but we all know we're paying too much for it. enter xfinity mobile. america's best lte, with the most wifi hotspots combined for the first time. when you're near an xfinity hotspot you're connected to wifi, saving on data. when you're not, you pay for data one gig at a time. use a little, pay a little. use a lot, just switch to unlimited. it's a new kind of network. call, visit or go to xfinitymobile.com.

welcome to the town haul with former fbi director james comey. i'm anderson cooper. director worked as the u.s. attorney for the southern district of original and then as the deputy attorney general for the -- he was appointed director of the fbi by president barack obama in 2013 and led the bureau's investigation into hillary clinton's e-mails that cleared her of wrongdoing but

not without extraordinary controversy, president trump fired him, triggering the special appointment of robert mueller whose redacted report has almost 650 mentions of director comey's name. the assembled group here has nearly that many things to ask him. the audience is made up of students and professionals from more than a dozen states living in the d.c. area and their questions are all their own. we want to mention director comey is the author of the book of "a higher loyalty," i want to welcome former fbi director james comey. [ applause ] >> so i want to get to the questions in a second. i want to start out with two questions for you, it was two

years ago tonight, i believe it happened in the 7:00 hour on the east coast of the u.s. that you were fired and i -- if the reporting is correct you were at an fbi bureau, i think, in los angeles and you actually saw it on cnn that you had been fired. i'm wondering two years later with all that's happened how do you look back on that moment? >> i was numb because i didn't expect to be fired. i was actually in a room about this size talking to custodial staff employees about the importance of the fbi's mission. i looked over their heads and saw -- first it said comey resigns which i thought was probably a prank and then it said comey fired and i know this may sound strange but i didn't expect to be fired. never entered my mind. i knew by that point the president didn't like me. i thought that's okay because that will keep a separation. so it still feels a little bit numbing, frankly. and like it happened yesterday. and a lifetime ago. >> what happens when you see that you've been fired on television, like who do you call? >> first of all you finish -- i

finished what i was saying to these folks and shook each of their hands and then i said to them i'm going to go find out whether that's true and the first call i took was from my wife as i walked across the room. she said have you been fired? she said the kids say it's all over the internet. with the help of my assistant in washington, a guy was knocking on the door saying he had a letter for me from the president that i was fired. long before i got the letter the media was told. that's how it happened. >> before we go to questions president trump today talked about you, he said that bob mueller is "in love with james comey. he likes james comey. they were very good friends. supposedly best friends, maybe not but supposedly best friends. you look at the picture file and you see hundreds of pictures of him and comey." is mueller in love with you? >> i respect him. i don't think we have that kind of relationship.

he certainly -- >> you just want to be friends. >> he's not obsessed with me in the way some others seem to be. >> first question, zach schonfeld, a student at the george washington university. from virginia. >> thanks for taking my question. with your knowledge of the president and experiences in the fbi and with bob mueller does anything in the mueller report surprise you? >> no. there were a lot of facts in the mueller report that i didn't know but i knew it would be high quality work if we got a chance as a country to read it and what he describes about russia's intervention in our election didn't surprise me at all, confirmed what i knew from when i was at the bureau and what he laid out about the president's efforts to obstruct justice was broader in scope than i personally knew but given what i had seen it didn't surprise me, honestly. >> the references to you, do you think mueller got the parts about you right? >> i think so because the record was fairly clear with me. i tried to write down everything important that happened and so

he had the benefit of those things and my testimony under oath. yeah, i think it's right. >> do you feel the mueller report vindicated you, some of the things president trump said you were lying about mueller backed you up on, said that they weren't lies. >> i knew i was telling the truth the whole time. i basically told that same story under oath in front of the sonata time when the president was hinting there were tapes of our conversations together. i knew i was telling the truth. i think the country knew i was telling the truth and mueller simply confirmed that. >> the president keeps make ago point that the mueller report found no collusion. is that something you accept? >> well, that's actually not what the report says. mueller says, first of all as you know, anderson, collusion is not a term that lawyers use or should use. he found it was not sufficient evidence to charge a conspiracy between americans and the russian effort. that strikes me as a reasonable conclusion and i accept it. >> the next question is from sabrine wadan, from virginia.

