waivers for at the time, because we were trying, as has >> i survey facilities, and the standards that are set by the overseas security policy board are the goals that we try to drive for. i know that when the email went out that the night, it called undersecretary, director, spokesman, and it said ms mills was counsellor, it didn't say chief of staff. that was the night of the attack.

let me go further. you said you found out in october that your attorneys met with the state department, i believe, in august. now, from that time you said you turned over everything, and your lawyers went through this and i belief it was in november, after finding out in october that they had reviewed all these emails. the state department hasn't been able to give us all the emails in two years, but your attorneys - you must have some of the fastest reading attorneys in the world to go through that. i know you have a group of them there sitting behind you. but how many attorneys does it take to go through 65,000 emails in two months. >> well, first of all, the process to provide information to the congress with respect to benghazi started before i left the state department.

there was a concerted effort to gather up information that might be responsive. . >> did you tell them you had a private server at that time. >> i don't... >> if they were gathering emails you had to tell them that you had a private email. >> the server is not the point, it's the account. i made a point of sending emails to people on their government acts. secretary john kerry is the first secretary of state to rely primarily on a government account. >> i'm not talking about the account, i'm talking about the server. one last point. i'll close with this - i think your attorney sat down with the state department and said we have a problem, and so we got to come up with something, that this is not the secretary having the emails in a provide server.

i tell you what let's do, let's go back and ask madeline albright. secretary of state in 1997, that never had an email account, or let's go back and ask colin powell, condoleezza rice to provide... >> mr chairman... >> i'm telling you, it doesn't smell right. >> if i could respond n the course of trying to answer and archive information, the state department determined that they did have gaps in their record keeping. the people who always go in when disaster strikes, they pulled out. that doesn't include 20 other and it was much more than me, it was gaps in respect to others, other secretaries, and others within other state departments, and the technology in the state department and within the entire

government is notoriously difficult, and often unreliable. i think it was the state department's efforts to try to fill the gaps, so i didn't know at the time that there had been such a meeting. i learnt of it subsequently, and when i received a copy of the letter that was sent by the state department to me and three other proceeding secretaries of state i immediately said let's hem them to fill the gaps, even though i believed the vast majority of my emails were in their system. we did. we conducted the investigation, the survey i have described to you and turned over more than 30,000 work related emails, 5,000 payments to the state

department. 90-95% were already there. we did our best, i did our best to make sure if there were gaps in record keeping, all my emails would be there to fill any gaps above the 90-95% of gaps. >> i'm not an attorney... >> regular order, mr chairman. this is after 4 minutes of time, to be cut off with questioning. >> gentlemen, it's out of time, like every other member is out of time. >> not 4 minutes out of title. >> you would be surprised. >> it's a late hour. our witness has been here for more than 9 hours. >> as soon as the lady finishes, i recognise the next member. >> thank you i appreciate that member. >> gentlemen from california is recognised. madam secretary, i don't know how you're doing, but i'm exhausted.

if we stay here much longer, you'll have to take the 3am phone call from the committee room. in fact, your testimony has not only gone on longer than both your prior testimonies to the house and senate combined. i'm able to inform you that your testimony has gone on longer than all the other hearings we have held combined. but in the interests of full disclosure, we have not done much. we have only had three hearings in the last year and a half. that's increasing. some of the hearings we were multiple witness possess and you have outlasted all of them. but i do thing you can tell when you are getting to the point of diminishing returns when members of the panel are investigating test moan for you or imagining -- testimony for you or imagining conversations you had with your lawyers. as for your emails i feel like

channelling bernie sanders, but i'm no larry david, i know i wouldn't do it right. instead i tell you about the other person i agree with on your emails, and it's our chairman, asked on fox news by chris wallace, what your email use has to do with investigating what happened in benghazi, and the chairman's response was well, probably not much of anything. as we, you know, i hope wind up tonight i want to make an observation about your emails, because i think it's true of the investigation generally. all the talk about your emails, what is interesting to me is not a member here, neither on the news or in late form said anything about the content of your emails that add insight to what we already know. it's fascinating for me, that

for all of this time they have not pointed to a single thing in the emails of substance that alters our understanding of what happened in benghazi, that alters the conclusions of 7 or eight investigations. and what is true of your emails is true of this broader investigation, which is here we are, 17 months later, 4.5 million later, and we have nothing new to tell the american people. i have struggled to find something to ask you tonight that hasn't been asked an infinite number of times, an infinite number of ways and i'm not going to go through the exercise of asking for a question to be asked again, it's too late for that. having started by wondering what the core theory was of my colleagues, and i appreciate one of them taking a stab as it.

