in our candidates? >> free to download from the apple aps store or google play. get audio coverage and upto the minute coverage. plus podcast times for our popular public affairs book and history program. stay up to date on all the election coverage. c-span's radio app means you always have c-span on the go. ♪ announcer: this week on "q&a," judicial watch president tom fitton. mr. fitton discusses his book, "clean house: exposing our government's secrets and lies."

brian: tom fitton of judicial watch, your new book is called "clean house." why did you call it that? tom: we are looking forward. there's been a lot of concern about the corruption and washington, d.c., during the bush-obama era, because i think that is way to think about it. people think the system is broken and there is inherent corruption and everything the government does. i tend to share that point of view and i think our success points a way forward. that there is a way of holding the government to account. judicial watch is able to have these successes, in terms of getting government information and getting changes in the way government operates or the way politicians operate. and it is not all bad, and there are certain reforms and ways of approaching discussions of public policy in washington that ought to be thought about. we try to raise that in a forward-looking way. you know, what struck me about

working on the book is how irrelevant the election was to what we were doing and what was going to happen. or we thought, what should happen over the neck few years. -- over the next few years. brian: i want to show some video of you march 4, 1995 appearing on our call-in show. let's watch this. [begin video clip] >> when you pick up the morning tointeing piretands out? nd h cli'rolepoo e turns that ident clintoded oes noenoughe to g pas not enime o to i he is going to send his wife. hillary clinton.

brian: 21 years later, you are still talking about hillary clinton. can you tell us why you would be talking about her then, and what were you doing? tom: that was before i came to judicial watch in 1998. i was an analyst for a company, that was almost a precursor to fox in some respects. newt gingrich had a tv show on, arianna huffington had a tv show. i was one of the analysts that he had brought on to bring a different perspective to discussions about politics. it seems like a different person at least physically, but boy, i still think the same way in some respects. brian: back in 1995, you were how long out of george washington university? tom: 5, 6 years. brian: where did you get your interest?

where did you get your conservative views? tom: my folks have been conservative. i grew up around the issues generally. but working in the movement, i begin working for morton blackwell, who is a well-known conservative activist who specializes on training young people how to be active irrespective of party. he wants conservatives to know how to figure out how to win. you kind of learn about policy the longer you are here, and how it is made, and you come in as younger person thinking, just because someone is a republican, they might be right, or just because they are a democrat, you might be wrong. you learn that is not the case. policy issues are more nuanced, not necessarily conservative versus liberal. but you have to realize that not all republicans are there for the right reasons, and not all democrats are there for the right or even the roman reasons. -- or even the wrong reasons. the longer i have been with

judicial watch, the more i realize that partisans defend their side no matter what they do, and that has got to stop. i think that is why americans are so disaffected with congress. i do not think they're worried congress is not doing enough, i think they think it is corrupt no matter which party is running it. brian: i have a quote from you. this will not surprise you. the quote is, the government does not want you to know what they are doing. that is a broad statement. what do you mean by the government? tom: the federal government is not terribly interested in complying with a key federal law, it is called the freedom of information act. it has been around since the late 1960's. they do not like telling you what you are up to. they do not like giving you the details. you see that most apparently with mrs. clinton taking her e-mails with her when she left the state department, and not telling the american people that governmental material was in her system, and not sharing it as she should have under the law. in our experience at judicial watch, the government is doing

more than ever and is less interested than ever and sharing what they are doing with the american people. they do not think they should be accountable. we are often suing agencies just to get an answer for our requests for information, as opposed to fighting over what they are giving or withholding. and of course, we know from the book in terms of the way forward, the freedom of information act only applies to the executive branch, not congress, not the judiciary. so -- brian: you say in your book it does not apply to the white house. tom: the white house has been walled off from a lot of the transparency law. at least the foia requires responses within 20 days. the presidential record act will make those records available in the chelsea clinton administration. but you have to wait a long time for that to happen. brian: going back to your quote, the government does not want you to know what they're doing -- when you say the government, how