>> good evening, mr. comey. "the new york times" reported that the fbi sent an investigator posing as an assistant to meet with a trump aide george papadopoulos in 2016. does that qualify as spying? >> i'm not going to comment on a particular investigate ive step because that's for the bureau to do. i'm not in the government any longer. the fbi doesn't spy to begin with. the fbi investigates. you've got to remember where we were end of july of 2016. we knew the russians were engaged in a massive effort to attack our democracy. and then we learned from an allied ambassador that one of president elect -- candidate trump's advisers had been talking to a russian representative long before that about dirt they had an hillary clinton that the russians wanted to make available. we all should have been fired if when we learned that we didn't investigate to figure out is there a connection between any americans and this russian effort? and the fbi, in my view, took

very reasonable steps, careful steps to try and understand, is that true? and i can't believe republicans would have wanted it any other way. and we acted in a responsible, limited and constrained way. >> you said it's not spying. why do you think attorney barr used the word spying? >> i can't explain it. the only explanation i can think of is he used it because the president uses it, which is really disappointing. he knows better than that and knows that the fbi conducts electronic surveillance by going to federal judges and getting warrants based on probable cause. >> but sending an investigator under cover to meet with somebody who is connected to the campaign, they claimed he was later on just a coffee boy, that is an extreme step, no? >> no, it's a reasonable -- that was the guy, papadopoulos, who was the subject of the information we got from the australians, that he had talked to the russians. >> did you sign off on the

investigator going? >> i don't remember talking about that particular step with my team. i knew they were trying to see if they could check it out. that's a totally normal step, see if you can get somebody close to the person and see if they'll confirm what we heard from the australians. >> how involved were you overall overseeing the investigation, this is an investigation where at this point on the papadopoulos, donald trump had already been named the candidate for the republican party. >> i was involved the way the director should be involved, briefed on it on a regular basis but the director never runs an investigation but they kept me closely informed because i told them this is important, i want it kept very close hold but do what you need to do under our authorities to figure out whether -- >> you're saying you're not sure if you knew they were sending somebody understood cover to talk to papadopoulos. >> i want to leave it to the fbi to confirm what investigative steps they took. that news article wasn't based on an official release. i don't want to comment on particular steps. in general they would tell me

we're following through to try and understand whether there's evidence to establish this. >> the inspector general, the attorney general are looking into the origins of the investigation, of the president and his campaign. are you confident you did everything by the book and that the fbi, the people around you did everything by the book? >> yes. >> no doubt? >> no doubt in my mind but that doesn't mean i'm against review of it. that's totally fine. >> you think the inspector general will find nothing inappropriate? >> not that i know of. if they do, they do. they should be transparent about it. >> cnn has spoken with two people in the fbi that are bracing for what may be uncovered. >> i'm a big believer in the truth. if the truth is there was something concerning. let's hear it. i don't know of anything like that. >> this is trevor lions, from connecticut, studying chemistry, trevor. >> hi, mr. comey. my question is based on your firing and the attempted firing of other doj officials and the debate over whether or not this

constitutes obstruction of justice as a former prosecutor and fbi director where do you think the line should be drawn between executive power and obstruction of justice? >> well, hard to say in the abstract except maybe this that the president is not above the law and i don't accept the notion that because the president is the head of the executive branch he can't ever obstruct justice in connection with executive branch activities. that's crazy and a recipe for lawlessness. did the president act in a way that manifested a corrupt intent, not the discharge of his constitutional duties but a corrupt intent to interfere with an ongoing proceeding or to intimidate or tamper with a witness. that's a factual question. there's a whole lot of facts laid out in bob mueller's report that raise serious questions about whether there's a chargeable case for obstruction and witness tampering against this president. >> do you think he had criminal intent based on what you have seen now in the mueller report? >> it sure looks like he did in connection with a couple

episodes, the direction to don mcgahn to get the special counsel fired is, to my mind, a flaming example -- >> of corrupt intent. >> and even the attorney general has said well what the president meant was he wanted don mcgahn to convey his concerns. well, really? don mcgahn went and called his lawyer, packed his office and said he was going to quit. i don't think that's the reaction of the white house counsel when it's about conveying concerns. >> in your opinion there was corrupt intent? >> sure looks that way from the reports factual recitation. >> if, you know, it's up to 800 former federal prosecutors who have worked in both republican and democratic administrations who have signed a statement saying mueller's findings would have produced obstruction charges against president trump if he weren't president. do you agree? >> yeah, i agree. >> no doubt? >> no doubt. again, there's ten different episodes. i actually think the ones that would be most likely charged are not necessarily the ones that involved me but particularly this mcgahn episode and another

episode where he was trying to get the attorney general to limit the investigation only to future elections are examples that any reasonable prosecutor would charge. >> mueller basically was operating and going by department of justice guidelines that a sitting president can't be indicted. was he right to do that? >> i don't know. he was trying to -- as best -- i haven't talked to him but reading his report -- >> but he loves you. >> i keep forgetting that. i can't wait to see all the pictures of us hugging and kissing. yeah, because they're not in my i cloud account, maybe somebody else has them. send them if you have them. he was trying, i think, to do something principled and fair and i can tell you from personal experience sometimes when you try to do that people misunderstand you. he said i can't indict the president because of department of justice policy. and given that it would be unfair to accuse him of a crime in a document when he can't vindicate himself through a trial. so what i'll do is look at it and say could i say there's nothing there, which i could