i feel it's my responsibility now as we wind up to tell you what my theory of what happened is. speaker john boehner did not want to form this committee. he said so - not to me, but on national tv. he said what is to be gained by having yet another committee after all the other committees we had investigated. what is to be had, this is a change idea. at some point something changed the speaker's mind. i'm not in the room when the speaker makes the decision to reverse course. in reading a profile of our chairman, he was not in the room either, he has a call from the speaker, when he was back in the district saying "i decided to form a select committee, how would you like to be the chairman." i bet mr chairman wishes he never got that calm -- call. so who was in the room.

kevin mccarthy was in the room. there's no person better situated to no why the speaker changed his mind except for the number two, kevin mccarthy. so a chairman that says shut up other members, you don't know what you are talking about. actually, one person that knows what he's talking about is kevin mcarthur, that's why i think we are here. it would be one thing if it was that comment in isolation, or the g.o.p. investigator voting for whoever the nominee is, he tells us proudly, saying the same thing. it's the way we have conducted ourselves that is the most compelling evidence that that is the only object here. i think we have seen amply tonight in the questions, there's little questions in what happened. there's not much interest in how we can prevent it in the future. there's a lot of interest in trying to score points against you tonight.

everybody, i think, on this side of the podium is hoping they are the one that does the gotcha that makes the news. well, it's terrible abuse of our responsibility and power. and i think we'll rue the day that we did this. i have no questions, madam secretary, and i appreciate your patience. i am happy to yield to me colleague mr cummins. >> madam secretary i want to associate myself with the voice of my colleague. i want to go back to the a r.v. and in my 20 years on the oversight committee, one of the things i tried to do is make sure that i protect the reputation of the people that come before the committee, be

they republican witnesses democrats or independence. the reason being that i realise life after the hearing. and so often what happens is people come before the hearings, madam secretary, watching colleagu colleagu colleagues and watching. they are torn apart, and in many instances things are corrected, rather than it appearing on the newspaper, it's page 33 at the bottom in a little paragraphia grath. you were talking a little earlier about the night of the trage tragedy. and i've done a lot of depositions in my life as a lawyer, and i can tell you - and i think you should be very proud

of this - when i listen of to mills, sullivan and everdan, when they talked about this night, and what you did that night in their transcribed interviews. all of them were basically brought to tears. i remember sitting saying to myself, if you can create a culture in an organization where people talking about their boss, and how she reacted and what she felt, that would bring them to tears, it says a lot. i realise you have gone through a lot. the fact remains, and it bothers

me when i hear people imply that you didn't care about your people. that's not right. and then i sit here and i watch you and i saw how you struggled when talking about that night. one, i want to thank you and i appreciate what you have done. it has not been easy, you are right, it's easy to sit up here under these light and monday morning quarterback what could have been, should have been done, you have laid it out. you said it was not done perfectly, you wish it could be done another way, and then the statement when you said i have given more thought to this an all of you combined.

