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

your involvement gave paul stinnett immunity, did you do so knowing about all the posts he had on reddit and capturing all those correspondents where he was asking how to write or erase on the half of a vbi piece of his feet? >> i'm not sure sitting here, my recollection is that if i'm wrong we had some posts, i don't know whether our folks had minimal or not. we had a goodunderstanding of what we thought we had done my bestrecollection . >> in the last week , he's been deleting them from reddit. is that consistent with observing evidence and i say that because we are still an ongoing interest by congress and hopefully, in spite of reddit own flak team trying

to hide it, only because a few people caught it who even know aboutit , this and other committees are interested in getting the backups that may exist. i guess my question to you is is he destroying evidence relevant to a congressional inquiry. i'll answer it for you, yes he is and what are you going to do about it? >> let me go into something in a very specific way. the former german issuing subpoenas, i issued a subpoena, issued preserve letters in addition to that chairman. but they were effectively preserve letters, some of them were to hillary rodham clinton while she was still secretary, summit 2013 to secretary kerry. these individuals destroyed documents pursuant or to get

out of federal custody who are subpoenaed and our discovery. the result at the time, my question to you is when i was chairman and i wanted to extend immunity to someone i had to give notice to the department of justice and i was consulted. is this any particular matter? >> in any matter, whether the fbi was consulted in that case, yes, the department of justice does not grant immunity about checking with law enforcement and whether it will impact any ongoing investigation. that's the requirement to give notice. when this was first occurring, you were handing them outlike candy according to some immunity . did you or to your knowledge the department of justice confirmed with chairman chaffetz or any of the other chairman who had ongoing subpoenas and investigation?

>> not to my knowledge. >> isn't there a double standard that when you granted immunity to these five individuals from outreach of prosecution for crimes related to the destruction of documents or withholding or other crimes, did you want congressional subpoenas? >> i don't think anybody was given transactional immunity. >> we are not allowed to make your immunity public but i read them. you gave immunity from destruction to both of those attorneys, not just to mold the documents over, specifically destruction. you did the same thing with the other two individuals, brian and paula. you gave them immunity from destruction. >> i could always be wrong, i don't have them in front of me either. >> just because you don't have them in your heart to did you read the answer?

>> i'm pretty sure that we used immunity in the case of those two people coextensive to do that south and 16 one which means no statement can be used against you indirectly. transactional immunity is sometimes altered by prosecutors who says you will not be prosecuted in any event. i don't think there was any transactional immunity. >> when i read to immunity was granted it bothsays destruction in addition to the turning over. why would you believe that was necessary or do you believe that was necessary? you wanted the documents, you wanted the physical evidence. why did you have to give immunity from destruction of stock materials ? >> because my time is expiring, can you look into it and hopefully get back to this committee. i'd like to know does that immunity apply only to destruction on the computers delivered sothat other instructions by sarah mills could still be prosecuted?

>> my recollection is no transactional immunity was given . the statements given to the mister partly on a. >> thank you mister chairman. >> we recognize the gentleman from tennessee. >> german, i would ask unanimous consent that the documents be included and i will summarize, they're basically the letters that led up to the destruction of documents that were previously held for preservation and additionally, the blog post from reddit . >> objection, they will be part of the record. >> thank you. >> director comey, would you consider the most important job presently fighting terrorism and threats to the homeland? >> yes, that's our top priority. >> how much in the past do you think you and the fbi have been responding to inquiries and on this

particular email investigation? could you give me an idea of how many months or years have been expended on responding to different committees that have called you in time after time and repetitious lee accused you of doing politics rather than being an fbi director? >> i don't have a sense. >> could be months of cumulative man hours or would it be years? >> i don't know, a lot of folks have done a lot of work to provide transparency that we promise area is by a lot of people, i just don't have a sense. >> how many hours have you spent before congress on this? >> testimony, four hours and 40 minutes. without a break i want to vote for the record and whatever today is, those would be the two main appearances. i was asked questions at the

senate homeland about this and house homeland in july i think so i'm guessing 10 hours or so. >> and you prepared for this, 10 hours is just the iceberg. >> sure. >> your time in the fbi better be used fighting terrorist threats in america? >> we are still doing it all. no one should think we've taken a day off because we are also doing oversight. we do both. >> in the case of mister romney trying to detonate bombs, his father had accused him of being a terrorist at one time and he stabbed his brother in jail. did the fbi interview him when he was in jail about his possible terrorist tendencies

and trips to pakistan or afghanistan? >> i'll answer that, i'm going to be very circumspect in how i answer questions about the case because the guy is alive and entitled to a fair trial. i don't do anything that would allow him to argue that he blocked his ability to a fair trial. we did not interview him when he was in jail in 2014. >> why would that be? you interviewed hisfather i believe. you might have talked to his father. that's evidence , he's in jail. how could they not going to talk to him? >> i don't wantto answer that question . i commissioned as i doing all these cases a deep look back trying to make the case now, we will go back very carefully but i understand the agents investigated him and why and whether there is learning but i don't want to answer it now because i'd be vaccinating a bit. >> some people suggested you made a political calculation in your recommendation of secretary clinton in emails. did you make a political calculation in terms of this decision? >> some said on national

television secretary clinton destroyed evidence after being directed from the clinton , and when i asked her decision you stated it publicly that emails were essentially deleted and records were sealed, that's not correct? others have said they lost confidence in the investigation and question the genuine effort which you carried out. did the fbi make a genuine effort to carry out their own efforts ?... did you take tips from the position you took when you announced your decision? >> it's difficult but i just

thought it was the right thing to do. i'm not loving this but it's important that i common answer questions about it. i'm not loving this, >> you need a bathroom break. >> know, i'm good. i will let you know at 4:40. >> in the fbi building they should be made that well, you're a credit to the fbi, a credit to government service and a credit to your all modern and ideal back the time. >> thank you gentlemen and i recognized the gentleman from iowa. >> thank you mister chairman, bank you director for your testimony before this committee. i was listening in the exchange between yourself and mister ives, i'd like to confirm that you were confirming that mister coletta made the reddit post? >> i'm confirming it, i think he did is my understanding. that's my understanding, i think he did. i've been focused on a lot of other stuff we talked about. >> i certainly can accept

that and i'd like you to go back to the interview with hillary clinton and how that all came about on that date but first looking at the dates of the additional immunity documents that i reviewed, i see mister partly on oh had one dated for the 22nd and a one dated the 28, can you tell me what brought about that section and why the first one wasn't adequate and if there was an interview with mister partly auto in between those dates, the 22nd and 28 2016? >> mister marino will recognize this term, the first day agreement which was to govern an interview, that's the limited use immunity for an interview and i believe the second one is the agreement for use immunity in connection with the investigation so it's sort of a tryout for him to get interviewed but prosecutors andinvestigators to poke at him and the second one is the agreement they reached .