clear him, if i can't say that i ought to just lay out the facts for a future prosecutor, often overlooked that he says that in the report, so that a judgment can be made after he's president about whether to charge him and so the congress can discharge its duties. now, the problem is that's very nuanced and principled in an effort to be fair that the attorney general distorted with the way he described it. >> do you think he should be charged when he's out of office based on what mueller has shown? >> the justice department will have to take a serious look at that. whether it's a wise thing to do to a former president, i don't know, that's a harder question, a much bigger question than the facts of the case. >> you think the evidence is there to prosecute? >> sure looks like it with at least a couple episodes of obstruction. >> i want you to meet andre strakov, he works for the grant training center. your question? >> hi, director comey. having lived in russia i can

tell you that the public opinion of president trump there is lukewarm to negative at best. it also seems that the personal relationship between putin and trump has cooled. so personal collusion is pretty hard to buy into. as such do you think there are any other russian goals behind u.s. election interference beyond trying to destabilize our faith in american democracy and undermine our world leadership geopolitically? >> donald trump was third on the list of goals. they want to dirty up this democracy so it's not an example for other nations around the world. second, they wanted to hurt hillary clinton who vladimir putin hated. and last they wanted to help donald trump who even they weren't sure could win the election. so going into 2020 their goals, may common sense tells me, will be to continue their overarching goal which is to damage the united states of america and then to support president trump

because surely, they think, they'll do better with someone who jokes on the phone with vladimir putin that the russia thing is a hoax than they will with whoever else might be president. >> president trump says, and just very recently blamed the obama administration saying they didn't do enough about russian interference. what should have been defense attorney more? could more have been done? you were at the fbi at that point. >> that's a hard question. president obama faced a very difficult choice. the number one goal for the russians is to damage our democracy and undermine faith in our electoral process. if he makes an announcement that the russians are coming for the election has he just accomplished their goal for them? i get why he struggled with it. he did a sensible thing, tried to get the bipartisan leaders of congress to jointly tell the american people this is going on and my view to their ever lasting shame the republicans refused. >> you offered to write an op-ed, didn't you?

>> yup. this summer -- >> warning the american public about russian interference and they -- the administration said no? >> yeah, i offered it to the administration saying if you decide to try and inoculate the american people, i'm happy to do it. i get why president obama hesitated and i agreed with his concern about not accomplishing the russian goal for them. >> this is josh cutner from new jersey, studying political science at george washington university, director of political affairs of the school's college of republicans. >> thank you for being here director comey. when many americans go to the ballot box, they'll have to make a judgment call with economic over trump's behavior. you've previously called on americans to vote trump out of office in 2020. why do you think voters should prioritize trump's personal flaws over their own economic well being. >> thank you for the question, i wouldn't frame it that way. i think we should start where i

thought republicans always said we should start with the nature and character of the leader and his respect for or attacks on our values, truth and the rule of law among them. that's the most important level in american politics. a level down from that is important policy questions. to my mind this question at the top level is so obviously answered you cannot have a president who's a chronic liar. i don't care what your passions around tax cuts or regulation or immigration, i respect difference there. the president of the united states cannot be someone who lies constantly. i thought republicans agreed with that. it's one of the reasons i'm no longer a republican. i hope american people realize we have to start at that values level no matter what our political background, we answer that question first. then get to the important policy differences. >> are we in a constitutional crisis, as jerry nadler -- are we in a constitutional crisis as

jerry nadler and house speaker pelosi say we are? >> i actually don't think so. i think we're in a time where our constitutional design, the genius of our founders is going to be tested and i think it's up for it. congress has made demands, the newly awakened congress, thank goodness they're living out the design of the founders, trying to conduct oversight. the executive is resisting and that battle is going to be fought out in the courts, all three branches of our government are going to be involved. a crisis would be if the united states courts say no, mr. president, you must comply with this demand, then he says no then, we're not there. our system is being stress tested but it's up for it. >> we've got a question, i want to preface a little bit for our viewers at home in case they haven't been following, the question is about peter strzok and lisa page and andrew mccabe. they exchanged texts bashing trump, stock played a key role

in hillary clinton's investigation. page resigned and mccabe was director comey's deputy of the fbi, lied to internal investigators about leaking information to the press. he was fired last year. go to our questioner. this is christy mccampbell, who worked for more than 30 years in the law enforcement, she currently works as a strategic consultant for law enforcement agencies. >> good evening. considering the high standards that we set for law enforcement what do you think should have been the consequences for peter strzok, lisa page and andrew mccabe? >> i thank you for the question i think given the standards that we have, and especially we in the fbi have, there should have been and was severe discipline around their behavior. as anderson said very different episodes of behavior. everyone has opinions about political issues and religious issues and sports issues. you can't bring them to work and have them affect your work.

