to make sure that folks are sensitive to the need to move a classified discussion. even if it doesn't involve sending a document to the appropriate form. >> american lives are at stake in some instances, correct. >> in your statement you did point out that administrative security consequences would be appropriate if someone demonstrated extreme carelessness or classified information. so those consequences would include potentially termination of federal employment. it could include security clearance. >> yes. >> and it could include an eligibility for future employment and national security positions, correct? >> it could. >> now would you allow someone in the employee of your agency to work in a national security

capacity if that person demonstrated carelessness in handling top secret info? >> we would look very closely at that in a suitability determination. it's hard to answer yes in all cases and no in all cases but it would be very important. >> so there would be instances where someone would be extremely careless and still maintain confidence. we have a lot of people in this country that would love to work for your agency but yet it would be extremely careless and continue on. and it was a long time ago and it was a small amount of conduct or something. that's why it's hard to say. >> would being extremely careless and expose an employee for potential determination. why wouldn't they use them if

they're discussing classified or sensitive information? >> because the mobile device will transmit it's signal across networks that are likely controlled or at least accessed by that. >> that's the guidance that the fbi gives all officials when traveling overseas. that's still good guidance, correct? >> that's good guidance. >> how did top secret information end up on the private server? you did not address any of her aids in your statement. attorney general lynch exonerated everybody. that information didn't just get there on its own. how did it get there? were you able to determine that? >> yes, by people talking about a top secret subject in an e-mail communication. >> so -- >> not about forwarding a top secret document. it's about having a conversation about a matter that is top secret. >> and those were things that were originated by secretary clinton's aids and then sent to her which would obviously be in her server but it was also

secretary clinton originating the e-mails. >> in the one involving top secret situation not only received but also sent e-mails that talked about the same subject. >> of that top secret information you found was somebody that was sophisticated in those matters should it have been obvious to them that that was very sensitive information? >> my issue about knowledge about what you're doing but in order for secretary clib on the to have access to top secret information and acknowledging her duties and responsibilities and safe guard this information. it's called a read in form that lays it out. >> there's certain requirements to handling certain levels of information. for example, a top secret

document. you have to follow certain guidelines and i guess my question is she is very sophisticated person. she did execute that document, correct? and her aids that are getting the classified information they executed similar documents to get a security clearance, correct? >> i believe so. >> she knowingly clearly set up her own private server in order to -- let me ask you that, was the reason she set up her own private server in your judgment because she wanted to shield communication from congress and the public. >> it's a matter of convenience. it was an already existing system that her husband had and she decided to have a domain on that system. >> it's very sophisticated and information that clearly anybody that had knowledge of security information would know that it would be classified. but i'm having a little bit of trouble to see how would you not then know that that was

something that was inappropriate to do? >> well, i'll take one of your assumptions about sophisticated. i don't think our investigation decided she was sophisticated with the levels and treatment. >> isn't she original classification authority though. >> yes, sir. >> good grief. well i appreciate you coming and i yield back the balance of my time. >> i think he's set to enter into the record two documents. one is the sensitive information. nondisclosure agreement. the other one is the classified information nondisclosure agreement both signed by hilary rodham clinton. now recognize the gentleman from missouri. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you director comey for being here today and for the professionals whom you lead at

the fbi. >> two years ago after my urgent request to them and the former attorney general for an expedited justice department investigation and the diligence an absolute integrity. and it's in this matter as well. i did not think it was possible for the majority to see the arrogant abuse of federal funds we have witnessed over the past two years as they have engaged in a partisan political witch hunt at taxpayer expense against secretary clinton. and this proceeding is just a

sequel to that very bad act and the taxpayers will get the bill and it's a new low and it violates both house rules and the rules of this committee. so with apologies to you and the fbi, and the proceeding in terms of the facts of this case as you clearly have learned them. first question, does secretary clinton or any member of her staff intentionally violate federal law? >> we did not develop clear evidence of that. >> did secretary clinton or any member of her staff attempt to obstruct your investigation? >> we did not develop that. >> does it rise to a level that

would be worthy of federal prosecution? >> as i said tuesday, our judgment, not just mine but the team's jult of the fbi is that the justice department would not bring such a case. no justice department under any -- whether republican or dell cat administration. >> thank you for that response. i know the fbi pays particular attention to groups by training local law enforcement officers and participating in local hate crime working groups is that right? >> yes, sir. >> some of these seem relatively harmless but others appear to be very dangerous and growing. some even promote genocide in their postings and rhetoric online. in your experience, how dangerous are these groups and have they insighted violence in the past. >> that would be too hard to answer in the abstract.

