From Judicial Watchs perspective, we have seen this before in the clinton administration. It came to our attention that 1. 8 million emails were not being records managed properly and they were not being searched in response to subpoenas and document requests. We were focused on litigation over the mishandling of fbi files i Hillary Clinton and the white house. It turned out the office of independent counsel investigations were being impacted. It was a big mess. Because the whistleblowers told us that, when they raised this with white house officials, this gap, they were told that if they told anyone about it, they would go to jail and lose their jobs. So, we had a monthlong hearing. It saw the testimony of white house officials, including john podesta, who was chief of staff. Charles ruff, now deceased then, white house counsel. Cheryl mills, a deputy counsel in the white house, later became chief of staff to mrs. Clinton in the state department. Although the court did not unfortunately, find of structuring of justice, it was called loathesome and he said that mills was responsible for the actions of the fiasco and were inadequate to address the problem. Mills is responsible to disclose to investigators about these emails. She had been highlighted for a special calling out by a federal court judge back during the clinton years in 1990 i guess the whole scandal took place in the late 90s and the ruling was more recent. I can tell you she was under oath back in the clinton administration. I dont think that was well understood. The Judicial Watch has been active in areas involving the freedom of information act and we have filed requests with the state department and have sued 20 times under the freedom of information act on issues ranging from mrs. Clintons ability to raise money through her husband and her husbands conflict of interests at the state department. We have obtained and reported on with the Washington Examiner about all the money she was raising and the conflict of interest checks that were not being done. She was able to get benefits for her and the foundation while she was in the state department from virtually anyone who wanted to get influence with this administration or influence a successor president to obama. The litigation, by the way, is ongoing. We were involved in litigation involving benghazi. Mrs. Clinton, notoriously, put out there with obama and rice the fake talking points that the benghazi attack was in response to a spontaneous demonstration caused by people upset by an internet video that no one had seen. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, publicly, they continued to put this line out that was designed to help president ial campaigns. The president s reelection and her nascent president ial campaign. Our document requests and freedom of information act lawsuits did much to uncover facts about benghazi, the security mess, the intelligence the administration, mrs. Clinton, and the state department was getting. The intelligence they were getting showed it was an attack and they knew it was from the get go. The information just came out over the last few weeks as a result of one of our lawsuits. That lawsuit was a follow on to another lawsuit that we filed that blue the scandal wide open last year. In that lawsuit, we were able to uncover white house documents showing the talking points susan rice used to get out to the American People on the sunday after the attack on all five of the sunday morning talk shows. It was a terrorist attack. It was not a terrorist attack. It was a spontaneous demonstration resulting from that internet video. The administration said, we are basing these on what intelligence is telling us and we have been investigated we have been investigating this and getting document after document from the administration. We have gotten talking points for congress. They were false. They were for congress. Finally, we get the documents from our lawsuit that shows it is the white house sending out the talking points to all of the people in the white house who are part of the political messaging of the administration and the planning was out of the white house for what susan rice would be saying on the and ghazi that sunday. On benghazi that sunday. The white house was lying about the attack and they were caught in the lie. They were lying about their involvement and the misleading information put out during the president ial campaign. That caused Speaker Boehner the document have been turned over during our foia lawsuit. It caused Speaker Boehner, who had resisted appointment of a committee to say, thanks to digital watch, we are appointing a committee. The committee resulted in disclosure of this material. Let me just say this. We got the materials out of the state department about the white house talking points and the smoking gun. We were curious that no Hillary Clinton emails were produced. Of course, we were thinking, maybe we did something wrong and we did not do something the right way. Maybe we only allowed one agency. To be sure, we filed another foia request asking about this issue of the white house talking points. Typical for the administration they told us they did not respond if they are required to under law. We filed again and we got documents we were given last time. We asked, what did you get and where did you search . When we did, thats only got the Justice Department essentially telling us, there are other things we may need to look at. They told the court in the filing, we gave Judicial Watch everything we could and there may be other things we need to look at. They did not tell us that they had not searched Hillary Clintons email accounts. By the way, when they told us and give us a list of the records they were withholding and the index involved, i few