So heavily involved in. Those of you who dont no, we use the freedom of information act, the foil law to uncover government records. We were investigating a few years ago the benghazi scandal and we noticed, in our lawsuit, that hit Hillary Clinton didnt have any emails that were coming to us from the Obama Administration. Just be sure we asked for emails related to benghazi and sure enough, the government cap, toward the end of 2014 started making noises that there may be other documents they need to look at. In february 2015, they, they told the court, they give everything to Judicial Watch but they may be other documents they need to look at. The weeks later, they reported that she was using a clinton server, private server or what she thinks to be a private server and producing thousands of emails for herself and evidently for the state department but not the American People. She was conducting all of this business on a separate server and all bets were off in terms of the undoing of the freedom of information act, the obstruction and fraud that was brought upon the courts and its various lawsuits that were taking information that shouldve been covered by the clinton email and not produce. They quickly took the lead and uncovered everything we know to date about the scandal and you will see how we even let the fbi in terms of investigating it. It wasnt one of those cases that lead to discovery which is evidence gathering, we took testimony of cheryl mills, the former chief of staff at the state department, our 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 in one of our cases, mrs. Clinton had to complete a statement under perjury that as far as she knew all the emails she had were turned over to the government. In fact, we now know 30,000 emails were deleted and many of those were actually government related emails and they should have been deleted. As a result of all of this litigation, the fbi was pressured to undergo the appearance of the criminal investigation into her handling of the emails. As we have learned over the last several weeks obviously the fbi decided not to prosecute and the Obama Justice department decided not to prosecute her based on the alleged recommendation of mr. Comay, the fbi director, but as we find out more details about the fbi investigation, we found out that a lot of these investigations that the fbi was undertaking. The witnesses werent questioned until it became clear that they were going to get discovery or was getting discovery and will be questioning some of the same witnesses. It was so bad that we just learned in the latest fbi document that the fbi was using documents to produce information under the freedom of information act. They couldnt even get the fill document. They were using those documents to question the witnesses. Theres a lot of outrage about the fbi agreements and the clinton aides at issue in this case and will get into that later. Just so you no, there will be more emails coming out thanks to Judicial Watch litigation for it was our litigation that again forced the fbi to do the halfbaked investigation that it did as it turns out but it did produce new emails including 14900 emails that she didnt want anyone to see because she deleted them. Many of those deleted emails were uncovered by the fbi and turned over to the state department and several thousand of them were going to be turned over to the American People as a result of litigation. The litigation is going to result in Clinton Emails that she didnt want produced at all to the American People produce before election day, at least a portion of them. On on top of that. I think we should point out that these emails will be produced even after the election. No matter what happens on election day the email scandal is going to continue and there will be continued pressure for investigation of what we know went on no matter who is elected president and so i wouldnt necessarily count out a criminal investigation of mrs. Clinton under a Clinton Administration because i dont think the attorney general that she would appoint would have much in the way of an argument to stop a special counsel from being appointed. How can that person investigate mrs. Clinton without a conflict of interest being so apparent. That would require special counsel to be at appointed. I think the public would demand it. Under a trumpet administration, unless he asked light act like every other administration in the past, he seems committed to doing more thorough investigation. No matter what happens i think there will be more significant in the administration. I want to call to attention that theyve been making a lot of noise, the fbi director was testifying earlier this week to congress, but what lets highlight the fact that congress can take steps that its refusing to take to hold her accountable. I think this is important to remember. She could testified that she turned over all of her government emails. We know that to be false. What did congress do, it referred that question of whether she committed perjury to the department of justice for a criminal investigation. Who are they fooling . They know what will happen and we know where the fbi director comes down on that. Why is it pending against her now. Why do they have to wait for the Justice Department to do something. As far as her testimony being incorrect or false and documents being destroyed after they were subpoenaed, why why wasnt she held in contempt . The answer is obvious, they have have an election and they dont want accountability in the true sense of the word to get in the way of their quest for retaining progress. The other uncomfortable point i will bring up from the point of