tv Road to the White House CSPAN August 17, 2015 1:00am-2:01am EDT
earlier in terms of business, the regulatory things holding you back and you can't make long-term decisions. one of the things i ran into. mr. pataki: one of the things i did, we looked at the office of regulatory reform, repealed regulations that were killing us. >> [indiscernible] >> we've got to go up the hill fast. mr. pataki: thank you. >> if anyone wants to walk with us, you are welcome to. mr. pataki: whereabouts? whereabouts? >> [indiscernible] mr. pataki: thank you for your service. >> [indiscernible]
mr. pataki: yes, that would be great. thank you all very, very much. >> hello, everybody. this is governor pataki from new york. [indiscernible] mr. pataki: oh, yeah. >> proud to meet you. thank you for coming to iowa. >> welcome to iowa. mr. pataki: thank you. >> there he is. mr. pataki: nice to see you. thank you. >> governor george pataki. there he is. >> governor, what do you think of our state fair? mr. pataki: oh, it's fantastic.
i think this is my sixth time. mr. pataki: thank you. i appreciate it. i have always had a soft spot for ag. given my background. ags is one of the great fares. and >> you mentioned you had some history with our governor. mr. pataki: he was governor when i first got elected. he mentored all of us, including me. now i have been out of office for a while, and he is still going. still doing great for the people of iowa. i'm just proud to have known him. i worked with him for so long -- >> i am just proud to have known him. i worked with him for so long. what are your thoughts on hillary clinton, there is criticism about her e-mails. what do you think, sir? mr. pataki: it seems like every week she tells us something that does not turn out to be true.
to me, it is enormously troubling. now she is saying it is partisan and politics. more likely than not, she has committed a crime. and i think this warrants a special prosecutor. this is not simply a political issue. this is the secretary of state in all likelihood -- china has them, russia has them, but the united states does not. that is just outrageous and certainly warrants such a prosecutor. >> you mention your speech coming down hard on isis. what would be your strategy as president? mr. pataki: the first thing, support the boots on the ground. directly. we have the kurds in kurdistan. they are not getting the support.
baghdad is heavily influenced by iran, i would provide training, support, supplies directly to them so they can be the boots on the front line against isis. second, i would ramp up the bombing. much more aggressive than we are today. and beyond that, we have to stop turkey from allowing others from the middle east to go support isis. i would put pressure on turkey to say, we have got to stop this and make sure that turkey is not used as a border for people to go joint isis. in syria or iraq. and finally, if need be, i would go send american special ops. i would destroy the training centers. the recruitment house. hubs. not spend 10 years or $1 trillion trying to nation build, but simply destroy their ability to attack us here over there and come back home. >> what is your favorite part of the iowa state fair? mr. pataki: i am a beef guy. i am looking forward to seeing
what is going on in the beef industry here in iowa. >> it will be a first for your campaign. mr. pataki: it is a first. and a lot of retail politics which i love where you sit down and talk to people. like just this afternoon. you get up on the soapbox. you do not know who is going to ask you a question or what they are going to ask you. that is the best way to determine whether or not you are ready to lead america. you do not have the pollsters. you have your feelings and beliefs and that is what i love about the iowa caucus. >> candidate george pataki. thank you, sir. mr. pataki: thank you. hi, how are you. george pataki. nice to see you. >> nice to see you, too. thanks for coming to the fair. mr. pataki: are you having fun? good to see you.
george pataki. nice to see you. -- nice tomeet user meet you, sir. how are you doing? high, how are you? >> governor george pataki from new york. mr. pataki: where do we go from here? >> up the hill. this is andrew. >> how are you doing sir? mr. pataki: i am getting hungry. i hope you are taking me to the marketplace. >> that is next. good? are feeling
are you guys having fun? it is great fun. it is good to see you. we are close. we are not there yet but we are close. congressman terry young and governor branstad will be having a reception. i was thinking it was behind this barn but it must be a peer. -- it must be up here. >> let's take a right here.
i need to go see that. it is in the industries building. there you are. there you are. mr. pataki: that is fantastic. >> everyone has been going by to sign it. the main doors. republicans on the right, democrats on the left. mr. pataki: i need to go to the republican headquarters & my poster there. and sign my poster there.