join what we want from you. do we want to badger you over and over until you get fired and we get the gotcha moment that he talked about. we are better than that. we are so much better. we are a better country and better than using taxpayer dollars to try to destroy a campaign. that is not what america is all about. so you can comment if you like. i had to get that off my chest. [ clapping ] madam secretary. >> thank you congressman. i came here because i said i would. and i've done everything i know to do, as have the people with whom i worked, to try to answer

your questions. i cannot do any more than that. the answers have changed not at all since i appeared two years ago before the house and the senate. and i recognise that there are many currents at work in this committee, but i can only hope that the that the statesmanship overcomes the partisanship. at some point we have to do this. it is deeply unfortunate that something as serious as what happened in benghazi could be used for partisan political

purposes. i'm hoping that we can move forward together we can start working together. we can listen to each other. >> appreciate greatly what you said ranking member cumins. >> madam secretary. mr shift made reference to a phone call that i received from speaker boner and speaker john boehn boehner. my friend suggested that may be they wished i had not received that phone call. he could not be further from the truth. learning about the four people, two of whom you work with and all four of whom we count as

fellow americans is worth whatever amount of political badgering. i saw the personification. no, i don't regret it. i'm a better person for having learnt more about the four people we lost in benghazi. that's why we signed up for it. about that i'll go to mr pompeii. you don't have to guess why the committee was formed. it was because the state department turned over information. he was concerned about that. it was said are said that there was a meeting between your council, ms mills.

and the state department. the meeting was in august, it was in july. it was a little aerial. i wanted to make sure the record reflect that. secretary clinton, i have a few questions to ask you. we saved it to the end of the day because maybe you can't provide answers in an open setting. it's a long day, i wanted to give the heads up. these are questions i'd like to get answers. it's not a place we'll be permitted to provide the answers. these are yes or no questions. are you aware of efforts by the government to provide weapons directly or indirectly or flow a cut out in opposition to glad's forces snt -- to muammar gaddafi's forces. >> that was a very long question, i think the answer is no. >> were you aware of efforts by

the u.s. government in libya to provide weapons directly or indirectly, or through a cutout to any syrian rebels, militiasar opposition of syrian forces. >> no. >> were you aware by u.s. government in libya to facilitate to provide weapons to muammar gaddafi force, libyan rebels or militias through a third party or country. >> no. >> did you ever consider the idea of using private security experts to arm the opposition? private security? >> yes, ma'am. i'll ask the question again. did you at any time consider the idea of using private security experts to arm the opposition to arm the opposition in libya. >> not seriously, no. >> what does "not seriously" mean, ma'am. >> i think you are referring to a reference in one of sid blumenthal's emails. >> no, i'm referring to a

reference in your email. >> well, the answer is no. >> i'll read you the email to mr sullivan. fyi the idea of using private security experts to arm the oppositions should be considered. >> were you not serious. >> it was not considered seriously. >> but you thought about it, you thought it may be appropriate and lawful when you sent the note to mr sullivan. >> well i'm open to ideas, it doesn't mean they are considered seriously or acted upon. >> was there further email or discussion with respect to that issue of potentially arming - having private experts armed lib yanls. >> not that i'm aware of. >> another series of yes or no questions, madam secretary. did you ask the department of defense how you were going to get your people out the evening that the incident occurred. >> that was one of the matters that was discussed with the department of defense, yes. >> and did you ask about what assets were positioned in place that they might be able to help.

>> of course, that was part of the conversation from the very beginning. >> did you will ask about how long it might take them to arrive in tripoli or benghazi? >> yes, we did. >> you earlier said today, couple of hours back, that there were no military resource that could have arrived in benghazi, in a reasonable time. that's your testimony from today. what was a reasonable time? >> according to what happened we were told by the defense department, within a number of hours, there was not any way to get assets deployed in time to get to benghazi, of course, it was too late for the compound, and the idea of evacuating from the c.i.a. annex was seriously addressed before the attack, but obviously implemented after. >> yes, ma'am. but when the initial attack occurred. you had no idea how long the incidents would condition, did you? >> it was over within an hour.

