congress to do so. This guy has no nose for crime. Hes got a nose for so much, take the emails from huma abedin. Ive gone through those very closely which Judicial Watch was tension of obtaining. A huge proportion of them are almost totally redacted, which means theyre odyssey is sensitive material in your which im sure would have contributed not only to proving peterson case by case in terms of pay to play. But then we find out huma abedin has a private server at yahoo. Com. To the count of these emails, twothirds of emails you have released from huma abedin, she forwarded to her own yahoo. Com account with all the sensitive material redacted. Now come with the needs of all she had to done is given a password and username to anyone Muslim Brotherhood, whoever, with her connection in the Muslim Brotherhood and they couldve been being read and not only russia but anywhere in the world is full of nonredacted form realtime just because she was forwarding them to resolve. Joe, i would go back to you. Isnt that a violation of security . You know, this whole scenario is so replete with lawlessness and arrogance, knowing that no one will stop you. The reason this all occurred is because there was and impunity which came from the stature of the clintons. They felt and, more portly, they knew that no one would try to stop them your the question has been asked recently apropos of what you would say, jerry. Where was the Civil Service . Where was the Civil Servant in a government . Do you know what they were . They were in clintons pocket they were there because they all feared retribution. The clintons used retribution, and this administration used retribution, but it was the irs or freezing you in your job, failure to get promotions, retaliation if you raise an issue. People find decided that they were not going of their careers ruined by the clintons, and our little minions and the Justice Department, in for sure cheryl mills. They simply gave up. They stop doing their jobs when they saw cheryl mills signed waivers, they all knew it was over. There was going to be no ethical enforcement. The clintons to be whatever they want. And for james comey to sit until congress that there was no evidence of intent is so ludicrous. I think, you know, jerry makes a great point that proving pay to play can with be a difficult thing, but i also think that, you know, there are examples and and maybe joe and others can talk to it, there are certainly individuals that, you know, are put in front of a grand jury and are prosecuted and convicted based on a pattern of evidence. And i think one of the things that clintons have ryed to do is create this tried to do is create this misnomer that you dont have a smoking gun that says well trade this for this, and peters book is the smoking gun. [laughter] thats the bottom line here. Its nonsensical wheres your smoking gun. Read the book. Thank you, joe. But youre exactly right. This was a global enterprise. So you had individuals like frank justra who has mining interests around the world. Heres the thing we know about trying to develop mining interests around the world, if you want to get a mining concession in, say, kazahkstan or congo, that concession is granted be by the government there unlike the United States where you have private entities that own mines, it is a government operation. If you want to get lucrative mining concessions around the world, who better to have a relationship with than americas chief diplomat whos providing foreign assistance, whos providing, you know, the kinds of aid or other policy prescriptions that are so important to third world elitesesome so you have the situation like the one in kazahkstan where the timing is is overwhelming. Bill clinton flies over with justra, bill clinton shows up, has a press conference, says wonderful things about the dictator of kazahkstan, what a great human rights record he has which, you know, is laughable, and three weeks after that well, first of all, frank justra two days later gets the uranium concession in kazahkstan, then three weeks later the Clinton Foundation gets 30 million from frank justra. And then you have the pattern move forward because this entity has this lucrative asset in kazahkstan, it starts buying up uranium assets in the United States. And what happens in 2009 is the russians come calling, specifically arms which is an entity wholly owned by the russian state Atomic Nuclear agency. So to be clear, Vladimir Putins russia wants to buy these lucrative assets mt. It in te United States and kazahkstan, thats great, but it requires approval from nine Government Agencies including Hillary Clintons state department. What makes Hillary Clintons role in this process, this National Security review are two things. Number one, of the agencies that are reviewing this russian purchase, only one agency head has a record of being opposed to assets, critical assets in the united statinges being bought, d thats Hillary Clinton. In 2008 she cosponsors and pushes legislation to tighten the screws and make far more effective socalled cfius review process. So shes been a hawk on this issue cfius is a committee of agency heads. Committee Foreign Investment in the United States, correct. And the state departments one entity. So shes unique in that of all the other agencies that are reviewing this including the pentagon, including the treasury department, only one has a record of opposing precisely these kinds of deals. Thats Hillary Clinton. But the second factor thats critical is of all the Government Agencies that are reviewing this, only one agency is headed by somebody whose private foundation collects 145 million from Share Holders in that deal. Now, to me, that enough warrants investigation. I mean, imagine take the clintons out of it. Imagine a secretary of defense is making a National Security