The Corruption Of Hillary Clinton

An all-star panel examines whether Hillary is really "too big to jail" at Restoration Weekend.

Below are the video and transcript to the panel discussion "The Corruption of Hillary Clinton," featuring pollster Pat Caddell, government accountability expert Peter Schweizer and author Dinesh D'Souza. The discussion took place at the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s 2016 Restoration Weekend.

The Corruption of Hillary Clinton from DHFC on Vimeo.

Dinesh D'Souza: Hello, everyone.  The experience of elation that I felt on Tuesday with Trump's election has not in any way subsided.  No.  And let us pause to reflect on the momentousness of that accomplishment.  No man has gone to the White House not coming from elected office since Eisenhower, and Eisenhower was the Supreme Commander of World War II.  So what Trump has done on Tuesday is unprecedented.  And in some ways no one else could have pulled that off.  I'm trying to describe the feeling that I had in seeing those election results, and I think the best analogy I can think of is it was kind of a prison break feeling, kind of the experience that we saw in the Shawshank Redemption of breaking out of captivity.  And while this has forced a kind of rethinking on the Left, I think it also compels us to do a little bit of rethinking on the Right because how did Trump win Pennsylvania, Michigan it seems, and Wisconsin?  He did it by appealing to a group of people that we have been trying to court for 30 years with only moderate success.  These are the blue collar, working class guys.  These are the so-called Reagan Democrats.  And of course, Reagan got them, but Republicans couldn't win them ever since Reagan.  The Republican strategy for winning the blue collar vote was essentially to appeal to social issues and hope that the social issues and the kind of social conservatism of working class America would, you may say, trump its economic concerns. 

The genius of Trump was to appeal to those voters on both economic and social issues.  And in doing so Trump appears to have violated, you may say, conservative orthodoxy.  This is actually the reason why so many of our friends have been, if not ambivalent, thrown into outright opposition, because in order to win blue collar votes, Trump appears to have violated the sort of libertarian principle of free trade.

I want to say a word to defend the idea that Trump has actually not done that.  What he has actually done is to help us to understand that economic principles are meaningless if they don't have some legitimate political translation.  Trump's point is that free trade is merely a nostrum if it is only conformed to on one side.  In other words, if we have free trade, but the Japanese and the Chinese have tariffs, that's not really free trade.  And to say to the Japanese, in effect, if you insist on having tariffs, we're going to put up some tariffs until you take yours down, that's not a violation of free trade.  That is actually an attempt to actually have it. 

During the Civil War it became a practice of the Confederacy to execute free blacks who were captured by the democratic South and upon learning of this -- by the way, the Confederates would not execute white captives, they would just put them into camps, but they would execute the blacks.  When Abraham Lincoln found out about this, he issued an executive order that for every free black executed by the South, one Confederate soldier should be shot.  Now, again, taken by itself this might seem a barbaric violation of the rules of war, but Lincoln's point is that there has to be a certain amount of proportionality on both sides; and that if one side stops playing by the rules, it's entirely legitimate for the other to do so until a certain kind of equilibrium is restored.

Now, this is a way of introducing what I think is going to be a very exciting, but even for us, a period of rethinking of what the Republican Party stands for and what conservatism means now.  I want to say a word about Hillary's America and about the point of making that movie.  It was actually very hard to make a movie about Hillary.  And the reason is everyone can't stand her.  That was not the case with Obama 4 years ago.  Obama, although in many ways repulsive, was at the same time weirdly fascinating.  And so you could make a movie that tried to get inside of Obama, but with Hillary, to make a movie for 90 minutes or 100 minutes on Hillary would make the audience want to shoot itself in the head.  So for this reason I thought it's important to make a movie not just about Hillary but the Hillary gang.  And even though Hillary now is happily moving off the scene, as we can see, the Hillary gang is very much here.  It's not going away.

This Hillary gang thrives on fanaticism.  It thrives on a lot of the kind of bullying tactics that we're seeing now in the county; but weirdly, for a gang it has enjoyed something that gangs have never had.  It's enjoyed something that, for example, Luca Brasi did not have as a member of the Corleone clan, and that is moral legitimacy.  The point of the movie Hillary's America was to attack that.  The Democratic Party has claimed now for 50 years that we are the party of the little guy, of the ordinary guy.  We're the party of the outsider.  We're the party of women and Latinos and Blacks.  We did civil rights.  We deliver human rights, and so we are the party of progress.  The Republicans are the party of stopping progress.  And so this combination of claiming justice and claiming the future, this has been the key to the success of the Democratic Party.