>> yes, ma'am, there was a subsequent attack, and could have been a third and a fourth. when the initial attack occurred, do you have any idea what the magnitude or duration of the event would be. >> i don't understand it question. we knew the attack was over, we knew the diplomatic security team had to evacuate from the compound to the c.i.a. annex and we were in a frantic search to find ambassador stephens. >> yes, ma'am, but several hours elapsed and there was a subsequent attack. you didn't know that would take place. my question is why was not heaven and earth not moved, maybe putting tankers in the air from the base in kansas. you didn't know how long the series of events would continue, nor did you know how long the risk for the people working for you would remain. >> congressman, you will have to

ask the defense department these questions, we ascertainable asked that all efforts be made to deploy any assets that could be of use in benghazi. i know they put a number of assets in the united states, europe, on alert. but we were advised that it would take a number of hours to get there. with respect to the c.i.a. annex you should talk to the intelligence community about na. >> yes, ma'am, we will do that. in some cases we have asked the questions. you talked about mr katala sitting in a prison cell not far from where you and i are sitting. i, too, share your view that i'm glad we pulled one of the terrorists involved in the murder of u.s. government people on that night. when that attack took place mr katala according to the

report, he and his folks removed documents from the facility, were you aware of that? >> yes we were aware that documents were removed. there was no classified documents at benghazi. >> how do you know that? >> we know it through our own investigation about what documents were at benghazi, and there were no classified materials to the best of our information. >> do you know if there was sensitive information? >> i suppose it depends what one thinks of sensitive information. there was information there. some of it was burnt. wholly or partially. some of it was looted. and some of it was recovered eventually. do you know where that material was looted, do you know where the material fell or the nature and confident of the material. you seem confident that it wasn't classified.

nonetheless, do you know where the material went. >> i think that it is very difficult to - to know where it ended up. i want to just reiterate the point that i made - this was not a facility that had the capacity to handle classified material, and there was, to the best of our information, no classified material at the benghazi facility. >> ma'am, the fact that it wasn't capable of handling classified material doesn't mean there wasn't classified material there; is that correct? >> well, the procedure is not to have classified material at such a facility, and, again, to the best of our knowledge there was not any there. >> yes, ma'am, you are not supposed to have classified emails on your private server either. >> and i did not. >> we are aware that classified material end up in places it ought not be. i want to go back to your

statement that you said you didn't consider arming private security experts. tell me why you ever considered it at all. >> we considered a whole range of issues. we knew that the insurgence fighting muammar gaddafi needed support and what they were provided was air support facilitated by the united states. the united states did not provide any private contractors to assist them. there was an email from mr blumenthal discussing the same situation. do you know who mark tury is. >> no, i don't recall that i know who that is. >> he was a private trafficker in weapons. he was working with mr stephens and attempting to develop an authorisation with the state department so he could, in fact,

deliver the weapons into libya. does any of that ring a bell to you? >> no, it does not. >> so you never saw the email from mr stephens to - i think it went to mr sullivan, where he says to mr tury, this is mr stephens says to mr tury "thank you for this information" information about attempts to get authority to ship arms into libya. he says "thank you for this information, i'll keep it in mind and share it with my colleagues in washington" regards chris, actually, regards chris stephens. >> i don't know anything about that specifically. i do know that you're referring to a document. and if you are, could you tell us what tab it's at. >> yes, ma'am. i'm not certain it's in there as a tab. i'm happy to provide it to you. >> well, it's a little difficult to answer questions about documents we don't have.

but i can answer you, whatever was considered either out of politeness or out of interest, there was not any action taken, to far as i know. >> mr chairman, regular order. >> may i have 60 more seconds. >> yes. >> the last republican questioner went over by 4 minutes, and given that we are allowed 10 minutes of questioning each, and the late hour, and the fact that we are a minute beyond testimony already, i think that it is appropriate to ask for regular order and that questioning be closed for this particular member of the panel. >> the gentleman is recognised for 60 seconds. >> i want to come back to the issue of accountability. you said you did not have the lawful authority to terminate employees, is that correct? >> that is correct and it is because of the laws and the regulations of our government, congressman. >> did you have the authority to

provide a counselling statement to any employee? >. >> i do not know what you are referring to. >> in other words, you couldn't file them, but you could put a letter in the employment file saying you didn't do your job well did you? >> i think it was pretty well-known that arb did nothing but their job. and the arb said, and some has been declassified as you know, about personnel matters, that they could not find breach of duty, but they were, as firm in saying that there were failures in the performance of the people that they named. >> regular order. 60 seconds has elapsed. i believe the chairman granted additional seconds. >> before my time starts, can i just say something so i make sure we are clear. he said he's going to wait for the next round. i thought we were kind of closing down here?