decision similar to this, and their private Foundation Takes 145 million from foreign businessmen. I mean, you can bet everybody would be investigating. I think peter raises a very important point which gets back to something that was said over here. Right. All by jerry. All of this has been on the Public Record for some time. Front page of the New York Times. Ask yourself this question, why has not one Fbi Field Office and one u. S. Attorney in either brooklyn, new york, california, texas or boston or washington opened a grand jury to investigate all of these transactions . And to me, that is why what comey did in the Hillary Clinton email case confirms without a doubt that the Justice Department and the fbi have been hopelessly politically compromised. Well, there have been two stories there that, one, an information is ongoing and secondly but only recently. I mean, that information allegedly i dont know which one to believe. Right. Has allegeddedly been started by the u. S. Attorney, but nobody knows if thats true or not. We think it is. We now know that that president obama, to access Hillary Clintons email server, used an alias. Now, thats right there an indication of guilt, i would think, because why would you use an alias unless youre trying to hide the fact that youre using a private email server offline to the state department . Now, the justra case is thats the russian uranium that peter was just talking about. Because just reason justra created a canadian version, and they took in four donations which they bundled and did not disclose because they tried to argue the canadian law didnt require it. Now, what im pointing out as we find these companies showing up in the Panama Papers and the Money Laundering operation and, remember, i did a lot of the First Research on the hsbc showing they were Money Laundering. Now, that was a 1. 9 billion fine which Loretta Lynch did not prosecute anyone for when she was in the Southern District of new york. And the point of it is that everybody knew the Money Laundering was going on in the hsbc system. A bank manager came out with the data, a thousand pages of it. Now, youre not going to say that the Clinton Foundation including wjc at the highest levels of government with international Money Laundering going on and the Panama Papers validating a lot of this, that it wasnt known in the federal reserve, that the wire transfers werent seen. But if the highest level of government is involved, then clearly the Justice Department investigate. Because youre going to have to go et into the revelation to the American People, you know, weve been silent while drug cartels, terrorists, etc. , have used our banking facilities and International Banking facilities with people like the clintons quarterbacking it more their own personal gain. And to be clear, theres been no congressional hearing on the uranium scandal correct. Again, reported out by the New York Times based on peters initial work. Now, to be clear, Judicial Watch doesnt take a position on the election. I dont know who you all want to vote for or against, were not saying to vote for or against anyone. But people have pointed out that donald trump has played games with his foundation, or its been alleged, and he may have something to hide. Can you do you have any feedback be on the issue well, comey was asked about that yesterday, and he demurred. He said im not at liberty to confirm or deny oh, well, thats interesting. All of a sudden the loquacious mr. Comey clams up. He should be telling us as much as hes told us about all these other things. Im quite, you know, what is it, my dear friend mr. Comey, are you doing something or not . I dont have any problem with investigating donald trump. If hes done something wrong, have at it. But i expect him to get exactly the same treatment that Hillary Clinton got. No subpoenas, no grand jury, just sort of light touch interviews, maybe ask for a few documents. You know, not too much. We dont want to push this. The overarching thing thats most disturbing is this very i would say sad, really not sad, shocking lack of courage from senior professional staff in these various departments. This email routine with Hillary Clinton went on for years, and people at the deputy, at the assistant, at sort of the division chief level all knew this was going on. It was unavoidably obvious to all of hem. Not a single person, not a peep. Thats right. And theres a reason for that. Theres somebody in the state department who ruins, who ends peoples career. His name is patrick kennedy. Hes the undersecretary absolutely. You cross him, your career is over. Everybody in that building knows it. And that meant you didnt cross the front office of Hillary Clinton. You know, we had an opportunity to interview a couple of people, a couple of brave souls who provided us with some information concerning devices that mrs. Clinton sought to use in her official capacity. In other words, using in particular an ipad. Right. And the fact that the Technical Services people within Diplomatic Security said, no, you cant use it, its not secure. Essentially, its a beacon constantly giving your location, and the device itself is unsecure, even for unclassified we wont approve it. They would send a memo back up to the seventh floor saying, no, you cant use it. Two weeks later theyd get another, well, the seventh floor really wants to use and they would laugh in their Staff Meetings and say who writes the memo week and send it back up. So the institutional resistance at lower levels that tried to at least enforce provisions. But what im waiting for and i have reason to believe so occurring and, hopefully, will manifest be itself is that there are whistleblowers inside state, and there are whistleblowing fbi agents who know better and have been in contact and communication with the committees on the