we are not here to do that. thank you and i yield back my time. >> thank the gentlewoman. i'll recognize the gentleman from iowa, mr. blum. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you director comey for being here today and thanks for hanging in there until every last question is answered. i'm not a lawyer. that's the good news. i'm a career businessman. i spent most of my career operating in the high-tech industry. today i've heard words such as common sense, reasonable person, carelessness, judgment or lack thereof. i like these words. i understand these words. i think the average american does as well. i'd like to o focus on that. last tuesday you said, quote, none of these e-mails should have been on any kind of an unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers, not even supported by full-time security staff like those found at agencies of the united states

government or even with a commercial e-mail service such as gmail. director comey, my small iowa business doesn't even use gmail for our e-mail because it's not secure enough. i know some security experts in the industry. i check with them. the going rate to hack into somebody ooet's gmail account, $129. for corporate e-mails, they can be hacked for $500 or less. if you want to hack into an i.p. address, it's around $100. i'm sure the fbi can do it cheaper. this is the going rate. director comey, are you implying in that statement that the private e-mail servers of secretary clinton were perhaps less secure than a gmail account that is used for free by a billion people around this planet? >> yes. i'm not looking to pick on gmail. their security is actually pretty good. the weakness is in the

individual users. yes, gmail has full-time security staff and thinks about patching and logging and protecting their systems in a way that was not the case here. >> i'd like to ask you, what kind of judgment. we talked a lot about judgment today, does this decision to potentially expose to hackers classified information on e-mail service that's less secure than gmail, your words? what does that suggest to you? what type of judgment does that suggest to you? >> it suggests the kind of carelessness i talked about. >> in august of last year secretary clinton was asked by ed henry of fox news whether she wiped her entire server? her response, you mean with a cloth? march of 2015, during a press conference secretary clinton assured us the e-mail service was secure, it was on private property guarded by the secret service. this would be laughable if it wasn't so serious. i know, you know, my

constituents in eastern iowa know, you don't need to be a cat burglar to hack into an e-mail service and you don't need a cloth to wipe a server clean. one would think a former united states senator, a former secretary of state would know this as well. would you agree with that statement? >> you would think, although, as i said before, one of the things i've learned in this case is the secretary may not have been as soffit kated as people would assume. she didn't have a computer in her office at the state dtment. i would assume the same thing. i'm not sure it's a fair assumption in this case. >> in your opinion, director comey, did secretary clinton know that a server could, in fact, be wiped clean electronically and not with a cloth? >> i would assume it was a facetious comment about a cloth. i don't know. i don't know particular on that

one. >> would you also assume, director, that a server knew a server could be wiped clean electron click, it could be hacked electronically, not physically, you don't need a cat burglar to hack a computer. >> to some level it would be reasonable, to some level of understanding. >> once again, for someone who knew these things, or resume to some level she knew these things, what kind of judgment does a decision to expose classified material on personal servers suggest to you, what type of judgment? >> again, it's not my place to assess judgment. i talk more in state of mind, negligence in particular. i think there was carelessness here. in some circumstances extreme carelessness. >> was her server hacked? >> i don't know. i can't prove it was hacked. >> so that answer says to me it could have been hacked? >> sure, yeah. >> if it was hacked, potentially damaging material, damaging to

american secrets, damaging to american lives could have been hacked, could have been exposed, correct? lives could have been put at risk if that server was, indeed, hacked. >> i'm not prepared to say yes as to that last piece. that would require me going into a way i can't the nature of the classified information. there's no doubt it would have exposed information that was classified, information that was classified because it could damage the united states of america. >> it could have happened. the fbi just isn't aware. >> correct. >> thank you very much for being here. i yield back the time i do not have. >> i now recognize the gentlelady from new mexico, ms. watson-coleman for five minutes. >> thank you, director. i have a number of questions so i'm going to zip through these. >> okay. >> this is a question i'm going to ask you and you may not have the answer because you may not have known this. >> this is about the classification marking issue

you've been asked about earlier. accord koushding the the state department a spokesman said the call sheets appear to bear classified markings but this was actually a mistake. to quote, generally speaking there's a standard process for developing call sheets for the secretary of state. call sheets are often marked, but it's not untypical for them to be marked at the confidential level prior to a decision by the secretary that he or she will make that call. oftentimes once it is clear the secretary intends to make a call, the department will then consider the call sheet svu sensitive but unclassified or unclassified altogether and mark it appropriately and prepare it for the secretary's use in actually marking the call. the classifications of a call sheet, therefore, is not necessarily fixed in time. staffers in the secretary's office who are involved in preparing and finalizing these call sheets, they understand that. given these context it appears markings in the documents raised in the media reports were not

