Gowdy Hillary silverscript

Hillary Clinton Snaps At Trey Gowdy & Gets Shutdown

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LiZGUb-a-M

Published on 30 Jan 2017

Hillary Clinton Snaps at King Gowdy and Gets The Gowdy Hammer

Transcript
0:00
can help but think when he was using the
0:01
twenty million dollar figure that's
0:03
that's two more Isis fighters that we
0:05
could have paid for I refuse to put a
0:08
price tag on the lives of four Americans
0:11
I don't think your figure 20 million is
0:13
wrong mr. Cummings and that's not what
0:14
the State Department told us but I don't
0:17
care what the figure is there is no
0:18
price tag when it comes to justice for
0:21
people who gave their lives for this
0:23
country madam secretary with respect to
0:26
the ARB I want I want to ask you this if
0:28
you were investigating Benghazi or what
0:32
happened in Benghazi and there was an
0:34
author of an email three months to the
0:37
day three months to the day from when
0:39
our four fellow Americans were killed
0:41
the author of the email says
0:44
anti-american demonstration looking for
0:47
Americans to attack GameChanger soft
0:49
target no continuity the cost to
0:52
continue to do business there may become
0:54
challenging would you want to talk to
0:57
the author of that email if you were
1:00
investigating Benghazi the
1:05
accountability Review Board had full run
1:09
of the State Department to talk to
1:11
anyone they chose to talk to it's my
1:14
understanding they conducted more than
1:15
100 interviews I and they were well
1:19
aware as their report reflects I don't
1:22
want I don't want through a situation in
1:24
Libya I don't want to interrupt you that
1:26
actually was not my question my question
1:27
is would you want to talk to that person
1:30
not whether or not the ARB did because
1:33
the ARB actually did talk to that person
1:35
my question is wouldn't you want to talk
1:38
to that person if you were investigating
1:39
Benghazi
1:41
it's a promise it is not a trick
1:43
question the answer is yes you would
1:44
want to talk to the person who authored
1:47
that email and as you just said mr.
1:50
chairman the ARB did yes and the
1:52
co-chair the ARB called your chief of
1:54
staff and told the author of that email
1:56
not to go to Congress that's my point
2:00
my point is the ARB did some good things
2:03
that's why our first two hearings were
2:06
on making sure the recommendations by
2:09
the ARB were actually implemented but
2:12
when the author of that
2:13
mail is going to be brought before
2:15
Congress and one of the co-chairs cause
2:18
your chief of staff
2:19
and says I don't think that that witness
2:21
is going to be a good witness Madam
2:24
Secretary with all due respect she's a
2:27
fact witness whether she's good or bad
2:29
the author of that email has a right for
2:32
Congress to it to question them I mean
2:36
that's not even a close question so
2:38
somebody can be a good person and I have
2:41
no doubt that mr. Mullin and mr.
2:43
Pickering both are but but this is also
2:46
what I don't doubt I don't doubt that
2:48
that phone call was made to miss Mills
2:50
saying don't send Charlene lamb before
2:52
Congress she's not going to make a good
2:54
witness and I don't doubt that there's
2:56
not a transcript from any of the ARB
2:58
interviews and you may say well why does
3:00
that matter if you're going to write a
3:02
report and you want to write a report
3:04
with specificity and particularity you
3:06
have to cite the transcript and I can't
3:09
tell you a single question that was
3:10
asked of a single ARB witness because
3:13
there is no transcript so so my point is
3:16
not that the ARB did a bad job or a good
3:19
job my point is from the series from the
3:21
standpoint of a serious investigation it
3:23
was an inadequate job and and I want to
3:28
hopefully prove that too you know there
3:30
used to be a stack up there when mr.
3:32
Smith was with us about all the previous
3:34
investigations that that Congress and
3:37
the ARB had done did any of those
3:39
previous congressional investigations or
3:41
the ARB have access to your emails mr.