>> before going to go further will go off the november 28 agreement, it could be i don't understand that. >> i think you're important to him as his lawyer but the first is an intermediate step. >> thank you. were you aware of the president's statement on october 9 when he as reported on october 9 of 2006 that he said hillary clinton would not have endangered national security?>> obviously i don't know the date but i remember public reporting of that statement. >> and the fallout that i stated, that is october 9. then again on april 2016 it was reported that the president said hillary clinton was careless but not essentially endangering national security, were you aware of that statement as well? and then i'd like if you

could characterize the interview sometime around may 16 where the use that you intended to interview hillary clinton personally . >> i never said that because i never intended that. i'm sure i never said that publicly. >> were you aware if that was your public statement? >> yes, i think i read it and smiled about it. sometimes they said the fbi director doesn't do. >> i'm not stating your answer i was simply for the record, this is a record that is dated september 28, 2016, buffalo news and it had your picture on it and it takes us back to, this takes us back to a document may 16, 2016, has a picture on the front and i'll introduce it into the record, he says fbi director james comey told reporters he would interview hillary clinton in the coming days and i asked that we introduce this article into the record.thank you mister

chairman. not as a matter of indictment, i don't dispute your word public expectation was hanging out there is my real point. with that public expectation i think the public was surprised to learn about who was or wasn't in that room, can you tell us who was in the room involved in your listening to or interview of hillary clinton on that date on july 22, 2016? >> i can't tell you for sure, i can give you a general sense of the witness and her legal team and then on our side of the table, our prosecutors in the department of justice. i don't know if any of our analysts were in there or not but certainly our team and hurting. >> out of your team how many fbi investigators? >> i don't know sitting here. i think that we had 8 to 10 on our side, prosecutors and agents.

>> you say prosecutors, did loretta lynch have her people in there? >> justices andlawyers, yes. >> how many department of justice lawyers would have been there ? >> i don't know for sure but i think it was probably about eight people, four lawyers and four from the fbi but i could be ... >> around for investigators, for prosecutors from the doj area a couple of attorneys for hillary clinton, hillary clinton herself, that would fit the scene closely? >> i think hillary clinton's team was bigger than that, i don't know the number. >> when he received counsel as to the recommendation you were to make by loretta lynch, i'll just go through this quickly, you didn't review a videotape, and audiotape transcript area you would have relied on the briefings from the people that were in the room would have been your investigative team. >> that the agents who conducted the interview. >> and they were reaping all

the notes they had taken but redacted. >> rights, all what's called the fbi 302. >> so loretta lynch had her people in the room and they would have had access your investigators in the room and out of that came a piece of advice to you that she had already said she was going to end that responsibility over to you as director of the fbi is making the recommendation which turned out to be the decision on whether to indict hillary clinton . >> time has expired . >> i'm not sure on following entirely, there was no advice to me from the attorney general or any of the lawyers working for her. i came formally to the recommendation that was communicated to me and the fbi reached its conclusion as to what to do uncoordinated from the department of justice. >> even though the justice was in the room with your investigators, i take that final comment and i yield back x we think the gentleman from georgia for five

minutes. >> a question of hacking into the databases of the democratic national committee and come campaign committee as well as what was hacked into the voter registration system of illinois and arizona serve as ominous warnings to the american people about the risks that our electoral process faces in this modern era. unfortunately, some republicans in the house are as obsessed with hillary clinton's emails as trump has been about the president's birth certificate, just like this investigation after five years of proof, i predict the trunk republicans will at some point close this email persecution.america is sick of it. the attention of the american public is increasingly focused on the security of this nation's election infrastructure.

on monday, the ranking members of the house and senate intelligence committees, senator feinstein and congressman adam schiff issued a joint statement setting forth the current status of this investigation area it says this and i quote, based on information we have received we have concluded that the agencies are making a concerted effort to influence the us elections. they work closely with intelligence communities individuals to be able to put that statement out to the american public. director tran one, i want to ask you about any testified information but is this statement accurate? >> i can't comment on that in this forum. as i said in my opening, we are investigating. i don't understand what

mischief the russians might be up to in connection with our political institutions and the election system more broadly but i don't want to comment. >> free and fair elections are a linchpin of our society. a compromise or disruption of our election process is something that this congress certainly should be looking into, would you agree with that? >> as far as what congress should be looking into what the fbi is looking into this very hard for the reasons you say, it's extraordinarily serious. >> we can assume the fbi cyber division issued a flash alert to state officials warning that hackers were attempting to infiltrate their election systems. the title of the flash alert was and i quote, targeting activity against state board of elections systems, the

alert disclosed the fbi is currently investigating cyber attacks against the state. later, the fbi warned officials in arizona about russian assault on their election systems and hackers also attacked the election system in illinois where they were able to download the data of 200,000 or up to do hundred thousand voters. in august, the department of homeland security convened a conference call warning date election officials and offering to provide federal cyber security experts to extend vulnerabilities and yesterday it was announced that 18 states have requested election cycle security help to defend their election systems. director tran one, since these flash alerts and warnings went out over the

summer, are you letting us know whether or not there have been any additional attacks on state operations or databases since then? >> a variety of scanning activities which is a preamble for potential intrusion activities as well, some attempted intrusions, voter registration databases beyond those we know about in july and august, we are urging state to make sure the deadbolts are thrown and their locks are on. to get the most information, just to make sure their systems are secure. these are the voter registration systems. this is different than the vote system in the united states which is very hard for someone to hack into . it's putting a machine on the under the basketball hoop, those things are not connected to the interstate internet but voter registration systems are so we urge voters to make sure you have the most current information and your systems are tight because there's no

doubt that bad actors have been pokingaround . >> with that i will yield back my time. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from missouri for five minutes. >> thank you mister chairman. mister comey, thanks for being here. i was astounded when you said the fbi has been unable to control a witness coming in voluntarily brings him to an interview . i've seen a lot of fbi tell us who could come into an interview and who could not and in this case, and i'm sure you heard some of the questions raised about smart lawyers around the country about providing immunity to people like cheryl mills in return for her presenting a

job that you had every authority to get a subpoena and if you had brought a request for a search warrant based on what we now know, i would have had no problem signing that weren't so you could get it anywhere you want and in fact, i talked to former us attorneys who have said if an fbi can't come in and recommended that we give community to a witness to get her laptop that we could get with a subpoena or warrant then i would ask the fbi not to ever allow this agent on the case . could you explain succinctly why you chose to give community without a proper to what was on the laptop, give immunity to cheryl mills while she was a witness and you could have gotten that laptop with a warrant or subpoena . >> the immunity we are

calling about here and the details matter. what we're talking about is acts of production community which say you want us give us a thing, we won't use anything defined on that thing directly against you. >> i understand that and i understood that from reading the immunity deal and that's what's so shocking is she was working directly with hillary clinton and therefore it's expected, the evidence indicates she was on so many of the emails that hillary clinton is using that pretty much anything in their would have been usable and you cleaned the slate before you ever knew . in some of the immunities today, the last paragraph mentions a proper. was there a proper of what the witness would say before immunity deals were given to

those that got the immunity? >> can i answer firstly your question about why i think it made sense to have active production for cheryl mills laptop? >> i rather, my time is so limited. >> it's an important question and i think that's a reason why i will answer but i will give it a different time. i think at least one of the cases and i'm mixing up the guys but with mister combetta or mister conley on oh translate. >> it's yes, sir no, did you have a proper from them as to what they would say before you gave them immunity? >> i believe there was a proper section. it was it called a queen for a day agreement with at least one of them to understand what they would say. >> the cause the deals that i've seen back 30 years ago before i went to the bench, the fbi would say that we know fbi can't give immunity, it has to come doj like it's

