washington journal. >> fbi director christopher wray testifies today on the president's 2022 budget request. he is appearing before a senate appropriations subcommittee. watch live beginning at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 3, online at c-span.org or listen with the free c-span radio app. former minneapolis police officers derek chauvin was convicted in the murder of

george floyd and is scheduled to be sentenced this friday. his defense has asked for probation. prosecutors are seeking 30 years in prison. watch the court proceeding live friday at 2:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. online at c-span.org or you can listen on the free c-span radio app. >> we're joined next by tom fitten who is president of the group judicial watch here with us to talk this morning about a number of issues including the investigations into president trump ahead of the impeachment efforts last year and the year before. tom fitten, first of all, tell us about your group judicial watch. what's its main focus. >> judicial watch is a nonprofit educational foundation that seeks to educate the american people about what its government is up to and the way we do that is by using the freedom of information act to gain access to government information and also the real process to

confront and expose government elicit behavior, misconduct and activity that is outside the law. >> i saw your piece in the washington times which was published yesterday tracing adam schiff's subpoena hypocrisy and the subhead unlike schiff's own spy games the justice department used court authorized grand jury process to obtain schiff's records. what were you aiming to get at in this editorial, this op-ed? >> well, judicial watch had sued for secret subpoenas that schiff had issued that targeted the phone records of the president's lawyer rudy giuliani, he got those phone records, other phone records and then he used those phone records to uncover more phone records, you know, you call people when you're talking on the phone obviously and he published those phone records. so he secretly subpoenaed phone records and then published them and included the phone records of rudy giuliani, his colleague

devin nunes, the president's lawyers jay sekulow, a journalist john solomon and so then i hear this noise about schiff complaining about him being the target potentially of a grand jury subpoena or other lawful subpoenas and then him complaining about it when, in fact, he's telling us in court that, a, we can't get access to the records and, b, he's telling the courts that this is essentially unrenewable. that the congress can issue subpoenas without having to go through a grand jury, without having to go to a federal court, without having to tell anyone or anything they want practically speaking. so, you know, it was rudy giuliani and the abuse of president trump, but it can be anyone, anyone watching now can have their records subpoenaed not just phone records, medical records, other records, who knows what else. and this is a power that the

pelosi house says it has and those of you who are watching who support nancy pelosi and adam schiff and hate donald trump, just so you know this is a power if left unchecked republicans can use. >> specifically on those phone records, though, did adam schiff the chairman of that committee get any push back from the bench on these requests? >> no, he didn't go through the court he just sent the subpoenas to reportedly at&t or other phone companies and they turned their records over to them. the targets of the subpoenas had no ability to go in and object because i don't think they found out they were the target of subpoenas until their records were published in the impeachment reports and efforts that schiff was pushing. >> you said that the individuals targeted by those -- by those subpoenas hadn't known because they were previously kept under wraps, right?

>> right. but there was no court process so it isn't like you could object to the court once they were obtained. the records at issue here for adam schiff, we don't know what, if anything, he's being investigated for or whether he just was caught up in a broader subpoena. you know, those records are subject to grand jury protections in terms of secrecy and other -- and other protections, now those recipients can go in and argue to the courts what they need to in order to protect their constitutional rights. that wasn't available to the targets of the schiff subpoenas. >> to the best -- >> like i said, they are in court saying that this right is unbridled practically speaking. >> to the best of your understanding you said he published these records, published i assume in the committee records or elsewhere. what was adam schiff's intent in doing that? >> to harass the president. i know what he did. his intent is what i can speculate on.