And the lesson for us in all this is it is important to dismantle this kind of moral claim that the Democrats have made.  Now the central argument of Hillary's America was simply that the Democratic Party is the deadly enemy of the ordinary man.  The Democratic Party has been the underminer, the subjugator, the enslaver, the exploiter, the lyncher of blacks and other minorities.  Far from being the champion of women, the Democrats have been the enemies of women suffrage and women's rights.

Now, faced with all this, the progressive scholars who have actually dominated American historiography, American textbooks, have a comeback.  And their comeback is the idea of the big switch, which is the idea that the two parties sometime in the '60s or sometime relatively recently made a racial swapping of sides and, essentially, the racist Democrats all became Republicans.  Challenging the big switch was the main intellectual challenge of this movie and my accompanying book Hillary's America, because to my knowledge the big switch had never been publicly debunked.  It has never been publicly refuted or destroyed.  And the reason it hadn't been destroyed is that it seems to rest on two facts that are completely incontestable; namely, blacks who used to be Republicans did become Democrats, so they did switch.  And the white South, which used to be overwhelmingly Democratic, is now largely Republican.  So there was a second switch.  And so these two facts taken together appear to corroborate this notion of a racial swap.  And, in fact, you had Republican Party chairmen going into black districts and apologizing for the bigotry of the Republican Party.  The big switch, in other words, was accepted by our side.

And yet this big switch as it turns out is a lie.  You can test it very simply by noticing that if you make a list of all the racist Democrats, the so-called Dixiecrats, only one of them, I emphasize one, Strom Thurmond, switched to the Republican Party.  All the others remained in the Democratic Party.  It is true that blacks switched over to the Democratic Party, but this didn't actually happen in the 60s, it happened in the 30s.  Now, in the 1930s, the Democratic Party was by common acceptance the party of segregation and the Ku Klux Klan.  And so you had the very bizarre phenomenon of blacks leaving the party of Lincoln to join the party of the Klan.  Why would they do that?  The answer has to do with the extreme economic hardships of the depression in which blacks took the economic benefits promised, not really delivered, but promised by FDR over the idea of racial liberation.

And as for the white South, the white South moved to the Republican Party in the late '60s, the '70s and the '80s, and culminated really in the Reagan era, and it was Reagan's appeal to patriotism, anti-Communism, free markets, this is actually what peeled off the non-racist South into the Republican Party.  The point I'm trying to make is that as the South became less racist, it became more Republican.

Now, the importance of these arguments going forward is that the left is going to come back in the way it always does.  And it's going to come back not just with organization and money, but by claiming the moral high ground by attempting to stigmatize Trump and put him beyond the pale.  If we can take away the moral argument from the Left, we take away its chief claim to rule, and we expose it for the party that it truly is.

I've been hearing now in the last day or so a lot of ideas about how we go forward and what do we need to do particularly with regard to the Left's continuing domination of Hollywood, academia and the media.  And the temptation is to try to fight these things by escalating the things that we are already doing.  And I want to emphasize why I think that's not enough; because think of something like speaking on campus, something that Milo's doing so effectively now.  I've been doing it for 25 years on the campus.  But speaking on campus is a hit-and-run project.  You speak on Tuesday, you're gone on Wednesday.  The professors live there.  They control that environment, and it's no accident that so many young people come to college and they jettison their conservative, their Christian, their religious values and they defect to the other side.  That's part of the project of what these professors are dedicated to do.

And so the question you have to ask is not can we introduce a modicum of conservative thought for 5 minutes to get people to see that there is another side in the world, but what is the way to shake the happy complacency of that liberal professor who feels currently accountable to no one.  That guy doesn't care about the legislature.  He doesn't care about the parents.  He could care less about the administration which has no power over him.  He doesn't even care about the alumni because he knows at the end of the day they're going to give money based upon their wonderful nostalgic experience, not based upon what's going on now.

So we need a supply-side-type of answer that shakes the complacency of the ordinary professor on the ordinary campus; and short of that, we're not going to make deep, deep inroads into the college campus.  My own view is that the campuses are gone, and by that I mean there is no way to take them back.  The solution actually has to be far more dramatic.  It essentially involves creating new types of education that can deliver high-quality education at a low cost.  The Achilles' heel of the campus is in the precarious financial structure that is now unsustainable.  And so if using technology there is a way to create, let's call it, the academic iPhone in which you're able to deliver very good education for one-fifth of the price, you will shake to the foundations the core of American higher education.