>> c-span returns to the iowa state fair tomorrow where more presidential hopefuls pay a visit. republican governor scott walker is scheduled to speak at 11:00 a.m. he is followed by remarks from carly fiorina at 1:00 and then south carolina senator lindsey graham at 4:00 p.m. we will have live coverage of all of these candidates on c-span. communicatorsthe -- >> he had always heard of silicon valley and getting to america from a young age. at 17, he ran away from home and did it. >> bloomberg businessweek technology reporter ashley vance on one of silica and valleys most important leaders.
elon musk. he has a great attention to detail. i lean towards this edison kind of idea. who gets thousands of engineers, the brightest of the price -- bright, and hard-working individuals. to get products out of them that can be commercialized and can really change the industry. who hase is the guy combined software and hardware. adams and bits. in a way that no one else has. >> coming up next from washington journal, a look at the investigation into hillary clinton's e-mail and -- as
secretary of state. and then a discussion of the iran nuclear agreement with obama officials. back christopher farrell. he is investigative and research director for judicial watch, which is what? guest: our mission is to grow up .- to promote transparency we do that by using the freedom of information act at the federal level and state level. host: you have been using that to go after hillary clinton's records. some new developments now that the fbi has the server and the e-mails. why is it such an important ?ssue jek guest: we have 3400 freedom of pendingion act requests
on the operations of government. what happens, what the government is or isn't doing. of that universe, we have about 18 lawsuits that we filed because we need to go to court to compel the government to give us records. we are trying to help educate the public on the operations of the government. that is what our goal is. we get these records, and then make them public. we hope the public reviews them and has an idea of what is or is not happening. it is not based on soundbites, it is based on actual documents. andget past spin language, get to actually read the government's records. we think that is important. host: do you think she has something to hide? guest: that is a great question. as a question that is begged by her shifting stands over time and notion that first she
claimed there was no classified information, now she very carefully says there was no marked classified information. she denies, or said she would erver, ande her s has been one gets the impression that the story is unraveling. host: what is the difference between classified and top-secret? guest: there is a level of information. top-secret being the highest level of secret. it would cause what they call extensive or grave damage to national security. within those levels, there things called compartments, based on the type of intelligence being discussed. you may have seen reference to top-secret -- the header on the classified record that the intelligence community made reference to.
about not just top-secret information, but categories, types. there are different methods and sources of obtaining classified information. that is the most sensitive of all. jewels,e crown essentially. host: she has repeatedly said -- hillary clinton -- that she carried on the same practices as their predecessors, including: how. including colin powell. guest: that is misleading. no one has established there outside outlaw server. none. there may have been cases where general powell sent an e-mail has his account, but no one established a separate outside server.
no one has run their own independent network outside of the government. it has never been done. host: why do you think she did that? guest: i think it harkens back to her husband's presidential run when there were fights over records. historically, if you look back to 1999, there was a fight over white house e-mails. the then white house deputy counsel, who is now mrs. clinton's chief of staff, was in the white house. there was a fight over white house e-mails. again, the same sort of confusion about what was and wasn't in the records. and litigation resulted in order where the judge called her professional conduct in that case inadequate. the same cast of characters, 16 years later, are fighting over e-mails in a case where miss
conducter professional has been cited by a judge as in inadequate, and 16 years later, fighting over e-mails with the same cast of characters. it is not a good track record. rural today mills is what? guest: she was the chief of clinton's state department. she is now operating her own law practice. host: hillary clinton did speak yesterday to reporters and worked the crowd. she was asked repeatedly about turning over her e-mails. here's more from the former secretary of state. [video clip] >> i have said in the past that -- obviously, he is leader, it doesn't look comedian.
the fats are the same as they have been since the very beginning. importantly, i never sent classified e-mail on my material, and never received any. thisng to let whatever inquiry is move forward, and we will await the outcome of it. the state department confirmed what i just said to you. if you lookhink -- at the republicans in congress who are running for president, there is it an unfortunate attempts to try to make partisan a tragedy in benghazi, which i fundamentally disagree with. i do not think it is right, and
i will not participate. we will see how this all plays out. it is not anything that people talk to me about, as i travel around the country. it is never raised in my town meetings in my other with people. i think what people are interested in is what senator harkin said, who will get the economy moving, who will create jobs, who will get the cost of college down, and refinance people's debt, and open up the workforce to women, people with disabilities, and so much more. that is why talk about on the campaign trail. yesterdayary clinton at the iowa state fair. your reaction? thing that is the key is her emphasis that she did not receive any e-mails marked classified your she is being very careful with her language. general'sd inspector in the intelligence committee say there is top-secret information going to her outlaw
server unlawfully. the system of communicating in the government, there are three distinct channels. p secreton that tops information was sent over the internet is reckless. employee government doing the same thing would be fraud marched out of the building. you would see video of fbi agents carrying cargo boxes out of their house. we saw that with general there was a security violation there far less classified information. veryis very damaging, damaging personally and for a campaign. i think she is trying to be very careful with her language. host: some republicans, including donald trump, saying