days before they had gotten the emails from clinton, the 55,000 records, they gave us this document and never told us that they had not even looked at these records. I do not think it is any coincidence that, a few weeks after, they have hem and haw to the court. These records were leaked in what i believe was a friendly leak to the new york times. We have lawsuits raised on representations the state department made that Hillary Clintons records had been searched. They deemed Judicial Watch and the federal courts, who they had also assured they had conducted a diligent search. To be clear, clinton began to cover up the day she came into office and it ended this month. When you are the head of an agency and you create email and a secret way to conduct government business, with half to assume you are up to no good. We have to assume you are up to no good. Think of the 20 or so cases in federal court. We have gone to a core asking for a hearing and another one to ask for a reopening. We are just one litigant. Think of all the litigation the state department is engaged in. Think of all the foia requests the administration gets. All of this has been distorted and obstructed. Think of the congressional requests for information and subpoenas the state department has gotten over the years that has been related to clintons emails and would require a search of those records. In my view, there are significant criminal liabilities for clinton, if there was an honest Justice Department. Congress is unable and unwilling to enforce powers to obtain these records and overcome Obama Administration obstruction evidenced by the Hillary Clinton scandal. Now, we see the president is taking steps to protect his emails and questions about them from being asked. His office, which 30 years prior to court action, had operated as if it was under the freedom of information act. George bush decided he did not like the questions he was getting about emails and the courts said, you are not covered anymore. The Obama Administration continued that argument and was successful in the Appellate Court at getting that done. There are regulations out there after the ruling that are subject to foia. Why, only after a few days, why, after a few days of following obamas disclosure that he communicated with clinton on the secret email account and people understood he used emails, did the office issue regulations that tore up them. That would be the agency under the freedom of information act that he would be asking questions about in terms of how white house emails are being maintained and organized. They cut off any possibility of questions under foia about the way obama kept his emails. By the way, we never received obamas emails in any of the freedom of information act requests. There are some questions there. This is a scandal not just about clinton. It is about the state department, the Justice Department, the obama white house, the failure of congress to conduct effective oversight and about the lack of interest in the media and in the institutions, the government institutions that are charged with enforcing the law and making sure that there is at least enough of an helmet of accountability that the secretary of not dare do what clinton has done. I will turn it over to our guests. We are lucky to have a former foia official who was in the Justice Department for many years and is as influential in setting up the system as anyone living today. A former prosecutor and independent prosecutor. He has overcome obstructions. We have our Judicial Watch council. I do not know if he will take this as a complement, but he is the number one foia litigator in the country. Im going to go through the backgrounds of all of our guests and we will get their presentations and allowed time for interaction with the audience. Dan joined the faculty in 2007 and, upon retiring from a career of government service, he now heads a law school and a nonpartisan project devoted to freedom of information and the study of government. For more than 25 years, he was the director of the Justice Department office of information and privacy, guiding all federal agencies on interpretation and interpretation of the freedom of information act and has supervised foia lawsuits in Appellate Courts. I do not want to know how many times you were on the other side of our cases. He was in the dhs and the National Security council. He testified on behalf of his group, the collaboration of government secrecy before the House Committee on oversight and reform. He is an expert on government foia administration and implementation of foia policies. We are lucky to have him. Joining us, at the end, is joe. He represents individuals, corporations, and other entities. He was part of civil matters and he and his wife have done great work on behalf of whistleblowers that should be commended. He has extensive experience as a litigator and investigator having served as both an attorney and as an independent counsel in the clinton passport search matter. It was an investigation of Bush Administration appointees. He was named special counsel by the u. S. House of representatives. He was retained by the state of new york to investigate Eliot Spitzer and he has extensive experience in capitol hill. He is the counsel to the Senate Judiciary affairs and intelligence committee. We cannot get better than joe in matters of prosecutions of government corruption. Paul heads Judicial Watchs Litigation Department and has been with it since the inception. He has argued in front of the Supreme Court on behalf of Judicial Watch and clients. He has been a spokesman with legal commentary appearing in major media and print publications. In addition to managing daytoday operations of the department, which lawyers understand is interesting, paul