position to their in. and i don't blame them. if i were them i would be deeply embarrassed. >> i just want to ask, -- [inaudible] has requested $14 billion. that's almost the entire market value of the bank. is creating ripples through the financial markets but also for angela merkel back in to me, a close ally of the president. [inaudible] is there anything the u.s. can do to i guess -- provide greater clarity to investors? >> well, justin, i don't have much i'm going to be in a position to say about any sort of justice department action or conversations that they've been

having with one entity or another. what i get to is that the president did have an opportunity to talk with chancellor merkel today, and their conversation was focused on the situation inside of syria and they shared a deep concern about the increase in violence there. they also had an opportunity to discuss the situation in ukraine as well. and continued violation of ukraine's territorial integrity by the russians. but i don't have more detailed readout of the conversation to share beyond. >> josh, thanks. [inaudible] >> the president is aware of the crash in hoboken.

just received a detailed briefing at this point, fsk is still in its early stage of that investigation is being led by the national transportation safety board. i know that the federal railroad administration is involved as well, and has personnel on site. they are collecting as much information about what happened as they can. the president will be updated on that situation as they learn more. i'm not aware of any conversations with governor christie's office at this point. i know why those officials have been in touch with the mayor of hoboken, and have expected that open line, the line of communication to remain open. we will do our best to keep you apprised of any conversation with governor christie's office. [inaudible] >> none of the new jersey? >> caller: trains are fully equipped with us. the deadline is getting pushed. it's 2018 to get this going.

>> again, i think at this point it's too early to tell what impact the deployment of the posturing system would've had in the situation are utterly the know as with any whether or not there is positive train control in that part of the system. so we will collect some more facts to determine what exactly happened and my colleagues at the ntsb will keep you apprised of that. >> what do you make of gary johnson to do with what he calls a brain freeze when asked if he could identify a foreign leader from any country or any continent that he admires? what you think this is about the level of preparedness for discussion in this presidential race? >> well listen, in the same way that i don't regulate the price of a position of responding to claims our reaction from the republican nominee for president, the same thing would apply to the libertarian nominee.

i think i can add to the conversation is that on one of e things you've heard the president say on many occasions is that one of the reasons that he's a strong advocate of secretary clinton she is somebody who has as experienced as any other nonincumbent to seek this office. and part of that is based on her extensive experience in effectively repealing the united states of america around the globe. and so the president believes that kind of experience, that can track record is relevant as people consider, make a decision about whom to support in the upcoming launch. >> do you think there is a dumbing down of the issues? >> i will let others comment on the. the president believes a vigorous debate and discussion about the issues is important, and that is going to improve the

ability of voters across the country to make an informed decision as the cameras are pointed out important decisions. >> as this year are right at the white house? will president obama signed it before he leaves for initial? >> i am told it has arrived out of the waters and intent is to the president sign it before he departs. will keep the posted. >> on the override has been or will be in the outreach to saudi arabia to discuss the veto override, explain what happened to the? >> i don't know if there is explanation that's needed, that my colleagues at the state department or in regular touch with their counterparts in saudi arabia. obviously, they have been in recent weeks, given the consequences for this bill.

so i can -- you might want to check with the state department. >> was the phone call with chancellor merkel the reason the present was late speak with my descent three who fled to the olympic event is because for the mets or the president had opportunity to shake hands with all of the olympians. and the president and first lady freely enjoyed the opportunity and took a little longer than was a lot on the schedule but i think primarily because the president and first lady enjoyed the opportunity to visit with the olympians 11. >> you know if he met with john carlos and tommie smith and? >> i don't know. we can check on that for you. >> okay. that's it. >> thank you, josh. i will start with c. the situation in a level has been described as a living a. bought my administration has come under immense criticism --

>> we are deeply disappointed that the refusal of the russians to use their influence with the assad regime to reduce the violence in aleppo and around syria for sustained period of time. the goal of reducing the violence was essential to full. the first is to allow for more and more regular deliveries of humanitarian assistance, and to kickstart discussions about the political transition inside of syria. it's difficult for either of those things to take place when

innocent syrians are under fire. and there has been a shameful strategy implemented by the assad regime and aided and abetted by the russians to try to bomb civilians into submission by targeting hospitals and refugee camps and even underground playgrounds. it's appalling. and the situation in syria does continue to worsen, and it's deeply concerning. our focus has been on trying to bring an end to the violence and we've engage diplomatic, diplomatically with the russians who have significant influence with the assad regime to try to bring that about. but thus far that has not worked nearly as well as we would have

liked. >> how can this approach like to try to come if you've been position of being completely -- even delivering -- mainly chilled and women. in a city like aleppo, describe the acts as a war crime. do you support that president assad should be not as a war criminal? >> the time it has been supportive of efforts at the united nations security council to refer cases to the icc. unfortunately, russia has used their veto on the student council to block those referrals. that's been deeply disappointing. as i mentioned, what is the assad regime has been inside of syria and then aleppo in particular is shameful. it's deeply immoral and it's

caused the kind of widespread bloodshed that difficult to even read about. it's tragic. and it's one of the presidents deeply concerned about. [inaudible] to come up with new options. can you elaborate on that? >> listen, the president is a regularly urging his national security team to evaluate the situation in syria, to consider our strategy and look for ways to refine and improve it. and lead to more positive results. much of that strategy and much of the strategic discussion has been focused on degrading and hopefully destroy isil. we've got some substantial progress to show for the effort that has been directed against isil your we haven't made as much progress in trying to

address the political situation inside of syria and we certainly have not made as much progress that we like and sustained a cessation of hostilities your that's been deeply disappointing. [inaudible] >> as long as there are innocent people being targeted by their government and killed in attacks by barrel bombs and chemical weapons, that's going to be a problem that's in need of more attention. and the president has been distressed by the report in the same way that i think everybody in this room has been, based on the news coverage of the situation there. and the president is going to continue to push his team to look for and evaluate additional options that we can undertake to try to reduce the violence,

increase the flow of committed assistance and kickstart the kind of political transition talks that everybody acknowledges are necessary to address the root cause of the situation in syria. >> one more. [inaudible] can you tell us exactly practically what did he do to advance of -- [inaudible] >> there are people that a whole lot more about the history of the situation that are in a better position to offer their own commentary about the legacy of shimon peres.

president obama deeply admires shimon peres. not because he's a perfect person but because he is somebody who dedicated his life to championing the israeli people and advocating for peace. and that one president peres, president obama's enduring respect and admiration the president obama won the opportunity to talk about that at the memorial service of course, but i believe it to others to do the careful detailed evaluation of transcendence legacy. >> -- president peres' legacy. >> president obama stated as a presidential town hall last night that he brings and critics of his syria policy for consultations with him. can you identify any of those critics? >> well, i think the president has consumed with a wide variety

of individuals, some of the mutants are interested administration, and not the side into question. but listen, i'm going, i think the point the president is making is that he's opened a wide variety of views. that includes members of congress your some of them have better informed views than others, but many of them have not hesitated to be critical of the situation inside of syria. the president is open to the point of view of people with a variety of perspectives, in part because, i know just been sometime listen to this, it's not as if there's anybody sitting after that we are aware of that has the magic key to solving the situation inside of syria. >> could you please identify some people he was referencing speak with i'm not going to go to individual names, but when you consider people who have written about this that don't serve in government or

individuals that use assert the need administration, or members of congress who have strongly held views, the president has had an opportunity to talk to people who fit those kinds of broad descriptions, and that's a the president was referring to. >> secretary kerry work very hard with foreign minister lavrov. as we've seen, the seaside didn't hold, and russia is now engaged in action with the secretary kerry this very morning described as inexcusable. in response to all of us in the administration both from the white house and the state department has threatened to sever all communication with the russians related to syria. and i just wonder if there wasn't a lack of planning on the part of the administration for the prospect of a complete breakdown for cease-fire and the kind of action we've seen from russia? because as a response to your

left threatening to do something and i just wonder if, why the decision didn't have in place a plan for how to go about its business in the event we saw this kind of default? >> james, the president's national security team is always thoroughly if we -- thoroughly evaluating contingency plans. that often takes place behind the scenes and is often something we don't talk about publicly. in some cases because we don't want to undermine the ongoing efforts by discussing what the alternative would be. in some cases those efforts are classified and that's something we can talk about publicly anyway. i also think in talking about this over the last several weeks, even this new effort that in the first few hours showed some promise, something for deeply skeptical of. there was never a sense that this was a guaranteed solution to impact there was skepticism

about whether it would work but the president made the case i think by the press of what it would be irresponsible to not even try. >> so the default setting on the part of the message was a this thing collapses, let's move to a threat to sever communications? that was plan b if this over? >> no. i think what i tried to convey is that there are a variety of contingency plans that the president massacred again is always considering, and in some cases we will discuss those plans because we are interested in trying to make the original plan work. in some cases where limited in discussing the contingency plans because they haven't been cleared for public discussion. >> on jasta, given the historic nature of the outcome yesterday, can you tell us how the president learned of the outcome and what instant reaction --