much of that is the top level, political appointees, versus the government bureaucrats that have a full-time job for 30 years? tom: the bureaucrats process is in the ordinary course. delaying comes from either politicized bureaucrats at senior levels or the schedule c appointees, the political appointees, the cabinet heads and their immediate staff. they can slow walk the release of information, and that is usually responsible for the delays in our experience. brian: if you are going to give an award to any government agency or person that you have worked with over the last -- 1998 since you have been on judicial watch, for responding to the freedom of information act positively, who would it be? tom: the state department used to be pretty darn good at freedom of information act responses. brian: when? tom: prior to mrs. clinton coming into office. brian: did you notice a difference?

tom: they were always slow, but they were thorough and professional in their responses. and it was a testament to the high quality of personnel at the state department. but since then, all bets are off. you are grading on a curve when you give an award to transparency. you know, the worst agency, in some respects -- the state department is terrible, but every withholding, every stalling tactic is defended by the department of justice. they are charged with enforcing the rule of law, and they defend the lawlessness on foia to the hilt, and you ask the justice department for documents directly, and they are as bad as it can get, in terms of unwillingness to provide information. brian: bring us up-to-date on your organization -- how many people work there now? tom: a little less than 60. brian: how much money will you spend in 2016?

tom: our budget is around $34 million. brian: you said a few weeks ago that you have some 400,000 contributors. do you still have the big ticket items that come from some people? tom: they publicly disclose their donations to us and they do support us. we do not have the type of donors that some groups have, where they have one or two or a few donors that could make or break them if they stopped giving. we have been blessed with widespread support. obviously we have some donors who are more generous than others, given their capacities. we are in a wonderful situation, in terms of this grassroots army behind us that wants us to get to the bottom of what the government is up to. brian: i want to show you a picture. over here on the screen, of -- it is around the time of

richard's death, and it is a picture of chris ready, who runs a newsmax out of florida. he used to write for a newspaper that richard owned. explain this bizarre -- ok -- if people outside of here see, richard mellonscape funded the clinton project in arkansas with david brock, who went after bill clinton. and here is bill clinton, giving a eulogy at richard's funeral. help us out? tom: you would have to ask chris about how that worked, he is a friend of mine. it is astonishing that he was able -- that he had this rapprochement with mr. clinton. i think he thought highly of the foundation and its efforts -- at

least according to what he said and he supported them. but it is, strange bedfellows over time. people change. my view is the clintons never changed their stripes, and we are seeing evidence of that. brian: the public watches this process and here is richard mellon scaife, who is a multimillionaire or whatever, trying to give money to wipe out bill clinton in the 1990's, with david brock writing for a conservative publication. the american spectator. but now david brock is totally on the other side, paying money to sidney blumenthal, who you know about because you have gotten some of these e-mails published. try to clear this up for the public. tom: the clintons think it is always about them, and it is not. the money is given in a way, he gives it to groups and groups do a variety of things. like, judicial watch sued dick cheney. we got money from scaife to sue dick cheney. how do you and incorporate that? the way it works is, you have people who like the mission of an organization and support that

mission with donations. sometimes there are people who do not like the results of the activities of those organizations like bill and hillary clinton and they take, of course it is a vast right-wing conspiracy against me. the scaife-clinton relationship that had developed over the years shows that was not the case. he became friendly with mr. clinton while continuing to support judicial watch, which was always critical of the clinton ethic. and, you know, i recall back in 2009, we were warning about what the problems were going to be with bringing mrs. clinton into the obama administration. and you know, maybe president obama if you even paid attention to us, it was crocodile tears. i knew these clinton scandals were going to be, obama scandals over the long-term. brian: one of those ironies of organizations in this town, if mrs. clinton is elected president, isn't that a positive