not the fbi's job to say what a reasonable prosecution would issue were not given the evidence and let them decide but a proper is made saying this is what my client will say in the doj decides they saw that proper that the plea will offer, the immunity will offer and from that proffer the deal is off. that's nothing substantial, it's as if the investigation determined to give immunity to peopleinstead of getting a warrant . it gave immunity to people who would need to make a case if that case were going to be made and i know we have to go across the aisle who are saying she's a presidential candidate. it happens to be in my case, i wouldn't care whether she was a presidential candidate or not. what is important to maintain a civilization with justice and fairness is a little

righteous where people are treated fairly across the board and it does not appear that in this case that fbi agents with experience have told me they've never seen anything like this. so i know this happened before your watch but inspector mueller, kim jensen who prepared 700 pages of planning material to those who would go undercover without china, it was wiped out because some of the folks that were unindicted co-conspirators named in your early land foundation file, they said we don't like it . they do not allow agents to know what tim jensen put in that 700 page thing that was so good about islam that we

could embed people in al qaeda and they would respect him. i would encourage you to start training your fbi agents whether they are in san bernardino, orlando, new jersey, whatever if they talk to a radicalized islam is and determine whether they are radicalized without material, you will never be able to spot them again and you will be lettingpeople die. thank you . >> the title the gentleman has expired, the director is free to respond. >> i don't think i have anything at this point lex the chair recognizes the gentleman from california for five minutes . >> director tran one, during this committee's oversight hearing last year i asked you about the cases of sherry jen and josh, both us citizens arrested by the fbi, accused of different crimes related to economic espionage for china only to have those charges dropped without explanation. since you last testified before the committee, i know

you may not be personally familiar or may not be inclined to comment on the facts of this case today, however would you be willing to provide an explanation for the summary of the investigation to clarify how and why they handled the case the way they did? >>

there was a program called don't be a puppet. this was designed to prevent young people being drawn toward violent extremism. faith groups and community organizations have raised serious concerns about the way in which the community prince the program. teachers and students should look for warning signs that a person may be on a slippery slope of violent extremism and to report activity that may or may not be indicative of radicalization. the website encourages students and teachers to report when others use unusual language or talk about traveling to suspicious places.

the user of the website is left to draw inferences about what constitutes a suspicious place or what language is unusual, enough to be reported to official. for example, a trip to france or germany which hosts extremist groups may not sounds suspicious to many users but a trip to saudi arabia would. on august 9, the american federation led a number of national groups in a letter written to you and mr. chair, i would like to smith this for the record. among the many concerns they raised, as a potential for such initiatives to exacerbate the profiling and bullying of students of middle eastern background and over and above what they already experience print how do you respond to the

concerns expressed by the american federation of teachers about the impact of the fbi don't be a puppet program and the effect it may have on schools on immigrant communities? >> thank you for that. i am glad they shared their feedback. i hope, either before or after the feedback, i hope they go through the don't be a puppet. i honestly can't understand the concern. it's a very commonsense thing. one of our big challenges how, if a kid starts to go sideways toward violence, the people to him closest are going to see something. how do we get folks to a place where they are able to make commonsense judgments that this person may be headed in a dangerous direction. it will be perfect but i think a lot of thought went into this to make sure we got something that was good common sense education for educators. >> what you consider to be an

unusual language that somebody is speaking, so much so that a student should report them to an authority. >> i think it's using unusual language, not speaking foreign language. i think it means speaking in an unusual way about things and suspicious syria brings it to my mind. if a student is talking about traveling to syria, people should be sensitive about that before they go so we can look into it before they do something that will cause them to be locked up for the rest of their life. in a commonsense way, we can equip kids to resist the siren song that comes from radical islamic or her skin had groups or hate groups of different kinds. look, i'm sure it's not perfect, nothing in life is, we welcome

we welcome feedback but the general idea makes a lot of sense to me. >> i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio for five minutes. >> thank you. in your opening comments you said this was an unusual case. i would say that's an understatement of the year. they met with the attorney general three days before clinton is at interviewed by the fbi. nine people sat in and one of those was a chief of staff, cheryl mills who was the subject of the investigation. five people get immunity and five people get immunity yet no one is prosecuted. three of those people take the fifth in front of congress and one of them doesn't even bother to show up when he is subpoenaed at that very chair you are sitting out and of course the atty. general announces she is going to follow your recommendations even though she doesn't know what those are. that's the only time she's ever done that. of course this is unusual. we've never seen anything like this. i would like to put up the post that someone talked about which is a post on reddick. you said you don't know if you

examined this during your investigation selectively examine it now. i need to strip out of the ip address from a bunch of archive email. basically they don't want the vips e-mail address exposed to anyone. when i hear those terms strip out e-mail address, i think some of these trying to hide something, some of these trying to cover up something and it sort of raises an important question from these two sentences. who is to say we want something hit and who's the vip that also want something hit. is it likely the vip is a very, very important person at according to them. is it likely that person's secretary clinton. >> yes, sure. >> is also likely that they refers to her staff and specifically, cheryl mills. >> i don't know that. either her lawyer or some staff. >> one other thing that's

important on that is the date. the date at the top says july 24, 2014. whenever i see a date, i'm sure you do the same thing, i always look at what's happening around that same timeframe and what may have happened before or after that. i look back at your report that you had given to us and the first report was august 18, 2016, page 15. page 15 is says during the summer of 2014, they indicated to cheryl mills a request for clinton's work-related e-mail would be forthcoming. they give cheryl mills a heads up that they need to round up her e-mails. on that same page it said the house select committee on benghazi had reached an agreement with the state department regarding production of documents on july 23, 2014. just the day before. i find that kind of interesting. then from your report that we got just last week, after reviewing several documents

dated in and around july 23, 2014, paul had a conversation with cheryl mills and after reviewing a july 24, an e-mail from brian pagliaro, he was concerned that clinton current e-mail address would be disclosed publicly. it sure looks to me like it's secretary clinton, as you said but it's also sharon mills and brian pagliaro that is encouraging him to cover this up. you agree. >> from what you read it does sound like they're trying to find a way to strip out the e-mail address. >> there trying to strip it all out. here's the take away in my mind. mills gets a heads up in mid summer of 2014. july 23, the day before, the benghazi committee reach an agreement on production of document cheryl mills has a

conversation with paul, he goes on reddit and tries to figure out how he can get rid of all this e-mail, even though he's not successful then and has to do it later down the road and then the clincher, the clincher just last week he has gone online and tried to delete these reddit post. he's trying to cover up his tracks. he's trying to cover up the cover-up. i guess the question is, in light of all this are you thinking of reopening the investigation. >> i think what you said during the question, i don't understand that to be talking about deleting e-mails, i understand it to be removing the actual address from the from line. maybe i misunderstood you. >> the same guy did delete e-mail. >> sure, yup. >> my question is the guy you gave immunity to, who took took the fifth in front of us is online trying to figure out how

to remove e-mail addresses, change evidence, later uses bleach. [inaudible] that guy won't testify in congress, he has correspondence with cheryl mills, cheryl mills who also got immunity, she walked out of part of the questions during the interview with the fbi, it seems to me that's pretty compelling and the timeline is pretty compelling as well. >> i'm not following compelling. there's no doubt that he was involved in deleting e-mails. >> after conversations with cheryl mills. >> he had the zero sh it moment as he told us. that's why it was very important to interview this guy and find out why he decided to do that. >> did you know about the reddit? >> i think we did, i think our investigators did. i'm not positive as i said here.