>> there was no surprise. i mean i guess in terms of describing it as historic, the reason, it was the first time that congress voted to override president obama's the to the prez obama i would point out went deeper into his presidency than any president since lyndon johnson before his vote was overridden. and the president success rate at sustaining vetoes is over 90%, and 50% higher than president george w. bush of president reagan, president ford and president nixon. >> there's a scale probably. >> there is a scale, but again i think that would speak to the effectiveness of the president and his team. the president learned about it from public reports. >> was he watching the votes take place? >> no, he was on the road yesterday. >> who told them. >> i think he read himself in this report. >> you mention in your

discussion that ignorance is not an excuse for lawmakers. does that same maxim, ignorance is not an excuse, applied to secretary clinton profession to been unaware of classification markings on her private indo? >> listen, i'm secretary clinton editing talk about what she was thinking of what she was aware of india's upper e-mail. >> last question different subject. during the presidential town hall last night, a woman was in the audience to ask the president a question. she described herself as a widow of somebody who had come she said, had been misdiagnosed by a particular doctor in the va system. the president at the end of that exchange bowed to learn more information about that case. number one, did he learn more information about that case? spent the president has asked his team to collect more information about the case. i don't know if you've been updated on it today.

>> given this was a nationally, perhaps internationally televised forum in which the '60s was held, it seems to me not knowing the specifics of the case it was quite possible that this doctor who was referenced by the woman interest of the subject of presidential focus may or may not have been guilty of misdiagnosing the individual in question. i just wonder if we can use this to start the white house take no particular the on the subject as of now? doesn't seem to prejudice the case. >> of course we're not seeking to prejudice the case but the president and everybody who works at the va holds themselves to extort nearly high standard. accountability is important and i think this administration has demonstrated that including a city on a number of occasions spirit even this physician has a right, innocence until proven guilty of malpractice or misdiagnosing, greg? >> of course which is why, again, the president was optimally with the details but asked his team to try to learn

more about it. >> the train incident, is there any suggestion or any sign this might be terrorism? >> at this point i'm not aware of any evidence that has been uncovered that would draw that kind of linkage. this is something that the national transportation safety board is continuing to look at so i think it's too soon to rule that out on this point i'm not aware of any evidence that would raise those kind of concerned at this point. >> the veto override, you can talk about potential unintended consequences. are there any specific cases, statements, actions by any foreign government or entity anywhere that are evidence of these unintended consequences will actually happen now? again commit such a big, it's a vague notion that these things, all these things could happen.

are they happening anywhere? >> let it enter into ways. the first is that our at the state department will tell you that the concept, the principle of sovereign immunity, is something that is routinely invoked by the united states to protect our country and to protect our servicemembers and diplomats. this is not some esoteric rarely used part of international law. this is actually one of the central principles of international law that does more to protect the dreaded than any other country in the world based on u.s. involvement around the globe. so this is a critically important principle, and one that, the president again, and ashes to be experts in both parties believe is worth protecting. >> but again is very specific

example, in as much as this happens routinely, where this concern of yours, administrations, as a practical matter you can tell us exactly where this is happening? >> the concern is that the building into law just yesterday. and our concern is that other countries around the world will see that change and begin to initiate -- >> this is not a surprise. is there a legislature or apartment somewhere where you see this having? >> this is something that the eu part of the. so we've got our european allies are suggesting that this is a cause of deep concern. i'm not aware of any specific let's of action that have been taken by another country as of today, but that risk now exists today in a way it didn't yesterday. that does expose our diplomats and/or service noticed to enhanced risk.

[inaudible] does the administration anticipate, do you feel so strongly about what's at stake that administration could choose a potentially intervening in those cases legally to try and stop them from proceeding? because you're so concerned about the unintended consequences of these legal cases pursue? >> a decision like that, i would refer you to the department of justice. and maybe hard for them to comment on a court case that doesn't exist yet, but they may be able to discuss what potential role the federal government could play in a -- [inaudible] >> do you think it's an idea, a principle that would be so crucial that would be worth defending are fighting for in that context, actually -- >> again, i don't know if it's possible for the federal government to play that kind of role in a private lawsuit but

i'm also not an attorney. the department of justice able to give you a better sense of what potential role for the government could have any potential lawsuit down the road. >> lastly, with the passing of former president peres in the president deep concern about middle east peace in the process and how it's broken down and there were some questions to the other day about the possibility of him before he leaves office of essentially laying out his view of how things should happen there. after a respected at a time has passed given the fact of the passing of president g. think it's like a puzzle the president -- this is a moment where he should, given the fact he's leaving office and his concern about this issue, explain more or lay out a plan that he sees as viable and what should happen there and what his predecessor should come a path they should pursue?

>> will listen, the president obviously earlier in his presidency expended a lot of energy, as did secretary kerry, in trying to bring the palestinians and israelis together to the negotiating table to facilitate an agreement that would bring peace. and those efforts were ultimately unsuccessful because the kinds of difficult decisions that must be made in the context of those negotiations can't be imposed by the estates or even by the international community. old bigots of the leaders of the party themselves that to make those kinds of decisions and make those -- >> given where we are in his time in office, does if you like this is a moment he feels like he should do more than he would not previously? >> i guess they do any sort of potential future. what i can speak to is a

principle that we have, i read that we've acknowledged from the beginning, which is that the united states, the national committee or other outside forces cannot impose a solution. a solution will only come when later on both sides demonstrate a willingness to make very difficult decisions. to find a compromise. that's difficult were. it is tricky when you consider the politics involved but it's also tricky when you just consider the deeply held principles involved. so i think that's why, when president peres pursued this kind of peace through negotiations in his career, that effort was so difficult that his

efforts were recognized with the nobel prize. so the president would be the first to acknowledge that the kinds of questions that are facing israeli and palestinian leaders are extraordinary, and it difficult and complicated, and they are filled with emotion and questions that go to very basic principles related to identity and religion and so this is complicated stuff. but at the end of the day, precisely because of the nature of these questions, that ultimately will be the leaders of the israeli and palestinian people to decide how to move forward and how to pursue this peace. and the united states is going

to continue to play the historic role that we have played in encouraging both sides to come to the table. >> two brief questions. first, on friday issued a very strong endorsement from the podium of the role of the consumer fraud protection bureau in the investigation of wells fargo and the phantom accounts that were there. now, jim hanzalik, chairman of the house financial services committee, said -- jeb hensarling -- widely quoted that the cpb did not afford not in its investigation, was completely uncooperative with this committee and was stonewalling him and he wants to bring officials up before his committee for further investigation. there's obviously a different interpretation of the role of the cfpb. >> obviously. chairman hensarling as someone who was repeatedly tried to

undermine the effectiveness of the cfpb, questioning their independence, trying to cut the budget, otherwise questioning the reason for their existence. so hearing this criticism from it is not particularly surprising. but it's hard for me to speak in a lot of detail about the work that the cfpb has undertaken in the context of the wells fargo investigation because they are independent. so are independent. so i would reduce cpb for an explanation about what kinds of things were considered in the context of the investigation of wells fargo. >> my other question is about libya. the president himself has expressed his sorrow about the inability to form a government. in recent weeks we've seen field marshal increasingly gained control over key areas of oil. he is charged with this mission

by the parliament. does the administration feel this is a good sign, and is marshal someone we feel comfortable with any future living government? >> atreides indicate our unequivocal support for the government that was formed in the auspices of the u.n. process, and the situation in libya continues to be complicated in custody situation in particular continues to be challenging. that has challenged this newly formed, newly created government to succeed in unifying the country but they certainly undertake that work with the strong support of the united states and the rest of the international community. the united states has at the invitation of the government taken some steps to help them

counter the terror threat that they face. .. more detailed account of the situation. >> right against that. trying to seek something. what do you have to say. >> reports from the region include india and pakistan military are in communication

with one another and we encourage discussions between india and pakistan. and to speak with her indian counterparts, national security adviser devol and in that call, ambassador rice made clear the united states is concerned by the danger terrorism poses to the region and the united states expect pakistan will take action to combat and delegitimize you and designated terrorist individuals, the united states is committed to a partnership with india and joint efforts to combat terrorism and we deepen collaboration on this. at the same time we are in close contact with pakistan and we value important partnership we have formed with them on a range of issues.