3:46
chairman first of all the witness you
3:49
were referring to
3:50
did appear before Congress I was not my
3:52
point ma elbow your implication was that
3:55
that witness was stopped from going to
3:57
Connally no that did not happen
3:59
no no she definitely came no that wasn't
4:01
that's not my implication my implication
4:04
is the co-chair of what you call an
4:07
independent accountability Review Board
4:09
was calling someone he was supposed to
4:12
be investigating to say please don't
4:14
send out witness to Congress they're not
4:17
going to show up well that's my point my
4:21
point is how can you consider that to be
4:23
me well you ever heard of a never heard
4:25
of a judge calling the
4:26
no attorney and say don't airman don't
4:29
call that witness I really don't care
4:31
what you all say about me it doesn't
4:32
bother me a bit I do care a lot about
4:34
what you're implying about Admiral
4:35
Mullen and I will not sit here and hear
4:37
that well Admiral Mullen well of this
4:39
country with great distinction he served
4:42
the State Department with great
4:44
distinction in being the co-chair of the
4:47
accountability Review Board and I think
4:49
his work speaks for itself well and I'm
4:51
sorry network I'm sorry that the
4:54
important work that was done by that
4:57
board is held in such low regard by some
5:00
members of this committee and I deeply
5:02
regret it are you doubting that he
5:04
placed the phone call is that as I
5:06
pronounce the phone call I do because he
5:08
testified before another congressional
5:10
committee he admits it was a mistake
5:12
Madam Secretary I don't know why you
5:14
can't well he admits it was a mistake to
5:17
call and say don't send a fact witness
5:20
before a congressional committee well I
5:22
think that doesn't mean he's a bad
5:23
person it just means that when you hold
5:26
up the ARB as as independent and and
5:30
your chief of staff pick close to the
5:33
folks on it Patrick Kennedy how to roll
5:35
in picking some of the folks on the ARB
5:38
despite the fact that some people think
5:40
Patrick Kennedy may have also been
5:42
involved in approving or not approving
5:43
if you need to read a note from your
5:45
lawyer you're welcome to Madam Secretary
5:47
no it's um it's just hard to sit here
5:51
listening to the comments you're making
5:54
about someone that I consider to be a
5:56
great American if he said he made a
5:59
mistake that's even more proof of what a
6:02
fine gentleman he is and what a great
6:04
public servant he's been it doesn't in
6:08
any way what you're saying impune his
6:10
service for 40 years and certainly not
6:13
his service and the accountability
6:14
Review Board I can't help it mr.
6:16
chairman that you all don't like the
6:19
findings of the accountability Review
6:21
and OPM elders that you don't like the
6:24
five heads of all the other irrational
6:26
committees we had two hearings where we
6:28
did nothing but discuss the
6:30
implementation of the ARB findings Madam
6:33
Secretary so with all due respect we've
6:35
had more hearings about ARB findings
6:37
than we have with you so so so don't
6:40
tell
6:40
me that we don't care about the ARB we
6:44
had two hearings my point is this the
6:47
ARB nor the previous congressional
6:50
investigations had access to your emails
6:52
did they I don't know what they had
7:01
access to I know that during the time I
7:03
was at the State Department there was
7:06
certainly a great effort to respond to
7:08
your predecessor congressman ices
7:11
inquiries and many thousands of pages of
7:15
information was conveyed to the Congress
7:17
and I know that the State Department has
7:20
worked diligently and persistently to
7:22
try to respond to the many requests that
7:25
it has received and I think that given
7:30
the pressure and and stress of business
7:32
they've been under they have you know
7:35
performed as well as they could so you
7:37
will be getting and in fact the entire
7:39
world will be getting all of my emails
7:42
because they're all going to be public
7:44
and you will be able to read them along
7:46
with everybody else Madam Secretary that
7:48
actually was not my question my question
7:49
was whether or not the previous
7:53
congressional committees and ARB had
7:55
access to your emails that was my
7:57
question 90 to 95% of my work-related
8:00
emails were in the state system if they
8:03
wanted to see them they would certainly
8:05
have been able to know well that that is
8:07
that is maybe the tenth time you have
8:09
cited that figure today it is and I have