In my own career, I've pivoted from being a think-tank guy and a campus speaker to making movies.  In the field of documentaries I'm doing pretty well.  I've kind of overtaken Michael Moore.  It was really fun to see how he couldn’t even get his latest movie into the theater.  I mean, he got it in a couple of theaters, but he couldn't even sell tickets.  He had people seeing it for free.  In any event, let's remember though that Michael Moore is not the big guy in Hollywood.  The big guy in Hollywood is Steven Spielberg, and the most powerful messages from the Left come through romantic comedies, thrillers, horror films, animated family films.  Long term if we're going to plant a conservative flag in Hollywood, we have to do that.  We have to make feature films that can compete with Hollywood on its own high ground.

Right now the overwhelming feeling I think that I have, and I think many in this room, isn't even so much a sense of joy as it is a sense of relief.  This was a big missile, a big bullet that this country so narrowly avoided.  I don't even think most Americans quite realize that.  Ours is the party at the end of the day that champions the American dream.  My wife Debbie who's here is from Venezuela.  I'm from India.  Coming to America for us has been coming to a country where we can be the architects of our own destiny, where we can be in the driver's seat of our own life, where our future and our destiny isn't given to us but constructed by us.  And the Republican Party has been, and is now, the party to hold up those ladders of opportunity that make it so possible for the guy at the bottom to make a better life.  That's the vision that we're committed to.  That is a very appealing vision.

I teach weekly now.  This is part of my sentence.  I teach English to adult Hispanic immigrants once a week in the southern part of San Diego and the conservative vision well articulated can make enormous headway with blacks, with Hispanics.  I see no reason over the next 12 years why the Republican Party can't get 30 percent of the black vote, 50 percent of the Hispanic vote.  With those kinds of numbers, the Conservative viewpoint and the Republican Party would be the majority party stretching as far as we can see into the future.  So we are grateful to Trump for having opened the door, and now it is our job to go through it.

Thank you very much.

Peter Schweizer: Thank you very much. It's great to be here.  A lot of you may not realize this, but my first job out of college was actually for David Horowitz.  It was 1987.  I graduated from college.  I was reading National Review.  I loved Bill Buckley, still do.  I wore the blue blazer with the gold buttons, and I still remember the first meeting with David Horowitz.  Here comes a guy, wearing jeans, a belt buckle and cowboy boots.  My first thought was I didn't know Horowitz was from Texas.  But the best part was the tee-shirt.  The tee-shirt said boldly, "I'd rather be killing Communists."  So, that was my introduction to David Horowitz.  So, I worked for David on the Second Thoughts Project, and I'm very thankful that I was.

Let me just talk to you a little bit about the Clinton Foundation, the Clinton Foundation investigation that is ongoing.  I'll share with you what I can and why I think it is so vitally important that this investigation proceed.  Right now there's a lot of political pressure basically from the mainstream media and others saying let the Clinton Foundation investigation go. In the sake of national unity, we need to just let this go, and not take out vengeance on the Clintons.  My response is this has nothing to do with vengeance.  It has to do with accountability.

Now think about this for a second: one of Donald Trump's signature lines was "the system is rigged."  Let's just walk through the scenarios of Tuesday night, because if Hillary Clinton had won on Tuesday night, we all know that there would not have been an honest investigation of Hillary Clinton.  But now they're saying that Hillary Clinton lost so there should be no honest investigation of Hillary Clinton.  That to me is the definition of a rigged system, a system which says powerful individuals should not face justice.  They should not face investigation.  And in a sense, it's kind of like what we have on Wall Street, but in this case, it's too big to jail.  In other words, if you are a powerful political figure, and you are on the cusp of national power, you can basically get away with what you want to because we need to, after all, not pursue investigations in the name of national unity.  I think that's a ridiculous standard and needs to be resisted.  And I'm going to explain to you in a minute why I think it's so important.  Because this is about something far more than just villain Hillary Clinton.