this is now a criminal matter. if she broke the law could you phase criminal charges? it is a criminal matter. host: how so? guest: because what they are investigating our national security crimes. the unlawful or inappropriate handling, any use of classified information is a national security crime. i know that firsthand from my earlier professional career. i was a special agent of army counterintelligence. i'm telling you that i have investigated people who inappropriately handled classified information. i am not guessing. i have done it for a living. these are national security crimes. they are investigated that way. there has to be an identification of the vulnerabilities. there is a lot of work to do. the fbi appears to be doing that
work now. it is very grave. this is not an administrative error. this is very serious. host: where do you think this is all going to leave? what are some possibilities? guest: i am hoping the fbi would conduct a rigorous examination of the server, of the thumb drives that were turned over. there are unanswered questions concerning other servers that may exist, perhaps servers that , that the state department was eventually provided. there are technical forensic questions that are quite detailed and the specifics of which, greatly i am not qualified to discuss. you would need an i.t. professional to really drill down on that. be athere is going to tracing back of who set -- send what e-mail when, and then even things like bcc, blind carbon copies. i think they may have turned
over paper copies of her e-mails, what are sometimes referred to as dumb copies. it does not contain the metadata , the routing information that you would receive in a digital version of the e-mails. d, whould see who was bcc was forwarded the e-mail. there are a lot of unanswered questions and a lot of work to do. host: we will get your calls in just a moment, but one follow-up. why did the state department and the white house let this happen? others had to know. of my that is one greatest questions. you have the senior leadership within a state department who had to have known. you had people in the white house, even private citizens who are e-mailing her. outside, private persons who are e-mailing her. those are persons who knew she was running this outlaw server.
why didn't anyone say anything? and if they did, were there objections taken seriously? were they acted on? where they investigated? at a certain point, you are or you areigent complicit. you cannot have it both ways. if you know this is going on, you either stand up and say while -- stop, we can't operate this way. it's unlawful. or you are along for the ride. there are a lot of tough questions that have to be asked, and hopefully we get answers to. this is a very grave matter. it is not something that she should be jumping -- joking about. she was joking yesterday about how she had a snapshot and joking that those disappear all by themselves. this is nothing anyone should be laughing or joking about. host: our guest is christopher farrell, he is a research investigator for judicial watch. atch.org.te isjudicialw
our phone lines are open. (202) 748-8001 four republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. matthew joining us from philadelphia, democrat line. good morning. as a democrat, your take on all this, and the impact of potentially house for hillary clinton. caller: good morning. i am a big-time hillary reporter -- supporter. i am also a former executive branch employee. i'm not going to save which -- i'm not going to say which branch. host: during which administration? caller: during this administration, when hillary clinton was secretary of state i was an executive branch employee like she was. i was just a regular working guy. astounded atlly what she did.
she is arrogant, but i just never figured she would be this stupid. seriously. we were getting memos the a e-mail just about every month -- e-mail e-mail -- via just about every month telling us not to do what she was doing. nownd it hard to believe everybody says they did not know what she was doing. to then she went department of state cap operable to have the private server? she was the department of state. who was going to tell her no? you serve ing did the administration, or in the executive branch? caller: i was there for 30 years. i was a career civil servant. was under theer obama administration when she was secretary of state. host: will you still support her in 2016? caller: i still support her as a
democrat. i don't think she will survive this legally, because i think -- i don't think loretta lynch will it is prettyt collocated. host: thank you. we will get a response. technicalhink the aspects of this may be more compensated than not, but i think the truth does not require a lot of expiration. the truth is, people are drawn to it. they can recognize what it is. it is pretty acceptable. when people get into long , that isd wordsmithing where they get into trouble. in this case i think it is pretty clear what she did was set up an outlaw server that had nothing to do with any government system. it is a grave security issue. it is a transparency issue. there is a record. she is hosting government business on a private server.
it is an archival issue. from her term as secretary of state. now she can pick and choose what that record is. host: two things. she says she has released all the official information. she is not releasing her personal e-mails or -- where she made reference to chelsea's wedding or yoga. and jennifer palmeiro who was the former white house committee record, now hillary clinton's mitigation director, sending out a long e-mail saying the fbi is not living in doing criminal investigation, that this is -- is not looking into a criminal investigation, that this is just a routine investigation. is a lot of explaining that is going on, it is sort of tortured language. serverhis is an e-mail set up by mrs. clinton at her direction to conduct her e-mail traffic for her official --
actually, kurt used in a confession -- official capacity. she ran it. she used it. she conducted business off of it. the e-mail server did not do this by itself. it is an inanimate object. somebody made decisions. mrs. clinton jimena kidded overtly to her circle of communicated overtly to her community of associates. you can't blame someone else. i understand she's upset or if she is frustrated, but it is her own doing. she has created this. klesko to helen joining us from west virginia, republican line. caller: i have a couple questions, but first i would like to say one thing about mrs. clinton. how far down her poll she goes, i don't think she can afford to quit.