hill and that theyre going to step up and say, look, were not buying it. This is the truth. The problem is there are, there is such a lack of leadership, theres such a reticence of people to do the right thing, its really its a sense that theres a careerism. People that are looking just to get to their retirement and screw it. Theyre not going to do anything beyond that. Just quickly just outside criminal aspect of this and whether Hillary Clinton should go to jail or be prosecuted, theres this fundamental issue about Government Transparency thats been put at risk as a result of the clinton scandal. And we dont understand, i think we take for granted how open and transparent our government is relatively speaking to every other government mt. World. No other in the world. No other country allows access to the courts to groups like Judicial Watch the way the United States does to force the government to turn over records. And that whole process is contingent on good faith on the part of the government. The government says weve looked for the records, and these are the records. We cant necessarily second guess and say, hey, you should look here, there and everywhere. We have to rely on the government doing the job theyve been entrusted to do by the American People. Hillary clinton tore that compact up. Because now we cant trust anything the government says, at least the state department says, because they promised us. Yeah. And they promised they looked everywhere they should have for records. And mrs. Clinton, if she gets away or theres no accountability whether she gets away personally is not the issue, theres no institutional accountability for the misconduct that mrs. Clinton did as secretary of state and the agency did, foia may end because you cant rely on the law being enforced, because the government officials may say i have a way of getting around s that is why these darn taxpayers who want to find out what im up to because i can text privately or come up with another whatever the innovation is technically to do my business, the peoples business in secret. Well, thats why this point that was made about the Civil Service is so important. Because when they first responded to the freedom of information act request, are they suggesting when they didnt find any Hillary Clinton emails that that didnt raise a red flag right away . Ifin the first series of responses . This is beyond belief that no one said where the hell are hillarys emails. Right. And at that that point Nothing Happened . I think the amount of duplicity and deception and lying and perjury that has been committed in the free come of information lawsuits freedom of information lawsuits involving you and other people is staggering. It is precisely why what comey said at his News Conference and in testimony is so offensive to people who believe in Good Government and accountability. Because what comey has done, he has piled on this abuse of the freedom of information act, and he has made it less likely that people will comply with judicial requests, subpoenas and other documents. This is the scary part of this. What hillary has done with her private server and then the lying about it and what comey has done with, in essence, an fbi coverup, an official coverup, this is like the old soviet union. Lets blot her out of the photograph. I mean, this what he has done is he has undermined confidence in the ability of the government to investigate itself. Let me tell you that in Court Hearings where weve been in front of judge Emmett Sullivan in one of the principal foia cases, he got very frustrated and turned to the government attorney representing the state department and said i want one question answered, it should be very clear. Who authorized the use of the server . A basic interrogative. And in this case the dissembling, the double talk, the staring at ones shoes, it made judge sullivan come out of his feet at point because its so fundamentally simple. We have questions pending, so you know, with mrs. Clinton. We had sought her deposition testimony which would have required her to come in and be questioned directly. The judge didnt bite on that but did authorize us to give her questions in writing which we did, 25 questions, which are simple and available to the public online and the answers will be written by the same lawyers who deleted the emails right. [laughter] either way good luck. The fbi didnt even do that. I wanted to make a point. Remember, the other negligent group in this is, clearly, the Mainstream Media and the press. If we take a look, remember, we learned about this prior to the email server through gucifer, through a hacker who first released the emails, and it was clear that these were not in the state Department Email system and that there were addresses that krypton email clinton email and everyones saying, what is this . Thats how we found out about this. Didnt come from the Mainstream Media. It came from a hacker. Right. And, in fact, weve gotten, you know, the two ways weve gotten information on the Clinton Emails, including on the Clinton Foundation, have been from people like Julian Assange and Judicial Watch. Not from the department of justice we do it the legal way. Well, you do it the legal way, you know . [laughter] im not trying to justify what Julian Assange or anyone else is doing in hack, but my point is, you know, when you have to get down to a hacker who is going to tell the truth, you know, the criminal breaking into the system is telling the truth where those responsible for making sure the system is legitimate, fbi, Civil Service, Law Enforcement, are not doing their jobs. This is where Judicial Watch and others have come in, and Judicial Watch especially with the foia requests to demand and continuing to demand that emails, oh, those werent destroyed, we just found them. How do you