some groups are dangerous and some groups are exercising important protected speech under the first amendment. >> let me ask about a more direct question. a gentleman named andrew is the editor of a website called the daily stormer that is dedicated to the supreme sy of the white race as well as attack jews, muslims and others. the website features post with the #white genocide to protest what they contend is an effort to eliminate the white race. are you familiar with this movement? >> i am not. >> okay. well this hashtag has been promoted all over social media by a growing number. for example one nazi sympathizer tweeted repeatedly using the handle@whitegenocide tm. are you concerned some groups are increasing their followers

in this way? particularly if some of those followers could become violent? >> i don't know enough to comment. we are always concerned to go beyond propeck tif speech and our duty is to figure out when people have walked outside the first amendment protection and looking to kill or hurt folks but i don't know to comment on the particular. >> one of my biggest concerns is certain public figures are promoting these dangerous groups. as you may know one of our most vocal candidates for president retweeted@white genocide tm. three weeks later he did it again. two days after that he retweeted a different user whose image also included the term white genocide and that's not even all of them. director comey, don't these actions make it easy for these

groups to recruit even more supporters? >> i don't think i'm in a position to answer that in an intelligent way sitting here. >> well i appreciate you trying and thank you mr. foreman director for your acceptional service to our country. >> thank you. we'll now recognize the gentle woman from wyoming. >> welcome director and thank you so much for being here. my phone has been ringing off the hook from constituents that don't understand how this conclusion was reached so i appreciate you being here to help walk us through it and here's the issue that the people that are calling me from wyoming are having. they have access to this statute. it's title 18, u.s. code 1924 and i'm going to read you this statute. it says whoever being an officer employee contractor or consultant of the united states and by virtue of his office

employment position or contract becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information to the united states knowingly remove such document and materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents and materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined unthis title or imprisoned for not more than one year or both. armed with that information they're wondering how hillary clinton was also an attorney and they're held to a higher standard of knowledge of the law, how this could not have come to her attention. she was the secretary of state. of course the secretary of state is going to become possessed of

classified materials. and practiced with a prominent arkansas law firm. the rose law firm. she knew from her white house days with her husband, the president, the classified materials can be very dangerous if they get into the wrong hands. she had to have known about this statute because she had to have been briefed when she took over the job as the secretary of state. so how, given that body of knowledge and experience, could this have happened in a way that could have potentially provided access by hackers to confidential information? >> it's a good question and a reasonable question. the protection that we have as americans is that the government, in general and in that statute in particular has

to prove before they can prosecute us that we did t and when we did it we knew we were doing something unlawful. we don't have to know the code number but that we knew we were doing something unlawful. that's the protection we have. i did a lot of work with the chamber of commerce to stop the criminalization of negligence in the united states -- >> may i interrupt and suggest that this statute says knowingly remove such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location. the intent here in the statute is to retain the documents at an unauthorized location. it's not intent to pass them on to a terrorist. or to someone out in internet land. it's just the intent to retain the documents or materials at an

unauthorized location. >> it's more than that, though. you'd have to show that and prove criminal intent. both by law and they have reserved that statute for people that clearly knew they were breaking the law and that's the challenge. should have known, must have known, had to know does not get you there. you must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they knew they were engaged in something unlawful. that's the challenge. >> then may i turn to her attorneys. did all of secretary clinton's attorneys have the clearances at the time they received all of her e-mails? especially those that were classified at the time they were sent? >> no. >> they destroyed, as has been noted, 30,000 e-mails of secretary clintons. do you have 100% confidence that