Now you may have read last week on the front page of the Wall Street Journal that the FBI is investigating the Clinton Foundation, that that was based in the beginning stages on my book, Clinton Cash.  This has been going on actually since the summer 2015 and I was not really in a position to talk about it publicly.  But essentially here is what you've had for the last roughly year and a half.  You've had five FBI field offices investigating the Clinton Foundation, the field office in Los Angeles, the field office in Little Rock Arkansas, Miami, Florida, New York and Washington, DC.  And in addition to that, you have the FBI's foreign office in Lagos, Nigeria, investigating the Clinton Foundation.

So, the media wants to spin it that this was just sort of a last-minute thing, that these FBI agents had a Clinton Cash book club, and they decided, "Hey, let's charge her."  That's not the case. The book Clinton Cash was the roadmap, is the way it was described to me by FBI officials.  It was the roadmap that helped lay out the methodology, but the FBI, as you would expect, has gone far beyond that in its investigations.  And what they have basically had since the end of February when they presented evidence to the Department of Justice is they have been road blocked.  The investigations continue, but the Department of Justice has denied them basic tools of investigation like subpoenas, for example.

So the question for an incoming Trump administration is, "Should we give the FBI the tools to investigate the Clinton Foundation?"  And I think the only answer can be yes.  The only answer can be yes, and by the way, the evidence is in Clinton Cash, but anybody that has been reading the Podesta emails -- anybody here been reading the Podesta emails?  I have to say when I first started reading them, I felt a little bit like I was a drug addict, like I was taking crack cocaine, because at first I thought I'm reading things that are private emails, but every morning I just kept waiting for the next hit.  I couldn't take it.

But what do we know from the Podesta emails?  Well, just take one document which confirms everything that has been talked about and that has now been admitted by the Clinton Foundation.  During Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, Chelsea Clinton, to her credit, asked for an internal review of the Clinton Foundation in 2011.  And that review was done by Simpson Thatcher, the large New York law firm, very powerful, very prestigious.  And they did an internal review of the Clinton Foundation.  You can go read it online, and I would encourage you to do it.  What did that investigation find?  That investigation found, and I quote, that high-dollar Clinton Foundation donors had expectations of a quid pro quo in return for large gifts.  That's not me saying that.  That's the internal review of the Clinton Foundation.

By the way, they also went to Clinton Foundation employees and asked them to evaluate the effectiveness of their own organization.  Now, of course, Hillary Clinton in the debates talked about how proud she was of the great, wonderful work that the Clinton Foundation does. What did this internal review find about how Clinton Foundation employees felt about the effectiveness of the organization?  They were asked to rate it on a scale from 1 to 10.  The highest rating that the Foundation received from its own employees was a 4.  In fact, this is all in the Simpson Thacher report. In fact, numerous Clinton Foundation employees gave it a 1 when asked to rate its effectiveness.  So the debate about the Clinton Foundation is over, and now the question is, "Will justice be done?"

Let me just say in closing why I think this is so important and why this is about more than Bill and Hillary Clinton.  Now, look, in Clinton land, in the Clinton orbit, we recognize that because of some inherent narcissism they think everything is about them.  This investigation is about Bill and Hillary Clinton, but it's about a lot more than that.  Because what the Clintons have done is create an unprecedented model for self-enrichment.  And if this is not investigated, and investigated fairly, and in a detailed way by the FBI, and if justice is not done, this will be imitated, not just by Democrats.  There is no reason, if this is allowed to stand, why we will not have a Secretary of Defense, a Republic or a Democrat, 5 years from now, 7 years from now, that sets up a private foundation, and while they're setting defense policy, takes large checks from oversees interests and why that Secretary of Defense does not put their spouse on the lecture circuit collecting large checks from foreign governments.  There's simply no reason not to do it.  And if they are criticized about it, they're going to use the Clinton defense and say, "The Clintons were allowed to do it.  Why not me?"  So at the end of the day, justice needs to be done.  It's about accountability.  Nobody is too big to jail.  And this is about something far more than just Bill and Hillary Clinton.  This is about the integrity of our political system and whether we want a government that is of and for and by the people or a government run by individuals who are getting rich with the help of foreign oligarchs.

Thank you very much.