is the member of the board of directors for Judicial Watch. He is responsible for the work we do, like folks like me. Without his expertise, all of the success you read about, we would not have. He and his legal team deserve so much credit for our good work. He graduated from the university of illinois and received his jd from au in 1990. The guests are going to speak for a bit and we will collaborate a little bit and talk amongst ourselves. I will turn it over first to mr. Metcalfe. Dan i should say three things. Tom speak more loudly. Dan i became involved in organizing this analyzing this pattern with clinton at three quests of journalists who had participated in my academic programs. I felt an obligation to look at things and applied my expertise. Apply my expertise under the freedom of information act and the federal records act. I do not claim to have expertise with respect to criminal law and whether things are a violation of law or illegal and the way that someone thinks of those words. When i talk about something being unlawful or being in violation of the law, i am speaking of civil and not criminal statutes. I will defer to the former u. S. Attorney with that. I will base my remarks very heavily, if not exclusively, pun intended, on what has been omitted by clinton admitted by clinton or on her the half by her counsel. On her behalf by her counsel. We will start by looking at the first weeks she was in office. There are four time chapters here. She began in 2009 as secretary of state. She departed for years later, in 2013. She did what ever she did do in 2014 in response to request that came from the state department. Currently, when she is saying and not saying at press conferences or other remarks made on her behalf. At the onset, in 2009, as a new secretary of Cabinet Agency or a new agency, more generally would have a briefing with people at her agency. Very likely, it would have been the undersecretary and others. They would have colored desk covered the basic dos and donts they would have covered the basic dos and donts of the privacy act procurement matters and things like that. Evidently, out of that meeting or series of communications, i do not know how this went, it developed that she began to use a personal email account exclusively for all of her official business. That is something, right there is a typical atypical. The policies and practices is that it is absolutely prohibited to ever use a personal email account in the conduct of business. If you are a busy secretary of state and you reach for a device and it is a personal email account, no one is going to come and tell you, stop, you cannot address the problems of the world and represent the United States because youre holding the wrong piece of equipment in your hand. The federal records act, as a practical matter, allows for occasional use of a personal email account under exceptional circumstances. It does say, beyond that, when that is done on an exceptional basis, the official or a assistant has the responsibility to take the communication and transmit it, forward it, into the state Department Record keeping systems. However, clinton says clearly that she did not begin or ever use the official email account or the state Department Email account. She only used the personal email account. Moreover, she never took the additional step in in the instance in any instance with respect to any of her communications. The next aspect of it, distinct, but related, is that, rather than have her personal email account be handled, for a lack of a better word, by an internet the problems of the world and represent the United States because youre holding the wrong piece of equipment in your hand. Indeed, they recognize that. The federal records act, as a practical matter, allows for occasional use of a personal email account under exceptional circumstances. It does say, beyond that, when that is done on an exceptional basis, then the official, or a staff assistant has the responsibility to take the communication and transmit it, forward it, into the state departments Record Keeping systems. However, secretary clinton says quite clearly that she did not begin to use or ever use the official email account or the state Department Email account. She only used the personal email account. Moreover, she never took the additional step in any instance with respect to any of her communications. Then, the next aspect of it, distinct, but related, is that rather than have her personal email account be handled, for a lack of a better word, by an Internet Service provider like yahoo or google, she made use of a private server at her home. So that meant that during the four years of her tenure, all of her official communications were outside of the official channels of the state department, at least at her end as the sender or recipient. And resided purely in her personal control or property. Ownership, if that is the correct legal word. When she left the department in 2013, it is commonplace for Government Officials, especially highlevel ones, to have special attention paid to them and particular attention paid to them for purposes of Records Management and archival activities. I had it even when i left is a mere career appointee at the gsfive level. And the proper delineation made at what is personal and what is official. In the official category, what is a record and what is not a record. The whole thing being, some things will be preserved through the archives and some will not. That, apparently, did not take place. Then what happens in 2014 according to secretary clinton and statements that have been made on her behalf is that she was responding to a special request by the department of state and it is fuzzy what that was all about. She nevertheless, she undertook the step of