>> parliamentary inquiry, how late are we going tonight? >> gentleman's recognised as two yes or no questions. >> madam secretary did you ask someone or did you prepare a counselling statement or alert of reprimand for any employees at the state department connected to the incidents of september 11, 2012. >> there was a price, the appropriate process for dealing with issues concerning performance, and that was followed. it continued into my successor's term, and the secretary of state, secretary of state john kerry made whatever the final determinations were. >> mr chairman, i yield back. >> the senator has expired. i recognise the senator from marylands. >> i know the hour is late. but madam secretary, i need to

go back to something. arb. maybe it's because i'm getting older. and care about legacy. reputation, that kind of thing, but there's an 83-year-old gentleman named ambassador pickering, and i've heard a lot of testimony i was there for his deposition that was also transcribed. i don't remember which it was, and testimony before the oversight committee. and when he talked about his appointment to the arb, what an honour it was, it seems to me when there are attacks on the rb. it's as if it's like attacking him. at 83 years old, i refuse to sit

here and let that go buy. i remember listening to him, and i said to myself, this is the kind of guy that we all ought to honour, serving under presidents for 40 years, democrat and republican, high up on the chain with regard to the integrity. i don't know that they'll attack this guy. and one of the things he said in his testimony is you appointed him, he talked about the appointment and i quote from a june 4th testimony, he said chris stephens worked for me at my special assistant for two years when i was under secretary of state. this was not any kind of vendetta but i felt chris gave

me two wonderful years of his life supporting me in difficult circumstances, and that i owed him, his family and the families of the other people who died the best possible report we could put together. he said other things that were so powerful. then when i hear the implications of people attacking the report talking about it not being independent. it's like an attack against him. i could say the same thing about admiral mullens, and i just want you to tell us about why you picked t folk you pick, by the way it's done by law. the law says you are supposed to pick these people. >> that's right. >> why don't you tell us how you

picked them. were you looking for a yes rapport. what were you looking for? >> i greatly appreciate your strong words of condemnation on behalf of both admiral pickering and mullen the your right the statute is clear the the secretary of state picks four of the five members of the accountability review board. at of today there has been 19 accountability review reports, and i think myself and prior secretaries are fortunate that they could call on distinguished americans with long records of service to perform this important task. >> when i was thinking about who has the integrity, the independence, the experience to give us an unvarnished look at what happens, the first person i

thought of was ambassador tom pickering. he is, as you rightly say, served our nation for more than for decades. he holds the rank of career ambassador, the highest position in the foreign service. he served ass under secretary of state for political affairs. he served as the u.s. ambassador to russia, india, israel, elvalva door and general my and served and led the u.s. effort under the first bush administration, in the united nations, to build a coalition in the u.n. security council during and after the first gulf war. the man that served in high posts and dangerous posts. he understood what was to be expected and i counted on him in giving me the most comprehensive report possible.

i also wanted to find somebody with military experience, because these questions that have been raised about could we have gotten assets there, what actually happened with the diplomatic security agents, and admiral mike mullen, who had just recently retired as the chairman of the joint chiefs was again - i thought, the perfect choice to work with ambassador pickering. as you know, he was nominated by george w. bush to be chairman of the joint chiefs. he served as chief of naval operation, he led naval joint force commands, u.s. label forces in europe, commanded a cruiser, served in vietnam in the persian gulf. excuse me. >> do you need some water, madam

secretary? would you like to take - would you like us to take 60 seconds, 2 minute break? >> no. let me grab... ..a losen ger. - sorry, congressman. i have the utmost confidence in both of them. >> thank you. let me say this, you know, this hearing began with the chairman being elicited questions that they claim were unanswered. and the questions had been asked and answered many files. as a matter of fact, when we go back to the last questioner, emphasise speaker boehner who as

a matter of fact last tuesday, madam secretary, speaker boehner acknowledged fox news, the allegation that the u.s. government was involved in an illegal weapons programme in libya, has been - and this is according to him, investigated by the house intelligence committee, and debunked. that's what speaker john boehner said about this illicit weapons transfer situation. do you want us to hold up, madam? okay. so going back today, so these questions today were many asked and answered. the new documents contained and the interviews conducted don't contradict the conclusions so the previous investigations, they simply confirm them.

