Chaffetz frustrated with Lynch at hearing on Clinton probe
Member of House Judiciary Committee thought the attorney general should've able to answer a 'simple' legal question in hearing on decision not to pursue charges against Clinton in email server controversy
This is a rush transcript from "On the Record," July 12, 2016. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: One of the congressmen quizzing Attorney General Loretta Lynch Utah Congressman Jason Chaffetz is here to go ON THE RECORD.
Good evening, sir.
REP. JASON CHAFFETZ, HOUSE OVERSIGHT & GOVERNMENT REFORM COMMITTEE: Hi, Greta.
VAN SUSTEREN: Did you get your answers?
CHAFFETZ: No. These are simple questions.
Is it legal or illegal to share classified information with somebody without the security clearance? She couldn't say yes or no.
Come on, anybody --
VAN SUSTEREN: She could have. Why didn't she?
CHAFFETZ: Because she is playing this political game. I think she is being an obstructionist. I think it's the theater of the absurd. And I think the American people are fed up with it.
VAN SUSTEREN: You know, what's sort of interesting is that she said that she didn't make the decision on the email investigation. I thought to myself, why do we need an attorney general if the attorney general is not going to do her job.
CHAFFETZ: I mean, it was stunning to say she didn't make the decision. She wouldn't even own up to that. But she is the attorney general. She put it all on -- I don't get it.
VAN SUSTEREN: How did she explain the meeting on the tarmac with Bill Clinton on her plane?
CHAFFETZ: No, she didn't explain it. She didn't give the vital details. It's a public meeting. I mean, if the attorney general is meeting somebody, there is actually supposed to be notes from that meeting. But she says they didn't talk about anything.
VAN SUSTEREN: Do you think she thinks she answered any questions?
CHAFFETZ: I think she is a professional at filibustering. I think that's why the Obama administration really likes her. And, you know, all you have to do is go back and watch the videos of this and you will see that -- I mean, I had five minutes. I asked her very basic simple 101 questions. And she didn't answer one of them.
VAN SUSTEREN: So what's next?
CHAFFETZ: Well, I think the American public has got to -- they get to be the ultimate jury in this.
VAN SUSTEREN: But she is not running for office.
CHAFFETZ: No, but --
VAN SUSTEREN: She is a presidential appointee.
CHAFFETZ: But as one of my colleagues, John Radcliff pointed out, she did not recuse herself from -- she did not step back and say that she doesn't want to be part of the Clinton administration. To the contrary, I think prior she has said that she wants to be considered and she's got to be the leading candidate at this point the way she is protecting the secretary.
VAN SUSTEREN: Would you like to have Eric Holder back?
CHAFFETZ: The good old days of Eric Holder and the candor that we get from Eric Holder. It was -- he was much -- I mean, he was miles better than Loretta Lynch. That's how bad it is.
VAN SUSTEREN: She wouldn't answer one question. And, you know, the thing that is sort of appalling. She knew those were going to be the questions. I mean, you would at least come prepared with something.
CHAFFETZ: If I had asked her if it's legal or -- is it legal or illegal to drive 80 miles an hour in a 55 zone, I think she would have -- she couldn't have answered that because she doesn't want to. She is just a professional at filling up the time. She was looking at her watch.
Go back to watch the YouTube video on my Facebook page, or go to JasonInTheHouse on my Twitter account and you can link it to just watch. Let people decide for themselves. It's an embarrassment.
(CROSSTALK)
VAN SUSTEREN: You know, unfortunately, it's a very important job. And, you know, and so it was stunning that she wouldn't answer the question, or at least have enough sense knowing that these are the questions that are going to be answered and stop giving that lame --
CHAFFETZ: We talked about classified information. This information is so classified that as a member of Congress, as the chairman of the Oversight Committee, I can't even see it.
It's -- we're talking about people's lives. We are talking about people who will get killed if they see this information, and we talk about it so flippantly and she will say, well, you know, it's a hypothetical.
No, it's not. It's people's lives.
VAN SUSTEREN: Well, I hope the viewers stick around for my off- the-record. I talk about the language extremely careless versus the language that they say is in the statute.
CHAFFETZ: Gross negligence.
VAN SUSTEREN: Gross negligence.
CHAFFETZ: Yes, yes.
VAN SUSTEREN: Anyway, congressman, thank you. Nice to see you.
CHAFFETZ: Thank you.
Get all the stories you need-to-know from the most powerful name in news delivered first thing every morning to your inbox