>> strong cooperation with the conflict, was any cooperation between the us and india -- >> ambassador rice was in touch with counterparts, but no specific coordination on this. >> he rushed back to other public engagements. >> not that i am aware of but you can check to see, to explain why he rushed back. give you the last one. >> today is the deadline to file the second court of appeals. and the prohibition on discrimination for what that was

before. the administration, you haven't said anything about whether it applies -- and briefing this case. has president obama expressed a view that antidiscrimination in federal law, under current federal law. >> don't know that i expressed the view on that precise topic. and the obama is opposed to you by the -- to take freedom away from people. and we are concerned about laws to be focused mostly on

legitimizing one form of discrimination or another. that is why you have seen the justice department take some of the action they had, to protect those freedoms. i can't speak to any specific action by the department of justice but this is the question you raised. thanks, everybody. >> as mentioned during the briefing president obama is attending the funeral of former israeli president shimon peres and will speak at the ceremony, the flag that the us capital in half staff in honor of the israeli statesman who died at the age of 93. a number of white house officials and members of congress attending, and will announce c-span coverage as preparations are underway. the jerusalem post authorities arrested a number of jewish and

arab suspects thought to have pose security risks, the police chief saying they arrested jews and arabs to terrorize the funeral. congress wrapped up its legislative work at session through the november 8th election. here is a recap of what happened this week. >> help us understand a little better what the bill allows and why the administration was so against it? >> there is a long-standing principle of international law that every country in the world recognizes called sovereign immunity. can't sue one country and another country's court, it helps prevent the international chaos. and iran suing the united states and and can't do it.

and and this narrow exception which this bill does that allows losses against state sponsors of terrorism. you could have an international norm go by the wayside. and do so proportionally. and in that clip. some countries, and lawsuits in other countries would be a terrible thing. >> what about trying to stop this deal override, and against this measure, with this

administration. >> the president has a lot on its plate to get done legislatively and the last few months. not sure this was his highest priority even though the press secretaries coming up to answer questions, not entirely clear how often the president himself got on the phone. that is the biggest indicator how hard the white house is fighting on something. how much time the president personally invests, to sustain this, probably not very much. >> anything the administration can do to soften the effect of this legislation and when does it go into effect? >> on a veto override, not sure, once the president signs the

bill it goes into effect, this will go into effect if not immediately, in a number of days. there is a provision in this law that says the attorney general of the united states can intervene in any one of these lawsuits and the secretary of state signed a piece of paper to certify the us government is in good faith negotiations with a foreign country to involve the underlying dispute, they can get a stay of the lawsuit. congress does this pretty often, they make a big statement to provide an escape valve or release valve, the president and administration, and concerns the

president has. and by that lawsuit it is possible this president or a future president uses their executive power to put these lawsuits in debriefs. >> the significance of the first veto override of president obama's time in office? >> reading the newspaper, most of them as a rebuke of the president. an extraordinary thing, and and and it is four month left in obama's presidency, the signature sort of program, he didn't expend a whole lot of political capital, i don't know politically if this damages the president but we only had 111

veto overrides they are relatively rare enough. >> thanks so much for your time this morning. >> every weekend booktv features 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors. saturday at 6:30 eastern, charles murray, author of the book in our hands, a plan to replace the welfare state, shares his plan to replace the welfare system with universal basic income for americans which he talks with jared bernstein, chief economic advisor to vice president joe biden would >> you one who ever worked with anyone with serious problems knows some people need a pat on the back, a helping hand and sympathy and other people need a kick in the pants. >> on afterwards face the nation moderator john dickerson reflect on key stories behind the most memorable moments of presidential campaigns. >> when andrew jackson ran he was an outsider.

they worried about him being a demagogue not because he was a television reality show star but a reality star. investing all the hopes of the electorate into one general because he was as flamboyant as a successful general, would take democracy off of its mark. >> he is interviewed by clarence page, columnist and editorial water for the chicago tribune and afternoon eastern on in-depth live with author and historian gerald warren, who has written 30 books including the counterrevolution of 1776, slave resistance and the origins of the united states of america, race to revolution, the united states and cuba during slavery and jim crow, the us, the haitian revolution and the origins of the dominican republic and his book, the artist as revolutionary. >> when japan burned -- bombed

pearl harbor, it's place in black america was infrastructure of tokyo's support that paul roberson began to chip away at, paul roberson was able to convince many americans that their destiny and fate should rest with solidarity that with washington. >> join with your phone calls, facebook comments and tweets. where a complete schedule go to booktv.org. next, a hearing on the fbi's handling of the investigation into hillary clinton's email and fbi director james comey's direction not to file charges against the secretary of state, the director testifies behind the jew -- judiciary committee.

[inaudible conversations] >> the judiciary committee will come to order. without objection the chair authorized a recess of the committee at any time, we welcome everyone to this morning at hearing on oversight of the federal bureau of investigation. i will take a few minutes to recognize chief counsel of the subcommittee on crime, terrorism and homeland security and investigation. moving back to arizona, we are very sad to see her go. during her time in washington she worked for representative john chadit as chief counsel of the house republican policy.

2006, she came to work for the house judiciary committee and in 2008 became chief counsel of the crime subcommittee. caroline has had an enormous impact on the reform of our criminal and national security laws. few people in washington have done as much for the safety of our communities which caroline has overseen the drafting, negotiation and passage of criminal legislation regarding the foreign intelligence surveillance act, electronic communications privacy act, the most sweeping set of reforms of government surveillance practices in 40 years, the us a freedom act and many other priority legislative initiatives. anyone who has met caroline knows she is mentally intelligent, hard-working, loyal, and a discerning chief counsel. and of course those people she has negotiated with have found her to be a skillful and formidable but fair advocate. her team at the subcommittee

know her to be a determined leader and steadfast friend. i appreciated caroline's deep knowledge of the law, strength of her conviction and her courage to speak the truth in a place where it is rarely convenient to do so. we wish caroline well and i thanked her for her years of dedicated service to this committee, the us house of representatives and the american people. [applause] >> i know the ranking member mister conyers would like to speak. >> thank you. this is a unique moment in our history. on behalf of the democratic staff, democratic members of the

committee i want to recognize caroline lynch for her hard work and dedication for the past we 10 years. as chief crime counsel for the republicans during this time she worked collegiately with her democratic colleagues on a broad range of criminal justice issues. the crime subcommittee is legislatively the busiest subcommittee in all of congress. in every crime related bill that has been enacted during her time here, has had the benefit of her expertise. there are many examples of this, but i will cite her role in helping members find common ground in section 215 of the patriot act so we can and act

important reforms in the us, this important law will safeguard our national security and civil liberties and sets a precedent for how we can proceed on such issues in the future to work on this legislation, essential to ultimate success. we will miss her insight on these issues as well as her friendship and friendliness as she leaves the committee for other endeavors in her home state of arizona. we wish her all the best. [applause] >> i think you would agree with me when saying her work is not quite done today and the rest of the week, she has also been very

critical to the bipartisan work we have been doing the past few years culminating in 11 bills passing out of this committee. we thank you for the contribution you made. that work has been very bipartisan. we now welcome director comey to your fourth appearance before the judiciary committee since your confirmation is seventh director of the fbi. the past year since the last oversight hearing has been challenging on a number of fronts we hope to review today. i begin by commending the men and women of the fbi and the new jersey police department for their swift action identifying and apprehending the terrorist

exacts of terrorism last week killed 29 citizens. this was the latest in a string of attack stretching back to the 2013 boston marathon bombing, the terror attacks in san bernardino, orlando and minneapolis, they all share one common thread, radical islam. the administration however, including the fbi has coined this cancer with the euphemism of countering violent extremism. the fbi and the rest of national security apparatus continues this myopia about focusing on the serial issues of extremism, their mission to protect the american people will always be one of following up on terrorism's aftermath. i look forward to hearing from you about how the fbi is working to proactively combat radical islamic terrorism and put an end to the string of violence, while terrorism is a malignancy which must be purged other events at home have called into question the confidence americans have historically felt in a blind and impartial justice system.