there have to be severe consequences. fbi employees must tell the truth always. if they don't, i don't care what it's about, it's going to be investigated and there will be severe consequences. that's the way it should be in an organization of 38,000, people will do stuff they shouldn't do and a message has to be sent to them. i have no problem with severe discipline. >> andrew mccabe said he didn't know about the texts between stock and page. he was their boss. do you believe it's possible he wasn't even aware of their opinions, not -- he may not have seen text messages, but that he wasn't aware of the opinions that they held about then candidate trump? >> yeah, that strikes me as reasonable because -- >> it's reasonable that he wouldn't? >> that they would never let him see that. just as they would never let me see that. >> you never heard from them anything negative about president trump? >> no, never. if they had those opinions, which they clearly did in the texts, they would be risking

their careers to let me hear about it because they understood how i approached the job. >> if andrew mccabe heard them expressing those things, what action would have been taken? >> they certainly wouldn't be working on investigations that touched the candidates or the political process at all and there would have been discipline beyond that. >> this whole episode, damaged the reputation of the fbi and tarnished the investigation? >> definitely, yeah, very painful. it was important that it be investigated and important that there be discipline that follows it. made us all look bad. peter strzok is a very talented agent. it's a personal tragedy for him. but as much as i care about individuals, i care about the institution more. it hurt the institution. >> we're going to be back with our 360 town hall with former fbi director james comey. back in a minute. is your floor's best friend. only roomba uses 2 multi-surface rubber brushes to grab and remove pet hair.

and the roomba filter captures 99% of dog and cat allergens. if it's not from irobot, it's not a roomba. we humans are strange creatures. other species avoid pain and struggle. we actually... seek it out. other species do difficult things because they have to. we do difficult things. because we like to. we think it's... fun. introducing the all-new 2019 ford ranger built for the strangest of all creatures. with verizon up, we won luke bryan tickets. there's an area just for verizon up members. it made me feel like a celebrity.

(vo) the network more people rely on, gives you more. like tickets on us to thousands of shows. and one of our best phones when you buy one. that's verizon. we need a solution.ut their phones down. introducing... smartdogs. the first dogs trained to train humans. stopping drivers from: liking. selfie-ing. and whatever this is. available to the public... never. smartdogs are not the answer. but geico has a simple tip. turn on "do not disturb while driving" mode. brought to you by geico. hi sweetie. i just want to let you know. forget the cards and the flowers, all i really want is a daughter-in-law. or a bracelet. hmm. get engaged this mother's day or get mom a bracelet. jared. welcome to our lounge. enjoy your stay. thanks very much. ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ find calm in over 1,000 airport lounges worldwide. it's another way we've got your back. the business platinum card from american express. don't do business without it.

welcome back to our "360" town hall with former fbi director james comey. he is also the author of a book, "higher loyalty" which is now out in paperback with a whole brand-new forward. we'll go back to the audience in just a second. i want to ask you about the steele dossier. just today rudy giuliani was raising questions about how well you, the fbi, vetted the

dossier. giuliani tweeted, quote, the steele dossier was unverified. he had it for five months after and never tried to verify it. if he did he would have found out that steele had not been in russia for at least seven years. he deliberately avoided discovering the truth. a, what do you think about what he says and how much work did the fbi do to verify the dossier? >> it's false in two respects. first, i told president trump that the particular allegation about him being involved with prostitutes in moscow was unverified, but i felt it important that he know about it. more broadly, the bureau began an effort after we got the steele dossier to see how much of it we could replicate. that work was ongoing when i was fired. some of it was consistent with our other intelligence, the most important part. the steele dossier said the russians are coming for the american election. it's a huge effort. it has multiple goals, that i laid out for the audience, and that was true. there were a lot of spokes off of that that we didn't know whether they were true or false,

and we were trying to figure out what we could make of it. >> you said that you had told president or then president-elect trump that it was unverified, the salacious aspects about the case. >> yes. >> george stephanopoulos interviewed you about your book and i just want to play something you said about the tape. >> do you believe his denial? >> i honestly never thought these words would come out of my mouth, but i don't know whether the current president of the united states was with prostitutes peeing on each other in moscow in 2013. it's possible, but i don't know. >> so the investigation is over now. nothing in the mueller report corroborated that salacious claim about the tapes and prostitutes. do you regret making those comments which some would see as sort of stoking the fires or leaving as an open question? >> no, i was trying to give an honest answer, and my answer would be the same today. >> but you could have just said those were unverified. >> i thought that's what i was saying. i don't know whether it's true or not. it's a crazy thing to have to

say because any other leader i would say that's preposterous. it couldn't possibly think that is true. there is a footnote in the mueller report that possibly makes a oblique reference to these tapes where someone in russia is alerting i think michael cohen in october, late october we stopped the flow of the tapes. i don't know exactly what he means by that. but mueller seems to connect it in some way to that allegation. again, mueller didn't say it wasn't the case. he didn't disprove it, but he also didn't establish that it was the case. >> i think that person said that those tapes were false. >> another important thing is the counterintelligence part of this work which is whether the russians had leverage over the president, that would be part of the counterintelligence investigation. mueller left that with the fbi. his document is about a prosecutor's look at whether there are crimes to be prosecuted. >> you think the russians have leverage over president trump? >> i don't know the answer to that. >> think it's possible? >> yes. >> our next question comes from idris o'connor, who works at northern virginia college.