for judicial watch, which will raise a lot more money to try to expose what she does? tom: i think our work is going to be significant as a result, and people should be supporting us no matter who is elect did president. i think the clinton e-mail scandal is not going to go away, no matter who is elected. if mrs. clinton thinks there will be no criminal investigation or no pressure for additional investigations if she is president, or anyone thinks that pressure will be eliminated or there will be no possibility of that happening if she is elected, they do not know the way the process works. in fact, there may be increased pressure for a criminal investigation, or at least a special prosecutor or independent investigation over the clinton foundation issues, if she is elected. these issues are not going away, whether mr. trump is elected or whether mrs. clinton is elected. there are republicans who think corruption goes away even if your candidate is put in. you know, we learned that from the bush

administration. president bush came into office and said, i am not bill clinton, so why would anyone question us? and, you know, there is plenty good reason to question a government that spends as much money as it does, with all the temptations of corruption that arise from all that money. brian: i have in my hand -- sounds dramatic -- august 30, 2016 release from judicial watch. the headline is, judicial watch submits e-mail questions to hillary clinton. written answers under oath due september 29. you have 25 questions here. what is this? tom: this is discovery, evidence gathering in federal court. in one of our cases, we asked for information about the special government employee

status of huma abedin, her then deputy chief of staff. obviously, how the heck did that happen? we asked for government documents on that, and we got some documents, and they told us they had looked everywhere they could, and we shut the case down. then the e-mail story erupted, the case was reopened, which was extraordinary. judge sullivan was interested in trying to figure out why was this system set up the way it was to thwart the freedom of information act. what was mrs. clinton thinking? he granted us some discovery. we want to make sure all the records she took were searched, as they should have been. we deposed abedine and top officials at the state department and an official who took the fifth. we could not get the answers necessary for the discovery, so we asked the court to depose mrs. clinton in person. he said, no, it is too onerous. there is something else you can

do, which is to submit questions that she will have to respond to under oath in writing. those are the questions. brian: reading your book, you mentioned a lot of judges. you found there were four judges here, who appointed them? you basically used in the court system in order to break some of this open but i want to put up on the screen again, a list. you can see judge rudolph, and obama appointee. a clinton appointee. judge sullivan, you just mentioned him, eight clinton appointee. and royce lamberth, a clinton appointee. the reason i bring this up is, i know we are in the weeds little bit, but you have to go to these judges. what does it say that three out of these four judges were appointed by democrats, but they have looked fairly on what you

are doing? tom: we have to put forward a legal case for the relief we are seeking. to force the government to give documents more quickly than they want to give them. we were before an obama appointee the other day to question why the state department said they needed 30 days to review 30 documents. -- documents they found an new clinton e-mails that were just turned over to them by the fbi. the law still works. we complain a lot about what goes on in washington, but what a wonderful system we have, that judicial watch -- it does not matter your politics, we are a nonprofit group and we go into court and we are on equal footing in many respects with the federal government. and the resources they have are infinite. all of the lawyers they need. in they are still held to account to our requests under law.

it is a wonderful, precious right we have. i can tell you there is no other country in the world where that is possible, to the extent it is available here. nowhere else. brian: have you ever seen politics from a judge in this town? these judges are all here in washington, on the district court here? tom: i think it is more prudence. some judges are hesitant about bringing in high-level politicians, because the judiciary in politics is something they may not like. the greater concern is, i think, the deference that federal judges show to the federal government. despite the equal footing we have, the government has an outsized -- they are given too much deference often by federal judges on a transparency issues. with the clinton e-mail scandal, all the goodwill they have had in the past, the agency has had, has been dissipated, so that deference is lessening, but it is still there.