Pat Caddell: I want to take the American view of corruption.  I cannot endorse more full-heartedly what Peter just said about accountability and the Clinton thing, and I want to point out at the beginning that when I talk about equal justice under the law, which is a concept that we have all lost, apparently, and we must restore, that the Justice Department under Eric Holder, who last night was on Bill Maher talking about his heroic efforts to stop whatever it was, and all I could keep thinking was every time there was an investigation he would appoint lawyers who had contributed money to the Obama campaign and the only person I know they persecuted -- not prosecuted, but persecuted -- for doing political wrong fundraising is sitting here.  And if you don't think that's about an enemy's list and about using enemy's lists, you know nothing about the truth of the Obama administration.  I like to remind people that I was the youngest person on Richard Nixon's enemies list, and I expected fully that I might well be the oldest person on Hillary Clinton's if the election had turned out differently.

But my values did not change.  I got a very good sense of what I thought about government corruption.  Too bad, too many people, including people I remember from the McGovern campaign, people like Tony Podesta and others, somehow had lost their memory about what they said.  But anyway, not to get onto that, but I do want to say one thing. I didn't get a chance because they weren't there yesterday morning. They were at camp. My grandchildren -- everyone keeps asking me about. Are you now seeing they're here? My daughter, stand up children. They are really the adopted children of this thing. Olivia, Kate, my youngest, and Travis, my middle grandson, who will be 10 on Tuesday, which was, by the way, 10 years ago Tuesday I was flying here, to Breakers, to Palm Beach from LA where I still live, and I was intercepted in Dallas changing planes by Liz Ruiz's husband to tell me that Travis was coming a week early, and they had booked me wonderfully to head right to Charleston, which I did too late.  He was ready to go.  This kid's a go-getter, and he was already done. And then I came back here with a picture proving I flew back here and talked at breakfast and held up his picture.  So he is literally a Restoration Weekend baby, if you will.

Anyway, I want to go on to one other thing.  When I watched Bill Maher last night, I watch Anna Marie Cox talking about fascism, about Trump as a national socialist Nazi, and Tom Friedman of the New York Times saying he promised these people he would help them, but they're all gone anyway, and so is much of the country.  We just need to adjust to the future, and by the way, he should pick up all of my ideas and do what we tell him to do. And then David Axelrod tried to point out a little bit that it was an election, but they all came to one agreement.  The new word that I had never heard pass any of their lips was the word "corruption."  And that is the word in Washington, the political class, which, in other words, were not allowed to be spoken, even though, as I have seen and Rasmussen has seen for years, when you rate the issues, it often ranks second.

But anyway, they were talking about Trump and corruption that need to be investigated, and the media's duty, which I'll get to. But I want to just touch very quick on five corruptions that need to be spoken of.  One is the corruption of the political process.  And that involves -- in 1998 I wrote an op-ed piece for the Wall Street Journal called the "Death of Liberal Outrage." This is during the impeachment, which I was not in favor of.  I was for censuring Clinton.  Actually, I thought he should have the grace to resign.  But in any event, my point was with the Ricky Rector case and how the Clintons didn't mind killing people that helped their political careers, a long subject that Willie Morris had talked about in the New Yorker. I just found it again and reread it.  And it's in spades today.  He said what Clinton has done to the Democratic Party and the politics -- I said that what Bill Clinton has meant is that liberals and progressives have had to hollow out their moral consciences and values in order to fit into the tiny moral black hole that is Bill Clinton's sense of morality.  And I realized, my God, how much more has been absorbed in the years since then, when in the Democratic Party, not a single person but my associate Doug Schoen on Political Insiders would speak about corruption?  The question is why would they have ever nominated her?  This is a party where people stood up against Lyndon Johnson, a very powerful president, on Vietnam because it was a matter of conscience, but not a single Democrat, as far as I know, of leadership ever got up and said, "What are we doing?"  Even Bernie Sanders said, "I'm going to talk about the issues, not your damn emails," and then goes right in the tank. That missing word, the word that could not be spoken, that donkey in the room, if you will, which was never to be addressed by the media, until now.  Now you'll hear a lot about media response.

But that is one corruption. And Bernie Sanders was rigged out of the Democratic nomination, which was led as a coordination.  I'll just tell you it began in Iowa.  I said, with Neil Cavuto sitting there analyzing the night of Iowa, this caucus is being stolen.  They have disappeared ballots here, and they know what the results are, but they will not release the numbers.  The Des Moines Register went crazy demanding that they do a recount.  Somehow in the middle of the night some of the precincts disappeared.  And the next morning the Chairman announced that Hillary Clinton had barely won, and Bernie Sanders, like a fool he is, accepted it instead of drawing right there and then.  If you're not going to play for real, don't get in this game and fight.  What we discovered is the Chairman, who the Des Moines Register pointed out had been a Hillary volunteer in 2008 and a staff member, and who had a license plate on her car that said "HRC16." And she was doing a very, like the rest of Democratic establishment, even-handed, fair process.