he has a question about the department of justice's policy not to indict a sitle president. >> hi, director comey. do you think the policy for not indicting a sitting president should be revised by congress? >> the answer is i don't know. the policy on its face seems reasonable to me. its primary motivation is to not put yourself in a situation where you distract our pd -- president. when our founders set up a sanction to remove a president, and second, you don't create the very strange situation of the executive branch indicting its own leader, which sets up really interesting legal questions. so i'm not sure that it should be revisited. i think we have the mechanisms in place in our constitution to respond to presidential misconduct if congress wants to take advantage of them. >> if you had been running the investigation, would you have subpoenaed the president? >> i don't know. i think -- >> or at least figured out a way to demand that he actually come for an interview? >> yeah, i'd really want to interview him, which is one of the things that surprised me

about the attorney general's judgments about the president's intent. how does he know that? we haven't interviewed the man. i would have pushed for it, and i think i understand. it will be important for bob mueller to testify and clarify this. >> you think mueller should testify? >> oh, yeah, of course. and explain his thinking in a lot of these areas. i think his judgment was, look, we can't indict him anyway. we've got lots of evidence of obstruction of justice. we're compiling it for a future prosecutor. so why engage in a really long battle over forcing him to give us answers. we'll collect this information, preserve it for the future, and not waste the time with that battle. i don't know in hindsight whether that was the right call or not. >> has mueller made a mistake by not speaking out, by remaining silent and allowing essentially attorney general barr to define the report or the narrative? >> i don't know whether it's a mistake by bob mueller, because i don't know whether he anticipated the way in which the attorney general would act and the things he would say.

in hindsight, maybe bob mueller would have approached it differently. but look, the president says this report is a complete exoneration of him. so why on earth wouldn't the special counsel be permitted to testify? he will give us important insight into exactly what his thinking was, because i could be wrong about it, but exactly what he was collecting the evidence for and his assessment of it. >> what do you think of the way attorney general barr has behaved? because you had talked earlier right before the summary came out or right after the summary came out that you needed to give him the benefit of the doubt. >> yeah, and i said that because i think his career had earned that. and so i tried to withhold judgment. he did a very good thing in offering transparency. most of the report is unredacted so we could see it. and then i think he acted in a way that is less than honorable in the way he described it in writing and described it during a press conference, and continues to talk as if he is the president's lawyer. that is not the attorney general's job. it's a political appointment by the president, but you lead an

institution that belongs to the american people and not the president. >> you think he's behaving less than honorably? >> i do. look, i'm sorry -- [ applause ] he's an accomplished and very smart person who had nothing to lose in taking this job but his reputation, but i really -- it doesn't make me happy to say this, but i think he has lost most of his reputation with the way he has conducted himself. >> do you know why he is doing it? >> i don't. i can speculate, but i don't know. people are complicated, but it is deeply concerning. >> the attorney general barr said to congress the letter is a bit snitty, talking about the letter that mueller had written him with his concerns about the way barr had portrayed the report. he said the letter is a bit snitty, and i think it was written by one of his staff people. you know bob mueller. would he sign off on some letter that a staffer had written that he did not agree with 100% with? >> no. to the extent the attorney

general is suggesting that bob mueller is a captive of his snitty staff, it's inconsistent with everything everybody knows about director mueller. and what's interesting is bill barr knows bob mueller better than most people. he knows better than to say that. >> i want you to meet from virginia studying law in society at american university. >> good evening. my question is about attorney general william barr, who has come under a lot of heat because of his testimony before congress. and he's actually been -- the judiciary committee has voted to hold him in contempt of court -- in contempt of congress. my apologies. in your opinion, what is the best course of action to deal with the situation if he actually did lie to congress? >> well, those are two separate things. if someone lies to congress, the appropriate course is for congress to make an official referral to the u.s. attorney in the district of columbia. if it relates to the testimony by the attorney general, there will probably have to be some separation where the attorney general is recused from it and professional prosecutors take a

look at it. contempt as i understand it, the issue here is separate. is he refusing to testify and abide by subpoenas from congress? there is also a mechanism for enforcing those things, but it's a separate question from this question of perjury. i'm not suggesting that the man committed perjury, but that's how it would go. >> do you think he did commit perjury? >> i -- i don't know. he certainly gave misleading testimony. >> because he was asked by senator van hollen did bob mueller support your conclusion. that was on the 4-20-19. i don't know whether bob mueller supported my conclusion. and we now know march 27th mueller wrote him a letter saying the summary did not capture the substance of the finding. >> i think there is room. perjury is a hard thing to prove and it should be. it requires a very specific intent. you know you're lying when you utter those words, and it leaves lots of room below that for people to give lawyerly narrow answers. my view of it is i think the