>> the guys trying to cover up the reddit post where he was trying to remove the e-mail addresses. i find that compelling especially just the day before he was talking with cheryl mills and they are on notice that they want these very documents. i find that compelling. obviously the fbi didn't. this is just one more in this list of things that make this case highly unusual i yield back >> the director is permitted to respond if he chooses to do so. >> no i don't think so. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. director call me, the fbi is tasked with a very serious responsibility. you are on the frontline trying to prevent terrorist attacks and prevent corruption. as i told your agent on a recent the visit to your field office,

i am grateful to you and your agents, all of the men and women of the fbi for your dedication to and commitment to the pursuit of justice. we are most grateful. now one critical responsibility the fbi is to investigate when american citizens violate federal laws involving improper contact with foreign governments director call me, if an american national goes outside government channels to negotiate with a foreign government on behalf of the united states, that that is a very serious crime, one that would violate the logan act which is the law that prohibits unauthorized people from negotiating with a foreign government in place of the u.s. government. is that within your jurisdiction? >> yes. >> if you had credible evidence that someone violated the logan act, would you you investigate? >> i think we have done many logan act violations over the past years and i'm sure we will in the future.

>> some said russia has targeted the united states with hacking. >> i'm aware of the reports. >> if a citizen conducted meetings with the russian individual who has been sanctioned by the united states about potential weakening of sanctioning in violation with the logan act, with the fbi investigate? >> i don't think it's appropriate to answer that. that is too close to confirming or denying whether we have an investigation. it's too close to real life so i won't comment. >> but there are, you have investigated violations of things that are clearly within your jurisdiction. i appreciate your confirming that the fbi would treat these violations seriously and urgently because everything that i just outlined that you said the fbi would investigate has happened already. public reports suggest that the logan act may have been violated by carter page and now the campaign appears eager to revive

his role given the attention, rightly being given to his illicit negotiation with a sanctioned russia official. i read reports reports from yahoo news that law enforcement may already be eking into this issue and i assume we all agree the allegations are very serious. russia, nation that hacks america and continues to enable aside regime to slaughter the syrian people, a nation nation that threatens and violates the integrity integrity of its neighbors and our european allies, it is a dangerous violation of law if donald trumps staff member is engaging in conversations with foreign governments. during a trip mr. page met with the russian official, a member of vladimir putin's inner circle and member of a petroleum company who is sanctioned by the

united states under executive order 13361 and prohibits him from traveling to the united states are conducting business with the united states. he has an interest in lifting sanctions against him and other top russian officials put in place by president obama after their military action in the ukraine. if these men met to discuss sanction policy or lifting of sanctions under a potential trump administration, this would be enormously concerning. just last week the presser ported that u.s. intelligence officials are seeking to determine whether an american businessman identified by one of donald trumps foreign advisers has opened up to medications with senior officials including talks of lifting of sanctions pad mr. comay, it is illegal if his advisor met with officials who have been sanctioned by the u.s. about lifting these sanctions but i'm grateful for your reassurance that the fbi would investigate the potential

violations or any individual who engages in unauthorized negotiations with a foreign government. i remind my colleagues that he donald trump invited the russians to hack the united states. breaking our long-standing commitment to our nato allies and weakening sanctions against russia. is there a connection between these reckless and dangerous policy proposals and the potential violation of the logan act by donald trumps russia advisor? mr. comay, we appreciate very much the fbi's vigilance in in pursuing justice. i yield back. >> the chair and recognizes the next gentleman. >> thank you director for being here. i think we have worked on a couple of cases together in our district. would you clarify something for me on active production immunity

does that go beyond the scenario that i'm going to state. you ask for a computer from a witness. you give that witness the active production immunity that, in my interpretation, is that the agent who has that now in his or her hands, the witnesses immune from the agent getting on the stand and saying this is that person's computer because they gave it to me. does it go beyond that or was there additional immunity on ms. mills stating that anything on that computer cannot be used against her. >> as i recall it congressman,

the active production immunity was, you give us this computer, we will not use anything we find on the computer directly against you in connection with investigation or prosecution for mishandling of classified information. i think that's how they defined it. >> that goes beyond active production. doesn't active production simply state that i'm the agent, i take the oath on the stand and say that belongs to the individual because they gave it to me. it sounds like more additional immunity was given that says and what is on this, we cannot hold against you. >> i still think of it as an active production immunity. that's from my experience but that's how i classify that agreement. i guess you're right there could be a more limited agreement

where your fact of giving us this object will not be used against you directly. i would have to think through whether it can be parsed that way. >> that's why i'm saying additional immunity was given and i don't think it was warranted at that point let me ask you this. we both have investigated grand juries. by not have an investigative grand jury whereby you have reasonable suspicion of a crime may have been committed and then you have the ability to get warrants, subpoenas, get this information, subpoena witnesses before the grand jury under oath and if they take the fifth they simply sam not going to talk to you, you can give them immunity, and you have that authority and the transaction still has to come from the judge. if they refuse to testify then,

then you can say fine we will take you before a judge and you will sit in jail until you answer a question. wouldn't that have been much simpler and more effective than the way this one about? >> i know i have done it many, many times and sometimes we find a situation where there isn't enough evidence but most the time we find there is enough evidence. >> that's a reasonable question. i don't want to talk about grand jury in connection with this case. >> that's why a post at the way i did. >> from our training we know where never spoke to talk about grand jury publicly but i can answer more general than that. >> anytime you're talking about the process of a subpoena for computer from lawyer, you know you're getting into a big michaela. >> please let me interrupt. i understand that clearly. why did you not decide to go to an investigative grand jury? it would been cleaner and much simpler and you would've had more authority to make these

witnesses testify, not to target but to make them testify. that seems the way to go. director, we have done it thousands of times. this just was too convoluted. >> again, i need to steer clear of talking about grand jury use in a particular matter. in general, in my experience you can also do often do things faster with informal agreements, especially when you're interacting with lawyers. in this particular investigation they wanted access to the laptops that were used to sort these emails. those are lawyers laptops. that is a very complicated thing. i think they were able to navigate it pretty well to get us access. >> the media says that ms. clinton reported 41 times that i do not recall, i do not remember or variations of that. is that a that a fact? >> i don't know. i have not counted. >> with that have been taken

into consideration? >> i'm sorry? >> wouldn't that selective memory been taken into consideration. >> sure that is always a factor. >> thank you, sir. >> the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from washington state for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chair. thank you director comay for spending all this time with us today. in 2010, the white the white house set up the vulnerabilities equities process and implemented it in 2014 so it could give the government a process for determining whether, how and when to disclose vulnerabilities and technology companies so they could address those vulnerabilities and patch them. in a couple situations, i know there was disclosure from the fbi in april of this year, the fbi informed apple of a securities law in older versions of ios.