if the government comes in and makes a representation, even if we think it is bunk, it is just ingrained in the judge's dna to take the government at its word. too often. but that is changing slowly, especially since the gamesmanship we have had with the obama administration and clinton on the e-mails. brian: have you been in the room when huma abedin and others were deposed by your organization? tom: i was there for abedin's deposition. i miss pagliaro knows deposition. we had seven depositions, and i was there for six of them. brian: what do you see in these people as you are sitting there? is it done behind closed doors and with no recording? tom: there are public recordings. the judge in this case decided that the videotape was going to remain under seal, but the transcripts are available. there are a bunch of lawyers. we have a few lawyers, but only one lawyer who asked the questions. the government has typically three or four lawyers there, and

the individual, especially the third parties not working for the government, they bring in their own attorneys. someone like sherron mills or huma abedin will have attorneys there personally, so there are six or seven lawyers on the other side. you know, we have lawyers there. and i am attending as a client, not a lawyer. brian: as the principal sitting at the table, sherron mills or huma abedin, nervous? tom: it is intense proceeding. brian: where do they do it? tom: and offices, at the judicial watch or justice department. we might go over to the attorneys' offices. a conference room in a you know, relatively nondescript location. and you know, it is interesting. they are regular people, and many respects. they are cordial.

you know, contrary to what their political enemies think, these people are not in the positions they are because they are competent people, they are usually friendly and smart and cordial. you would be surprised how pleasant, at least on the surface, the interactions are. brian: to go back to this, 25 questions that you have asked hillary clinton in print. how does something like this come together? let me just find a question and read it. so the audience can understand. can you find these all online? tom: and they are all on our website, judicialwatch.org. i went on facebook the other day and read them all on video, as another way of educating people. brian: you did that? tom: yes. brian: here is number 6 -- were you ever advise, cautioned, or warned, was it ever suggested or did you ever participate in any communication or meeting in which it was discussed that your use of a

clinton e-mail account to conduct official state department business conflicted with or violated right -- or violated federal record-keeping laws? did you write these? tom: the lawyers wrote them. brian: here is number eight. after president obama nominated u.s. secretary of state and during your tenure, did you expect the state department to receive foia requests concerning your e-mail? what you hope to get out of this? tom: we are getting to -- these are our records. our meeting -- meaning american citizens. when you are a government official, even if you are writing on your supposedly personal e-mail account, and you are doing government business, you are creating a record that you do not own, but we own. if you're keeping them away from the american people by not telling them about it, despite warnings, despite your own knowledge that the laws applied,

you are doing something gravely wrong. and, you know, what purpose is it -- you do not have consent of the government, if we do not know what the government is up to. and mrs. clinton did not want us to know what she is up to. she did not want these e-mails coming out, and if they were to come out, you would have had to go through your lawyer, who in concert with mrs. clinton deleted half of them. and only for the efforts of the fbi did they get who knows how many undeleted. there has been -- i cannot think of a more significant assault on the premise and the operation of the freedom of information act, as mrs. clinton's decision-making related to her e-mails. brian: the fellow behind the item of information act, congressman john moss, a democrat from california back in the 1960's, had what in mind? was there a resistance? i remember reading lyndon johnson was not particularly happy with this.

antonin scalia was not particularly happy with it. tom: some conservative constitutional types do not like the freedom of information act, because it infringes too much on the decision-making of the executive branch and makes them answerable to the other branches in ways that are not appropriate under the separation of powers. but you could see in johnson's opposition, he was a pragmatic politician. he knew what he was up to, he did not want people prying. that is why he did not like it. brian: take your pick. ronald reagan, george herbert walker bush, bill clinton, the current president, do they have access to the e-mails when they write their books and get $14 million advances, and we do not? tom: i think they do. i think they do. i think they -- brian: mrs. clinton got $14

million reportedly, when she wrote her book after she was in the state department. tom: we asked her about her use of e-mails after she left office, and that is a good question. i have it in my head that they have access to them, but it intersects with the national archives, who take control of the presidential records. typically the records are processed, and only released with the approval of the president, or the president has a chance to chime in as to whether it is appropriate to release. brian: but you know, george w. bush put the clamps on the presidential papers when he came in, and it was lifted by barack obama. but people now including journalists say barack obama has one of the least transparent administrations in a long time. tom: it is a complicated issue, so i'm hesitant to do off-the-cuff analysis. if there are significant delays in the release of records, just when you think they're going to be released -- for instance, i think it is 12 years after the president leaves office, the