longer necessary or appropriate at the time they were sent as an actual e-mail. those markings were human error, they didn't need to be there. did you know this? >> no. >> thank you, director. can you tell me based upon your information, has there been and is there any evidence that our national security has been breached or at risk as a result of these e-mails and there being on this server? is there any evidence? >> there's no direct evidence of an intrusion. >> thank you very much. i have to tell you that, while i think this should conclude this discussion, i know we're going to hear this issue ad nauseum. i am concerned about another issue that i think really is resonating with the people in this country, and that issue has to do with experiences that we had in just the last two days. mr. director, i want to bring

this up for your consideration because i want to ask you what can the fbi do on this issue. this morning we woke up to another graphic and deeply disturbing video that actually brought me to tears when my staff played it for me where a minnesota woman's boyfriend has been shot as her young child sat in the back seat after apparently telling the officer he was licensed to carry a weapon, he had it on him and was going to reach for his identification. just the other day, there was an incident in baton rouge involving a mr. alton sterling, an african-american man who was shot while pinned to the ground by police officers in baton rouge. an interaction tape by two bystanders with cell phones captured this. so i think we've got an issue

here, an issue of real national security, and i want to ask you, mr. director, do we have an opportunity to direct our time and resources in your department to those issues? is it not important that we say their names to remind people of the loss of a tamir rice, eric garner, alton sterling, michael brown, walter scott and even a sandra bland? deaths in the hands of police custody or by police happening. are these not happening at an alarming rate, and is this not a legitimate space for the fbi to be working in? >> yes is the emphatic answer. those are incredibly important matters. as you know, the fbi spends a

lot of time on them because they're very, very important. we have an investigation open on the baton rouge case. i was briefed this morning on the mit minnesota case. i would expect we'll be involved in that as well. it's an important part of our work. >> do you feel you have the sufficient resources from the legal imperative to the funding to address these cases and what seems to be a disturbing pattern in our country today? >> i'm a bad bureaucrat, bru i believe we have sufficient resources and we're applying them against those situation. i believe the individual cases matter enormously, but also the people's confidence in law enforcement is one of the bedrocks of this great country of ours. i have the resources and we're applying them. >> in addition, we believe that our law enforcement is by and large of high integrity and has a desire to keep us protected and safe. but when we find out that there

are these occasions and when there's an indication that there's pattern that is taking place in this country, we have a responsibility to ensure that everyone in this country is safe. and simply because you're a black man or a black woman does not make you a target. thank you. i yield back my time. >> thank the gentlewoman. we'll recognize the gentleman from north carolina, mr. walker. >> through mr. chairman. thank you director comey for being here. a few things in this town that people agree on on both sides of the aisle. the passage in james, swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to rath. i'm disappointed about some of the attacks on your character and integrity. i hadn't heard those. i hope you have not experienced that. i also struggle with the change of heart that we're hearing today. i have a list of elected officials who have questioned

your investigation, even attacked it. in fact, former president clinton said this is a game. last friday ms. wasserman schultz said secretary clinton is not the target of this investigation of whatever you want to call it. my question to you is do you think this has been a republican witch hunt? >> this -- >> this hearing? >> no. i said i understand people's question and interest. i'm a huge fan of transparency. i think that's what makes our democracy great. >> i think that's one of the reasons you're so respected. to me this hearing is about understanding and disseminating the facts and how you saw them and how the american public sees them and specifically in the areas of where there was wrongdoing admitted under your investigation, where there was obviously breaking the law but also some coverups. did congress ask you to pursue this investigation? >> no. it was a referral from the inspector general of the

intelligence community. >> it wasn't republicans either, was it? >> no. >> how did you go about collecting the evidence? >> we use the tools we normally use in a criminal investigation. >> did or do you receive a congressional referral for all the information that you collected? >> not to my knowledge. >> one of the things that i'm struggling with or that i would like to know specifically is, under oath ms. clinton made these three comments that we now know are untrue in the benghazi hearing. number one, she's turned overall her work-related e-mails. number two, telling the committee her attorneys went through every single e-mail. and finally, and probably the one that continues to stick the most, there was, and i quote, nothing marked classified on my e-mails, end quote. earlier when the chairman questioned you about this, you said something about needing a congressional referral, recommendation. my question is something of this

magnitude, why or can you help me understand why didn't it rise to your investigation or someone bringing that to your knowledge as far as saying this is a problem, here she is, again, secretary clinton lying under oath, specifically about our investigation? >> we, out of respect for the legislative branch being a separate branch, we do not commence investigations that focus on activities before congress without congress asking us to get involved. that's a long-standing practice of the department of justice and the fbi. we don't watch on tv and say we ought to investigate that. joe smith said this in front of the committee. it requires the committee to say we think we have an issue here, would you all take a look at it. >> with all due respect, you have secretary clinton under oath speaking about your investigation, and you've talked about your wonderful staff, why wouldn't that rise to the level of suspicion, lying under oath is a crime, is it not?