my speculation is that he abused the sixth amendment and other constitutional rights of the president and the constitutional rights of the targets of the subpoenas and those whose records were published as part of a jihad against president trump. and now he's complaining that the justice department was asking questions of him secretly. contrary to what he did, it was under court process and, you know, it's interesting. we hear from the justice department that they're independent of the biden white house. joe biden complains about subpoenas to journalists so the justice department says they're going to stop doing that practically speaking, and then separately now we have the justice department shutting down this investigation into schiff and by the way it implicated eric swalwell as well. i just think it's interesting how quickly the justice department jumps to squelch investigations into the president's allies in the media and in congress. >> tom fitten is our guest, he

leads judicial watch. your calls are welcome 202-748-0801 for republicans, democrats 202-748-8000 and for all others, independence and all others 202-748-8002. in 2018 your group filed suit against adam schiff and the house judiciary committee on obtaining records. what happened in that lawsuit? >> well, we didn't win. you know, the lower court ruled the speech or debate clause protects the secrecy of these records and the upper court, the appellate court also agreed. it's interesting because we didn't sue under foyia because congress exempts itself from the freedom of information act, we sued under the public's common law right of access to government records and at least one of the judges at least on the appellate court said this is an interesting issue and, you know, she couldn't overrule the

circuit here, but certainly the issue of whether or not the public has a right to access these records deserves balancing with the speech or debate privilege that congress has. you know, it pops up again in the january 6th debates because we can't get records from the police force of the u.s. capitol because that police force is not subject to foyia. so there's all this secrecy around the handling of january 6 because congress has immunized itself or attempted to from the transparency requirements other government officials follow. >> on january 6 would you be in favor of a 9/11-style investigation into it? >> commission is the political process. i'm talking about a legal process that judicial watch is pursuing. these records should be public and the public can decide what to make of them. we've asked for the video

records, we haven't gotten them. we've had to go and ask for other records about nancy pelosi's communications. we've asked for records about the shooting of ashli babbitt, we haven't gotten them. i don't know what they're hiding here, but we aim to find out. >> you've touched on this in your op-ed in the washington times, you accuse adam schiff of running a spy operation. explain that a little bit more in detail. >> when someone takes your phone records without you knowing about it, frankly without any legal authority and then publishes them, that's a spy operation. that's what schiff was doing. when you look at the records that were published and what schiff tried to make out of them, there was no there-there so it was just a smear operation, but this is concerning. you know, are your phone records being published i ask you, dear lessoner and dear viewer, or being obtained? i don't know. we don't know because congress says they can do it in secret. >> any of the people that had

their record -- their records subpoenaed by the intelligence committee have any of those people did they have legal recourse on that? >> maybe. maybe. i'm no lawyer, so i defer to the lawyers as to whether anyone can sue about it. >> our guest is tom fitten, we welcome your calls and comments, let's go first to florida, we will hear from dee. good morning. democrats line. >> yeah, hey, good morning. okay. but the host, okay, i'm speaking to right now, tom, i'm going to get to you in a minute. >> uh-oh. >> you with the host, okay, i'm a republican, i called the republican line this morning already since tom has been on and the phone rings and rings and rings and rings and finally i got hung up on twice. i call the democratic line and, boom, there i am online right now. you need to get that fixed. okay. mr. tom fitten, i watch you religiously and you are the only one we have out there besides cruz that's really getting down into the dirt trying to figure

out what's going on in this country here, okay? and i wish there was some way we could get those cockroaches out of congress, that means our republican cockroaches hiding in the walls and not coming out. they need to be removed. you, tom, congrats, buddy, i'm going to follow you to the ends of the earth. good luck. bye-bye. >> tom fitten, any response? >> thank you. >> lake land, michigan, we will go to the independent line and hear from derek. you are on with tom fitten. go ahead. >> good morning, c-span. good morning, america. hey, i just wanted to say, tom, thank you very much. i believe that investigative journalism is pretty much dead, but you give extra life to that and i really appreciate your educational foundation. i just have three quick things. one is we heard in the impeachment trial many, many times that no one is above the law, not even the president. we now know that hunter biden smokes crack, which i believe is illegal in the united states, he

buys prostitutes and escorts which, once again, is illegal in the united states, maybe not in nevada somewhere. that's one question. second question is the governor of virginia, has any journalist actually ever gotten an answer on whether he was dressed up as the ku klux klan member or the black face? third question, what do you think of the organization law fare and how do we work with brookings institute because they are very tied up in the impeachment process. >> several issues there, derek. tom, do you care to tackle any of them? >> the hunter biden issue, again, is one of these elephants in the room here in washington, d.c., he's under federal criminal investigation, it's been confirmed. under any other circumstance we already saw that during the trump administration you would have had a special counsel. we need a special counsel to investigate the hunter biden issue, a, because he is the president's son and b, because there's plenty of evidence that also implicates the president in