none of the 30,000 e-mails destroyed by secretary clinton's attorneys was marked as classified? >> i don't have 100% confidence. i'm reasonably confident some of them were classified. there were only three in the entire batch we found that bore any markings that indicated they were classified. so that's less likely but surely it's a reasonable assumption that some of the ones they deleted contained classified information. >> thank you director. thank you mr. chairman. i yield back. >> i now recognize the gentleman from massachusetts. >> secretary clinton is certainly not the only secretary of state to use a personal e-mail account with information later identified as being classified. i just want to show you, this was a book that was written by secretary of state colin powel

and in his book he says to compliment the official state department computer in my office i installed a laptop computer on a private line. my personal e-mail account on a laptop allowed me to direct access to anyone online so i started shooting e-mails to my assistants and individual ambassadors and foreign minister colleagues who like me were trying to bring them. >> and not a private server. used a commercial e-mail account for state department business. >> private line, unprotected. >> correct. not a state department e-mail system. >> right. he went rogue so to speak, right? >> i don't know if i'd say that. >> okay. i'm not going to put words in

your mouth but you think this was careless for him to do that? get his own system. he installed a laptop computer on a private line. my personal e-mail account was on a laptop and allowed me direct access to anyone. anyone online. that's his own statement. i'm just trying to compare secretaries of state because secretary powell has never been here. as a matter of fact, when we asked him for his e-mails, unlike the 55,000 received from secretary clinton he was like i don't have any to turnover. i didn't keep a cash of them. i did not print them off. and was secretary of state and operate on a private system. >> not the time 15 years ago but

i am now. so recently, back in october 2015 they sent secretary powell a letter requesting he contact aol to determine whether any of his e-mails were still on the unclassified systems. are you aware of that on going investigation? >> i don't know that investigation -- >> that request for information from secretary powell. >> yes. i am. >> you're aware of that. >> are you surprised that he has never responded? >> i don't know enough to comment. i don't know exactly what conversation he had with the state department. >> all right. i'm trying to look at t you know, where we have a lot of comparisons in other cases and it seems like all the cases where prosecutions have gone forward the subject of the investigation demonstrated a clear intent to deliver classified information to a

person or persons who were unauthorized to receive that. so if you look at the pfc, bradley manning, now chelsea manning, that was a court martial. and demonstrated a clear intent to publish that information. the wikileaks editor and publisher, again, a wide and deliberate attempt to publish classified information. general petraius as we talked about today shared information with his biographer. former cia officer was interested in writing a book so he hung on to his information and even former director of the cia retained class identified

information on a couple of servers. and one in maryland and that was after he became a private citizen. so in all of those cases there's a clear intent. as you said before, you look at what people did and what they were thinking when they did that and i would just ask you, is there a clear distinction between what those people did and what secretary clinton did in her case. >> it illustrates it perfectly. he took a huge amount of documents. almost all at the level and had them hard copy at his house. attempted to destroy some of them when he got caught. admitted i knew i wasn't supposed to be doing this. you have clear intent. huge amounts of documents, obstruction of justice. those are the kinds of cases that get prosecuted. that's what i said.

thank you. >> we'll now go to the gentleman from north carolina for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman, there's been much said today about criticizing you and your service. i want to go on record that even though many of my constituents would love for me to criticize your service because of the conclusion you reached, never have i nor will i criticize your service. we appreciate your service to this country and the integrity so i'm going to focus on the things that you said, not the conclusion that you drew. and the congressman and i talked a little bit about this but on february 4th, 2016, secretary clinton during a presidential debate said i never sent or received any classified material. they are retroactively classify

it. close quote, so in your statement on july 5th, you said that there were, indeed, 110 e-mails. 52 e-mail chains which there was classified information on it at the time it was sent or received. so those two statements, both of them cannot be true, is that correct? your statement and her statement? >> it's not accurate to say she did not send or receive -- >> so she did not tell the truth during that presidential debate that she never sent or received classified information and it was retroactively classified? >> i don't think that's a question i should be answering -- >> well, either your statement is not true or hers is not true. both of them cannot be true. so is your statement true. >> that i can speak to. >> your statement is true so the american people will have to judge with her statement not being true. so let me go on to another. on october 22nd, she said there