it's first vulnerability to apple under the vulnerability equity process in may of this year the fbi cyber division warned the private sector about a fake b device that can log keystrokes of wireless keyboards and that was 15 months after the fbi discovered the vulnerability in the warning the fbi stated, if placed strategically in an office or other location where individuals might use wireless devices, a malicious cyber actor could potentially harvest personally identifiable information intellectual property, trade secrets or other sensitive information. other instances of the fbi using the vep are scarce and indeed there have been reports that it is rare for the fbi to use this process. i wanted to ask you, why this is and what is your view of the process. >> thank you for that question.

the process seems to be a reasonable process that in a structured fashion you bring everybody who might have an optic on this in the government together to talk about how to we think disclosing of vulnerability to the private sector as against the equities that may be at stake in regard to national security. i thing to make sense to have such a process for the fbi participates in it when we come across the vulnerability and we know the vulnerability and it falls within the vep jurisdiction. i don't know the particulars of the case you said that there was a 15 month delay, i don't know enough to react to that. i probably probably wouldn't react in an open forum in any event. >> does every vulnerability discovered go through this process in terms of understanding whether or not you would disclose? >> i think there's a definition of what falls under the process. you have to know the vulnerability, we have to have

knowledge of it so what is it that allows the vulnerability to be exploited. we didn't, for example in the san bernardino case. we bought access access but we didn't know the vulnerability behind it. i forget the definition as i sit here of which vulnerabilities have to be considered. >> is there another process that you might use that's different than the vep when you're looking out vulnerabilities. >> i know our folks would reteam late make a disclosure to private entities, but i don't know of a process outside of vep >> so you're not sure if in every situation the vep is used whenever you discover vulnerability. >> it sounds like a circular answer, obviously i didn't read it before coming here today. i could get smart on it very quickly and have someone talked about it, but if it falls under the definition of things that have to be discussed, the vep, of course we do. i just can't remember what the definition is exactly. >> i'm trying to understand if a

vulnerability is discovered if there is always a standard process you go through to understand whether or not that information would be disclosed and if that process is the vep. >> that's a great question put i don't know the answer whether there's a set of vulnerabilities that would fall outside of the vep process, and if that's the case, how do we deal with it. i don't know, sitting here. >> thank you, if you have other feedback on that i would appreciate it at another time. in august you said stakeholders needed to take time to collect information on the going dark issue and coming back afterward to have an adult conversation. i agree with you so i wondered if you would agree that there is room for us to work together on ways to help law-enforcement that don't include mandating a backdoor. >> totally. i keep reading that i'm an advocate of backdoors and i want to advocate for backdoors.

i am not at i've never advocated for that. we have to figure out how to solve this problem and it has to be everybody coming together to talk about it. i don't know what the answer is but i can see the problem. i think it's my job to tell people the tools you are counting on to keep us safe. there less and less effective and that's a big problem, but what to do and how to do it is a complicated thing and i think everybody has to participate. >> thank you, thank you so much for that. i yield back. >> the chair thanks the gentlewoman and recognizes the gentleman from north carolina. >> thank you, i want to start by recognizing progress. we have had nine straight democrats talk to the fbi about e-mails without asking for immunity. i suspect the reason they have not asked for it from director comay is they would say they've done nothing wrong. i find that interesting because that's exactly what heather samuels said and cheryl mills atty. in fact they set it just a few days ago. the fbi considered my clients to

be witnesses and nothing more and mrs. samuelson's attorney attorney said this, the justice department assured us my clients did nothing wrong. mr. chairman, if you are assuring subjects or targets or witnesses, whatever you want to tell them that they've done nothing wrong, it does vex the question, what are you seeking and receiving immunity from. laptops don't go to prison. people do so the immunity was not for the laptop. the immunity was for cheryl mills. if the department of justice says you've done nothing wrong, it does beg the question of why you are seeking or receiving immunity and it could be for a couple of different, it could be for the classified information that was the genesis of the information investigation, it

could be for the jurisdiction of federal records which came from that initial investigation or could be both. mr. comay, i want to ask you this. did the bureau interview everyone who originated an email that ultimately went to sec. clinton that contain classified information. >> i don't think so. nearly everyone but not everyone - you and i had a discussion the last time about intent. you see the statute differently. my opinion doesn't matter, yours does, you're the head of the bureau. in my judgment, my judgment, you read an element into the statute that does not appear on the face of the statute. then we had a discussion about intent. why would you not interview the originator of the e-mail to determine whether or not the originator had a conversation with the secretary herself.

>> there was a handful of people that the team decided it wasn't a smart use of resources to track down. one was a civilian in japan, as i recall, recall, who forwarded something that got classified as it went up and the other was a group of low level state department who had written things that end up being classified. nearly everyone was interviewed but there was a small group that the team decided it wasn't worth the resources. :

so you have to prove circumstantial evidence such as whether or not the person intended to set up an e-mail system outside the state department, such as whether or not a person should have known that his or her job was handling classified information. whether or not the person was truthful about the use of multiple devices, whether or not the person knew that a frequent e-mail alert to her had been hacked and whether she took any remedial steps after being put on notice that your e-mail or someone who has been e-mailing with you prolifically had been hacked and whether or not, and i think you would agree with this director, false school but tory statements are gold in the courtroom. i would rather have a false statement than a confession. i would rather have someone lyme

about something and it be provable but that is a lie such as that i neither sound nor received classified information, such as though they turned over all of my work-related e-mails. all of that to me goes to the issue of intent, so i have got two more questions than i am going to be out of time. for those that have to prosecute cases in the future what would she have had to do to warrant your red imitation for prosecution? if all of that was not enough because all of that is what she did, if all of that is not enough then surely you cannot be arguing that you have to have an intent to harm the united states to be subject to prosecution. that's treason. that's not a violation of statute. >> we have to deal with prove beyond reasonable doubt that the general awareness of the unlawfulness of your conduct, you knew you were doing something you shouldn't have done and obviously on the

statute itself immune to consider who else has been prosecuted in what circumstances because it's all about prosecutorial judgment that those two things are the key questions. can you prove the person knew they were doing something they shouldn't do in general criminal intent? and other people similarly. >> by the way to prove that as whether or not someone took steps to conceal or destroy what they had done. that is the best evidence you have it they knew it was wrong and they lied about it. >> very good evidence. uis want to look at what the subjects at about their conduct. >> there's a lot. it all falls under the heading of false exculpatory statement. i'm out of time mr. chairman but the director, if you started off by giving us examples of what the bureau has done and every one of us has worked with the fbi and that's the fbi that i know the one that saved the girl

in north carolina. what concerns me director is when you have immunity agreements and no prosecution when you are allowing witnesses who happen to be lawyers and happen to be targets you sit in on an interview, that is not the fbi that i used to work with so i've been really careful to not criticize you and in fact i said it again this morning. they wanted to know if somebody corrupting? no, i just disagree with you but it's really important to me that the fbi be respected and you have got to help us understand because it looks to me like some things were done differently that i don't recall being done back when i used to work with a man with that i would yield back to the chair. >> and the chair responded that? >> i hope someday when this political craziness is over you will look back on this because this is the fbi you know and love. this was done by pros in the right way. that's the part i have no patience for.