some of his misdealings. secondly, with respect to the topic -- the third topic about law fare, you know, i don't know about them specifically, but there's this group of folks who have ins with the justice department and the deep state national security establishment that have defended the indefensible and, you know, that's just part of the firmament here in washington, d.c. i forget what the second issue was, do you remember? >> i don't. i remember the third but not the second, like you. i have a question for you on twitter asking about when is judicial watch going to publish the cost of trump's golf outings like they did for obama? >> we have in the past published the costs and other media come in and do their different cost analysis which goes way beyond what we did for obama.

it's interesting when we were talking about trump's costs initially in the first part of his administration i was on, i think, every major network talking about it, but when we were talking about obama we didn't get the same sort of media coverage so the media is interested in the cost of the respective presidential travels i thought was quite interesting. obviously they weren't interested in what obama was doing as much as trump. i said this about obama, i said it about trump and i will say it about biden. the cost of the presidency is too much, it costs too much to travel, for him to travel, there's got to be cheaper ways to do it than protect the national security and their personal safety. >> let's hear from connie on our republican line in illinois. go ahead. >> good morning, everyone. mr. fitten -- >> yes. >> -- first of all, donald trump never did anything wrong to be

impeached for, and i want to say about joe biden and the trip to russia, his first comment when he was asked about the assault on the white house, his comment was a police officer was killed. that was a lie. someone interrupted him with a question, they wanted to shut him up and it did, thank goodness. the only person killed at the white house was just as you mentioned ashli babbitt. i wonder if her family got 6 or 12 million dollars because of her being killed.

we're in a backward country right now. >> tom fitten, do you have a response? >> to be clear, ashley babbitt was killed at the capitol on january 6th. her family has also sued for records, i don't think they've gotten any money from the government yet. and i agree, there was no good faith reason to impeach donald trump and it was an abuse of that constitutional power and it was used twice. it was an assault on self-government. >> can i ask you about some -- i want to ask you about some reporting from "the new york times" and other outlets, the headline from the times says hunting leaks, the justice department seized records from apple, from metadata, from house intelligence committee members, their aides and family members. was this sort of a tit for tat for the metadata sought by the phone records sought by the intelligence committee. >> no, i think it was done before that was done.

what i find interesting about these news articles is that you don't know what the investigation was about. was it about leaks? who was being investigated? who was the target? and when news articles are vague like that it means someone has something they don't want coming out. so i want more information about why adam schiff was the subject of a grand jury investigation. the media coverage has been how dare anyone investigate adam schiff and i don't believe it can be the case that congressmen or journalists get to be immune from grand jury investigations and lawful subpoenas. now, whether i trust the justice department to investigate a jaywalking, that's another matter, you know, i may be with adam schiff on that, i think the justice department has proven itself incapable of fairly investigating anyone, but certainly adam schiff isn't immune from the investigations. that's what the rule of law is supposed to be about. >> why is that the case with the justice department? has it become too politicized on

both sides as new administration comes in? why do you suppose in your opinion that it's become that way? >> i mean, with he could talk a long time about that, but typically when you are talking about politicians who are caught up in investigations by the justice department, almost nothing normal happens. it really kind of distorts what ought to be a fair investigative and prosecutorial process. that's true for both democrats and republicans. usually the republicans most recently have been at the wrong end of that. >> what was the issue or issues that led you to where you are now in terms of your group judicial watch. why did you start it? >> i didn't start t it was around a few years before i joined t we had the clinton corruption back when we were founded in 1994 and we've got this transparency crisis that's