was nothing more classified on e-mails either sent or received and a very small number of e-mails contained classified information and markings indicating the presence of classified information at the time. so she makes a statement that says there was no markings. you make a statement that there was. so her statement was not true. >> that would actually have a little bit of insight in the statement that we asked her about that. there's three documents and you're obligated with somebody classified to put a marking on that photograph. that's confidential classified information. >> secretary of state, first lady was a reasonable person. that was a classified marking a

reasonable person. that's all i'm asking. >> before this investigation i want to say yes i'm not so sure. >> director comey, come on, i've only been here a few years and i understand the importance of those markings. so you're suggesting that a long length of time that she had no idea what a classified marking would be. >> that's it today. >> not that she would have no idea what a classified marking would be but it's question about sophistication that came up earlier whether she was sophisticated enough to understand what it means. >> so you're saying the former secretary of state is not sophisticated enough to understand a classified marking? that's a huge statement. >> not what i'm saying. you asked me did a assume that someone would know. probably before this investigation i would have. i'm not so sure of that answer any longer. i think it's possible. possible that she tint understand what a c meant when she saw it in the body of an

e-mail like that. >> after years in the senate and secretary of state -- that's hard for me and the american people to believe director comey and i'm not questioning your analysis of it but wouldn't a reasonable person think that someone who has the highest job of handling classified information understand that? >> i think that's a conclusion a reasonable person would draw. it may not be accurate. >> so let me go a little bit further because the last quote came october 27th, 2015 under sworn testimony before the benghazi committee. if she gave sworn testimony that a reasonable person would suggest is not truthful, isn't it a logical assumption that she may have mislead congress and we need to look at that further? >> the reasonable person test is not what you look at for perjury

or false statements but i can understand why people would ask that question. >> so let me in the last little portion of this. in your interview, she didn't lie to the fbi but the american people. did she change her statements in that sworn testimony with you last saturday? >> i haven't gone through that. >> can you do that and get back to this committee? because it's important to the american people and to transparency. >> i'm sure and as the chairman and i have talked about i'm sure the committee is going to want to see documents in our investigation and we'll work to give you whatever we can possibly give you under our law but i haven't done that analysis. >> we're all highly partisan

here. we're backseat drivers. we're all in the state of the truth when you said that you didn't know of anyone that would bring a case like this and similar prosecutors have had decades to do that. i hope that this committee's effort is not intended to intimidate you or the fbi or law enforcement or government employees. i'm thankful that you have such a lifetime record of speaking truth to power. that's very important. it's also very important that apparently you're a life long republican. you're just here to do your job and state the facts.

the key issue here is whether there's a double standard and there should be some attention to make sure that she was not treated worse than anybody else. we know we wouldn't be having this hearing unless she were running for president. the previous secretary of states are not being called on the carpet. whether that be rice or powell or others. i think the grosses double standard here today is the fact that all of the members of this committee, every member of congress is not subject to the same law that secretary clinton is subject to and that means we have exempted ourselves from the standard of other federal

employees as norton referred to this and why did we exemption ourselves from the same rules. apparently our chairman lists his private e-mail account on his business card. >> we all have access to classified information. so i would like to challenge my republican colleagues here today. let's work together and enter this legislation to make the same laws apply to us as apply to the executive branch and secretary clinton. i would be happy to join sufficient legislation to make sure that we're not being hypocritical on this panel that we're holding ourselves to the same standard as secretary clinton and not trying to be guilty of ourselves i thought my colleagues would be the first to complain and retroactively classified that's the situation that most people in public

service would object to pretty strongly. how would you know at the time if you had no idea. i think it's very important if we want, congress trusted the american people do not be hypocritic hypocritical. to uphold the same standards we want to see upheld by others and i'm thankful that we had someone like you that's in charge of the fbi. because too many things are highly politicized. i didn't see any of my republican colleagues complain. he was exonerated by an 8-0 vote at the supreme court for having done certain things that most americans would find highly objectionable but exonerated him just a week or two ago this is a moment for committee members to reflect, to take a deep breath. calm down and realize pactly what you said, that no