view of leaders is that they can also impeach her and they dont have to wait for her to be president to impeach her. Congress retains the ability to impeach a federal officer if they were in office or not. They can impeach her for secretary of state right now. You tell that to a republican member of congress, but its true. The sanction would be, if this is the way it works in the house , you impeach the official in the house and thats kind of like an indictment. One of the penalties could be ineligible in eligibility for Public Office in the future. Wouldnt that be an interesting process but the fact is she can be impeached for her conduct of secretary of state. Next time you hear congress complain about the fbi and the department of justice and the coverup and the wired investigation where there were no investigation, remember they have independent tools available to it under the constitution to prosecute the clintons scandal and they are tools that theyre refusing to use. I think there needs to be some accountability on that. Theres a lot of talk, theres a lot to talk about today and weve been last with an expert panel of individuals who have looked long and hard at the scandals and have studied them over the years and have unparalleled expertise to share with you and educate you about some of these pending issues including some i havent been able to get to today. In terms of introduction, the Founding Partner and joe has tremendous and experience and was a former u. S. Attorney. Also joining us on the board of directors, hes our director of investigations and hes the one who starts up all these investigations the end up in lawsuits. Notably, chris is a former Army Intelligence officer with a specialty in counterintelligence and human intelligence. I would like to know what human intelligence is. Im sure that now that you have retired, that area of work is going to be slowly needing help in our military system. Its pretty scary these days. Also joining us is Peter Schweitzer, another friend of Judicial Watch and author of multiple New York Times bestsellers. He is with the Government Accountability institute and most notably the author of the clinton cash which is the famous bestseller that really broke it open on the conflict of interest with Hillary Clinton and the clinton cash machine. Jerry, another longtime student is joining us and he is with a senior staff writer and the author of the new bestseller partners in crime and i dont need to tell you what this references, maybe i do, but youll see a picture of bill and hillary on the cover. That gives you an idea. We are pleased to be joined by all of them. What we will do, so you no, they will give you their thoughts and we will talk amongst ourselves and it will be an interesting discussion because the scandal is, theres probably things going on that we speak that we need to be aware of, but we thought it was important to bring these experts in so you have context. We thought it was important to give you an idea of where we were, where we are now, and where were going. We will begin with Peter Schweitzer who will open us up with his report and we will move on to chris, jerry and joe. Its great to be here with this distinguished group of people and i want to say thank you for the great work you have done over the years and particularly when someone was investigating the clintons before we knew about the server, before we had the information, you performed an enormous Public Service by exposing it. Bravo for that. I just want to talk a little bit about some of the things that i hear from people that are getting more wellversed on what the clintons have been up to, the flow of money and the issues related to the email server and explain why i think this is a different scandal than a traditional money scandal that weve seen an american political history. Second of all, to sort of explain why i dont think. [inaudible] i think they are very important legal matters that need to be addressed. I want to make a point that there are larger implications beyond hillary and bill clinton. First of all why is this a different scandal. I would say its really for two reasons in my mind. First of all the scale of it. The scale not only of the efforts they took two of aid or avoid transparency by setting up the server and also the scale of the flow of the money that we are talking about. If you look back at some of the historic scandals, the quantity of money that you are talking about flowing to the clintons doorsteps on a magnitude of ten to one or 100 to one, youre talking about Hillary Clintons Public Service took in around 250 million, the Clinton Foundation itself took in 2 billion so the amount of money we are talking about is much larger. The second point that i would make bettys even more important is what the clinton actions have represented are there successful efforts to evade the financial controls that we have had in place for half a century to prevent foreign interests from influence in american politics. For those who dont follow such things, if you look at the laws that we have on the books to prevent the influence of american clinical figures, we have things on caps on how many things people can contribute to political campaigns. You cant give much more than 5000 in a primary and general election to a candidate. You can only give a certain amount to a political a Political Action committee. Most specifically, even though there are debates about those questions in money and politics, one that never gets debated is the fact that i havent found anybody who wants foreign entities influencing our political leaders. I havent run across anybody who thinks its a good idea to have an african