even after the marathon grilling, the select committee found no evidence of activity on the part of the secretary. to not order the military to stand down, and there is still no indication that she approved or denied requests for security in benghazi. as the day has dragged on the select committee's cost has raised to 4.8 million - that's tax payer dollars by the way. two weeks ago the state department informed the select committee that it spent $14 million responding to requests relating to benghazi over the past three years, this does not include the costs incurred over the past three years by other federal agencies such as the department of defense. in a letter to congress on

march 11, 2014, the defense department estimated that the total cost it expended during previous congressional reviews ran into "the millions of dollars", that's at least $20 million right there, and that's a conservative estimate because it does not include the cost of seven prove use investigations by congressional committees, when i think about that amount, $20 million, it pains me to imagine what that money could have done. i don't - i don't want anyone to mistake what i'm saying. of course we needed to know what happened in being. so we look at it to avoid it in the future. i have personally vetted this, we have compiled a database of

information on the website about a year ago. we put together 130 page compendium, and released a report with the result of 54 interviews, and i want all of the transcripts to be made public to the american people after the appropriate redactions. thi ought to be released. i want the american people to see every word - with the appropriate redactions, i don't want to be accused of saying otherwise. finally, my point is this - instead of spending $20 million when these eight investigation, we could have dedicated some part of those funds to increasing security for our diplomats overseas. even if it were just a fraction of that amount, i can't help but wonder how many console utes

could have been improved, how many imbassies could have been protected and how many more of our diplomats would be safer today. with that, i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. i couldn't help but thing when he's using the $20 million, that's two more i.s.i.s. fighters we could have paid for. i refuse to put a figure on the life of americans. your figure is wrong, but i don't care what the figure is, there's no price tag when it comes to justice for four people that gave their lives for this country. madam secretary, with respect to the a r.v. i want to ask you this. if you were investigating benghazi or what happened in benghazi, and there was an author of an email, three months to the day from when our four fellow americans were killed, the author says anti-american

demonstration, looking for americans to attack, game-changer, soft target, no continuity, the cost to continue do business there may be damaging. would you want to talk to the author of that email if you were investigating benghazi? >> the accountability review board had full run of the state department to talk to anyone they chose to talk to. it's my understanding they conducted more than 100 interviews, and they were well aware as the report reflects of the dangerous situation in libya. >> i don't want to interrupt you. that was not my question. my question was would you want to talk to that person. not whether the arb did, because the arb did talk to that person. wouldn't you want to talk to that person if you had to ask

about benghazi. it's not a trick question. you would want to talk to the person that authored the email. >> the co-chair of the arb called the chief of staff and told the author of that email not to go to congress. that's my point. my point is the arb did some good things. that's why the first two hearings were on making sure the recommendations by the arb were actually implemented. when the author of that email is going to be brought before congress, and one of the cochairs calls your chief of staff and says i don't think that witness will be a good witness. with all due respect, she's a fact witness. the author of that email has a right for congress to question it. that's not even a closed question. somebody can be a good person, and i have no doubt that mr mulin and mr pickering both

are. i don't doubt that this phone call was made to ms mill ns, saying don't send her to congress, she's not going to make a good witness, and i don't doubt there's a transcript. if you are going to write a report with specificity and particularity. i can't tell you a single question asked of a single arb witness, because there is in no transcript. my report is not that they did a bad or a good job. from the stand point of an investigation, it was an inadequate job. and i want to hopefully prove that to you. there used to be a stack out there. with mr smith, with the investigations, that congress and the arb have done. did any of the previous investigations or the arb have