reasonable prosecutor would have brought this case and thank you for stating that so clearly and publicly. i yield back to the ranking member. >> mr. director, let me ask you this, first of all i associate myself with everything the gentleman just said. you were talking about some markings a little bit earlier. is that right? can you describe those markings? the markings in documents. you said there were three documents with certain markings on them that indicate classified. >> there were three e-mails down in the body of the e-mail in the three different e-mails there were paragraphed. at the beginning of the paragraph there was a parenthesis, a capital c and then a parenthesis and that is a portion marking to indicate that paragraph is classified at the confidential level which is the lowest level of classification. >> so out of the 30,000 documents, you found these three markings, is that what you're

saying. >> three e-mails bore c markings in the body. none of the e-mails had headers at the top. three had within the body a marking for c. >> thank you. >> now recognize the gentleman from tennessee for five minutes. >> thank you. he mentioned one instance in which secretary clinton said that she had -- that she did not mail any classified material to anyone. actually she said that several other times but it is accurate that you found at least 110 instances of when she had mailed, e-mailed classified material. and also they claimed their

devices in such a way in order to procollude complete forensic recovery and when secretary clinton said that nothing she sent was marked classified and you said in your press conference but even if information is not marked classified in an e-mail particularly participants know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it. do you feel that secretary clinton knew or should have known that she was obligated to protect classified information? >> yes. >> with her legal background and her long experience in government. also she said at one point she directed all e-mails, work related emails to be forwarded to the state department. is it also accurate that she discovered thousands of other e-mails that were work related other than the 30,000 that she submitted? >> correct. >> before i came to congress i

spent several years as a criminal court judge. presided over several hundred cases and i can assure you that i saw many cases where the evidence of criminal intent was flimsier than the evidence in this case. but do you realize or do you -- do you realize that great numbers of people across this country have felt that you presented such an incriminating case against secretary clinton in your press conference that they were very surprised or even shocked when you reached the conclusion to let her off? do you doubt that great numbers feel that way? >> no, i think so and i understand the questions and i wanted to be as transparent as possible. we went at this very hard to see if we could make a case and i wanted the american people to see what i honestly believed about the whole thing. >> do you understand as the chairman said great numbers of

people and the clintons and regular people. >> it's not true but i heard it a lot. >> even the ranking member that was here. of course as we understand. and defend secretary clinton as strongly as possible. he almost begged you to explain the gap between the incriminating case that you presented. and the conclusion that was reached. does that surprise you that you felt so strongly that there's a big gap. >> no not at all. it's a complicated matter and involves understanding how the department of justice works across decades. how discretion is exercised. i get that folks see this connection. especially when they see a statute that says gross negligence. the director said she was extremely careless.

so it takes an understanding of what's gone on over the last 99 years and i understand people's questions and i think they're in good faith. >> we talk about gross negligence here and you said secretary clinton was careless with this classified material and how dangerous it could be and how threatening even to people's lives that it could be to disclose classified material. do you agree that there is a very thin line between gross negligence and extreme carelessness and would you explain to me what you consider to be that difference? >> sure, as a former judge you know there isn't actually a great definition in the law of gross negligence. some courts interpret it as close to willful and others drop it lower. my term extremely careless is trying to be kind of an ordinary person. that's a common sense way of describing it.