>> yes. >> what's the penalty on that? that's curd perjury? >> it's a felony. it's potentially years in prison. >> i don't understand, would you help me understand why somebody wouldn't have tipped you off she's talking about the very specific case under oath that you're investigating? >> there's a difference between us being aware of testimony and us opening a criminal investigation for potential perjury. again, not this case in particular, but all cases, we don't do that without a committee saying we think there was an issue in testimony given in this separate branch of the government. >> you also mentioned earlier, and it's been quoted several times that no reasonable prosecutor would move forward with some of the facts. is there any room at all that somebody would differ on the opinion? i know former united states attorney general michael mukasey said with a illegal server disqualifies her from ever holding any federal office. there are some people of high esteem that may differ,

obviously not privy to the exact facts. but can you make any room -- you said no reasonable person. do you understandhy the american people or would you understand why people may say she has stepped across the line or broken a law here that you would come to a different conclusion? >> sure. i respect different opinions. my only point is -- i said earlier because those folks are my friends, i've worked with them for a long time. none of those guys in my position, i believe knowing what i know would think about it differently. i also respect they have a different view from the outside. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'll yield back. >> now recognize the gentleman from california, mr. day son yea. >> director, i want to thank you as others have. i know you don't need this, buff i think the american people need to hear it. you've done a wonderful job today. there are moments in my political life and as an american i despair for the future of this country. those moments come whether an individual by yourself, by

providence or good fortune or the framework of the constitution i believe you've served this country and all americans well, irrespective of their party affiliation. two lines of questions. one is, and another colleague brought this up. you mentioned in previous testimony about the bedrock and the importance of public confidence and public safety institutions, yours and all. i want to give you an opportunity, i think you have responded to this multiple times, but give you a little more opportunity baz i think it's important for the american public to know the system isn't rigged, that there are people such as yourself and the 15 individuals who worked on this case and others that do their job and believe in the constitution of the united states. if you have further comments about comments that would say the system is rigged and americans should give up on the system. >> one of the reasons i welcome this opportunity to have this conversation is i was raise bid great parents who taught me you can't care what people think about you. actually in my busy have to and

deeply do. the system is not fixed against black people, for rich people, for powerful people. it's very important that the american people understand that there really are people you pay for for your tax dollars who don't give a rip about democrats or republicans or this or that, who care about finding out what's in true. i'm lucky to lead an organization that feels that way to its core. i lead an organization that is resolutely apolitical. we are tough, aggressive people. if we can make a case, we'll make a case. we do not care what the person's stripes are or what their bank account looks like. i worry very much when people doubt that. it's the reason i did the press conference. i care about the fbi's reputation, the justice department, the whole system deeply. i decided i'm going to do

something no director has done before, i'm not going to tell the attorney general anything i was going to say. they didn't know until i walked out what i was going to talk about. i offered extraordinary transparency which i'm sure confused and bugged a lot of people. it's essential that people see as much as they can so they can make their judgment. they macon collude i'm an ids yot, i should reason differently. i hope they would not conclude i'm a dishonest person. i lead 36,000 people who have that as their spine. that's what i want them to know. i don't care that people agree or disagree. you need to know there are good people trying to do the right thing all day long. you pay for them and we'll never forget that. >> i appreciate that. within the context of these human institutions, it's pretty clear to me as a non-lawyer that you had a bright line in terms of your decision about pursuing prosecution, but you did spend an expended period of time

talking about what i think i take from you as being fairly objective analysis of what was careless in terms of handling of it, either ascribed to the former secretary of state or the department and you said, and i quote, during your comments, while not the focus of our investigation we developed evidence that a security culture of the state department in general in respect to the use of unclassified e-mail systems in general was lacking in the care and classification found elsewhere in the government. that's accurate. >> yes, sir. >> struggling with this, how do we go from here and be clear about how the state department? we'll talk about this with the ig. some of the comments that former secretary powell has made including that the absurdity of the retroactive classification and now we have a thousand of these e-mails from secretary clinton out in the public and are being spread even further. so there are other people

involved, sitting there. how does this committee go forward to make sure the state department can still function in the way it does with human beings and have conversations that are both transparent but also national security. what are the things we need to do to make sure this doesn't happen again? >> i think a good start, i think the reason the chairman has the ig from the state department here is to start that conversation. the ig knows deeply the culture of the department and is far better equipped than i to say you ought to folk cues here or there to make it better. i think that's the place to start. >> we'll now recognize the gentleman from tennessee, mr. daja lay for five minutes. >> thank you for appearing so quickly on short notice. i think it's important you're here because of the way you laid out the case on tuesday, there is a perception that you felt one way and then came to another conclusion. i, like many of my colleagues, put a post up back in my district and let them know you were coming. in less than 24 hours i had 750

questions sent to ask you. again, thank you for being here. a common theme, to summarize a lot of those concerns were that in this case clinton was above the law, that there was a dowel standard. a lot of that was based on the way you presented your findings. your team, you said you did not personally interview her on saturday but your team did for about 3 1/2 hours. correct? >> yes. >> do you know in reading the review or the summary, did they ask hillary clinton about her comment that she had never sent or received classified information over private e-mail? >> i think so, but i can't remember specifically. it's a very long 302. i'd have to check. >> we'll get access to that. do you know if they asked her when she said there was nothing marked classified on my e-mail sent or received zm. >> same answer. i'm not sure. >> so the same answer when she said i did not e-mail any