find 14,000 emails its corruption. Just quickly, peter, you know, jason leopold, vice news, to his credit he had the main case that resulted in the 55,000 and may result in more emails coming out before the election now. Yes. Jason participated in a previous Judicial Watch panel which is also available online. You know, he made the point he Hillary Clinton was an important person. And he was just doing what he felt all reporters do. Right. Well, this is an important person thats probably going to run for Higher Office and presidency, so give me her emails. He didnt know what he was getting into. He thought he was just doing regular reporting work and, indeed, he was, but he was the only reporter and the nurse the first to go to court about records and got them as a result. It just shows you how little effort it takes in the end and apropos of what jerry has saw said about the Mainstream Media, how many foia requests have been filed by the New York Times and the Washington Post . How many . Nothing. Talk about awol. You know, bob woodward talks about we have 27 reporters working on donald trump. Great. Give me 27 on the emails, and lets find out where they are and what happened to them. Have you interviewed all these guys who were part of this i mean, the notion that the Mainstream Media serves a useful function under the First Amendment really under attack. The question is being asked, you know, so we get the revelations, Judicial Watch comes out with a series of emails we havent seen. Youre not going to go to the New York Times, your going to go to the internet sources. We try very hard to keep it current. On twitter and on facebook youre going to find people commenting. Theyre asking questions of the Justice Department which they refuse to even look at and with great skill. The internet is suddenly becoming the source in which the debate is actually happening. Well, and to be fair, the New York Times and the Washington Post, and this is the problem its been for mrs. Clinton, are actually following our heed here and yeah, yeah. They have written and youve had some good relationships in the past. I do think as it gets closer to election the window closes. Theres a greater reluctance to drop a large story or to report a large story just because of fears they might affect the election. But getting back to your original question about trump oh, yeah. I think of the transparency, basically, on three levels. One is that the general obligation that candidates have to be transparent. Theres no legal commitment but just a general obligation. And i think on that people want to know who their candidates, what their financial ties are, who they might owe money to, where the sources of income of their wealth are coming from, whos contributing to their campaigns, etc. And so i believe that mr. Trump and Hillary Clinton both should be transparent many those areas. In those area ares. Thats the lowest rung. Then you start to move up to commitments that candidates have made, you know . Hillary clinton made a commitment, signed an agreement with barack obama, this men ran dumb of memorandum of understanding in 2008. This was not a general obligation somebody made up. It was a, you know, nonbinding but written agreement with the president of the United States which she completedly violated completely violated. And weve talked about how Civil Servants have been complicit in not raising it. To me, the great midwestly here is mystery here is barack obama. If you look at that 2008 commitment, memorandum of understand, barack obama clearly knew what was going on. The frank justra institute in canada is listed as one of agencies. So think about this. You tell the United States is in a run agreement we will disclose all contributions, they completely thumbed their nose at president obama. President obama doesnt seem to care that his secretary of state essentially said i signed ab agreement with you, but i dont care. Well, because hes in many ways would be an unindicted coconspirator for allowing this to take exactly. But just to and the abuse of the foundation. I mean, here youve got people in haiti and, you know, were the outreach of the democratic party, the Africanamerican Community has been decades long, and you look at whats done by the clintons in haiti where they come in, and its clear that only pennies on the dollar donated got to my of the haitians who were suffering. Yep. Today in misery conditions and protesting Hillary Clinton actively today because, again, its the transfer of money and ato play because you had, you know, the irish criminals that theyve dealt with for years and years coming in and cornering the Telecom Market in haiti. Building Luxury Hotels when the people dont even basically have create bl water drinkable water, you know . The u. N. Comes in and creates cholera yeah. And denies that it does it. I mean, these crimes, you know, heres this is what we cant have happen, is that hillary now is in the white house, and so the price of a clinton speech goes to, you know, bill will give a speech, but now its 5 million. Right. Oh, sure. Yeah. I guess, well, theres another disaster tomorrow in xyz country. Great, lets rush in because heres another chance for the Clinton Foundation to make not a billion dollars roger will be back, Roger Clinton and our net worth will go to yeah. And tony rodham will get another gold mine. You know, let me just say this on trump. You know, with mrs. Clinton i think the crisis shes created for herself and her new presidency if she, indeed, wins is that the conflicts of interest have been cast in stone. So all of the companies that gave money to the foundation are are going to be begin extra scrutiny, and theres gown to be less confidence that the Administration Even if it is acting innocently, is acting innocent hi. Now, the problem that mr. Trump has he probably