simply because of all the donations use taken from foreign countries. when they give you money, they expect something in return. i don'tthink -- believe a thing she said. i would like to ask a question regarding this bill in this river in colorado. i know they are testing all the water for chemicals and everything. i just wonder if there is any somee that there might be stuff and some of that water. neey mind cold for gold -- mi coal for gold and it settles into the soil. i just wonder if anyone is checking to see if there happens to be any gold dust or anything in that liquid. host: helen, we appreciate the call, but that is off-topic for our guest. guest: i don't have anything to add. host: thank you for the call. let's move on to tom, joining us
from centerville, massachusetts. independent line. if you do about the gold dust you can weigh in. .aller: good morning everybody everyone knows gold is a very heavy elements. it would be at the bottom of the minds. mines.the bottom of the host: how do you know that? caller: iwatch gold reality tv. ago americansrs dropped the atomic bomb which was not about by the manhattan project in the united states of america. and savedorld war ii many millions of lives, both japanese and american. it is in that. of time, when that was being ofe, -- is in that period time someone has leaked important information and it had been aout, it would have
very big error on the part of those who spoke out about what they were doing. example ofrgs are in people who passed on information to foreign elements of opposing government and created what we know as the nuclear cold war era. for somebody to have a private server, though i am not totally technologically astute, it seems to me you are holding vast amounts of information by the state department whether it be either social or top top-secret information about potential moments in time where you are going to be giving money, whatever, to other governments via the united states. it creates a very big problem for other people to know what the chessboard moves are by the
state department. host: tom, thanks for the call. your response? guest: i agree with the caller. in march of 2013 a romanian access to cynthia blumenthal's e-mail. anthia blumenthal is decade-long associate of mrs. clinton. a professional advisor to her. a personal friend. they hacked into her e-mail and actually published screenshots which reveals that mrs. clinton had this outside e-mail server. just want the viewers to pause for a moment and think about, if a hacker can get into sidney blumenthal's e-mail and from their move into mrs. clinton's e-mail, we should think about what the national intelligence services of russia and communist china would do. with a level of sophistication and technology than i would
guess are light years beyond what an individual hacker would have. mrs. clinton says that all of her official state department business is conducted over this outlaw server. the outside persons would not only be up to find it but hackett, penetrate it. this is a very grave security issue. if one hacker in romania can do it, what are the chinese and russian intelligence services doing? .ost: two quick follow-ups first of all, her argument was she wanted a standalone device. host: that made -- guest: that may be what she is representing now, but i can tell you that she was also using an ipad and wanted to use an ipod -- ipad. they were asked to certify her use of an ipad and a repeatedly told her no, that the device was
not secure. for my understanding she went ahead and used it anyway. there are photos of her using some kind of device, a blackberry perhaps, there were also reports of her using an ipad. judge sullivan ordered the state department to provide a listing of all the devices and hardware that were involved in her e-mails, and they simply refused. they did not follow the judge's of listing her devices and hardware. i find that astounding, that a federal judge issuing an order, , and they missed the deadline. they asked for an extension. when the response came in at 5:00 p.m., they completely ignored the judge's order. there was no list of devices or hardware. host: and that this tweet from stella, do you 12 -- do you trust the fbi to do the right
thing for america or is corruption to the? how long will we wait? guest: those are great questions. rightly i think because we are dealing with historical records -- these are from the past, they are identifiable on servers. with a $300 tool that can be used to access these servers and sort of scan them for what is frankly, aand for much more significant forensic exam, i would imagine it would be weeks. that is just a guess. host: and michael makes this point, hillary clinton even touted that she is a multi-device user to the msn mainstream -- media. guest: i can tell you that i appreciate there is a need for this. you have to devices. it your personal device and your business device. if you are working in a
sensitive department, ewald athin ewald, -- ewald -- vault,-- vault within a people have to lock up their phones outside the workspace. you are not even allowed to bring the transmission -- transmitters into the area. the attorney general jokingly said she uses for different devices. so she certainly has an appreciation for the security requirements associated with electronic devices and the secret and top-secret information. host: from new hampshire, roger is next. democrats line. caller: good morning. i am a hillary supporter and i wanted to say this last week or , the white house communications was hacked. i think the pentagon has been hacked. almost every state or government thing has been hacked.