classified material to anyone on my e-mail. there is no classified material. you don't know whether they asked her that? >> i don't know whether they asked her that question. the entire interview was focused on what did you know, what did you see, what is this document? >> do you know if they asked her whether or not she stands by the fact this she said she just used one device and that was for her convenience? >> i don't know. i know they established from talking to her she used many devices during her four years. i don't know if they asked her specifically about that statement. >> i guess my point is, you're trying to get inside the head of hillary clinton in this investigation and know whether there was intent. we all know what she told the people. that's been well documented. she said she did not do those things, that she did not send or receive classified e-mails, that she used one server and one device for her convenience. since then, i think even if your statement you recognize those were not correct. is that fair? >> i really don't want to get in

the business of trying to parse and judge her public statements. i think i've tried to avoid doing that sitting here. >> why do you feel that's important? >> what matters to me is what did she say to the fbi. that's first and foremost for us. >> honest people don't need to lie, is that right? >> honest people don't need to lie? i hope not. >> in this case, for some reason, she felt the need to misrepresent what she had done with this server all through out the investigation. you guys after a year brought her in on saturday, and in 3 1/2 hours came out with the conclusion she shouldn't be prosecuted because there was no intent. is that right? >> no. >> i don't want to put words in your mouth. is it fair to say your interpretation of hillary clinton's handling of top secret information, classified documents was extremely careless? >> yes. >> is it fair to say you said that -- you went on to define extremely careless, that hillary clinton's handling of top secret information was sloppy or

represents sloppiness? >> yeah. that's another way of trying to express the same concept. >> a u few minutes ago you stated you now believe hillary clinton is not nearly as sophisticated as people thought. is that correct? >> i think that's fair -- not as people thought, but as people would assume about somebody with that background. i should be clear about this, technically sophisticated. i'm not opining on other kinds of sophistication. >> in this last minute, director, i want to talk little about precedent. i think my colleague trey gowdy made a great point, there's no precedent in terms of punishment for this type of behavior. are you familiar with brian nish mirra's case, a naval reservist who was prosecuted. what is the difference between his case and hillary clinton's case in terms of extremely careless and gross negligence? we're dealing with statute 793 section f where it doesn't

require intent, is that correct? >> 793 f is the gross negligence standards. >> right. is that why brian nearby mirra was punished? >> no. he was prosecuted under the misdemeanor statute, 1924 on facts that are very different. if you want me to go through them, i'll go through them. >> i think there's been a review of this case and they're very similar and that's why people feel there's a double standard. >> what they're reading in the media is not a complete accounting of the facts in that case. >> would you agree then with representative gowdy that there still really is no precedence for punishing someone like hillary clinton and she could really go in -- potentially go in as president and do this again without fear of being punished. >> i don't think i'm qualified to answer that question. >> i now recognize the gentlewoman from new mexico ms. lou hahn grisham. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i've had the benefit, when you're last, or nearly last, to really have both the benefit and then to question the kinds of statements and the dialogue back and forth. where i'm settled at this point in time is in a couple places, but particularly i don't think there's any member in this committee or quite frankly any member in congress who doesn't both want and expect that the fbi and the department of justice to operate in a fair, unbiased, highly independent manner. otherwise you can't appropriately uphold or enforce federal law. while we've all -- this has been stated in a couple different ways, i want to get direct answers. mr. comey, is there any evidence, given that that's the

standard we all want, desire and expect, to suggest that hillary clinton was not charged by the department of justice due to inappropriate political influence or due to her current or previous public positions? >> zero. and if there is such evidence, i'd love folks to show it to me. >> in that regard, was there a double standard? >> no. in fact, i think my entire goal was to avoid a double standard, to avoid what sometimes prosecutors call celebrity hunting and doing something for a famous person you would never do for an ordinary joe or jane. >> thank you. i really appreciate that you're here today and explaining the process in great detail, frankly. this committee works at getting specific detail about a variety of reviews, investigations, policies, concepts, throughout

federal government. i think i can say this committee often finds that we don't get very much clarity or specific responses to the majority of questions that we ask. so i really appreciate that and in explaining what led the fbi to conclude hillary clinton shouldn't be charged. saying that, i'm still concerned that the use of this hearing and some of the public statements made by elected officials accusing the department of justice of using a double standard without any evidence at all to support that statement leaning on accusations of such, in fact, jeopardizes the very thing we want the most which is an apolitical and independent department of justice. we have every right to ask these tough questions, and to be clear that the process you use for everyone, including elected officials works and that there's