most reasonable conclusion is he was giving a very lawyerly, narrow answer, and he wasn't violating the perjury statute. but again -- >> so you don't think he lied? >> on the face of it, it doesn't look like he committed perjury. but i hope that's not the standard for the attorney general testifying in front of congress. the department of justice has a duty of candor to the courts and to congress. the testimony was not candid, whether it was perjurious is a much higher barr. it doesn't look to me like he's across that. >> i want you to meet a student at the george washington university studying political science and policy. from washington state. what's your question? >> hi, director comey. based on the things you found, do you think the u.s. government is doing enough to protect our election infrastructure and do you think the u.s. is adequately equipped for the kind of cyber warfare the russians are engaging us in? >> thanks for that question. no and no is the answer. to take the election, protecting our election, the president is the commander in chief.

the president denies that the russians attacked us in 2016. how can we possibly be adequately prepared to protect ourselves if our leader won't acknowledge that it happened? that's the first thing. i know there is lots of work being done at lower levels to try and protect us, but it's being done out of the sight and without the direction of the president. and i heard leaders of the nsa and other agencies say we're not doing enough. if we were given authorities, were given permission, there is more we could do. so the answer is we're not doing enough. the good news for all of us is our election machinery is a total hairball, and there is comfort in that. it's decentralized. it's not a nice old lady putting a voting machine under the basketball hoop. it's not connected to the internet. it's very hard to hack. i don't feel worried about that. i worry very much about the kind of intervention we saw last time, to confuse us, to drive us

apart, to make us even more polarized than we are now. we're not equipped to respond. >> and you have no doubt they're going to try again? >> of course. they exceeded our wildest expectations in 2016. look at us. we're at each other's throats. we have a president who is denying what his own intelligence community says is true. they will be back to build on that success. >> there was an extraordinary report in "the new york times" that in the months before kirstjen nielsen was forced to resign as director of homeland security, she tried to get the white house to focus on preparing for any future attempts by russia to meddle in an election. she was according to "the new york times" was told by mick mulvaney, the chief of acting staff not to talk about it in front of the president because it would upset him, because as hope hicks told mueller, that is his achilles heel. he thinks it reflects poorly on his election or its legitimacy. does it really matter if the president is not holding meetings as long as the folks of the fbi and the state department and the justice department are working to prevent interference?

>> of course it matters, because the president is in charge of the executive branch. so if you're trying to protect the american people by sneaking around so the boss doesn't find out what we're doing, you're going to be dysfunctional by definition, and you're never going to get the resources and the authorities you need, because those come from the top. so it's a crazy situation to be in where the president is the only person in the executive branch who denies that the russians attacked us, but it has really important consequences. >> our next question is from brian callahan. brian works as a congressional lobbyist for a nonprofit focused on addressing global poverty and hunger. he is also a graduate at george washington university. >> hi, director comey. if you could, would you go back in time to july 5th, 2016 and not hold your press conference? or would you rephrase your words describing the conclusion of the fbi's investigation into secretary clinton? >> that's a good question. if i can go back in time, i would find a way not to be involved at all. but if i don't have that magic

wand, i -- i think i'd likely do it the same way. here was my problem. i and the fbi needed the american people to trust that this wasn't a political fix job, that this was done in a credible, fair, independent way. secretary clinton had engaged in conduct that was way beyond what the normal carelessness was. so how do we explain to the american people that it's not the ordinary stuff, but it doesn't rise to the level that you would be locked up for it? so i have to characterize the behavior in some way, not to attack her, but so that the american people understand this is the basis for their judgment. it's not criminal, but it's not the ordinary stuff. i probably should have said really sloppy or something, but i had to characterize it. the goal was to offer transparency to foster trust. i actually think you've seen it now. we all realize the importance of it now with the mueller report. the mueller report contains far more detail about individuals who are not charged than we ever even considered offering in the

clinton case, but it's important for all of us to understand the basis of the decisions being made. >> so you would have used words other than "extremely careless"? >> only because this is a technical thing, but the republicans in congress got all wrapped around the axle on those words because they said ah-ha, that sounds like gross negligence which is a violation of the law passed in 1919. i would have said something more plainspoken and said really sloppy. >> the inspector general, though, called your decision not to inform the bosses about the clinton press conference, they called it extraordinary, insubordinate. they also said your letter to congress about reopening the clinton emails investigation to the emails was based on your personal views even if it meant rejecting long-standing department policy or practice. >> yeah, that's fair criticism. >> is it true? >> is it true? >> extraordinary and insubordinate and that it rejected long-standing policy practices? >> yes, except for the insubordinate part. we were facing a 500-year flood. we had never been in a situation like this, and we were put, the fbi in a position where we had