>> the chair recognizes the gentleman from rhode island for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you director comey for your extraordinary service to our country and please convey to the professionals at the fbi my gratitude for their exemplary service to this country and particularly i want to acknowledge the extraordinary prompt and effective response to the recent bombings in new jersey and new york. it's just another example of the extraordinary agency and your extraordinary leadership. director comey many of us have expressed a concern about the growing incidence of gun violence in this country and we express condolences and concerned a recent mass shootings in washington and the five people who lost their lives. we share the same sentiment in aurora and charleston but as more americans lose their lives to send flint's gun violence this congress has been absolutely silent and inactive

on this issue so i would like to turn to you and your career in public service both as u.s. attorney and fbi director with so much experience in dealing with the consequence of gun violence and ask you to share with us what you might think congress could do to help reduce gun violence in this country. i know i recall correctly in 2013 at your confirmation hearing you alluded to your support for universal background checks, bans on illegal trafficking of guns and assault weapons and high-capacity magazines i'm wondering what you think would be for us to do to help reduce gun violence in this country. >> dank you congressman and you're exactly right we need to spend a lot of time thinking investigating and mourning the deaths en masse shootings. they think it's really important that bureau not be in the policy business and be in the enforcement business so i'm going to respectfully avoid your question honestly. i think we should not be in a

place, we should be a factual input to you. we should not be suggesting particular laws with respect to guns or anything else. >> let me ask you director about an important challenge. the unlawful gun buyer alert act, this is where people buy a gun, they purchased the gun but they are not permitted by law until the three-day time period have as a lapse. between 2010 in 201,415,729 sales occurred. that means people were not buying it -- allowed to buy a gun 15,000 times. my legislation would require that when that happens local law enforcement is notified. they make the decision should we prosecute this person that is processing a gun illegally. the person they should not have a gun bought one so they could take some action.

would that make sense in your response ability? >> it might. atf is notified in those circumstances. >> you have a different set of priorities where they go in and execute a warrant and charged somebody that they're a state and local approaches on that. so would also make sense for local legislation and? >> it might. i will want to think through and ask atf how they think through the deconfliction issues but it's a reasonable thing to look at. >> next question director is there has been the recent discussion about implementing stop-and-frisk in cities to address crime even at the national level and although the shows disproportionally targets people of color and to give you some context and 2011 when stop-and-frisk reached an all-time high in new york city police stopped 685,000 people. 53% of those individuals were black and 34% are latino and 9%

were white. more than half for ages 14 to 24 years old and of the 685,000 people that were stop-and-frisk 88% were neither arrested nor received any sort of citation. do you believe this stop-and-frisk policy is a successful tap deck to address crime and what would federal implementation look like as mr. trump is called for and how can congress minimize racial profiling and discriminatory in effect of tech makes like stop-and-frisk and instead promote activities that build trust and confidence in the community? >> i don't know what a federal program would look like because we are not in the pleasing business. we are an investigative agency of the federal level but stop-and-frisk is not a term we use. the terry stop which is a stop on reasonable suspicion is a very important law enforcement tool. to my mind it's effectiveness is

among the conversation after the stop. when it's done well and someone is stopped and they are told i stopped you because we have a report of a guy with a gray sweatshirt who matches you and that's why stopped you or i stopped you because i saw you doing this behavior because the danger is what is an effective law enforcement technique can become a source of estrangement for the community. it's an important tool when used right but with makes the difference between right and wrong is the nature of the conversation with the person you have stop. >> mr. chairman i would like to associate my remarks with the remarks of a congressman deutsch and many of my colleagues regarding the attempts by the russians to interfere with our democracy and electoral process and take great comfort in the director's commitment to continue to understand this important responsibility of the agency to protect the integrity of our democracy and with that i yield back. >> the chair thanks the gentleman. the gentleman.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from ut mr. chaffetz and as i do so i want to thank him for making as chairman of the oversight and reform committee this hearing room available to us while the room is under renovation. >> i appreciate the extra five minutes of questioning so thank you very much. director thank you for your accessibility. you have been very readily available and we do appreciate that. this investigation started because the inspector general found classified information in a nonsecure sitting in the fbi went to law firm and found the information seized one computer and one thumb drive. did you need an immunity agreement to get those? >> i don't think, certainly there was no immunity agreement. >> so did you really take the fbi a full year to figure out that's cheryl mills and heather

sanderson also had computers with classified information? >> know. it took us to that point in investigation to insist we try to get them. we are getting them because they had classified information or if there was other information? >> we thought those were the tools as we understood it that it menus to sort the e-mails. the investigation team wanted to understand that they could weather was an electronic tale of how that at the dump is a big issue was what did they delete and what did they keep? >> why didn't they just cooperate and hand them over? the law firm did, didn't it? >> that's a question i can't answer. that's between a lawyer and her client in the justice department lawyers. forever reason her lawyer father was in there and just to get an immunity agreement with the department of justice. >> the fbi interviewed david kendall's partner but did not interview david kendall. why didn't he interview david kendall? >> i don't remember that decision.

>> going back to this reddit post put up on july 24 of 2014 do you believe this to be associated with mr. kind of the? >> yes sir that's right. >> this is the one of mr. jordan put out about the e-mail address and a bunch of archived e-mails. it's referring to a federal record, isn't it? >> i don't know exactly which record he is referring to. >> how is this not a conscious effort to alter federal records? the proximity to the data is just stunning. what's the question? >> how is this not a conscious effort to alter a federal record? >> it depends on whether record wasn't exactly what he was trying to do and whether they would be disclosure to the people that were producing a thing we change this from public

privacy purposes. either documents that were under subpoena federal records under subpoena under the preservation order, did he destroy documents? you told me that was true in july of 2014 and you are under subpoena. did he ultimately destroy federal records? >> i have no reason to believe he destroyed federal records. >> he used bleach, did he not? >> the question was what was already produce? >> the reason he wanted immunity he had done the leach pit business after was publicity about the demand from congress for the records. it's not just publicity. there was a subpoena and there was communication from cheryl mills that there was a record and he did use bleach but on these records. >> that's why the guy wouldn't talk to us without immunity. >> what did you learn? >> he learned that no one directed him to do it.