been going on at the federal government for years and years and under the obama administration things metastasized in terms of lawlessness by the federal government and, you know, president trump was targeted by some of the folks that engaged in the lawlessness during the obama administration and now we are back to square one in terms of contempt for the rule of law. i mean, that's especially true of the immigration area where joe biden has effectively shut down large portions of border enforcement and virtually all interior enforcement of our immigration laws, a completely lawless approach, it's very dangerous. it's one thing to be secretive, it's one thing to have government officials try to get away with breaking the rules, it's another thing when doing so places innocent americans in harm's way. >> let's hear from ann, democrats line, germantown, maryland. go ahead. >> i have a couple questions. number one, you said you're a

nonprofit, you didn't say you are a right organization. you forgot to mention that. that you're out for the -- you know, the republicans or the trump party, shall we say. you are on their side. that's number one. number two -- >> well, that's not true. we're not. >> oh, please. number two, how much did he make off of the secret service? how many hundreds of thousands of dollars did that miserable human being make off of the secret service? and how much did he steal from americans? >> are you talking about joe biden or president trump? >> who do you think i'm talking about? >> well, i ask because joe biden initially was getting rent from the secret service when he was vice president, we uncovered that and investigated that. other media have investigated that, the secret service paid trump for the use of his

facilities which is something that happens in the ordinary course. >> the amount that the secret service paid over time, was it about what any president over the course of four years about what they would spend for their needs to cover a president when he traveled? >> you know, it depends where the president is traveling. he was staying in obviously mar-a-lago so you have to pay mar-a-lago prices, they used hotels around there presumably. when president obama flew to hawaii for his extensive vacationing it was -- the prices were significant for obvious reasons, it being in hawaii to put up secret service to protect him. >> let's go to jimmy, midlothian, virginia, on the independent line. >> yes, good morning. thank you for taking my call. you know, they talk about the attack, you know, january 6th. let's talk about a real attack that happened, it's called

benghazi and nothing has been happening about that since. that was an attack on this country when 13 people were killed and everybody seems to forget it. you know, we saw obama sitting there, we saw, you know, hilda witch clinton sitting there and of course biden is his usual idiot self. watching it on television, everybody did, but nothing has been done. where is the investigation going with that? so talk about the border, let's ask, too, why hasn't this harris chick gone there and seen what's really going on. and the huge number of people that are coming to this country. i guess they just want to keep on adding on to the democrats and get as many votes as they can. so, you know, let's get with some real issues here as to what's happening in this country. >> all right. tom fitten, any response? >> well, four people were killed in benghazi and certainly

judicial watch investigated it in what i think was the most significant nongovernmental investigation in american history. our investigation led to the disclosure of documents that forced the creation of a select committee on benghazi and also our foyia's in that area uncovered the clinton emails which the disclosure of which changed the course of history it can be fairly argued. did we get the full accountability we want for benghazi, no, but we got significant accountability in large measure thanks to dare i say it judicial watch. >> do you think donald trump abused his authority in asking bill barr to investigate people like adam schiff? >> well, i don't know if he did that. certainly he's within his rights to do so if there's evidence of crimes. you know, asking the justice department to do its job, and i think schiff should have been criminally investigated as it

relates to the mishandling and the leaking of classified information in a -- for a variety of reasons. you know, there's this idea that the justice department thinks its independent of the president. to a degree it thinks that that's unconstitutional. the president has the right and frankly should pursue it more vigorously to get the justice department to do its job, to investigate -- especially very public issues of public corruption. the caller previous, where hillary clinton's emails, for instance, the justice department refuses to do anything about it, refused to even look at it again under president trump. they just think they answer in many ways to no one with regard to their decision making on prosecutions or even whether to ask questions. forget about prosecuting someone, they don't even want to ask anyone any questions on a lot of these issues and it didn't matter whether obama or trump was running things. >> let's hear from mike in wall,

new jersey. mike is on the democrats line. mike, go ahead. >> good morning, c-span. thank you for taking my call. >> good morning. >> thank you for taking my call and for always having somebody that is totally different from my point of view but it makes you think. mr. fitten, i do have one question. you said you weren't a lawyer. what is your background to make you part of judicial watch. is there a constitutional knowledge that you have that you bring to the table? >> i'm -- >> pardon me. and the woman earlier said that you were -- said you weren't bipartisan and i think you tried to make the argument that you were. i've watched you almost every time that you are on c-span because you certainly get my iris up, which is a good thing and you seemed to be very partisan. thank you for taking my call. >> i'm just a regular guy and i'm running judicial watch. you don't need any special