8:11
not heard anyone other than you ever
8:13
cite that figure who told you that 90 to
8:16
95 percent of your emails were on the
8:18
state were in the State Department
8:19
system who told you that we learned that
8:22
from the State Department and their
8:24
analysis of the the emails that were
8:26
already on the system we were trying to
8:28
help them close some gaps that they had
8:31
and generally cannot provide me with a
8:33
name because when I asked the State
8:35
Department about 10 days ago what's the
8:37
source of that figure
8:38
they shrugged their shoulders well you
8:41
can look for the state gov and they
8:45
certainly pop up right and they're
8:47
Specter general report madam secretary
8:49
the Inspector General report which you
8:51
can't argue by perfect
8:53
as you but you can certainly extrapolate
8:55
the inspector general report found that
8:57
less than 1% less than 1% of State
9:01
Department emails record emails or
9:04
captured so they give a number of less
9:07
than 1% and you give a number of 90%
9:10
well I don't know what you're referring
9:12
to I can only speak about my emails my
9:15
work-related emails well let's talk
9:17
about your work-related emails we asked
9:19
for them last year and the State
9:22
Department gave us 8 if they had 90% of
9:26
yours why did we only get 8 well I don't
9:29
know initially what you asked for but I
9:32
know that they tried to be responsive 90
9:35
to 95 percent of them were on state gov
9:38
I understand that the committee
9:41
broadened the scope of their requests
9:44
and I think that in response the State
9:46
Department has been trying to provide
9:48
what you have requested in the meantime
9:50
they're going through the process of
9:52
making all of my emails public you think
9:55
our first request there were only eight
9:57
emails responsive to our first request I
9:59
can't speak to it I believe your first
10:02
request was for Benghazi and I believe
10:04
that the State Department did a diligent
10:06
search and I believe you expanded it to
10:08
Libya and weapons and maybe a few other
10:10
terms and I believe they are your
10:12
circular hasn't hasn't grown Madam
10:15
Secretary our jurisdiction is the same
10:16
thing it was let me ask you this you say
10:19
that you turned over everything I don't
10:23
get a chance to watch you a lot on
10:25
television but when I see your you are
10:27
interviewed you make a point of saying I
10:30
turned over everything all my
10:33
work-related emails how do you know that
10:34
I know that's because there was a an
10:38
exhaustive search done under the
10:41
supervision of my attorneys and that is
10:45
exactly the outcome we turned over every
10:48
work-related email in fact as somebody
10:51
referred to earlier we turned over to
10:53
many in the State Department and the
10:55
National Archives said there are 1246
10:57
out of the 30,000 plus that they've
10:59
already determined did not need to be
11:02
turned over and you have a really
11:03
immense good group of attorneys which
11:06
makes me one
11:07
how they missed 15 of them well if
11:10
you're talking about mr. Blumenthal
11:12
which I assume you are he had some that
11:15
I didn't have and I had some that he
11:17
didn't have and he I was under no
11:19
obligation to make any of his emails
11:21
available unless I decided they were
11:24
work-related and the ones that I decided
11:27
that were work related I forwarded to
11:29
the state.gov accounts of the people
11:32
with whom I worked item secretaries in
11:34
any question that the 15 that James Cole
11:37
turned over to us were work-related
11:38
there was no ambiguity about that they
11:41
were related they were from a personal
11:45
friend not any official government not
11:49
any government official and they were I
11:52
determined on the basis of looking at
11:54
them what I thought was work-related and
11:56
what wasn't and some I didn't even have
11:58
time to read mr. Schulman are you
12:00
telling regular Cordain are you telling
12:03
me that the 15 I will tell the
12:08
gentlelady from California that I'm
12:09
going to take a little bit extra time
12:12
just like everybody else has and we can
12:14
either do it this round we can either do
12:15
it this round we can do it next round
12:17
and make an in a simple inquiry about
12:19
how many more minutes the Chairman um
12:22
the fewer the interruptions the quicker
12:23
I'll get done I'll put it to you that
12:25
way how's that
12:26
I'm just the fit - my question to you on
12:29