a responsibility not to substitute your own political preferences for the outcome of an independent and apolitical department of justice investigation. on any level, whether it involves hillary clinton or anybody else. do you agree with that general statement? >> yes. for me, that's a really important ethical line that i believe should never be crossed. i worry that some of what we did today could be, frankly, interpreted as violating that very standard. for that i want the american people and my constituents who are watching to understand that very important line and to be sure that our responsibility is better served making sure we do have, in fact, an independent body whose aim it is to bring about truth and justice and uphold the federal law. sir, based on everything you

said today, i don't see any reason to disagree with your statements, your assessments or the explanation of that process. >> with the little time i do have left, i do want to say that given that some of the classified material that we've both debated and talked about today can be classified later or up-classified, or that other agencies have different determinations of what constitutes classified and not. i do think that's a process that warrants refining, and if something can come out of this hearing about making sure we do something better in the future for everyone, not just appointed or elected officials, that that ought to be something that we do. i'm often confused by some of the things that are clearly told to us in a classified briefing that appear to be different or already out in the public in some way. i'm not sure who is making those decisions. i honor my responsibility to the

highest degree, but i think that's a process that could use some significant refining. that's my only suggestion, sir. thank you for being here today. >> we'll now recognize the gentleman from georgia, plfrmt carter for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman and director comey. i'm going to be real quick and try to be succinct. i want to clarify some things that you said. look, i don't want to go over everything everybody has been through today. we've had some great questions here that have asked you about you said this, she said that. representative gowdy made a great case of this is what she said under oath and publicly and yet you dispute that and say, no, this is the case. i've just got a couple questions, okay? first of all, did i understand you correctly that your

decision -- this decision was made within 3 1/2 hours of an interview and that was all? zbl no. we investigated for a year. >> but you interviewed her for 3 1/2 hours last week and then came to the conclusion? >> correct. we interviewed her on saturday far 3 1/2 hours, the last step in a year-long investigation. >> okay. now, i understand it, hillary clinton has testified that the servers she used were always safe and secure, yet you refute that and say no, that is not the case at all. were they ever secure? were the servers that she was using, were they ever secure? >> security is not binary, it's just degrees of security. it's less secure than one at the state department or even one at a private commercial provider like a gmail. >> let me ask you this. she's got staff and she's got people around her. did they know she was doing this? did they know she was using these other devices?

did anybody ever bring it to her attention and say, hey, you're not supposed to be doing that? >> i think a lot of people around the secretary understood she was using a private separate -- >> why didn't they say something? >> that's an important question that goes to the culture of the state department that's worth asking. >> we all surround ourself on good people and depend on them to help us. should they be held responsible for that, for not bringing that to someone's attention? if i see someone who is not following protocol, is it my responsibility to report them? >> yes. especially when it comes to security matters, you have an obligation to report a security violation you may witness, whether it's involving you or one of your co-workers. this is about -- >> what about brian pagano. did he ever know? do you know if he knew she was

not following proper protocol here snr. >> he helped set it up. >> so obviously he knew. >> obviously he knew -- >> is anything going to be done to him, any prosecution, any discipline? >> i don't know about discipline, not going to be prosecution of him. >> i yield. >> my understanding, director, is you offered him immunity. why did you offer him immunity and what did you get for that? >> i'm not sure what i can talk in open setting about that. >> he's not going to be prosecuted. >> right. i want to be careful. i'm doing this 4 hours after the investigation closed. i want to be thoughtful. we're big about the law, i want to be sure i'm following the law about what i disclose about that. i don't want to answer that off-the-cuff. >> director comey, i am not a lawyer. i'm not an investigator. i'm a pharmacist, but i'm a citizen. citizens are upset.

i watched with great interest when you laid out your case. you laid it out, bam, bam, bam, here is what she did wrong, wrong, wrong. and then all of a sudden you used the word "however." it was like you could hear a gasp throughout the country of people saying, oh, here we go again. do you regret presenting it in a way like that? >> no. i think i didn't use the word however. i try never to use that in speaking. i did lay it out in a way i thought made sense and that i hoped was maximum transparency for people. >> i'm sorry. that's the point. it didn't make sense. the way you were laying it out, it would have made sense and the way the questions have been asked here and we made all these points of where she was obviously told lies underneath -- under oath that it

would have been, okay, we finally got one here. >> i think it made sense. i hope folks go back with a cup of tea and open their minds and read my statement again carefully. again, if you disagree, that's okay. >> but -- look, i've only been here 18 months. i'm going to tell you, this inside the beltway men at that time, no wonder people don't trust us. >> i have -- i know who you're talking about. i have no kind of inside-the-beltway mentality. >> this is an example of what i'm talking about here. as a non-lawyer, as a non-investigator, it would appear to me you have got a hell of a case. >> i'm telling you we don't. and i hope people take the time to understand why. >> mr. chairman, i yield back. >> i now recognize the gentleman from arizona -- let's go ahead

and go to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. mulvaney first. >> director comey, earlier today you heard a long list of statements mrs. clinton made previously both to the congress and public that were not factually accurate. when she met with you folks on saturday last week, i take it she didn't say the same things at that interview? >> i'm not equipped sitting here without the 302 in front of me to answer in that broad brush. i have no basis -- we do not have a basis for concluding she lied to the phish. >> did anybody ask her on saturday why she told you one thing and told us another? >> i don't know as i sit here. >> would that have been of interest to you in helping to establish intent? >> it could have been, sure. >> more importantly, did anybody ask her why she set up the e-mail system as she did in the first place? >> yes. >> the answer was convenience?

