Jason Chaffetz promised to keep chasing Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation when Congress reconvenes after their summer-long vacation from governing, so they can commence their fall vacation from governing.
Because he has nothing, he promises to go after that which he cannot obtain; namely, the 14,900 erased emails which were unrecoverable despite the FBI's best efforts. And if he cannot have that, then he wants to check Clinton's calendars from her time at the Department of State because he's just absolutely certain she actually DID meet with the Crown Prince of Bahrain and other luminaries whom she certainly would have had occasion to meet with whether or not there was a Clinton Foundation.
This is where I remind you that Republicans and their candidate for President have nothing in the way of policy that's palatable to American voters, so they have no option left. It's smear season for them. I expect the Benghazi committee to transform into the Something Something Clinton Foundation committee until sometime after November, at which time voters will have so completely stomped on Trump that they'll be left whimpering and licking their wounds before crafting their new smear strategy for President Clinton's next term.
Transcript follows, via CBS News in case you can't stand watching the little weasel.
REP. JASON CHAFFETZ (R), UTAH: Well, they also said there’s smoke and no fire, but,as my colleague Trey Gowdy said, yes, there’s a fire, in fact, it was arson.
I think the public has the right to know. We certainly have been asking for these documents since 2012. And if Hillary Clinton wants to come clean, and she hasn’t yet, every -- most everything she said about this has turned out to be a lie.
She should provide her calendar. The Associated Press has been fighting for years in the courts just to get her calendar. And she has more than calendar. But get her calendars out there. She said at her press conference about this -- and I think FBI should provide the Congress, and consequently the public, an unclassified version that can be released of the report that they had.
DICKERSON: One of the things we’re trying to do here is figure out whether there was something truly wrong that was done here in the relationship between the State Department and Clinton Foundation, or whether this is just kind of the way things are done in Washington.
People who give lot of money get their phone calls returned a little faster, get e-mails returned.
So you have said that it smells like pay to play in this relationship between the Clinton Foundation donors and the State Department. What evidence do you have of that?
CHAFFETZ: Well, look at the Associated Press report that came out for nearly a majority of the people who have made these major -- made these major donations actually ended up getting a meeting.
And if you look at the interaction between the foundation and those that worked at the State Department, at one point, they said, our boss. There’s supposed to be a bright clear line. I think one of the questions the media needs to ask Hillary Clinton, was her interaction and her senior staff, was their interaction with the foundation, was that official business?
Because they say that sometimes it was. Or was that just a private something? And then where are all those e-mails, where are all those communications? Because right now it’s still years after the fact that we have sent subpoenas, we have sent letters of preservation, requests for information, and still the State Department and Hillary Clinton, we get these new revelations almost weekly that there are thousands new things that we haven’t yet seen.
DICKERSON: Of course, the Clinton campaign said that the AP report didn’t take into account all the meetings she had.
But let’s focus on the ones she did have with people who did give money to the foundation. There’s no doubt they took place. I guess the question, though, is, to do pay to play, don’t you have to show that the State Department did something, that some action was taken as a result of requests by somebody who gave a lot of money?
And, in this case, what in your mind is the action that was taken, what policy was changed or what action should people focus on when they’re looking at this linkage?
CHAFFETZ: That’s why we want to see her calendars. That’s why we want to see the rest of the e-mails.
Remember, there’s 14,900 e-mails we have not yet seen that are new, evidently new e-mails that are out there. And we also want to know about the destruction of these documents. These are federal records. These are not her e-mails. And she’s the one that set this up.
The inspector general tried to interview Hillary Clinton. She says she wants to be open and transparent, but she refused to meet with the inspector general. And then you have the FBI director said that they never, ever looked at her testimony before Congress and her interaction with Congress.
And when we’re requesting documents, federal records, and those are destroyed, we have some equities and things that we want answer to.
DICKERSON: So, there’s two baskets. There are the Clinton Foundation e-mails and then there are the e-mails you’re talking which were on her private server that was at her home in her system she set up.
You have said that she committed perjury in testimony in front of your committee. What are you asking the FBI to do? They have already said that they didn’t see a willful deletion on her part. They said that in terms of classified material that she didn’t know because it wasn’t marked classified. So, haven’t they answered some of the questions you’re raising?
CHAFFETZ: No, to the contrary. The FBI director said that they -- known or should have known that the information was classified.
Remember, at the State Department, there are two different systems. One system is the classified system. And one of the key concerns we have is, how did the information on those classified servers get over on to the ones that were not classified?
From our vantage point, it’s one of the largest breaches of security in the history of the State Department. We got to make sure that people aren’t just walking out the door with literally hundreds, if not thousands of classified bits of information that then make their way into a nonsecure setting.
And when Hillary Clinton herself allows people without the proper security clearance to have access to that information, again, that is a self -inflicted breach that she put upon the country that put people’s lives in jeopardy.
DICKERSON: On that question, which is the lawyer she hired to delete e-mails from her private server, are you saying the FBI dropped the ball? Because surely they were aware that these lawyers were looking at this information. They dropped the ball in their investigation?
CHAFFETZ: No, the FBI director said he was deeply concerned about this. He also later offered a bit of a clarification to say, some of the attorneys had some of the clearances.
But it’s not just her attorneys. There are I.T. professionals that she engaged in Platte River Networks and some others who had no security clearance. And yet when the FBI provides us those documents in a secure -- in this SCIF, so-called SCIF, in a secure place, they redact those names.
We want to know who those people are. They don’t have the proper security clearance. And she gave them access to classified information.