i don't think that that is pertinent to her e-mail. secondly, when ronald reagan was were for there terrorist activities that happened to americans with an 18 month. in beirut and lebanon. thirdly, the fact that the other people are not happy that it took two weeks to get this corrected version is irrelevant. it's too late after the fact. the fact that they said one thing or whatever, that people weren't happy about, did not affect the outcome. host: how do you respond? guest: i don't have a response. he is entitled to his opinion or whenever he would like to say, but our interest is in getting the records of the government, as the public is due.
we have been doing us a judicial watch for more than 20 years. the open records law, the freedom of information act, are important tools for accountability. it lets people see the governments work. there are important, primary source governments for political scientist, or lists, historians. we just want the records produced. that is what we do. and a viewer taking aim at me and this program, shame on you for not pointing out: powell and a jeb bush use of private servers when they were in the government. the viewer who was not with us earlier in the program. do you want to elaborate? what jebdon't know bush did or did not do as the governor of florida. he never set up a private e-mail server.
he sent an e-mail from a personal account, a gmail account or something like that. i don't know specifically which one. this is remarkable he different than setting up your own separate outside e-mail server in order to circumvent the established both unclassified and classified government networks that every other cabinet secretary has used as long as there has been e-mail. no one else has done what she has done. host: have you in the past requested e-mails from previous secretaries of state? guest: absolutely. it is something we do all the time. e-mails are very important to us, because unlike policy documents that are heavily crafted and wordsmith, e-mails are normally quite chatty. people say things in e-mails, off-the-cuff, they are much more frank about their assessments of what they will or won't do. what is going on. e-mails are very valuable to understand what is going on. garrett is next, orlando,
florida, republican line. good morning gentlemen. c-span is a national treasure. especially washington journal. i would just like to comment and thishat this makes me -- 18 minute gap or whatever it was, however long it was on the nixon tapes, look like a sneeze. is is thatomment secretary clinton asserts that she never transmitted secret information over her e-mail. it outst absolutely -- slowly defies credulity. i would like you to comment on that. host: thank you. comes to thetainly volume of information we are addressing. the callers intuition is correct. 118 minute gap versus thousands of e-mails. no one has any idea how many e-mails were involved. i think the important thing --
and this kind of belies the notion that this is somehow we file for a request and we litigate against all administrations. we have sued the obama administration for records and documents. we sued the bush administration more than 200 times for records and documents. this is an issue of exercising the freedom of information act and getting records and making them available to the public. what i think it is important here is that we have three different judges working on various cases that we have brought. judge sullivan, who actually was appointed by mrs. clinton's husband. judge walden, and judge the terrace. three different judges working on three different cases. this is not a partisan issue. these are federal judges who have brought various cases about the production of records, and they want answers. you have provided warnings to the government that they need to preserve the record and produce them. a question of political agenda or democrats or
republicans. this is about the exercise of the freedom of information law. branch has aal role in this. the fbi is doing their investigation. the judges are running the cases that we brought to them. hopefully the truth gets out. host: mario is next from new jersey. democrats line. caller: good morning. a few points. first of all, it's judicial watch is so concerned about transparency, you would be a little bit concerned about overclassification. second of all, the criminal issue you are talking about would be the same as using a state.gov account which is on secured. -- unsecured. and: powell explicitly used personal e-mail. there is no material difference between that and using a server. the truth is, if you are interested in requests and not'sal purposes, we have
e-mails. why are you making a stink about that jacket we have zero. -- why aren't you making a stink about that? we have zero. i don't have a problem with you going after hillary clinton, but to say it is not political and whatve no concern about howled it is beyond reproach. the caller makes statements that are false. establishll did not an outside e-mail server. that is untrue. do ask for all the records concerning various secretaries of state, with a hat or have not done. he made reference to something about complaining about over complication. that is not our call. that is not what we do. instancesame to some where the government has been
these are exemptions used by the government when it tried to keep something classified, for example we had asked for the fbi files concerning ted kennedy once he had passed away. there is a lot of interesting information concerning senator kennedy and his various activi y ies. we challenge that claim. it had nothing to do with being classified. it had awkward or embarrassing information regarding the senator that the department of justice claims was classified that wasn't. we thought this in court. we swon, . . am not clear we do fight classification issues all the time. powell,pect to general we secretary of state,
challenge the secretary of state and ask for the records all the time. bush administration over the energy task force. it went all the way to the supreme court. he is interested in the dick cheney e-mail. for thee have asked records, pertaining to the cheney energy task force. they were set up, in large part, under the same law as hillary clinton's health care task force back in 1993-1994. it was then called hillary-care or the hillary task force. they were set up under the same law and operated under the same way. they got input on