hillary clinton and the fbi's investigation into her criminal conduct is a case in point. it seems clear that former secretary of state hillary clinton committed multiple felonies involving the passing of classified information through her private email server. the fbi however declined to refer the case for prosecution on some very questionable basis. this past friday afternoon the fbi released additional investigative documents from the clinton investigation which demonstrate among other things that more than 100 of the emails on secretary clinton's private server contained classified information and emails required to be preserved under federal law were in fact destroyed. even more alarming we have recently learned president obama is a pseudonym to communicate with secretary clinton on her email server. why is this relevant?

as secretary clinton's top aid informed by the fbi of the existence of email between her boss and the president, how is that not classified? armed with knowledge known to be false claims, only learned of clinton's private email account, quote, the same time everybody else did, the fbi review why the president was sending classified information, the president and secretary of state translated communication through nonsecured channels placing the nation's secrets and harm's way. secretary clinton's decision to play fast and loose with national security concerns not only her daughter's wedding or yoga routines but instead quoting from you, director comey seven email chains concerning matters that were classified as

top-secret special access levels that were sent and received, top-secret special access programs contain the most sensitive secret information maintained by our government, a truly remarkable fact, anyone of lesser notoriety than hillary clinton doing this that person would already be in jail. for americans unsure what a special access program is it is the kind of information a war plan would use to defeat an enemy or clandestine intelligence operation. the wall street journal explains it usually refers to a highly covert technology programs often involving weapons. knowledge of these programs is usually restricted to small groups of people on a need to know basis. for those wondering whether this kind of information on an and secure server is a problem, read no further than the huffington

post which reported hillary clinton's private email server containing tens of thousands of messages from her tenure as secretary of state was the subject of hacking attempts from china, south korea and germany after she stepped down in 2013. to conclude, let me ask everyone to engage in a thought experiment. one of this nation's signature accomplishments, the war on terror, the radon about a bad pakistan on may 2, 2011, that resulted in the killing of osama bin laden. that operation which was conducted by an elite team of u.s. navy special operators was of course highly classified. imagine that classified information relating to the raid was passed through a nonsecure email server and accessed by nations or individuals hostile to the united states. rather than a highly successful covert operation we might have had a team of dead us service

men. hillary clinton shows to send and receive top-secret information over a personal, unsecured computer server house in her various homes, one reportedly placed in a bathroom closet. these actions without a doubt opened these communications to hostile interception by our enemies and those who wish america harm. these facts, not the imagined history i ask you to contemplate were the basis of the investigation by the fbi, these are the facts that you, director comey chose to hold and worthy of a recommendation of prosecution saying no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. we as congress and the american people are troubled how such gross negligence, why there seems to be a different standard for the politically well-connected particularly if your name is clinton. i look forward to your testimony today. at this time please welcome

ranking member the gentleman from michigan for his opening statement. >> thank you, chairman. welcome again, director comey for your appearance here today. the fbi's mission is a complex undertaking to protect the united states from terrorism, to enforce our criminal law and lead the nation's law enforcement community, that should define our priorities in this many. the past few days, we witnessed near fatal terrorist attacks in minnesota, new york and new jersey. these attacks underscore the growing fear that individuals can be moved to violence at home by the propaganda and action of

terrorist groups abroad which even though they have no direct connection to those organizations. to me this threat is dire. we should be doing all we can within our communities, within our constitutional framework, to mitigate the danger. will the majority in the house use their time today to discuss these attacks? i suspect that they will not be in their focus in this campaign season. in charlotte, in tulsa, in dallas, right here in washington and in other cities across this country, our citizens demand answers to questions about race and policing and the use of lee

for force by law enforcement, our police are under siege, often underresourced and in some cases hard-pressed to build trust with the communities they serve. director comey, your continued work to foster lines of communication between police officers and the general public is commendable and necessary if we are to keep our citizens safe from harm. will my colleagues discuss this pressing issue with the director of the fbi whose leadership in the law enforcement community is paramount? i hope so. i am also afraid the focus may change. the fbi is the lead agency in the investigation of cyberbased terrorism. ..

democratic process. twice this summer, director comey, i wrote to you with my fellow ranking member's to ask you to look into reports that russian state actors are working to undermine our election process. without objection, mr. chairman, i ask both these letters be placed in the record. >> without objection they will be made a part of the record. >> thank you. it is now the clear consensus of the intelligence community that the russian government was

behind the hack of the democratic national committee, and not as some suggested, somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds. on friday we learned that from one report, that the united states intelligence officials are seeking to determine whether an american businessman identified by donald trump as one of his foreign policy advisers has opened up private community nations with senior russian officials. including talks about the possible lifting of economic sanctions if the republican nominee becomes president. the report cites through an unnamed quote, senior u.s. law enforcement official, which i presume means someone in your

orbit, mr. director. without objection, i asked that this article, mr. chairman, the placed into the record as well. >> without objection it will be a part of the record. >> thank you. let me be clear. if true, this allegation represents a danger to our national security and a clear violation of federal law, which expressly prohibits this type of back channel negotiation. and i'm not alone in describing the nature of this threat. speaker ryan himself has said that russia is a global menace led by a devious bug. putin should stay out of this election, into quotation. but will our majority join us and pressure on this problem today, director comey?

instead, i believe that the focus of this hearing will be more of the same, an attack on you and your team at the department of justice for declining to recommend criminal charges against secretary hillary clinton. in recent weeks this line of attack has been remarkable only for its lack of substance. your critics and character assassination and procedural minutia, like the proper scope of the immunity grant agreements and her decision to protect the identities of individuals wholly unrelated to the investigation. they want to investigate the investigation, director comey, and i consider that an unfortunate waste of this committee's time. with so many actual problems confronting this nation and so

many of those challenges within your jurisdiction and hours, you would think my colleagues would set their priorities different differently. i hope that they do and they listen to our conversation today. i thank the chairman and i yield back. >> thank you mr. conyers. without objection all of the members opening statements will be made a part of the record. we welcome our distinguished witness, and if you would please rise i will begin by swearing you in. do you solemnly swear that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god? if you. let the record reflect the witness answered in the affirmative. fbi director james comey is a graduate of the college of william and mary, and university of chicago law school. following laws school.

following local director comey served as assistant net states attorney for both the southern district of new york in district of new york in the eastern district of new york in the eastern district of virginia. he returned to you to become the us attorney for the southern district of new york in 2003 he served as a deputy attorney general at the department of justice. director comey, we look forward to your testimony. your written statement will be entered into the record in its entirety and ask that you summarize your testimony in five minutes. you may begin. welcome. >> thank you, mr. chairman, mr. conyers, members of the committee. it's good to be back before you. as the chairman said for the fourth time. i have six more to go and look forward to our conversations each time. i know that this morning to be questions about the e-mail investigation and i'm happy to answer those at the absolute best of my ability. in july when we closed this case i promised unusual transparency, and i think we've delivered on that promise in frankly an unprecedented way and i will do

my best to continue to be transparent in every way possible. but what i thought i would do because i know we'll talk about for quite a bit i want to focus on some of the other things the fbi has been doing just in the last couple of weeks. my objective is to make clear to you and to the american people the quality of the people of chosen to do this with their lives, to be something it's not about money, not about living. it's about the life that they make. i just picked for different examples of things we've been working on to elicit the quality of the folks, the scope of the work which is extraordinary and the importance of partnerships. because it is true that the fbi does nothing alone. so just to take off for from four different parts or opposition. as the chair and mr. conyers both mentioned, in the last couple of weeks our folks in the new york area have been working in an extraordinary way with their partners at federal, state and local organizations of all kinds to bring to justice very quickly the bomber in new jersey