So that political corruption is really deep, and it goes even in the Republican Party. You know, none of the congressional committees ever managed to do what Tom Fitton and Judicial Watch did.  None of them ever came up with what Peter Schweizer came up with.  These Republicans, either out of incompetence or purpose, the Benghazi investigation could not have been worsely handled, not so much by Gowdy, but by former Speaker Boehner, who did not want certain topics discussed.  There was no counsel.  Most investigative committees like that have chief counsels who handle the investigation, not simply a bunch of congressmen.  And it wasn't until we got to Jim Jordan, who was the star of the thing, did we find out about the fact that Hillary Clinton had a different conversation with her daughter, the Prime Minister of Egypt and whoever else, and that the video [story] was an entire lie.

Washington has become a place of bipartisan corruption and lies.  And you can see after the last midterm and the great December [the move to] get behind closed doors and pay off the contributors in both parties. Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell raised the limits for the two-party giving so that you people could give up to, I think, a half-a-million or whatever, but allowed no contributions other than $2,500.00 to third-party candidates, which will tell you about why we have a process where 31 percent of the voters, actually the plurality of Americans, are not even mentioned, because the rigged system goes on.  And don't kid yourself.  Your people are just as bad as the Democrats for this. And that is why Donald Trump is President of the United States.  

People want that stable clean, they want that city wiped out, and they want it in both parties.  And the leadership believe they are just going to capture Trump and go on as usual.  And they will screw you just like they have been trying to, as they have done for the last 10 years, just to make that point.

The other corruption, quickly, the Clinton corruption, there is not enough to say.  Read the book. But the mere fact that this woman could appear and 27 times tell the FBI she couldn't remember because she had had brain damage or whatever, and so she couldn't remember.  Or why her lawyers hammered away all of the machinery and got rid of it.  The FBI agreed to help.  Then we find out the person handling the investigation is the recipient of funds from another person under federal investigation, Governor Terry McAuliffe, who gave his wife $600,000.00 or $700,000.00 in contributions for her race.  And they have met with McAuliffe, and they have met with Hillary for that matter.  But that was not a conflict of interest.  I mean, he should have exempted himself.  This place is rotten beyond belief, and to endorse what Peter said about independent counsel, one of the most important things is they be from outside that swamp hell that is Washington.  Nobody in Washington is going to clean that place out, because everybody is compromised for the most part with a handful of exceptions.

The presidential corruptions which have not been dealt with, the Republicans laid down on, whether it was the IRS -- remember Obama's going to get to the bottom of it.  I can tell you if we had the time what the facts are, starting with Anita Dunn's husband coming in as the White House Counsel and the head of the IRS suddenly being in the White House several hundred times, or whatever it was, as they pursued people.  The worst moral one of all, the Veterans Department, remember this?  People are dying, but we can't do anything about it because Hillary Clinton says we can't really do anything because we have to pay off the unions, and the government unions, particularly the AFSCME, don't want it touched because it would influence their unions.  And, once again, we have veterans who have given to their country dying and nobody goes to jail.  Nobody even gets fired, really. And that is bipartisan as well.  They talk about it, but nobody does anything, except, I suspect, Donald Trump will.

And finally I want to say the other great corruption in this society is the media corruption.  If you do not understand that the media has now become, as I have said before, the enemy of the American people by their biased coverage.  I mentioned this the other day. The vast majority of Americans believe that they are a threat to the people's right to know and a threat to Democracy.  And we need to have a discussion about this because, in the last several days, there was no place on television where anyone was not saying, "Well, nobody could see what was coming, therefore, it's okay that the pollsters were cheating," and, by the way, in the case of the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, doing unethical behavior with the releasing of polls and partial polls that they were trying desperately to insist showed Hillary had it wrapped up, and so much more.