thinks and i would suspect im not bill be or Hillary Clinton, why would anyone think i would do anything wrong. Well, he is owner of a Major Corporation many yeah. And he may think im not going to be influenced, but people will try to influence him. And he needs to be aware of that and take steps about it as opposed to the typical arrogant way of thinking that ive seen with the Bush Administration that were not bill clinton, were not the Clinton Administration so, therefore, the ethics rules and the sensitivities that anyone else ought to have dont apply to us because were not the bad guys. When, point in fact, the temptation for corruption never leaves. Exactly. Especially when you have the government doing as much as possible. It would be foolish for people not to try to influence trump from the corruption point of view. Their going to try to do it because its the path of least resistance to get in good with the Trump Administration by taking care of his companies or people close to him. And if hes not aware of that, he needs to be aware of it because i guarantee you if you think the medias been soft on clinton, theyre not going to be soft on trump, and its the right thing to do, and hes going to be held to account for it in a way that mrs. Clinton obviously wont be from sympathetic media. Right now the magnitude is all. The Trump Foundation is relatively small compared to the magnitude of the Clinton Foundation. Its not a 2 billion entity. Transactions that have been questioned are 20, 30, 40,000 transactions, not hundreds of millions of dollars. First of all, yes, there should be transparency. The clintons do tend to play a gotcha. If they can find a 20,000 transaction that they want to criticize trumps foundation for, they think it frees them from scrutiny on 2 billion worth of transactions. Right. And the point is, you know, i think ultimately were going to have to really raise the question should every two bit dictator anywhere in the world who graduates from being head of state now then go into creating their own foundation and play the will exploit misery for our own gain and profit game. That game is legitimated. Whats at stake here is the integrity of charitable giving. Yeah. Yes. And to add no to that point, a lot of people, you know, the defense made by the clinton supporters often times is, well, the Clinton Foundation, they dont actually get a salary from the Clinton Foundation which is technically true are. They get a lot of side benefits. But the other thing to point out for bill clintons speaking fees often times he goes to precisely talk about the Clinton Foundation, and he actually wrote a book called giving about the great work of the clinton [inaudible] for which, by the way, he received 6 million many royalties which dud not go to the you can prove diversion of funds out of financials, and in the book you can see tens of millions of dollars kiss appearing. Now disappearing. Now, with clinton having a wjc passthrough corporation that we dont have audited reports on, finding these show up in the Panama Papers, what happened to that money . Okay. Those are legitimate questions. How do you get to 100 million net worth . Certainly, you dont do it even on the excessive speaking fees, you certainly dont get it on the secretary of state or u. S. Senator salary or the president s pension. Okay. And god sake, just take a look at the money involved and say where did it go, because you can see years where literally the Clinton Foundation spent five cents on the dollar in charity. Its going to be competition, because therell be the Obama Foundation shortly. Yeah. Well, im sure thats [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] [laughter] his game that he they created the template. Hes going to cop it. He wont have to do any setup work. Were going to have to bring this to a close. Id be remiss in not promoting Judicial Watchs book which provides key background on the benghazi and irs scandal and pretty much every other major scandal, clean house, its a New York Times bestseller in addition to jerrys book, partners in crime, and peters book, clinton cash, which is not only a great book, but now graphic novel, and theres a dvd available widely on the internet for free. Just great work thats being done by us all around, you know . Id like to give Judicial Watch credit be im not involved, but its a great work that were doing. And that leveraged, you know, we educate the people, and we put the material out there. Yeah. People like jerry do with it what they will, you take it and do with it what they will, the fbi takes it and does with it what they wont. [laughter] its important work, and and its great to have you know, to think that its easy for someone like joe to come out and complain as strongly as he does about the fbi director, as a criminal defense lawyer, its not like youre not doing it at some risk to your professional career. Very kind of you. Youre to be credited for taking this very public point of view on the misconduct by the fbi, some of which you have to deal with in your professional life you know what . Once youre a cop, youre always a cop. When you see a dirty cop, youve got to see something about it. And the damage to the country oh, its incalculable. Thank you, gentlemen. If you want to follow up on the new Clinton Emails released over the next several weeks, go to judicialwatch. Org. No matter what happens, well be on the case. Thank you to all of you joining us and, hopefully, well have a panel like this soon again, so stay tuned. But you can track us on the web at judicialwatch. Org, and were on facebook and twitter as well, and you can learn more about all the panelists on our web site and find out more about them and pirg out how to get their books and other information. Thanks again for joining us and have a great week. [inaudible conversations]