and new york attacks. that work was done in a way that would've been hard to imagine 15 years ago in a time of turf battles and worries about my jurisdiction, your jurisdiction. they showed you what should be done, i would must be done. i think we should be very proud of them. second, within the last week, a hacker from kosovo who worked for the so-called islamic state in hacking into taking identities and personal information of america's military employees and then giving it to the islamic state so they could target these people was sentenced to 20 years in jail for the packing. our great folks together with lots of partners around the world found him in malaysia, and our malaysian partners arrested him, brought them back to virginia when he was just sentenced to 20 years. terrific work by our cyber investigators. as you know, we are doing an

awful lot of work for counterintelligence and ask you to understand just what mischief is rush up to finish with our election. that is work that goes on all day every day about which i'm limited in terms of pension questions i want you to know that support of our work we don't talk about an awful lot but it's at the core of the fbi. the less we want to mention is two weeks ago, a six-year-old girl was kidnapped off the front lawn in eastern north carolina in a stranger kidnapping. and all of law enforcement in north carolina surged on that case. we rolled our child abduction rapid deployment team which is a capability we've built around the country to help in just these can situation. user agents and analysts were expert at doing what has to be done in that golden 24 hours you have to try to save a child. so we rolled of those resources. we worked with reporters at state and local levels in north carolina, and overnight we found that little girl.

we found a little girl chained by her neck to retreat in the woods alive, thank god, and she was rescued. the picture that they showed me that morning of that little girl with wide eyes and her long hair around her shoulders but still a thick chain around her neck connecting her to the tree is one of never be able to get out of my own head. because it's both terrible and wonderful. it's terrible because what happened to this little girl. it's wonderful because together we found her and save her. i called the sheriff and was delighted. i called our team members who were connected thank you. they told me that they were relieved and exhausted, that they are all hard and investigators a taste of the early morning in the command center and cried together. because almost never ends this way. so i said to the sheriff and four people in which we didn't live in a world where little girls were kidnapped off of their front lawns, where we had to do this kind of work but, unfortunately, we live in a world and because we do i'm so glad that those people and the

rest of the people work for the fbi in the world because we are safer, we are better because they've chosen to do this with their lives. the best part of my job is people like you to watch. to see the world, to admire the work him to support the work anyway i can. they are doing extraordinary work for the american people across an incredible array of responsibility. i know you know that we are very grateful for the support you give to the men and women of the fbi and the for to our conversation about the work, mr. chairman. thank you. >> thank you, director comey. we will now begin questioning under the five minute rule. i will begin by recognizing myself. you testified that the fbi did not investigate the veracity of secretary clinton's testimony to the select benghazi committee under oath. we referred the matter to the united states attorney for the district of columbia. is the fbi now investigating the veracity of secretary clinton's

testimony to the selected benghazi committee? >> thank you, mr. chairman. the department as the referral. now it's being and so am i going to comment on a pending matter at this point. they have the latest on the committee. >> you cannot tell is whether or not you are indeed investigating? >> i can't. >> when do you expect that you'll be able to tell us more about this pending matter before the fbi? >> i don't know, sir. >> -- with platte river networks posted to read it asking how to strip out a vips very vip e-mail address of a bunch of archived e-mail. he went on quote, the issue is that these e-mails and called the private address of someone you would recognize and were trying to replace it with a

placeholder address as to not expose it. it's clearly demonstrates action taken to destroy evidence by those operating secretary clinton's private server and by her staff. certainly did not take it upon himself to destroy evidence that had been instructed to do so i secretary clinton or her staff there my first question to you is was fbi aware of this reddit postcard to offering immunity on may 3, 20 sixteenths because i'm not sure. i know that our team looked at it. under the weather than you about it before then or not. >> isn't this information evidence of obstruction of justice and a violation of the immunity deal? >> not necessarily, no. >> why not? >> it depends on what he wanted to do. i think we conclude what you've done to do was when they produced e-mails that i can address but have some name a

placeholder acid actually dot com address in the front line. >> last week the american people learned that cheryl mills, secretary clinton's longtime confidant and former state department chief of staff and heather samuelsson council to secretary clinton and the state department were granted immunity for production of their laptops. why were they not targets of the fbi's criminal investigation? >> target is someone on whom you sufficient evidence to indict. is subject to some of his conduct at some point during the investigation falls within the scope of the investigation. so served with respect to ms. mills police initial because she was an nl correspondent she was a subject of investigation. >> to the fbi find classified information on either of their computers? >> i think there were some e-mails still on the computer that were recovered that were classified is my recollection. >> is that a crime speak with is

what a crime? >> having classified information on computers that are outside the server system of the department of state? >> no. in a certain something, without knowing what you couldn't include what it was a private jet to know what the intention was but it's something, it's the reason we conducted a year-long investigation. to understand what e-mails have gone on an unclassified session to contain classified information. >> what did you determined with regard to the e-mails found on her computer? >> i hope unconditionally. my troops will correct me if i'm wrong, but they were duplicates of e-mails that had been produced to the e-mails to sort before production. >> now, both cheryl mills and heather simpson were granted immunity for production of these computers, laptops. y. would have been allowed to sit in on the interview with

secretary clinton. the department of justice reached a letter agreement with the two lawyers to give them what's called act of production immunity, meaning nothing but sound on the laptop they turn over will be used against them directly. which is a fairly normal tool in investigation. ms. mills in particular was a member of secretary clinton's legal team. and so secretary clinton decides which of her lawyers come to voluntary interviews with the fbi. >> is it usual to allow a witness or potential witness in a subsequent prosecution had one been undertaken to be present in the room when the fbi interviews another witness and potential target of an investigation? >> we have no ability to exclude or include any lawyer that if the subject chooses.

>> even if the law is a witness in the case? case? can use any of the incident in which he witnessed a criminal investigation was already been interviewed by the fbi has been allowed to accompany and serve as legal counsel to the target of that investigation? >> i can from perfect but it wouldn't surprise me if it happened the department of justice, excuse me, ma the fbi has no vote to decide who comes to interview. it was a judicial proceeding, a judge could police who could be there. lawyers are governed by ethics to decide what matters they can be involved in. it doesn't all go to say you can be in and you can't be in. >> wouldn't you agree with the conflict of interest for them to serve as attorneys for secretary clinton in this matter having been interviewed by the fbi as well as? >> that's a question and one has to answer for him or herself. >> you are a lawyer. what is your opinion? >> that something has to decide for themselves. i assume with counsel in consulting, what matters can be evolved which can't but again

the people's role in conducting a voluntary interview is to interview the subject. who they bring us up to them. >> how can you trust the veracity of secretary clinton answers knowing that when this is previously interviewed by the fbi were allowed to go to sleep in the unity of? >> we ssbn to be somewhat set and all the other evidence we've gathered. >> in consultation with her close attorneys were also witnesses to what was previously done earlier, and may, in fact, of himself to violate the law for which they requested and granted immunity. >> the answer is a saint. we make this has been based on what the witness says and the other evidence we gathered indicates. who is sitting there to be is not particularly jermaine. >> thank you. my time is expected to chair recognizes mr. conscious questions. >> thank you. thank you so much. director james comey twice this

past week, the city of charlotte, north carolina, has been shaken by the shooting death of black men. it's only wednesday out of many in this country looking for answers about the use of force i police. we on this committee are looking for answers, too. you are a vocal advocate for better collection of information about violent encounters between police and civilians. has the fbi's ability to collect this information been proved in the years since we last discussed it? and why these statistics so important to our current discussion on the use of force by police? >> thank you mr. conyers. we are having passionate important conversations in this

country about police use of force in connection with encounters with civilians, especially with african-americans. all of those conversations are uninformed today. they are all driven by anecdote because as a country we simply don't have the information to know do we have an epidemic of violence against black folks courts do have an epidemic involving brown folks, white folks? we just don't know. in the absence of the data we are driven entirely by anecdote and that's a very bad place to be. i don't know whether there's an epidemic of violence. my instinct tells me there isn't but i don't know. i can tell you what the shootings people of a different color are up or down or sideways, nor can anyone else in this country. so to discuss the most important things that are going on in the country we need information. the government should collect it. i can't think of something that's more inherently governmental and the need to use deadly force in an encounter by law enforcement work. so what's changed in the last