But now I've listened to a discussion on several of the networks, something like, "Well, of course we had some problems, but we need to go on now and investigate Trump and keep his feet to the fire and go after him."  Oh, because suddenly now you're going to think about doing your job?  No, you're not.  You're still acting as an agent, agents of and outriders of the political party, and you have no interest in justice or truth.  And until that is changed -- and I'm glad Trump won't let them ride on the airplane. When they start acting like the defenders of the American people, then they should be treated like they have rights.  They have no rights otherwise.  And you can see that when Bill Maher can be on television 27 times a week or more from Time Warner, and that is not, as I tried to explain to Sean Hannity once, that is not free speech.  That is paid speech. Paid for by you and every HBO subscriber without any balance whatsoever.  If that was on the other side, I'll tell you what, Time Warner would be so threatened with boycotts and people leaving that they would do something about it.  But Republicans and conservatives, you don't know how to stand up and fight.  And maybe Trump will teach you how to do it.

And finally the last point: College corruption.  There is a simple easy answer to what Dinesh was asking about and talking about.  And by the way, it's very simple, and I said this a couple years ago. I've said it at a couple sessions, and I hope that now that Donald Trump is President, they will simply invoke Title IX and issue a guide, just like they did on transgender bathrooms and locker rooms, threatening to take money from schools, and merely say that any institution that takes federal funds found violating the First Amendment or attempting to restrict the freedom of speech will be cut off from all federal funding immediately.  The minute that is done, sometimes the hardest problems are the easiest solved.  And this is an easy one.  The minute you use that tool that is there, you will shut down the safe spots and all the other stuff going on on the campuses.

And then we should get into the question of diversity of thinking, not just simply diversity of bodies and colors.  And then, they want the money, they should at least adhere to some standards and some values that are held by all real Americans, which is the vast majority of anyone who doesn't live inside the Beltway or in the political and media classes.

Question & Answer Session

Audience Member: Pat, going back to what you just said, what do we have to do to follow your advice on the 501(c) to make sure that these colleges are acting in their proper manner in order for them to get the deductions?

Pat Caddell: It's very simple: make sure that Donald Trump gets the right Secretary of Education, who's not interested in being popular with the unions or taking a presidency.  Make sure that it is somebody who understands, and that the President Elect understands, he has that kind of power.  If you want to do something quick in America, there is something quick.  I meant to say one thing about a little about congressional corruption.  My good friend Peter here, he was into the insider trading with CBS and stuff.  They always attack him as a right-winger.  He has worked with the Washington Post and New York Times until they realized, oh shoot, we can't get into this Hillary thing.  This is really bad this foundation.  But before with CBS, on 60 Minutes, on the Democrats and Republicans who were inside trading, because it was legal, they could take information and go to the stock market with it, including many of your own favorite people and many of my favorite Democrats.

Anyway, [Peter] has been, just like Mr. Fitton has been at Judicial Watch, the believer first in protecting America and secondly worrying about partisanship.  I would like that to once again be our standard in America, that we are Americans first.

Moderator: Mallory has a quick comment, and Barbara has a question.

Audience Member: Well, I've been standing up in these rooms for 25 years telling people that they are always talking about saving for their kids' college education, and I've been saying, "Don't send your kids to college."  They're indoctrination mills.  After they've been there 6 months, they won't even look you in the eye anymore.  I want to congratulate Dinesh on his unique and innovative ideas, and I also want to suggest to people that we begin to put into active use the word "fascism" because our enemies are fascists.  All these people who are on the streets of New York and all of these cities right now are brownshirts.  They are just like the Nazis and we have to call them fascists.

Thank you.

Audience Member: Gentlemen, and everyone in this room I'm sure will concur, that we're looking at Mount Olympus. Thank you.  Each of you will become an icon in the history of the United States because we were really over the precipice.  There was no room left and we were hanging on by our fingernail.  I have to ask you, Hillary Clinton, shall we lock her up when she is indicted?

Peter Schweizer: Well, what I would say is what I've always said: you need to have an honest, thorough and clear FBI investigation.  I'm not an attorney.  I always say that, and it's true, but I think if the evidence leads that way, and on my reading it does, yes.  I don't think that you should simply decide that well this individual's too powerful or too prominent.  This is the problem on Wall Street.  I mean, if you look back at the 2008 financial crises, and the emails that came out from Goldman Sachs executives and others, there's no question it was fraud.  It was criminal fraud. And nobody went to jail.  Goldman Sachs and other banks paid fine, but the assumption was these guys are too powerful, too prominent and too rich to go to jail.  That's happening in the political sphere now.  And so I think if the evidence points to that, and she is indicted, and that's what a jury decides, yes, absolutely.

Share