to do something i never imagined? >> but isn't that why policies and procedures are in place, for exactly 500-year floods? >> no. policies are great because they reliably produce good results in most situations. norms are great because they reliably guide you in most situations. this was not most situations. we had a little bit of gallows humor. we would say get me the book that explains how we deal with this. we were in a situation none of us ever imagined. we did our best to try to act in the interests of the institutions. and as painful as it is to me even today, i think i would do the same thing again. and if i had an october conceal from the american people that we restarted that investigation in a way that might lead to a different result, i think i would be criticized as brutally as i've been criticized, even more brutally for that decision. >> i want you to meet victoria ortega. she is a lawyer here in washington and a board member of the hispanic bar association. >> good evening. have you seen hillary clinton face-to-face since the election? and if so, can you describe the experience?

>> no. i've never met secretary clinton, ever. and so i've never -- >> you've never, ever met her? >> never. i've never been in her physical presence. never have spoken to her on the phone or otherwise? >> what would you say? >> well, i would hope that i could have a conversation. look, i feel badly that she feels like she said in her book i think that i shived her. i would hope to give her the chance -- i would hope to give her the chance to understand why we made the decisions we made. it wasn't about trying to hurt her or hurt donald trump or help donald trump. i was married to an amazing, still married to an amazing woman who really wanted a woman to be elected to the united states, and she did not get it at all. once she understood and was able to tell my wife why we made these decisions, her reaction, which is the reaction of a lot of people when they finally see it is oh, i get it. i would hope that i could have that conversation with secretary clinton. >> all right. we're going to take a quick break. we're going to right back from our "360" town hall with former fbi director james comey.

if you have moderate to severe psoriasis, little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ready to treat differently with a pill? otezla. show more of you. [ chuckles ] so, what are some key takeaways from this commercial? did any of you hear the "bundle your home and auto" part? -i like that, just not when it comes out of her mouth.

-yeah, as a mother, i wouldn't want my kids to see that. -good mom. -to see -- wait. i'm sorry. what? -don't kids see enough violence as it is? -i've seen violence. -maybe we turn the word "bundle" into a character, like mr. bundles. -top o' the bundle to you. [ laughter ] bundle, bundle, bundle. -my kids would love that. -yeah.

bundle, bundle, bundle. plants capture co2. what if other kinds of plants captured it too? if these industrial plants had technology that captured carbon like trees we could help lower emissions. carbon capture is important technology - and experts agree. that's why we're working on ways to improve it. so plants... can be a little more... like plants. ♪ the belongingslace to we hold on to.rites. ♪ etsy knows that moments, big and small, deserve things that really matter. ♪ sold by real people and filled with things that last beyond the latest trends. ♪ belongings don't just show what we care about.

they show who we are. shop etsy.com

and welcome back to our "360" town hall with former fbi director james comey. he's the author of the book "higher loyalty," which is now out in paperback with a new forward. our next question comes from jason brown. he is an elementary school teacher. he interned for gabby giffords in tucson, arizona and in her washington office. jason? >> good evening. as an educator, i cringe on a seemingly weekly basis now as i see school shooting after school shooting being reported on the news, including the most recent one in colorado this week. what can be done to stop this

endless -- these senseless acts of murder? and is there a bipartisan solution? >> yeah. incredibly difficult question. i can speak as a former law enforcement leader, one of the things we can do much better at is connecting our educators, our law enforcement and our public health, mental health community. i've learned from educators and cops and docs all over the country that there is all kinds of impediments to sharing information in a good way so we can identify troubled souls earlier and get them the help they need, the intervention they need much more quickly. the answer in my experience as someone who has been around firearms most of my life is not to arm teachers. [ applause ] >> to carry a firearm on behalf

of the federal bureau of investigation, you to train and qualify every three months. you have to shoot hundreds of rounds to be trusted with that weapon on the streets of america. to trust someone with a weapon in a classroom filled with children would require, in my view, far more training and certification than that. it's just not a workable solution. >> our next question comes from melody magli. she is a student at the george washington university studying political communication, currently interning for the nonpartisan women's congressional institute. welcome. >> how do you believe the trump presidency has affected political corruption and the ability for bad actors to get away with corruption? >> i think the trump presidency risks sending a message that leadership doesn't have to have a moral component, that it's not important in this country for a leader to have external ethical reference points, and that it's okay for a leader to only have one reference point, which is what will be good for me. leaders matter because of what they say, but most importantly, they matter like parents do because of the way in which they're watched.