year, which is really good news is that everybody in leadership and law enforcement has agreed with this comment is agreed the fbi will build and maintain a database that we collect no information about all such encounters involving use of deadly force. that will allow us to know what's going on in this country so we can have a thoughtful conversation and readers being ruled by individual anecdotes. that's what medicine which. we are making progress. we will have this done. i would like to know that in the next year, serving the next two years. this database will be up in this everybody gets why it matters so much. >> thank you. on august 30, i wrote to you regarding donald trump's extensive connections to the russian government. the letter cites to a number of troubling reports, some suggest new topics of interest, others that might suggest evidence of a

crime. last friday, we read a new report suggesting that mr. trump's foreign policy adviser has been meeting with high ranking sanction officials in moscow to discuss lifting economic sanctions, if mr. donald trump becomes president. the same report quotes quote a senior united states law enforcement official who says that this relationship is being quote actively monitored and investigated, and quotation. is the fbi investigating the activities of mr. trump or any adviser to the trump campaign with respect to any line of communication between the

campaign and the russian government? >> i can't say, sir. as i said in response to different question from the chairman, we don't confirm or deny investigations. >> more generally than, is it lawful or a private citizen to enter into official government negotiations with a foreign nation? >> i don't think it's appropriate for me to answer that hypothetical. >> well, in my view, our research shows that it is not. the logan act 18 usc section 953 prohibits this conduct, in my view. and finally, does mr. trump currently receive intelligence briefings from the fbi? >> both candidates and their running mates are offered on aggregate basis rethink some the entire intelligence community. some portion of the first

briefing and put in fbi segment. so yes. >> does his staff attend those meetings as well? >> no. just the candidate and the vice presidential candidate. >> and finally, if a member of either -- >> i'm wrong. i'm sorry. i have to correct one centric each was allowed to bring to people. as i recall mr. trump did bring to individuals with clearances to the briefing. secretary clinton did not. i'm sorry, i misstated that. >> all right. finally, if a member of either campaign were engaged in secret back channel communications with a foreign adversary, could that line of communication pose a threat to national security? >> i don't think it's appropriate given that i'm not coming on whether we have an investigation to answer hypotheticals that might make it look like i'm commenting on

whether we have an investigation so i would prefer not to answer that, sir. >> well, thank you for being here today, and i think the chairman and yield back. >> pitcher thinks the job but the recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. >> director comey, welcome. who authorize cheryl mills community? >> the decision made by the department just a. i don't want level inside. in our investigations anything, any kind of immunity comes from the prosecutors not the investigators. >> did she request community? >> i don't know for sure what the negotiations involve. i believe her lawyer asked for act of production immunity with respect to the production of her laptop. that's my understanding that he did the part of those conversations. >> it's been a matter of public record secretary clinton brought

nine people into the room were two fbi agents were questioning her. is that normal practice? >> i've been in, done interviews with the crowd and some with just this subject. it's unusual to that large in number but but it's not unprecedented in my experience. >> now, cheryl mills also stated that she was an attorney. i'm very concerned that meant a fact witness represents a client might be the target of an investigation, there's a conflict of interest, you know, rather than let ms. mills make a determination, with the fbi be willing to refer the matter of fact witness, ms. mills in this case, representing target, secretary clinton in this case, to the appropriate bar association for investigation?

>> that's notable for the fbi. even though i happen to be a lawyer we are not lawyers. we are investigators so that the question for the legal part of the department of justice. >> okay. why did ms. mills request it? was she hiding something or was she afraid that something would incriminate her nose on her laptop? >> i don't know. i'm sure that's a conversation she and her lawyer had in her lawyer had with lawyers at the department. i just don't know. >> there was an op-ed by professor jonathan turley that appeared in the media that said that there are a lot of good cases scuttled by granting immunity, and there was lots of immunity that was granted here. doesn't it concern you as an investigator that your piece and the justice department decided

to become an immunity producing machine for many people who would've been very key witnesses should there had been a prosecution? >> i don't think of it that way. there was a lot of immunity issues in this case. i know it's a cognitive subject but there's all different kinds of immunity. that's probably three different kinds that are featured industries. fairly typical in a complex white collar case especially. as you try to work your way up toward her subject, so the overall reaction is just looks like ordinary investigative process to me. >> the target was not an ordinary target. i think we all know that, and since you announced it would be no prosecution of secretary clinton in july, there have been several very much real issues that are troubling. and we do not require a reopening of the investigation to solve those issues?

>> i haven't seen anything that would come near to that kind of situation. there's lots of questions, very controversy. i'm very proud of the way this was done. >> come on now. with all due respect, since he made his announcement there have been many more issues that came up that were not on the table prior to the announcement that the investigation against secretary clinton had been dropped. i think the american public is entitled to answers on this, particularly since we have to know the extent of the classified information which ended up being in a private e-mail server. all of us on this committee have got security clearances of some kind or another. i'm kind of worried that if i got some classified information and went back to my office and use an unsecured server to send

it to somebody who may also have had a classified information, i would be in big trouble. and i should be in big trouble if i did something like that. there seems to be different strokes for different folks on this. and that's what americans are concerned about, particularly when we are looking to elect someone to the highest office in the land and the leader of the free world. i don't think your answers are satisfactory at all, mr. cohen. i give a great deal of respect for you but i think there's a heavy hand coming from some place else. with that idea back. >> picture thanks to gentleman and recognizes the gentleman from new york for five minutes i met. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first let me express my admiration and thanks to the fbi for the professional man at expert work they did in the

bombings that occurred in europe about a block out of my district, dropping the suspect within what, 40 hours and it was a very good indication of teamwork and professionalism. i congratulate you on. secondly, let me say that i think the mod that is being thrown from the other side of the stable continue on because of the ongoing presidential election, in the case in which the fbi decided there was nothing to prosecute is over. we all know nobody would even be talking about if one were not commit hillary clinton were not a presidential candidate. this is a political maneuver and to let me talk about a case that may pose a current national security threat to the united states and ask questions about that. in his earlier remarks mr. conyers referenced a letter from the ranking member. that letter as with the government is getting connection between officials and russian

interest. whether they contributed to the illegal hacking of the democratic national committee and the democratic national campaign committee. you are familiar with that letter i think it's because yes. >> like to ask a few questions. the letter said on august 8, roger stone a donald trump does not revealed yet communicate with wikileaks founder julian assange about the upcoming release of additional, additional illegal contact democratic documents. he may be stated to republican campaign event while answering a question about the potential october surprise. obviously, if someone is stating publicly that he centric communication with the organization that obtained these illegally hacked documents i assumeassume the fbi would wanto talk to that person. at the end of you roger stone about his committees with julian this change is to julian assange speak with i can't comment on that spirit he is not about a complex of additional illegally

hacked documents because if you asked them about those communications because i also can't comment on that because it's an ongoing investigation. i don't confirm whether there is or whether there is an investigation. >> director comey, the fbi acknowledged private and public statements and testimony that it was acknowledged it was a busy secretary clinton use of a private e-mail server and that was one of the investigation was still ongoing. now you can't comment on whether the investigation is there a different standard for secretary clinton and donald trump? if not, what is a consistent standard? >> our standard is we do not confirm or deny the existence of investigation. there's an exception for the. when there is a need for the public to be reassured when it's obvious commits apparent given our activities, public a key reason that investigation is ongoing but overwhelming rule is we do not comment except in certain exceptional circumstances. >> are not exceptional circumstances with quote

officials, a tenant of the major political party for the united states says publicly decent jamaicans with foreign officials and anticipates further illegal activity? >> i don't think so. >> mr. cobbs campaign chairman resigned after going to disclose his role in assisting a pro-russian party and ukraine. the associate press reported donald trump's campaign should help the pro-russian fighting ukraine -- with two prominent washington lobby firms in 2012. and did so in way that effectively obscured the form political parties efforts to influence u.s. policy. as the fbi interviewed him about his go to disclose this work as federal law requires? >> i will give you this in answer. >> has fbi interviewed rick gave to reporters the works with the trump campaign? >> same answer. >> at five after invested secretary clinton you made a decision to explain publicly to you if you'd and why.