it sure looks real question to me. the question of whether that amounts to gross negligence is not at the center of this. when i see there's one case brought on a gross negligence theory there's no way they're bringing a case against john doe or hillary clinton for the second time in 100 years based on those facts. >> you entered your statement to congressman cooper saying once again, no reasonable prosecutor could have brought this case. yet you also mentioned earlier today that you have seen several of your friends and other prosecutors that said publicly many across the country and would be glad to prosecute this case. and reasons i said earlier it's a good thing that the department of justice worries about prosecuting people for feeling

careless. i don't like it. as a citizen i want people to know they knew they were breaking the law and we'll put you in jail. >> we'll now recognize the man from virginia. >> thank you and although our politics are different i gather you're a republican. is that correct? >> i have been a registered republican for most of my adult life. not registered any longer. >> we don't register by party in virginia but many suspected my politics as being democratics and i thank you for your integrity as my colleague said and i said in my opening statement your career has been characterized as speaking truth to power and you're doing it again today. just to set the context director comey, not that you're unaware of this, today's hearing is political theater. there's not even the pretense of trying to get at truth. this is a desperate attempt

under a extraordinary set of circumstances and emergency hearing. i don't know what the emergency is other than one side is about to nominate somebody who is a pathological narcisist and who is talking about banning muslims and women who are pigs and terrified at the prospects of the consequences of that in the election. so let's grab on to whatever we can to discredit or try to discredit the other nominee. and you took away their only hope. so the theater today is trying to discredit you. my friend from south carolina uses big works like exculpatory

and goes through what a prosecutor would do. the you didn't do your job. my friend from wyoming is flooded with citizens in her home state that are reading the statute that governs classification. a lot of time on the hands back there i guess. but this is all designed to discredit your finding. now the fbi interviewed secretary clinton; is that correct? >> yes. >> did she lie to the fbi in that interview? >> no basis for concluding that she was untruthful with us. >> and is it a crime to lie to the fbi. >> yes it is. >> yes. >> and he was prosecuted. well, could have been. >> was not for that. >> that's always a federal call. >> correct. >> was she evasive? >> we don't think the agents

assessed she was evasive. >> how many e-mails are we talking about total? that were examined by your team. >> tens of thousands. >> tens of thousands and how many are in a questionable category that maybe, could have, should have been looked at more carefully because there could be some element of classification? apparently any friend from north carolina assumes we're all familiar with the fact that a c appears it means a classification though there seems to be dispute about that because the state department as i understand it says some of those were improperly marked and shouldn't have had the c. were you aware of that. >> yes. >> so could it be that in her 100 overseas trips to 100 countries as secretary of state trying to restore u.s.

credibility that had been destroyed in the previous 8 years overseas and tens of thousands of e-mail communications not including phone calls and classified conversation and skips and the like, that maybe the small percentage of e-mails didn't give as much attention to the him could that be a fair conclusion. >> i don't usually deal -- >> you do deal in distinguishing between willful and inadvertent. >> sure. >> you concluded it had to be in the latter category. it wasn't willful. >> there was not adequate evidence of willful conduct. >> right. so there's no evasion or willful

intent on the other side of the aisle and the only hope left in political theater is to discredit you and your team. in the hopes that you won't have credibility and we can revisit this monsterous crime of using a private server. that server being the server of the former president of the united states that may be mrs. clinton thought would be more secure than the leaky system at is it state department. i yield back. >> now recognize the gentleman from texas for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i'm offended. i'm offended by my friends on the other side of the political aisle saying this is political theater. this is not political theater. for me, this is serious. i spent 9.5 years as an undercover officer in the cia.

i was the guy collecting intelligence and passing it to lawmakers. i've seen my friends killed i've seen assets put themselves in harms way and this is about protecting the most sensitive information the american government has and i wish my colleagues would take this a little bit more seriously. director comey, sap, special access program that includes sci information. does that include human intelligence, information collected from people that are putting themselves in harms way to give us information to drive foreign policy? signals intelligence some of the most sensitive things to understand what al qaeda is doing, what isis is doing. so the former secretary of state had an unauthorized server, those are your words, in her basement action correct? >> correct. >> who was protecting that information? who was protecting that server? >> not much.