access to your emails? >> mr chairman, first of all, the witness you are referring to did appear before congress. >> that was not my point. >> your implication was that that point was stopped from going to congress, in fact, that did not happen. >> no, she definitely came. that's not my implication. my implication is the co-chair of what you call an independent accountability review board was calling someone he was supposed to be investigating to say please don't send that witness to congress, they are not going to show up well. that's my point. my point is how can you consider that to be - i mean, have you heard of a judge calling the da or defense attorney saying "don't call the witness". >> i don't care what you say about mean. i don't care a bit. i do care what you say about admiral mull in. he served the country with great

distinction, and the state department with great distinction in being the co-chair of the accountability review board. i think his works speak for itself. i'm sorry that the important work done by that board is held in such low regard by some members of this committee, and i deeply regret it. >> are you doubting that he made the zone call? >> i know nothing about the phone calm. >> i do, he testified before a congressional committee. he admits it was a make, i don't know why you can't. >> well. >> he admits it was a mistake to say don't send a fat witness before a congressional committee. doesn't mine he's a bad person, but when you hold the arb up at independent and your chief of staff, patrick kennedy had a role to picking some of the persons, despite some thinking patrick kennedy may have been involved in approving or not

approving - if you need to read a note from your lawyer. >> no, it's hard to sit here listening do the comment you are making about someone i consider to be a great american. if he said he made a mistake. that's more proof of what a fine gentleman he is and what an agreement public servant he has been. it doesn't in any way impugn his service for 40 years or his service on the account review board. i can't help, mr chairman, that you all don't like the findings of the accountability review board. i can't hep it that you don't like the findings of the committees. >> we had two meetings, we discussed the findings of the arb. we had more hearings about the arb findings than with you. so don't tell me that we don't care about the arb.

we had two hearings, my point is this. the arb, nor the previous congressional members have access to your email, did they? >> i don't know what they had access to. i know that during the time i was at the state department, there was certainly a great effort to respond to your predecessor, congressman and many majors of information was conveyed to the congress, and i know the state department worked diligently and persistently to pond to the requests it has received, and i think that given the pressure, and distress of business they have been under. they have, you know, performed as well as they could. you will be gettings, and the world will be getting all of my emails, they'll be public, and

you'll be able to read them, along with anyone else. >> madam secretary that was not by question. the question was whether or not the previous congressional committees and arb had access to your emails. >> 90 to 95% of work-related emails were in the state system. if they wanted to see them they would have been able to. >> that is maybe the 10th time you cited that figure today. >> it is. >> and i have not heard anyone other than you cite that figurure. who told you na 90-95% of your emails were in the state system. >> we learnt that from the state department and the analysis of emails, we were trying to help close gaps they had. >> can you provide them with a name. when i asked the state department what is the source of that figure, they shrugged their shoulders. >> well, you can look for the

state.gov addresses, and they pop up. >> and the inspector general report, which you can't argue by perfect analogy, but you can extrapolate. that found that less than 1%, less than 1% of state department emails, br captured. they give a number of lis than one% and you give a number of 90%. >> i don't know what you refer to. i can only talk about my emails. >> let's talk about your work related emails, we ask for them last year, the state department gave them eight. if they had 90% of yours, why did we get eight. >> i don't know initially what you asked for. i know that they tried to be responsive. 90 to 95% of them were on state.gov. i understand that the committee broadened the scope of their

request. and in response the state depp has been trying to provide what you have requested, and in the meantime they are going through the progress of making all of my emails public. >> you think our first request, there were eight emails responsive. >> i can't speak to it. i believe your first request was benghazi, and i believe the state department did a diligent search, and i believe you expanded it to libya, weapons, other terms and i believe they conducted a diligent... >> our jurisdiction has not grown. it's the same as it was. let me say this, you say you turned over everything. i don't get a chance to watch you a lot. when i see you interviewed, you make a point of the saying "i turned over everything." >> all my work-related emails, yes. >> how do you know na? >> i know that because there was an exhaustive search done under the supervision of my attorneys,