you disclose dawkins. washington gimmick and by the same level of information about your investigation of those associated with mr. trump? >> i'm not confirming that we investigate in people associate with mr. trump. in the matter of any of investigation it was our judgment in my judgment and the rest of the fbi's judgment that those were exceptional circumstances where the public needed -- >> my final question is the following. you investigated secretary clinton's e-mails and so forth, everything we've been talking about. you concluded i believe quite probably there was nothing to prosecute and you announced in my opinion quite properly that you investigate it and there was nothing there, nothing to prosecute. that was proper. but having announced, with a prostitute agency announces we've invested so so inside capacity because the oil we've investigated and we decided not to prosecute because, why is it

appropriate for the prostitute agency to go further and say even the we decided not to prosecute, we still think this person did this, that, or the other thing it was proper or improper? why is it proper to characterize your opinion of the propriety of the actions of someone whom you have announced that you decided there's nothing criminal and should not be prosecuted? >> that's a very hard decision. that's why the exception to the rule is, judy risk damaging someone who isn't convicted. the judgment i made in this case is given the unusual, in fact i hope unprecedented nature of this investigation that it was appropriate to offer that transparency. not an easy call. i think on balance -- >> let me say before my time expires that i think and i just talking to myself that was highly inappropriate with having determined that there was nothing to prosecute and having announced that quite properly, prosecuting agencies and the department of justice to comment

with comments that would be looked upon as authoritative, that what she did was right or wrong or good or bad, not the appropriate role of a prosecuting agency, and risks, not in this case perhaps, but risks. i talked a because of the future. i don't see that happen again. it puts anybody who did not commit a crime, who you or the justice, determined it was not evidence to prosecute the episode at the mercy of an independent, that's just outright under system. i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. director comey, thank you for those examples of the fbi's good work in your opening statement. i think we all appreciate what the fbi has done. my first question is this. would you be open for clinton

investigation if he discovered new information that was both relevant and substantial? >> it's hard for me to imagine yesterday. we would look at any new and substantial information. >> in general, if he discovered new information that was substantial and relevant, you would reopen an investigation, we do not? >> again, even in general i don't think we answer that in the abstract. what we can say is any investigation to people in it and substantial information we would like to see its we can make an evaluation. >> let me give you some examples and mention someone who develops i think have occurred at ask you if you become aware of them. the first example is what the chairman mentioned a while ago. and employee at a company that managed former secretary clinton's private e-mail server said i need to strip out a vip, very dippy enough address with bunch of archived e-mails.

a sickly they don't want a vip's e-mail address exposed any wonder i send your aware that spirit i am aware that. >> the same employee called a new policy to delete e-mails after 60 days to quote hillary cover-up operation. you soffa, did you speak with say the last speak with the same employee called the new detention policy delete dean mills after 60 days a hillary cover-up operation. you saw that. >> i don't know that particular language. >> we will teach you the source but take my word for it that's what he said. >> i will. >> another example of former and foundation point also made the clinton server destroyed devices used by former secretary clinton by smashing them with a hammer. you are aware that? >> yes. >> to implicitly company that managed former secretary clinton's server recently pled the fifth two congress to avoid self-incrimination. you are aware that?

>> just. >> 15,000 more work-related e-mails were discovered, though there'd been an attempt to wrongly delete them. you are aware that? >> i think we discovered them. >> right. to me, director comey, what i cited are not the actions of innocent people. there is a distinct possibility that mrs. clinton orders have directed others to destroy evidence in an investigation which, of course, is against the law. so i would urge you to read open your investigation. do you want to comment on that? >> i don't. >> okay. i know you can't do with what we have or have not but i believe i've given evidence of new information that is relevant and substantial that would justify reopening the investigation. my next question is by no you've granted immunity to a number of individuals but if you information that is relevant and substantial, you would be able to investigate them further, wouldn't you?

>> not to quibble. the fbi doesn't grant immunity to anybody. the department of justice is able to print different kinds of immunity. and immunity, if the substantial evidence develops either that a witness lied under a grant of use immunity or under any kind of immunity, of course the department can pursue it. nobody gets lifetime immunity. >> thank you, director comey the last question, as chairman of this committee i issue the fbi's city on september 19, 2016. the due date for response was two days ago, september 26. the bureau staff estimate provided the requested information and documents. yesterday we pointed out the science minister station of the national institute of standards and technology which sets standards. i trust you will comply with the subpoenas because i intend to continue the conversation we've been having about the subpoena to we have made a lot of

documents available to at least six committees. and the question of whether we should make them available to another committee is something that we are struggling with a talking to folks about it. >> it rip their jurisdiction we can demonstrate i think obligation to comply with it. >> were not trying to be disrespectful. which especially see the jurisdictional issue the waiter folks do but we are contending to talk about it. >> thank you, director comey. i want you to the gentleman from california. >> the chairman of full committee pass on the early i just want to point out and ask they be placed in the record according to the maryland code of ethics, 19301, it specifically prohibits a former or current government officer or employee from acting as the consul to someone that they represented in government. like that to be placed in the record. in light of the fact that the maryland bar has this provision, would that have changed your

view of allowing her incented no authority? >> i'm not qualified to come up and answer questions about legal ethics in this forum. the fbi has a basis to exclude somebody from in a few the who e subject of the interview says is under legal team. >> thank you. yield but. >> recognize the gentleman from california for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, director comey, for once again appearing before this committee, as you appeared before so many committee commitr of the house. sometimes i wonder how you get any work done at all, your called appeared so frequently. there's been a lot of focus on the private e-mail the secretary clinton used just as her predecessor colin powell used. so far as i'm aware from the public comments, there's no forensic evidence that there was

a breach of the server, although theoretically you could intrude and not believe evidence. but there's been very little focus on the breach at the state department e-mail system. it's been reported in the press that this breach of the state department e-mail system was one of the largest ever of federal system and was accomplished by, according to the press, either china or russia. i'm wondering if you were able to give us any insight into whether it was, in fact, the russians who hacked into the state department e-mail system, or whether that is still under investigation? >> not in this open forum i can't comment. >> i'm hoping we can get some insight in an appropriate classified setting on that. now, we have watched with some concern, i know you are also concerned about the russian intrusion into our election

system. it's been reported to us that the russians hacked into the democratic national committee database. they also hacked into the democratic congressional campaign committee, and it seems that they're making an effort to influence the outcome of this election year we have been warned that the information stolen might not just be released but also be altered and forged and then released in an effort to impact the election here in the united states. yesterday they were press reports, and i don't know if -- i'm interested if you're able to tell us that the russians have also hacked the telephone of democratic staffers and that there was a request for democratic staffers to bring

their cell phones into the fbi to have been mirrored. can you does anything about that? >> i can't at this point. what i get in response to the first part of your question, any hacking is something we take very seriously pick any hacking in connection with his nations election system is something we take extraordinarily seriously. the whole of government. it is something fbi is spent a lot of time on right now to try to understand. wanted to get what does it all at once the scope of it, to equip the president to decide upon the appropriate response. that's one of the reasons i'd be careful about what i say about it. that work is ongoing. i should make clear what we talk about our election system, a lot of press reporting about attempts to intrude into voter registration databases. those are connected to the internet. that's very different than the electoral mechanism in this country. >> we had a hearing and had the chance to talk to alex padilla who suggested in california, a

boy, the encrypted database. number two, even if you were to steal it, they can manipulate that but it could cause a lot of damage. you could create chaos on election day and you could target the chaos to areas where voters had a tendency to vote or one candidate over another in an attempt to influence the outcome. it's not a benign situation certainly and wonder what we've after i want to just quickly touch on a concern on cyber angle 41 and that the fbi is interpreting that. i'm concerned that the change as understood by the fbi would allow for one warrant for multiple computers but would include allowing the fbi to

access victims computers in order to clean them up. cybersecurity experts that i've been in touch with have raised very strong concerns about that provision, especially using malware's own signaling system to disable the malware. the cyber experts who have talked to me and expressed concern believe that that ultimately could actually trigger attacks. so i'm wondering if you have any comments on how the fbi intends to use rule 41, these of the malware on victim's computers? >> the gentleman's time has expired. the witness will be permitted to answer the question. >> i'm not an expert but one of the challenges we face a special interview with these huge criminal botnets which have harvested and connect a lot of innocent people's computers is how to execute a search warrant to try to figure out where the bad guys are and give them away