and the way in which they're watched, as a parent, you shape a family. as a leader, you shape a company, a part of a government, or the entire country. we really risk sending a message that it is okay to act in the way this president acts. we are becoming numb to the fact that the leader of the free world lies constantly. and even if you support him, you have to look in the mirror and say yeah, he lies constantly. we're so numb to it that we're forgetting it's not okay. and that's a recipe for a melting of our standards much more broadly. >> i want to follow up on that, because you wrote something i found really interesting. you wrote an op-ed in "the new york times" last week. it's called "how trump coopts leaders like big barr." in it you said, part of it, quote, people lacking inner strength can resist the charges of president trump. it takes character like mr. mattis to avoid the damage because trump eats your soul in small bites."

explain how you believe the president of the united states is eating peoples' souls and how that process takes place. >> yeah. it doesn't make me happy to write that, but it's what i believe. this president because he's an amoral leader shapes those around him. and that shaping sometimes pushes out someone that is a strong person of integrity that stands up and says not going to have it but far more often it shapes and bends and pulls in weaker souls and he does it. it has happened to me. the man lies constantly. in public you've seen it and in private it happened. he talks constantly. so i sat there at dinner with him and he went on about how he had the largest inauguration crowd in history. made fun of a disabled reporter. and you're sitting there thinking that's not true. that's not true. that's not what, but you don't interrupt and say mr. president i saw the tape, you made fun of a disabled reporter.

instead it washes over you and all of a sudden you realize i'm part of a silent circle of assent. did i just agree that that's true because i didn't speak and then there are ritual, these rituals of praise of the leader and pretty soon you're wrapped so tightly in this web that there's no way out for you. >> were you aware of that in that moment? when you left the dinner, wow my silence seems like assent. >> yes. so the next time i was alone with him and he told something that was obviously false, which was very, very important. he was saying in the oval office a torrent of words coming at me. i remember the day, february 8th of 2017 and among the words were his saying we are the same kind of killers that vladimir putin is. he was defending his moral equivalency between us and putin and i interrupted and said, mr. president, no, we're not the kind of killers that putin is

and when i said that, a shadow crossed the president's face and the meeting was over because i just popped that cocoon he was trying to draw around us so at that point i went back to the fbi and i said my relationship with this man is over and that's not a bad thing. >> it starts with silence. >> it is him making everybody around him praise him which we have seen actually in cabinet meetings where he has people go around but why do so many people want to stay? look at rod rosenstein. the president tried to get him to lie and say he was the one wanting you fired and brought it up. he refused to do that but then as he's leaving he praises the president for respecting the rule of law. >> i think people like that who are people of accomplishment but not real strong character find themselves trapped. they justify their being trapped

which is yeah he's awful but the country needs me. republicans are doing this in congress. yeah it's awful but if i speak i'll get defeated and this nation needs me here right now so they start to make little compromises to stay on the team. echo his words. use the word spying. talk about collusion saying that's what i need to do to survive and in the process he has eaten their soul. they're lost. so that's what happens to so many people. they're trapped and not strong enough to get out of it. and they end up making compromises. >> he's not a person of a strong -- >> no, i don't think so. >> look at jim mattis. when they would go around the table and praise the president ritually the only person that didn't was general mattis. he always said it's an honor to represent the men and women of the united states military. he never said it's an honor to work for you.

i don't know whether mr. president noticed that. but in this current administration that's the exception. the rest are -- the web is tight around them and they make compromises that destroy their own reputations. and don't serve us well. >> we should point out mattis is no longer in the administration. >> that's correct. >> we'll be right back with more from our 360 town hall from former fbi director james comey. behr presents: a job well done. painting be done... and stay done. behr premium plus, a top-rated interior paint at a great price.

that keeps all your doing, done. find it exclusively at the home depot. webut some of us turn outhose dreams...... into action... the bookers. the doers. the 'hit that confirmation button and let's go!'- ers! because bookers know that the perfect place to stay... is right there for the booking. be a booker at booking.com the world's #1 choice for booking accommodations. woman: this is your wake-up call. if you have moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis, month after month, the clock is ticking on irreversible joint damage. ongoing pain and stiffness are signs of joint erosion. humira can help stop the clock. prescribed for 15 years, humira targets and blocks a source of inflammation that contributes to joint pain

and irreversible damage. vo: humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened, as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. woman: help stop the clock on further irreversible joint damage. talk to your rheumatologist. right here. right now. humira. right here. right now. the matters.ar... introducing the all-new 2019 ford ranger, it's the right gear. with a terrain management system for... this. a bash plate for... that. an electronic locking rear differential for... yeah... this. heading to the supermarket? get any truck. heading out here? get the ford ranger.

the only adventure gear built ford tough. i receive travel rewards. going new places! going out for a bite! going anytime. rewarded! learn more at theexplorercard.com.

welcome back to our town hall with former fbi director james comey. the author of a higher loyalty which is now out in paperback with a new forward. i wanted to ask you about something that sarah sanders said that was in the mueller report because it's directly about you. the report reads, when a reporter indicated that the vast majority of fbi agents supported comey, sanders said look we heard from countless members of the fbi that say different things.