oligarch or latin American Country influence our political figures. Think about it in this context. If you are one of those individuals overseas that wants a favor from the federal government in washington d. C. , pretty much legal avenues are shut off to you and cant make contributions to Hillary Clinton to gain access. You cant make a contribution legally to her campaign, but what the clintons did by establishing the Clinton Foundation and setting up the speaker free apparatus, they created an avenue by which foreign entities could do just that. When Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, she is making decisions related to africa policy, her husband was collecting 700,000 speaking fees from african entities that had sitting on her desk. As i will talk about at the end my comments, the dangerous implications of this are that this will become widespread if it is allowed to stand. To begin with, when people argue and say they all do this, that is simply not the case. That is a financial scandal and a secrecys candle that goes beyond any think that we have seen in political history. Second point i would make is i dont think we can just trust up political process to this. People say the clintons have learned now from the mistakes that they have made in the past. For example, bill clinton has said that the Clinton Global Initiative is not going to take place anymore. He is stepping down from the board of the foundation and it will now be run by his daughter chelsea. Basically the argument is that they have learned their lesson that this looks bad, maybe this even is 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 back in 2008. They signed a memorandum of understanding with barack obama where they committed to do a couple very important things. One was complete transparency. Everyone thinks transparency is a great idea. They were required as part of this agreement to disclose all of their campaign, all of their donations to the Clinton Foundation. Second of all, they agreed there would be a clear bright line between the actions of the Clinton Foundation and the state department and there would be no blurring of the two. Those were commitments that were made and the clintons, as we all now know, and every buddy and knowledges, they completely violated those commitments. Any commitments that are being made now going forward, i think we cannot have much faith because they dont have a track record of abiding by these principles. To me the issue is not just looking forward. We have to deal with her tender of secretary of state and setting up the server because we simply cannot trust, going forward, that these actions and activities will be self corrected. Finally, the point i would make i would make is 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, if they are to evade this, there is a couple of things we know about the rule of politics in washington d. C. Number one, entities are looking for favors and in this particular case, foreign entities will continue to look for favors from our political leaders in washington d. C. And politicians, if if you give them the opportunity to self enrich in a quasilegal way, they will take it. Mark my word, here is what will happen. If the Clinton Foundation and the activities related to the private server are not dealt with in a legal manner, it is going to be imitated. There is no reason why we could not have a secretary of defense, ten years from now, a secretary of defense who is charting American Defense policy, sets up a private foundation, takes donations from overseas entities, puts their spouse on the circuit taking foreign dollars and what are we to say . Are we to say the clintons can do it but you cant . The point becomes this becomes an extremely dangerous precedents that if not dealt with will have huge implications for the country, not just now but during her tenure as secretary of state and going forward. Thank you peter. To be clear, she was, these promises she made in terms of her ethics agreements wasnt just pro forma. Democrats and republicans were concerned about it and president obama demanded it. It was a condition of her being hired. She scammed not only of the American People but the people who voted for her and the president of the United States. We highlighted we thought it was a scan to begin with and 2009 we were proven right but president obama didnt listen to our ethics advice there. I was just going to add to that, as a great point, look at john kerry who was chairman of the Foreign Relations during her appointment. He raised these exact concerns about conflict of interest, the full flow of foreign influence but you are exactly right. This this is not a republican witchhunt. People like john kerry have these very exact concerns. Next up is chris, he is what has started all of these investigations and he has read all the Clinton Emails that have been released and he can give us a great update and some unique insight on the classification issues that weve been hearing so much about thanks to john kerry state department. Its great to be with this panel. What a great opportunity to get up to speed on what the real story is. Come at this whole problem of clinton corruption from the perspective of an Intelligence Officer. Later on i was trained as a human Intelligence Officer. From the defensive standpoint and counterintelligence standpoint, also from the point of view of an Intelligence Officer looking for collection against a target. When you look at the track record of the pattern of behavior of the conduct of the vulnerabilities that have been exposed to this entire scandal, the American Public has been misled. [inaudible] those are cases that i have ramp