from those innocent people and the challenge we been facing is how good every single jurisdiction and get a warrant would take literally years. we're trying to figure out can o use rule 41 to one judge issued an order and give that authority? >> i know my time is up i just want to close by expressing the hope that the fbi might seek the guidance of some of the computer experts at our national labs on this very question of triggering malware attacks. i yield back. >> the point is well taken. recognize the gentleman from ohio for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. director comey, chairman goodlatte in his introduction of you mentioned that you're a graduate of the college of william and mary and as you way that you as you may well know undergraduate financial. you mr. lugar our alma mater is not a something called the honor code. i checked out the wording of the honor code to make sure i was correct attitude exactly what it

says but it says as a member of the william and mary committed i pledge not to lie, cheat or steal is an academic or my personal life. one of the people is being investigated, hillary clinton did not have the good fortune to attend college of william and mary but she did attend wellesley. i wonder whether they have an honor code and i found out, look at the. they do and they did. here's what it says. as a wellesley college student i will act with honesty, integrity and respect in making this minute i'm accountable to the community and dedicate myself to a life of honor. let me repeat part of that again. i will act with honesty. i'm sure young women attending wellesley today and those that attended it in the past are proud one of their own could be the next president of the united states. but a majority of the american people have come to the conclusion that hillary clinton

is not honest and cannot be trusted it's about two to one to say that she's dishonest. in the latest quinnipiac poll the question being what you say that hillary clinton is honest or not, 65% said no and only 32% said yes, she is honest. republicans democrats not surprised were overwhelming one way or the other but independence 80% said no, she's not honest or 19% said she is. director comey, singh junior people were the ones investigated hillary clinton's e-mail scandal, i would just like to ask a couple of questions. hillary clinton claim over and over that none of the e-mails that she sent contained classified information. was she truthful when she said that? >> as i said when i testified in july, there were, unforgiving, the exact number but there were 80 or so e-mails that contained classified information.

>> so she said they didn't and they did. so that sounds like not being truthful. not trying to put words into your mouth but i think that's what that means. hillary clinton came up with a fallback position saying none of the e-mails i sent were marked classified but that wasn't true either, was it? >> there were three as i recall, the e-mails that were within the body of the text portion marking indicated they were classified, confidential. >> again not putting words in your mouth but i think that means she didn't tell the truth in that particular instance. hillary clinton said she decided to use a personal intel server system for convenience. and tha that she would like to y around one blackberry. was she being truthful when she said she just used one device? >> she used, during her tenure, as secretary of state, multiple devices, not at the same time but sequentially. >> again i'm going to take that as she said one and it was more.

so, therefore, not honest. in fact, some of the devices were destroyed with a hammer as has already been mentioned. is that the type of behavior that you would expect from someone who was being fully cooperative with an investigation, destroying devices containing potential evidence with a hammer? >> we uncovered no evidence of the devices were destroyed during our investigation. so why people destroy devices when there's no investigation is a question i'm not able to answer. >> a little west than two months ago hillary clinton and talking about her e-mails claimed that you said that my answers were truthful. politifact by the way gave his claim a pants on fire rating. did you say that she was telling the truth with respect to her e-mail claims? >> i did not. i never say that about anybody. our business is never to decide whether we believe someone.

our business is to decide what evidence do we have evidence do we have that would convince us not to believe that persevered it's an odd way to look at the world but that the investigators look at the world. >> director comey, mi7, i'm almost out of time, it must've been very awkward for you. you are tasked with investigating a person could be the next president of the united states. and the current president of the united states has already be judged the case and telegraphed to you and the entire justice department that he, your boss, has come to the conclusion that there's not even a smidgen of corruption, his own words, before you even completed your investigation. you are unaware he said that, weren't you? >> yes, i saw those reported in the press. >> it just seems to me here that they were scored a double standard going on, like, for example, if anybody else had done this, like a soldier or servicemen who did virtually the same thing, they would've been prosecuted, and war, but not hillary clinton and that's a

double standard. that's not the way it is supposed to work in america. i'm out of time. yield back. >> i disagree with that characterization. i think if we were to recommend she deposited, that would be a double standard because marrying joe at the fbi or some other place did this it would not be prosecuted. they would be disciplined. they would be -- they would be in big trouble. they would not be prosecuted. that would not be fair. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, ms. jackson lee for five minutes. >> many americans have come to trust hillary clinton as a dedicated committed public servant. but i believe it's important as we address these questions. let me make one or two points. my colleagu colleague has automd that ford may be to coming back to washington and dealing with a potential intrusion on the

election system to i'm not asking you at this time, and also the issue connecting the dots as a deal with terrorism across america. i do want to acknowledge eric williams, and outstanding detailee to the judiciary committee, thank him for his service and want to thank the staff back in houston, mr. turner for helping us in a shooting that occurred in houston as you well know it gave us a great deal of fear and scare just a couple of days ago. director comey, my republican colleagues have questioned the second guest and attack you and your team of career fbi agents. they disagreed with the result of your investigation or they want you to prosecute or to ask the dj to prosecute secretary clinton regardless of the facts of the engage in almost daily ritual of holding hearings trying to get an investigation and a recommendation. i believe it has five that your recommendation in that case was unanimous and you're investigation was carried out by what you called an all-star team

of career agents and prosecutors, is that right speak with yes. these are some of our very best. sometimes become lucky enough to be the person who represents the fbi, people think it's my conclusion. sure it is my conclusion but i'm reporting what the team thought and their supervisors and their supervisors. as painful as it is for people sometimes, this was not a close call. >> you bring a case itself was not a cliffhanger, bright? >> correct. >> republicans of attacking the decisions to provide limited immunity. for example, when congressman chavez learned about this he stated and a quote a wonder they couldn't prosecute a case. they were handing out immunity deals like candy. i extend the api does not make the final call on him into a grimace. a statement was just wrong but did you consult closely with doj before the energy agreements were concluded by giving, by having facts speak with our job is to tell them what facts would

like to get access to the is the prosecutor's job to figure out do the. they negotiate i think there were five limited energy agreements a different kind that a negotiated. >> did you or anyone at the fbi ever object to these decisions to grant immunity? did you think it makes its? >> it was fairly ordinary. >> was the fbi or doj handing out immunity agreements like candy? >> that's not how i saw it. >> congressman gowdy, good for and all subjected to credit energy to the two people that fbi decides to give immunity to brian and they got flat river if it happens. those are the two that you want to prosecute so you're giving immunity to the trigger people and everybody goes free. do you agree with this assessment? to the fbi screw up and let everyone go free because of these limited immunity deals? >> no, i don't think so. the goal is to work up. if people have information that

their lawyers are telling you will not get without some limited form of immunity, and lower down you try to get that information to see see if you cn make a case against her subjec subjects. >> congressman gowdy also said this about the fbi, i've been underwhelmed by agency that once had tremendous respect for. let me just say say on this judiciary committee for many, many years going through a number of investigations i've never been proud of an agency that has always been there when people are hurting and when there is a need for quick work of my question to you is what is your response to that was deeply these criticisms are fair? >> i think questions are good i think criticism is healthy for. result people can disagree about whether i should have announced it. once not there is any implication that that your acted in any way other than independently competently and honestly. that's just not true. i knew this was going to be controversial. this organization and the people

who did this are honest, independent people. we do not carry water for one thing or the other. that's hard for people to see because so much of our country we see things through site. we are not on anybody's side this was a done exactly the way you want it be done. questions are fair, the pakistan. >> but the foot soldiers, the agents on the ground, you take issue with whether or not they were compromise or they were adhering to someone else's message, is that what you think? >> you can call a strong but don't call us weasels. we are not weasels. we are honest people and we did this in that way. whether you agree or disagree, this is the way you would want to be done. >> you were able to learn what they had to say but if anyone provides diversity fbi had provided evidence that secretary clinton has committed a crime, would you then have recommended rustic asian to the doj? >> yes.

the case was there. very aggressively. .. >> i yield back. >> mister isys for five minutes. >> thank you german. inspector, i've got a lot of, at the time that the department of justice during