>> it was already there, a system her husband had. >> were you aware her assistant said it was for an entire dlircht reason, to keep e-mails from being accessible and for concealment purposes. umaa abidine said it was to keep her e-mail service from being accessible. were you aware of that testimony? >> generally, yes. >> here is the summary i take from what we've done today. over the course of the entire system, she intentionally set up a system according to your findings, she was careless regarding technical security. she did that according to her own staffer's deposition for the purpose of preventing access to those e-mails. as a result of this, she exposed top secret information to potential hack by foreign actors. you've seen e-mails. we have not. i think you said earlier the

e-mails could be of the sort that would put national security at risk. we testimony earlier and got you to acknowledge that it might put our agents overseas at risk. >> i don't think i agree with that, but it's still important. >> she kept all of that secret until after she left the state department. she lied about it or at least made untrue statements about it after it finally came to light. she thereafter ordered the destruction of evidence, evidence destroyed so thoroughly that you folks could not do an adequate recovery. yet she receives no criminal penalty. i guess this is my question to you. are we to assume as we sit here today, that if the next president of the united states does the exact same thing on the day he or she is sworn into office, sets up a private e-mail service for the purpose of concealing information from the public or from anybody, that as a result of that, potentially exposes national security level information to our enemies, lies

about it and then destroys the evidence during an investigation, that there will be no criminal charges, if you're the fbi director, against that person. >> that's not a question the fbi director should answer. >> i'm asking, if she does the exact same thing as president as she's done today, your result would be the exact same as it was 48 hours ago, there would be no criminal findings. >> if the facts were exactly the same and the law was exactly the same, the result would be the same. >> i guess under the theory that, if the law is to be equally applied to everybody, that if a white house staffer does the exact same thing for the exact same purpose and exposes the exact same risks, there would be no criminal action against that person? there could be administrative penalties, there are no administrative penalties, as i understand it, against the president, correct? >> i don't think so, but i'm not a constitutional --

>> i don't think you can take away the president's top security clearance. i'm pretty sure you can't fire the president because we've tried. not only, would a staffer not have any criminal charges brought against him, but i suppose a summer intern could do the exact same thing under the theory that we'll apply the law equally regardless of who the people are. my question to you is this, and it's not a legal question, i guess it's a common sense ordinary question that folks are asking me. from a national security standpoint, somebody who used to lecture on that, does that bother you? >> the mishandling of classified information bothers me no matter what circumstance because it has national security implications. >> does it bother you that the precedent you are setting today may well lead to a circumstance where our top secret information continues to be exposed to our potential enemies? >> no, in this sense.

the precedent i'm setting today is my absolute best effort to treat people fairly without regard to who they are. if that continues to be the record of the fbi and the justice department, that's what it should be. the rest of the implications in your question are beyond that. they're important, but they're not for the fbi to answer. we should aspire to be apolitical, facts on the law, treat joe the same as sally as secretary so and so. that's my goal. >> if you had come to a different decision -- by the way -- >> the gentleman -- >> if you had come to dafrpt decision, do you think it would have a different precedential value that would keep the information more safe? >> if we decided to recommend criminal charges here? >> yes, sir. >> i don't know. that's a good question. i guess i'm a lawyer, i can argue everything both ways. >> thank you director comey. >> now recognize the gentleman from arizona, mr. go sar.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. my colleague referred to ryan pag leanne know. were you made aware of the deal of immunity for him? >> i am aware. >> now that attorney general lynch stated there would be no charges, there's many that suspect that he failed to answer questions in his congressional deposition, that he had something to hide. why did your investigators at the doj decide it was necessary to offer him immunity? >> as i said in response to your earlier question, i need to be more thoughtful about what i say about an immunity deal in public. it may be totally fine. i don't want to screw up because we're doing it so quickly. in general i can answer. you make a grant of immunity in order to get information that you don't think you could get otherwise. >> you know there maybe something there in hyped site, right? you're looking ahead because of

the pertinent information this person possesses. >> you believe they have relevant information to the investigation. >> did investigators draft an interview report known as a 302 with mr. pagliano. >> will you commit to disclosing the voluntary 302s for the witnesses interviewed as part of your investigation? >> i'll commit to giving you everything i can possibly give you under the law and to doing it as quickly as possible. that said, that means i've got to go back and sort it out. for example, the 302 of secretary clinton is classified. we have to sort through all that. we'll do it quickly. >> i know you've done this, because you've done it for lois lerner and other cases. so we would expect that. >> hillary clinton testified before congress and told the american people she never e-mailed anything any classified information to anyone on her e-mail server. clinton told the american people, the laws and regulations in effect when i was secretary