records are supposed to be released. we are still getting clinton records that they have not processed. we are being alerted, they finally process them, you know, 6-8 years later. brian: what are they so worried about? the politicians who does not want this stuff out. what is it that we are going to learn that we shouldn't know, and if that is the case, why hasn't congress done a better job of getting this information? tom: i think there is this idea in washington that the cover-up is worse than the crime. and i do not know if i buy that. usually there is a crime to cover up, and there is something politically inconvenient or embarrassing, however trite it may be in the grand scheme of things. mrs. clinton, i still go back to -- i remember this happening -- people should verify, but james carville, shortly after the e-mail scandal broke, he said, i will tell you why she did not do the proper thing on the e-mails.

he did not say it like that, but he said because she did not want willie gomer going through all the e-mails, being the republican texas congressman known as a strong conservative. that, to me, is so typical clinton, that she did not want her perceived political enemies looking at her e-mails. the law was inconsequential in terms of the final goal, which was related to her power. in the government agencies do not believe there answerable to the american people. i do not think philosophically they believe they are accountable. congress is complicit, because they spend the money and then, practically speaking, do not pursue oversight on how that money is spent. some ways, it is impossible given the amounts at issue. you write a check for $30 trillion after three days of debate. what institution contract that -- can track that money.

to me, if you want to police washington, you need to severely curtail the amount of money it is spending. it is just too much money to track. brian: what grade would you give this republican congress for going after this kind of information you are going after? tom: an f, an absolute f. they have not gone after it. brian: why aren't they? tom: i do not think they see corruption, scandal, and oversight as political winners. to the degree they talk about it, they use it as a way to keep their political components off kilter, but that is a limited purpose. they are not interested in true accountability. brian: you learned at the elbow of a couple of people in this town that have been very visible over the years -- both deceased. i first want to show you this video of a man you mentioned earlier paul. appearing here in 2005. i think he died in 2008. he started the heritage foundation. let's watch this. [begin video clip] >> i would like to think that

the network that i found it was -- that i found it was the precursor to fox news. that operation demonstrated that there was a market for right of center programming, if you will. and i am told that a lot of the people who are involved with fox were watching that network when it was on. [end video clip] brian: why didn't national power television not make it? what did you learn? tom: i don't know why it did not make it. you probably know better than i do, the business side of networks getting onto cable systems, and how that happens. and there is a significant financial hurdle to getting onto the systems, and oftentimes, you

-- new networks have to promise a certain amount of money to the cable carriers in order to be on the lineup, and if you do not have those assets, it is tough to get on. you know, paul was a great leader, and he had the skepticism of both republicans and democrats. and if you knew paul, it was not so much democrats that got him upset, it was republicans and conservatives, or republicans who pretended they were conservatives who were not acting conservatively. his greatest ire was directed at conservative officials not doing the right thing. brian: here is another quote of another man you worked with. this is from 1999. this is the late reed irvine.ti

i would like to get into that to document that. the news media lie down and take it. they are not rising up and saying this should be exposed. we should do something about this. st shoulthreno.

shs .erre on

ofso? onisoueersise voblrvur

dis do aisthla-- ssbawereti

ssm:e.

t aunanabct

hre eygh cthme

teno aofs.

ng fofinlet inor

ic foea

lythmpit

ctprat c

baeff on

thedth jtihenisslkfa

.d$2wothane

erd th wanvshwasu

nt,wendndinnnrt i

lu i iot tcuth

covativeizatthatetcaisbl

i e llla--t

ti

sh 2 aayan

'lbeatn .

abthwa 'ed