there was a number of different people signed as administrators of the server. >> and at least seven e-mails chains classified as tssci. >> correct. so the former secretary of state, one of the president's most important advisors on foreign policy and national security had a server in her basement that had information that was collected and it was not protected by anyone and that's not a crime? that's outrageous. people are concerned. what does it take for someone to misuse classified information or get in trouble for it? >> mishandling it and criminal intent. >> so an unauthorized server in the basement is not mishandling it? >> no, there is evidence of

mishandling here. the whole information in the end focused on is there sufficient evidence of intent. >> was this a unanimous opinion within the fbi on your decision? >> well the whole fbi wasn't involved but the team of agents investigators and analysts and technologists, yes. >> did you take into any consideration the impact that this precedence can set on our ability to collect intelligence overseas? >> yes. my primary concern is the impact on what other employees might think in the federal government. >> and you don't think this sends a message to other employees that if the former secretary of state can have an unauthorized server in their basement that transmits top secret information that that's not a problem? >> i worry very much about that. that's why i talked about that in my statement because an fbi m employee might face severe

discipline and those consequences are still going to be there. >> do you have a server in your basement? >> i do not? >> does anybody in the fbi have a server in their basement or in their house. >> i don't know. >> do you think it's likely? >> i think it's unlikely. >> i would think so. because i have been proud to serve along side the men and women that you represent. it's your job to be involved in counter intelligence as well. >> yes. >> so that's protecting our secre secrets. did this activity make america's secrets vulnerable. >> do you think that pattern would continue? >> i thought you meant if this

had not come to light do you mean? >> right now based on what we see do you think there could be other elements and think it's okay to have an unauthorized server in their basement. >> what is the ramifications of them doing that? >> how is there consequences leveraged if it's not being leveraged here? >> they're responsible for the fbi that there will be discipline. termination to reprimand and everything in between if you mishandle classified information. >> i'm not a lawyer and i may misstate this. is there such a thing as the case of first impression and why is this not possibly one of those. >> there is such a thing. the reason this isn't one of those is that's not fair.

that would be treating somebody differently because of their celebrity status. the bedrock of our system is to treat people fairly and we treat them the same. >> and that person information this government can collect is not fair? it's not fair to punish someone who did that? >> not on those facts. it would be fair to have a proceeding but not fair to prosecute them on these facts. >> we will recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> i'd like to open by acknowledging my colleague from north carolina, mr. meadows. here he comes back in the room, for acknowledging your integrity, director cuomo. i think by partisipartisan sent

like that are few and far between around here and i appreciate the remark. you are a man of integrity. it's troubling that that remark from mr. meadows is not unanimous at this point. it used to be a few weeks ago. they said the republicans believe in james cuomo. he said i do think that in all of the government he is a man of integrity and honesty. nothing happens without him and i think he is going to be the definitive person to make a determination or a recommendation, but just hours after your actual recommendation came out the chairman went on tv and accused you of making a quote political calculation. then our speaker of the house weeks ago referring to you,

director cuomo, said i do believe his integrity is unekwaled. it was unanimous before you came to your conclusion but after not so much and that's troubling and i want to give you a chance, how do you respond to that? how important to you is maintaining your integrity before the nation? >> i think the only two things i have in life that matter are the love of my family and friends and my integrity so i care deeply about both. >> all right. director cuomo, you discussed your team a little bit and they deserve a lot of credit for all of the hard work and effort that went into this investigation. i think you just said they were unanimous that everyone who looked at this agreed that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case. am i correct on that? >> yes. >> how many people were on this

team? >> it changed at various times but somewhere between 15 and 20 and we a lot of other fbi folks to help from time to time. >> how many hours were spent on this investigation? >> we haven't counted yet. i said to them they moved, they put three years of work into 12 calendar months. >> how many pages of documents did the fbi review in this investigation? >> thousands and thousands and thousands. >> and the agents doing the document review, were they qualified or unqualified. >> they're an all star team. >> how about secretary clinton, did she agree to be interviewed? >> yes. >> come in voluntarily without the need of a subpoena? >> yes. >> was she interviewed? >> yes. >> was she interviewed by experience critical veteran agents and officers or by some kind of gulible newbyes.