and that is the outcome. we turned over every work-related email. as someone referred to be turned over too many, and the state department and national archives said there was 1246 outside of the 30,000 plus that they determined did not need to be turned over. >> regular order mr chairman. >> and you have a good group of attorneys that makes me wonder how they missed 15. >> if you talk about m mr blumenthal. >> he had some i had, and i had some he didn't have. he was under no obligation to turn over anything unless they were work related. the ones forwarded i forwarded to the state.gov accounts to the people i worked. >> is there any question that the 15 that james cole turned to us is work related. there's no ambiguity they were work related.

>> they were from a personal friend, not an official government - not a government official, and they were, i determined, on the basis of looking at them. what i thought was work related and what wasn't. some i didn't have time to read. >> mr chairman, regular order. mr chairman. >> were you telling me that the 15 - i will tell the general lady from california, that i will take a little extra time like everyone else does. we can do to this round or next round. >> can i make a simple inquiry how many more minutes. >> the fewer the interruptions the quicker i'll get down. >> i'm mindful of the time. >> my question on the 15 is did the lawyers find them and decide they weren't work relied or did they not find them. >> i don't know why he had emails i didn't or apparently i had emails he didn't. all i can tell you is i turned

offered every work related email in my possession. >> all right. i'll make two more observations, then we are going to call it a night. the first observation that i would make is that when you speak to the public, you say "i turned over everything." that's, for the most part, a direct quote. when you talk to the public you say "i turned over everything." when you talk to the court you say "while i do not know what information may be responsive i have directed all my emails on clinton email.com that oppositionly were fellow records be provided to the department of state. why the different explanations depending on who you are talking to. >> one is the shorthand. why not tell them, the court turn over everything. >> you know how lawyers use more than thi need. >> trust me, i know that.

they charge you for every one of them. >> i'm well aware of that, mr chairman, and the clock is ticking. >> well, one more, one more and i'll pay mr kendall's fee. >> i don't think you want to do that, mr chairman. >> i probably can't do it. you see my point. you are very definitive, that you turned over anything. but those lawyerly fudge words when you talk into court on information and bull yils. and the reality is you cannot tell us you cannot turn over everything because you didn't miss the 15. >> well i didn't have them. i turned over everything i had. everything i had has been turned over... >> which means the system you had somehow missed the 15. >> well - last question on the system. mr cummings, he said your email arrangement was inappropriate. i think the president may have

said it was a mistake. you have said that it was a mistake. my question to you, madam secretary is was it a mistake for the four years that you had that email arrangement, was it a mistake for the almost two years that you kipt the public record to yourself, or has it manifest itself as a mistake for the last six months. >> since i believe that all of the work related emails to dot gough accounts were captured or preserved. it wasn't until i was asked to help the state department to fill in record-keeping gaps to me and others. i did the best i could during those four years and thought that everything i was emailing, that was work related was being preserved. >> if you can find the source for the 90 to 95%, i would be grateful for it, and we would

probably ask your questions. if there is a source that 90 to 95% were on the state department system, then i'll know that i need to ask the state department what took them so long. i'm telling you i have eight emails the first time i asked now i have over 1500. there's a disconnect there. >> mr chairman, i think that is a fair question. i'm not at the state department any longer, but i do want to defend them. they are under pressure to answer inquiries. i saw a figure that requests jumped 300%. they don't have the resources or the personnel. they take their responsibility of reading every single line, and as ranking member cummings reminded us, having to redact personal information, personnel

information, obviously they take it very seriously, i think they are doing the best i can. i know they tried to be responsive to you and many other requests that have come their way. >> madam secretary on behalf of all of us we want to thank you for your patience and for your willingness to come, and you have been willing to come. in the past, as i noted in my opening, and we appreciate it, and with that we will be adjourned. >> thank you. we have been watching a marathon day on capitol hill. the select committee on benghazi, former secretary of state hillary clinton for the better part of 11 hours testifying on the attack that killed four minister in benghazi in 2012. libby casey has been on