>> do you really think he did this by himself? >> again i never affirmatively believe anyone except my wife but the question is do i have evidence to disbelieve him and i don't. his account is credible. he was told to do it in 2014 and screwed up and didn't do it and panicked when he realized he he hadn't and raced back inundated after congress asked for the records of "the new york times" wrote about it. >> that was credible. i don't believe people but we did not have evidence to disbelieve that. no e-mail, no phonecall, nothing. the hopeless if he had been told to do that there would be a great piece of evidence. if we give him immunity maybe he will tell us that so-and-so asked me to and we will work up the chain. but he did indeed destroy federal records and he was told at some point to do this, correct? who told him to do that at initially? he was supposed to do it in

december and he didn't do it. who told them to do it? >> one of secretary clinton staff members. one of her lawyers, it might have been cheryl mills. someone on the team that we don't need those e-mails anymore get rid of the archived file. >> this is what's unbelievable about this because of classified information in their federal records that were indeed destroyed and that's just a fact pattern. let's go back, let's go back -- here's the other thing that is new. september 15 of this year i issued a subpoena from the oversight and government reform committee on these reddit posts four days later they were destroyed or taken down. they were deleted. i was told the fbi would take that into consideration and again we are trying under a properly issued subpoena to get this information. let's go to heather mills wrote quick. how does, in a 2016 interview

with cheryl mills she says quote they did not earn from the interview report the interview summary from the fbi mills did not learn clinton was using a private e-mail server until after clinton's tenure. back also you have this interview with mr. pagliano who said he approached quote he approached cheryl mills in her office with concerns regarding federal records and the use of a private server. pagliano remembers for mills replying the secretary of state had done similar things to include colin powell. it it then goes on to page 10 and this is what i'd understand. the fbi writes quite in immediate aid to include afeni sullivan and are attacked did report. they are unaware of the existence of a private server until after clinton's tenure and the reddit became public knowledge but if you look back

at the e-mail from heather mills you go back to 2010 listening to justin cooper, mills. he works for clinton. he doesn't work for the state department. fyi the e-mail coming back, is the server okay? cooper writes back, you are funny. we are on the same server. she knew there was a server. when there was a problem with hillary rodham clintons e-mail what did they do? she called the person who had no background in this. not a state -- statement. until the fbi never do knew about it but there's direct evidence that contradicts it. how do you come to that conclusion and write that in the summary statement that she had no knowledge? >> that's the question? >> the time of the gentleman has expired that the director will answer the question. >> i don't remember exactly

sitting here. having done many investigations myself there are always conflicting recollections some are which are central and some are which are peripheral. i don't remember that particular one. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida mr. desantis for five minutes. >> violent crime is up in this country. we show a rise in homicides and other violent crimes. violent crime is up 4% of homicides were up 10%. >> 10.8%. >> that's a startling concerning increase, do you agree? >> yes it is concerning. >> his ear says the 2016 is going to look closer than 2015 or is there any indication the rates will go back down? >> no, we continue to see spikes in some big cities and away we can't make sense of. there's no doubt that some 15 to 30 cities are continuing to

experience a spike. >> the fbi has a assume control of the minnesota stabbing investigation. is that confirm that confirm that there was a terrorist attack at this point? >> we are still working on it. it does look like and party was motivated by some sort of inspiration from radical islamic groups. which groups and how we are not sure if yet. >> but he's was -- as one of the potential victims whether he was muslim. >> they claim responsibility and it's dispositive for us because they will claim responsibility for any sever today can get their name on but we are going through his entire electronic record and history of all of his associations to try to understand that. >> there was a report from how someone security that minnesota was the number one source for insiders in the united states. do you agree that is true and if

so why is minnesota turning out so many jihadists? >> i don't know for sure whether that's true but it sounds about right. we had very few isil fighters from the united states. over the last two years there have been a number of somali american heritage young men who have gone to fight with al-shabaab and somalia and with isil. i suspect the reason is that's one of the few areas in the essays we have a large concentration susceptible to that recruiting. the great thing about america is everyone is dispersed and that's one of the areas where there is an immigrant muslim community that seems to be susceptible for some reason. in small measure we are talking about eight people i think the number is. >> what is the fbi doing to deal with the insular community that may make this a problem more significant so how is the fbi combating that? >> there are lots of partners to

make sure we know the folks especially the somali american community in minneapolis. the u.s. attorney is done a great job. >> have they been helpful with the fbi? >> they don't want their sons or daughters involved in this craziness anymore than anybody else does. >> i'm just trying to figure out what happened here. he never said that he remembered anything from the march 25 phone conversation with the clinton people and of course that was days before he bleachbit the e-mails and he never had factual knowledge on what happened on that call. is that his basic statement? he didn't really provide any information. >> i can't remember for sure the 302. >> i saw 1302. obviously he was given immunity in another said there was an attorney-client privilege at one time and i'm just trying to figure out what happened with combetta.

he had immunity and this was something that was much more fresh in his mind than previous conversations with the clinton people. then he said he was credible and to me feigning ignorance is not credible given the timeline where you have new york times saying the house immediately sent a subpoena and he had this conversation and lo and behold a few days later all the e-mails are bleachbit. >> he told us with immunity no one instructed him to do it. we developed no evidence to contradict that. again we are never in the business of believing people. the question is what evidence do we have that establishes disbelief as plus we don't have contrary evidence. his account is uncontradicted by the hard facts. >> well this is a situation where these things are now under a subpoena and he has conversations with people who say they implicate and he says says -- i guess the question is

it more reasonable to think that he said oh you know? i all of a sudden bleachbit without any direction at all. let me ask you this. you sent a memo to your employee that the fbi basically defending the way the bureau handled this investigation. >> you as about how we were doing transparency. there was all kinds of business on whether we were trying to hide stuff by putting it out on a friday and i wanted to equip our work force about how we were doing our productions to congress so they can answer questions from their family and friends. i want them to know we are conducting them -- ourselves in the way they want us to. >> i think you mentioned people in the community. this has provoked controversy within the ranks of current and former agents. >> not within the fbi. who knows what people don't tell the director but i should have asked mr. gohmert. >> is there concern about this,

please contact me and we will be the transparency we need. did your brothers and sisters do this the way you wanted them to? >> when i was in the military they said no one would be prosecuted but i can tell you that people who have compromised top-secret information there would have been a court-martial and i yield back. >> with the director care to respond to that? >> no. >> the finding by yourself that as you stated in your summary that no prosecutor would prosecute someone under civil circumstances. >> mr. desantis is expressing a personal view. certain cases show me on the record that is true. >> i recognize the gentleman

from texas mr. ratcliffe for five minutes. >> erector did you make the decision not to recommend criminal charges related to classified information before or after hillary clinton was interviewed by the fbi? >> after. >> i will need your help to understand how that's possible. i think there are a lot of prosecutors and former prosecutors that are shaking our heads and how that could be the case and that there was any real possibility that hillary clinton might be charged for something that she admitted to on july the second, why would two of the central witnesses for prosecution against her food be allowed to sit in the same room to hear the testimony? >> you said it was because the interview was voluntary and they were her lawyers. but i think you are skirting the real issue their director. first of all the fact there was voluntary, it didn't have to be. could have been handled by an investigative grand jury and she could have been subpoenaed.

you said you can't comment on bad and i don't care about this issue about whether the should have been a grand jury here but since she didn't have one goes to the issue at hand about whether or not the interview should have ever taken place. with due respect to the answers you have given the fbi and the department of justice control whether or not in interview will take place with other witnesses in the room. the simple truth is under the circumstances as you describe those interviews never took place. if there was any possibility that hillary clinton might have said something on july 2 possibly resulted in criminal charges that might possibly have resulted in a trial against her relating to this classified information to use your words director i don't think there's any reasonable prosecutor out there who would have denied witnesses central improving the case against her to sit in the room. the fbi interviewed subject of

that investigation and the i heard you earlier today and in your long career i heard you say you've never had that circumstance. did i hear you correct lay? >> that's correct. >> i never have either and i've never met a prosecutor that ever has had so to me the only way that an interview takes place with the two central witnesses and the subject of the investigation is the decision has already been made that all three people in the room are not going to be charged. >> can i respond? in our political life sometimes people casually accuse each other of being dishonest but colleagues have ours believe that i'm lying about when i made this decision please urge them to contact me privately so we can have a conversation about this. all i can tell you again the decision was made after that because i didn't know what was going to happen in that interview.

i would also urge you to tell me what tools we have asked prosecutors and investigators to kick out of an interview someone this subject says as their lawyer. .. >> maybe we would have canceled the interview but, frankly, the subject of the investigation was hillary clinton.