>> she was interviewed by real pros. >> you were asked about markings on a few documents. i have the manual here marking national classified information and i don't think you were given a full chance to talk about those three documents. were they properly documented and properly marked according to the manual? >> no. >> according to the manual and i ask unanimous consent to enter this into the record mr. chairman. >> it will be. >> there has to be a header on the document, right? >> correct. >> was there a header on the three documents that we've discussed that had the little "c" in the text someplace. >> there were three e-mails. the "c" was in the body of the text but not on the header or the text. >> so if secretary clinton really were an expert at what's

classified and what's not classified and we're following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified, am i correct in that? >> that would be a reasonable inference. >> all right. i thank you for your testimony, director. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. we'll recognize the gentleman from colorado, mr. buck, for five minutes. >> good morning, director cuomo. >> good morning, sir. >> thank you for being here and i also respect your commitment to law and justice and your career and i first question i want to ask you is this hearing unfair? has it been unfair to you? >> no. >> thank you. >> one purpose of security procedures for classified information is to prevent hostile nations from obtaining classified information. is that fair? >> yes. >> did hostile nations obtain classified information from

secretary clinton's servers? >> i don't know. it's possible but we don't have direct evidence. we couldn't find direct evidence. >> i want to -- without making this a law school class i want to try to get into intent. there are various levels of intent in the criminal law, everything from knowingly and willfully doing something down to strict liability. would you agree with me on that? >> yes. >> in title 18 most of the criminal laws in title 18 have the words knowingly and willfully in them and that is the standard typically that the united states attorneys prosecute under. >> unlawfully, knowingly and willfully is the standard formulation for charging a case. >> there are also a variety of others between the knowingly and willfully standard and the strict liability standard and environmental crimes have a much

lower standard because of the toxic materials that are at risk of harming individuals, is that fair? >> that's correct. >> let's talk about this particular statute, 18 usc 1924. i take it we could all agree, or we would agree on a a couple of elements. secretary clinton was an employee of the united states. >> correct. >> and as the result of that employment she received classified information. >> correct. >> and there's no doubt about those two elements. >> uh-huh. >> now i don't know whether the next element is one element or two, but it talks about knowingly removed such materials without authority and with the intent to retain such material at an unauthorized location. i'm going to treat those as two separate parts of the intent element. do you see the word willfully anywhere this it statute. >> i don't. >> that would indicate to you there is a lower threshold for intent. >> no, it wouldn't. >> why?

>> because we often as i understand the justice department's practice and judicial practice will imput to any criminal statute with a knowingly with a requirement that you know that you're involved in criminal activity of some sort. >> you would apply that same standard to environmental crimes. >> no. >> congress specifically owe mitd the word willfully from this statute and yet you are complying the word willfully in the statute, is that fair? >> that's fair. >> what the statute does say is knowingly removed such materials without authority. is it fair she knew she didn't have authority to have this sever in her basement? >> yes, that's true. >> and she knew that she was receiving materials classified information in the e-mails that she received on her back berry and other devices?

>> i'm hesitating as a prosecutor because -- to what level of proof. i do not believe there's evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that she knew she was receiving classified information in violation of the requirements. >> that's not my question. my question is in fairness is did she know she was receiving information on the servers at her location? >> i'm sorry. of course, yes. she knew she was using her e-mail system. >> and as secretary of state she also knew she would be receiving classified information. >> yes, in general. >> okay. and did she then have the intent to retain such material at an unauthorized location. >> she retained the material that she received as secretary of state at her sever in her basement and that was unauthorized? >> you're asking me did she have -- i'm going to ask you the burden of proof question in a question but did she have the intent to retain classified information on the sever or just

to retain any information on the sever. >> we've already established she knew as secretary of state she was going to receive classified information in her e-mails and so did she retain such information that she received as secretary of state on her servers in her basement? >> she did in fact -- there is in my view not evidence beyond certainly probable cause. there's not evidence beyond reasonable doubt that she knew she was receiving classified information or she intended to retain it on her serve. there's evidence but there's not clear evidence of intent. even if the department of justice would bring that case i could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt those two elements. >> thank you very much. >> we'll go to the woman from illinois. >> thank you. when i first entered congress three years ago like many freshman members unlike many members i sought out this committee.