of state allowed me to use my e-mail for work. this is undisputed. end of quote. your investigation revealed that also wasn't true. clinton claims she turned overall her work related e-mails. your investigation revealed this wasn't also true. clinton claimed there was no security breaches and her private servers had numerous safeguards. your investigation revealed eight chains on her servers containing top secret information and it was possible, quote, hostile actors gained access to sensitive information. multiple people she e-mailed regularly were hacked and her private servers are less secure than a gmail account. director comey, it's a federal crime to mishandle classified information in a grossly negligent way. you stated clinton and her colleagues were extremely careless. she stated she was well aware of the classification requirements yet she broke the law anyway. multiple people have been prosecuted for less and there's a growing trend of abuse in

senior level employees. the only difference between she and others is her resistance to acknowledge her irresponsible behavior that jeopardized our national security and the american people. i think you should recommend clinton be projected under section 1024 of title 18. if not who, if not when? there shouldn't be a double standard for the clintons and they shouldn't be above the law. with that i'll yield the rest of my time to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. gowdy. >> through, dr. gosar. director comey i want to go back to the issue of intent. we can disagree whether or not it's an element of the offense. let's assume for the sake of argument you're right and i'm wrong and it is an element of the offense. secretary clinton said she was, quote, well aware of classification requirements. those are her words, not mine and not yours. if she were, quote, well aware of classification requirements, how did that impact your analysis of her intent?

because i've heard you this morning describe her as being less than sophisticated. she disagrees with that. >> i was talking about technical sophisticati sophistication. the question is, i would hope everybody who works in the government is aware of classification requirements. the question then is if you mishandle classified information, when you did that thing, did you know you were doing something that was unlawful. that's the intent question. >> you and i are going to have to get together some other time and discuss all the people we prosecuted who were unaware that they were breaking the law. there are lots of really dumb defendants out there who don't know what they're doing is against the law. but let's go with what you said -- >> i disagree -- you may have prosecuted a lot of those folks. i didn't -- >> i was a gunner prosecutor and you were a white color prosecutor. there are plenty of people out there who don't know they can't kill other people. let me ask you this, on the issue of intent, you say it was convenience.

you're a really smart lawyer. if it were convenience, she wouldn't have waited two years to return the documents and she wouldn't have deleted them four years after they were created. you can't really believe her intent was convenience when she never turned them over until congress started asking for them, could you? >> my focus, and i hope i made this clear. my focus was what was the thinking around the classified information. it's relevant why the system was set up and the thinking there. i don't understand her to be saying -- i think i've said it already. that's my focus. >> i know i'm out of time. it strikes me you are reading a specific element into a gross negligence statute. >> the gentleman's time has expired. you can answer. >> i enjoy talking with him. the question you've got to ask is why is it that the department

of justice since 1917 has not used whether their decision was smart or not, that is the record of fairness. so you have to decide, do i treat this person against that record, and if i do, is that a fair thing to do? even if you aren't worried about the constitutionality of it. my judgment is no reasonable prosecutor would do that. that would be celebrity hunting. that would be treating this person differently than john doe. >> director, i want to follow up on that. why did you do what you did? my interpretation of what the fbi is supposed to be doing is come to a determination of the facts and then turn it over to a prosecutor. you were a prosecutor but you're not a prosecutor now. it is unprecedented that an fbi director gave the type of press conference that he did and took a position that an unreasonable prosecutor would only take this case forward. why did you do that?

>> yeah. it's a great question. everything i did would have been done privately in the normal course. we had a great conversation in the fbi and prosecutors. we make recommendations and we argue back and forth. what i decided to do was offer transparency to the american people about the whys of that, what i was going to do because i thought that was very, very important for their confidence in the system of justice. and within that their confidence in the fbi. i was very concerned that if i didn't show that transparency, in that lack of transparency people would say, what's going on here, something seems squirrelly here. i said i will do something unprecedented because i think this is an unprecedented situation. the next directorly investigati the two candidates for president map find himself bound by my precedent. if that happens in the next 100 years, they'll have to deal with what i did.