the 15 is did you all your spine them
12:31
and decide that they weren't
12:32
work-related or did they not find them
12:35
well I I don't know why he had emails I
12:38
didn't and I don't know why apparently I
12:40
had emails he didn't and all I can tell
12:43
you is that I turned over every
12:45
work-related email in my possession all
12:49
right I'm will make two more
12:50
observations in anything we're going to
12:52
we're going to call it a night
12:54
the first observation that I would make
12:57
is that when you speak to the public you
13:00
say I turned over everything that's for
13:05
the most part of direct quote when you
13:07
talk to the public you say I turned over
13:09
everything when you talk to the court
13:12
you say while I do not know what
13:15
information may be responsive for
13:17
purposes of this lawsuit I have directed
13:19
that all my emails on Clinton email
13:21
calm and my custody that were or
13:22
potentially were federal records be
13:25
provided to the Department of State and
13:26
on information to believe that was done
13:28
why the different explanation depending
13:31
on who you're talking to
13:32
well one is a shorthand mr. chairman
13:34
well why not just tell the court I'll
13:37
turn over everything well you know how
13:39
lawyers are they use more words perhaps
13:40
than they need trust me I know that and
13:43
they charge you for every one of them
13:45
I'm well aware of that mr. chairman and
13:47
and the clock is ticking well one more
13:52
one more and up and I'll pay mr.
13:55
Kendall's fee for last quick I don't
13:57
want to do that miss you're careful I
13:59
probably can't do it you see my point
14:02
though you're very definitive when
14:03
you're talking to the American people
14:05
that you turned over everything that's
14:06
right but but there are those kind of
14:09
lawyerly fudge words when you're talking
14:11
to court on information and belief well
14:14
and the reality is even tonight you
14:15
cannot tell us that you turned over
14:17
everything because you didn't think you
14:19
missed the 15 well I didn't have them I
14:22
turned over everything I had everything
14:25
I had which meant overs those who had
14:29
somehow missed those 15 well last
14:33
question on your system mr. cummings
14:36
said that your email arrangement was
14:39
inappropriate I think the president may
14:43
have said it was a mistake you have said
14:47
that it was a mistake my question to you
14:50
madam secretary is was it a mistake for
14:54
the four years that you had that email
14:56
arrangement was it a mistake for the
14:59
almost two years that you kept the
15:01
public record to yourself or has it
15:04
manifest itself as a mistake in just the
15:06
last six months
15:08
well since I believed that all of my
15:11
work-related emails to.gov
15:13
accounts were being captured and
15:16
preserved it wasn't until I was asked to
15:19
help the State Department to fill in
15:21
what they saw as some record-keeping
15:24
gaps not just with me but with others I
15:27
did the best I could during those four
15:31
years and thought that everything that I
15:33
was emailing
15:34
that was work-related was being
15:35
preserved if you can find the source for
15:40
the 90 to 95 percent I would be I would
15:43
be grateful for it and we would probably
15:45
have fewer questions if there is a
15:47
source that you can provide that 90 to
15:50
95 percent we're on the State Department
15:53
system then I'll know that I need to ask
15:55
the State Department what took them so
15:56
long because I'm just telling you my
15:58
time secretary I got eight emails the
16:00
first time I asked
16:01
and now I've got over 1,500 so there's
16:04
some disconnect there well mr. chairman
16:06
I think that is a fair question and I'm
16:11
not at the State Department any longer
16:13
but I do want to defend them they are
16:16
under the most extraordinary pressure to
16:18
answer congressional inquiries I saw a
16:21
figure recently that FOIA requests have
16:24
jumped something like 300 percent they
16:28
don't have the resources they don't have
16:30
the personnel they take their
16:32
responsibility of reading every single
16:34
line and as ranking member Cummings
16:38
reminded us having to redact personal
16:41
information personnel information
16:42
obviously they take it very seriously I
16:46
think they're doing the best they can
16:47
and I I know that they've tried to be
16:51
responsive to you and to the many other
16:53
requests that have come their way
16:54
a lot of secretarial mapping
16:58
[Music]