expertise to be concerned about our country and try to use a group in concert with other fine americans who work at judicial watch and are supporters, to hold government accountable. our results speak for themselves in terms of the -- whether i'm prepared and i have the background to do the work. we are the largest and most effective government watchdog group in the country if not the world. judicial watch is nonpartisan. i mean, just because democrats get caught up in criminal investigations and their misconduct is grievous in office and we criticize them doesn't mean that we're doing it to advance the interests of the republican party. judicial watch, for instance, sued the trump administration probably more than any other group in america and we will sue the biden administration more than any other group in america and whoever comes next i bet you we're going to be there. and i've raised issues about the abuse of power by the justice department that applies to both

republicans and democrats. my concerns about congress is a concern about congress subpoenaing people whether or not democrats run congress or republicans run congress. i want congress to be transparent. republicans haven't been there for me on that. i've been there for the american people on that. i've been critical of republicans in terms of their failure and cynical approach to handling corruption issues. yeah, we're nonpartisan. >> please say good morning to john on the independent line. >> yeah, hi. thank you for your great work. why is it always the republicans that prosecute and put in jail because like james comey always get out, the grand jury and everything end up getting out. i was wondering if you know anything about the [ inaudible ] report that's coming out. >> right. >> i'm having difficulty hearing

the caller. >> he wanted to know why republicans were seemingly prosecuted like comey and people like that get away. comey nominally was a republican and he got away. in many ways it's the deep state, who you know and your connections and the institutional prerogatives of the fbi and the doj. it shouldn't come as a surprise that the doj and the fbi are hesitant to prosecute leaders of the doj and fbi. with respect to the derr report i don't know when it's coming out. i would be interested to hear the report but durham was hired to presumably investigate and prosecute the worst corruption scandal in american history which is the obama targeting of trump and the continuation of that targeting by his allies after trump came into office. so the report, you knew, that and a quarter will get you a cup of coffee. where are the prosecutions? let alone where is the questioning as i said?

there is no evidence in my view that durham has done any serious investigation of the matters he was asked to investigate. >> any indication of when that report is coming out? >> i have none. it's now june. he was appointed in april, i think, of 2019. there was one prosecution that kind of fizzled in some respects and that's the end and there is no other activity that we can see. >> all right. to pam in -- pam in burlington, north carolina. go ahead. >> yes. mr. fitten, i've watched you several times on fox mainly and my question for you is this, michael cohen went to prison in part due to paying hush money to a person that claimed to have an affair with donald trump and

donald trump was named as an individual one in the court filings. what i'd like to know is do you think that that's fair because donald trump actually signed one of those checks paying michael cohen back in february of 2017. so i just wonder what your opinion is on that since you're all about ridding d.c. of corruption. >> yeah, i saw that, i thought that was corrupt that the justice department got him to sign off on that. he was never tried on that. i'm not even sure he committed any crimes related to that and this is a typical approach that the justice department had towards donald trump. change the rules, change the confidentiality agreement for which money is paid, which is a standard -- which is standard, and try to make it into a crime

or a campaign finance violation. that was an abuse of power by the justice department and it shows you -- again, the whole, frankly, investigation of cohen was an abuse of trump and his right to having an attorney and cohen mishandled the targeting of him by the justice department in my view by lying about the president and violating his fiduciary duties as a lawyer to the president. >> tom fitten is president of judicial watch. more at judicialwatch.org. thanks for being with us. >> you're welcome. thank you for having me.

fbi director christopher wray testifies today on the president's 2022 budget request. he's appearing before a senate appropriations subcommittee. watch live beginning at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 3, online at c-span.org or listen with the free c-span radio app. >> tonight on american history tv, we will look at the life and career of president ronald reagan. we will show you an interview he did with first lady nancy reagan at camp david where they talked about their marriage and life in politics. later his inaugural address and other speeches. that starts at 8:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv. we're back with john wood jr. who is the national ambassador for braver angels and he's here to talk with