dh is something that bothered me in the low business lerner case. it bothers me in this case. miss lawrence talks about there. the chilling effect of your having to come here and justify your decisions. and i know that you've been really nice and you just explained why you did what you did and i'm glad you're doing it. b but, do you at all -- i mean taking off -- i'm just talking about here you've got people making decisions and then being pulled here in the congress to then say, okay, to be questioned about the decisions. at what point -- or do you even think about it becoming a chilling effect because most

people when their decision is made don't get this opportunity. as you well know. there are no statements. you know? they either get indicted, or they're not. so i noted you see this as a special case. and i wonder whether you agree with miss lawrence that we may be just going down a slippery slope. that's all i want to ask. >> my honest answer is i don't think so. when i talked to the chairman, i agreed to come because i think the american people care deeply about this. there's all kinds of folks watching this at home or being told, well, lots of other cases were prosecuted and she wasn't. i want them to know, that's not true! so i want to have this conversation. i actually welcome the opportunity. look, it is a pain. i've had to go to the bathroom for about an hour. but it is -- >> we're half-way done. [ laughter ] >> it is really important to do. this is an unprecedented situation. transparency is the absolute best thing for me and for democracy. i realize, mr. chairman, my folk told me i screwed up one fact

thashd fi should fix. in the petraeus case we didn't find the notebooks in the attic. we found them in his desk. but i really don't think it has a chilling effect. again, it if there is another presidential candidate being investigated by the fbi, maybe they'll be bound by this. lord willing, it is not going to happen again. certainly i have 2,4619 days left in this job. it won't happen on my term but if it does i won't be chilled. >> if we need a humanitarian break, just give me the cue. >> i feel like we're almost done though. >> we're on the right trajectory, yes. but we would like to recognize the gentleman from alabama, mr. palmer, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. director comey, your statement on tuesday indicated secretary clinton and her colleagues sent and received e-mails marked classified on an unsecurity e-mail server that may or may not have been hacked by a foreign power. are you aware that teenage hackers hacked personal e-mail accounts of cia director john brennan, the director of u.s.

national intelligence, james clapper, and fbi deputy director mark giulano. >> i am intensely aware. they didn't hack by they got access. >> the point is these were commercially protected personal e-mail accounts that contained no classified information. yet miss clinton used her personal e-mail, not a commercial account, on a server in her basement without even this basic protection. and transmitted classified information through that account. if teenagers in england were able to hack the personal e-mail accounts of the director of the cia, director of u.s. national intelligence and the deputy director of fbi, does it concern you that sophisticated hackers or hackers working for foreign interests never attempted -- does it seem ream that they never attempted or were never successful in hacking mrs. clinton's personal e-mail accounts? or one of her devices? >> concerns me a great deal. that's why we spent so much time

to see if we could figure out -- see fingerprints of that. >> you said in your statement regarding your recommendation not to prosecute, to be clear this is not suggested in similar circumstances. a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. to the contrary, these individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions, but that is not what we are deciding here. do you stand by that? >> yes. yes. >> i thought you would. you also said you could not prove intent. i want to touch on a couple things here. one, a reasonable person would not have compromised classified information by keeping that information on inadequately secure private devices. in other words, such a person would be viewed as unreasonable and unsuitable for any position in our position that included any responsibility for handling and protecting classified information. would you agree? >> i would agree it would be negligent. i can't prejudge a suitability

determination. but two definitely be stared at very hard. >> let me tell you why i bring this up. i sat here next to mr. herd who served his company valiantly. put his life on the line. i don't know if you could sense the passion and intensity of his questions because he knows people whose lives are on the line right now. and in regard to his questions, if someone -- a u.s. intelligence agent had their mission compromised, or worse, had been killed or injured or captured because of the carelessness of someone responsible for protecting classified information, would intent matter at that point? >> in deciding whether to prosecute the person? of course. but -- yeah. that's the answer. of course it would. it would -- the matter would be deadly serious but the legal standards would be the same. >> what we're dealing with in this hearing is not the lack of due diligence in handling

routine government data or information but the lack of due diligence by secretary clinton and her carelessness in handling classified information that could have compromised american national security and, as mr. herd pointed out, the missions and personal safety of our intelligence agents. that troubles me greatly. and i think the issue here -- and i do respect you. i have spoken in your defense many times, at this point to my detriment. but i do believe that your answers are honest and factual. but based on your answers regarding mrs. clinton's use of e-mail, and based on what we know, it seems to me that she is stunningly incompetent in her understanding of the basic technology of e-mail and stunningly incompetent in handling classified information.

i mean you should never associate the secretary of state and classified information with the word "careless." it doesn't matter. we have to exercise the utmost due diligence. all of us on this committee do in handling this. you do in prosecuting cases. and i see that in what you're trying to do. i just think we need to leave here with this understanding -- that there is more to this story than we know. if a foreign hacker got into this, i can assure you that they know what was in those e-mails that were deleted. they read them all. they know what is in the e-mails that we never received. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. now to the gentleman from wisconsin for five minutes. >> thank you. thanks for coming on over to the

r rayburn building. as i understand it, your testimony today is that you have not brought criminal charges against hillary clinton, in part because you feel you can't prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and in part because she didn't understand the laws with regard to e-mails and servers and that sort of thing. question for you. when she erased these e-mails -- i digress for a second. you, however, did say that if somebody did this under you, there would be consequences. if somebody did exactly what mrs. clinton did but was one of your lieutenants, or you think one of the lieutenants under the cia or some other agency that deals with top-secret documents, what would you do to those underlings? >> i would make sure that they were adjudicated through a security disciplinary proceeding to figure outha