>> moving on, according to pbi's -- fbi's own documents, in the first interview he told fbi agents he had no knowledge about the press vague order for the -- preservation order for the clinton e-mails. correct? >> i have no knowledge of that, but i'm sure it's in the notes. >> in the second interview, he admitted that, in fact, he was aware of the preservation order, and he was aware of the fact that meant he shouldn't disturb the clinton e-mails, correct? >> crepe. >> okay. well, then i need your help because when i was at the department of justice, that was a potential destruction of evidence charge. >> depends on where you're trying to go with the investigation. it's a low-level guy and you're trying to move up in the chain, you might think about it differently. >> he lied to an fbi agent. you don't think that's important? >> oh, it's very important. it happens all the time.

sometimes you try and sign them up. >> but if they lie after they're given immunity, they violated the terms of their agreement. >> oh, sure, after. after the agreement. >> that's my point, he shouldn't have immunity anymore. >> i'm sorry, i misunderstood you. he lied to us before he came clean under the immunity agreement and committed that he -- and admitted he had deleted the e-mails. >> no, not according to the fbi's documents. these interviews took place in february and march and may of these -- >> come bet that? >> then i'm confused and misremembering, but i don't think that's right. >> okay. well, let me -- my time's expired, but i have one last question, and i think it's important. at this point based on everything, dueck that any laws -- do you think that any laws were broken by hillary clinton or her lawyers? >> do i think any laws were broken? >> yeah. >> i don't think there's evidence to establish that. >> okay. i think you're making my point when you say there's no evidence to establish that.

maybe not in the way she handled classified information, but with respect to obstruction of justice. you've to got a pen here, i want to make sure the record's clear about the evidence that you didn't have, that you can't use to prove. this comes from the fbi's own report. says that the fbi doesn't have the clintons' personal apple server used for hillary clinton work e-mails. that was never located, so the fbi could never examine it. an apple mac book, the fbi never examined that. two blackberry devices didn't have sim or data cards. thirteen personal devices were lost, destroyed with a hammer, so the fbi clearly didn't examine those. various server backups were deleted over time. after my colleague, mr. gowdy, notified ms. clinton that her records would be sought by the committee, both of her lawyers, cheryl mills and heather

samuelson, were wiped clean. after those e-mails were subpoenaed, hillary clinton's e-mail archive was also permanently deleted, so the fbi didn't review that. and also after the subpoena, backups of the platte river server were manually completed. that list comes from your own documents. my question to you is this: any one of those in that very, very long list, to me, says obstruction of justice. collectively, they scream obstruction of justice. and to ignore them, i think, really allows not just reasonable prosecutors, but reasonable people to believe that maybe the decision on this was made a long time ago not to prosecute hillary clinton. and with that, i yield back. >> director, do you care to respond? >> very briefly. to ignore that which we don't have, we're in a fact-based world, so we make evaluations based on the ed we're able to gather using the tools that we have.

so it's hard for me to react to these things that you don't have. so that's my reaction to it. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas for five minutes. >> thank you very much. director comey, thank you for being here. i know there are a lot of things you would probably much rather be doing than sitting on the hot seat, so to speak. and here's where i'm coming from on this. you've been asked a lot of questions today about the clinton investigation, and what i'm hearing from folks back in texas, and i just need a big picture view of this, is this stuff simply doesn't pass the smell test on a lot of areas. you just had my colleague from texas, mr. ratcliff, list a long list of things that y'all at no time have in the investigation. you've been asked earlier today, would you reopen the investigation, what would it take to get you to reopen the investigation.

we've had five people given immunity which, basically, we got nothing. perhaps a plea agreement or something else might have worked. unfortunately -- your interpretation in your previous testimony before congress that section 793f required intent when, in fact, the standard is gross negligence. and it's just a long list of things that just have people scratching their head going if this were to happen to me, i would be in a world of hurt, probably in jail. and how do you respond to people who are saying that this is not how an average american would be treated, this is only how hillary clinton would be treated? >> yeah. look, i've heard that a lot, and my response is demand -- when people tell you that, that others have been treated differently, demand from a

trustworthy source the details of those cases, because i, i'm a very aggressive investigator, i was a very aggressive prosecutor. i have gone back through 40 years of cases, and i'm telling you under oath that to prosecute on these facts would be a double standard because jane and joe smith would not be prosecuted on these facts. now, you'd be in trouble -- that's the other thing i've had to explain to the fbi work force. you use an unclassified e-mail system to do our business, in the course of our business talk about classified topics, you will be in big trouble at the fbi. i'm highly confident of that. i'm also certain you would not be prosecuted. so i care deeply about what people think about the justice system and that it not have two standards. it does not, and this demonstrates it. >> but you look at general petraeus and his handling of classified information, you look at -- and i'll go back to what you're saying -- >> but when you look at it, demand to know the facts.

i don't want to dump on general petraeus because the case is over, but i would be happy to go through how very different that circumstance is than this circumstance. >> and you talk about, you tell your fbi agents if you do what we're investigating here with material from the fbi, it'd be a world of trouble. i would assume that could potentially be fired. is hillary clinton in -- she didn't get in any trouble at the state department. the only trouble she's got now is trying to explain it to the american people. >> she's not a government employee, so the normal range of discipline that would be applied to fbi employees if they did something similar doesn't apply. and i gather -- i think that's some of the reason for people's confusion, lumping these two together in their frustration, but it is what it is, and all i can tell people is demand the facts. when people tell you, oh, so and so's been treated differently. demand the facts on that. >> all right. so if somebody were to -- let's just do a hypothetical. let's say somebody here in congress were to e-mail my

personal e-mail some classified information, and and i'm on my -- i get in my phone, it comes to my cell phone, my e-mail comes to my personal cell phone 789 i look at it and go, wow, that probably shouldn't be on there and don't do anything. i mean, to me, that's being grossly negligent with classified information, and i should -- and that's a violation of 793f. and that's exactly what hillary clinton did. i think. i mean, at what point, at what point do you get to intent? the classified information was on an unsecure server, you knew it was there, and you didn't do anything about it. to me, that's gross negligence, period. i would think i would be prosecuted for that. >> yeah. i'm confident that you wouldn't, but we just have to agree to disagree. >> all right. if i ever get in trouble -- >> don't do it. [laughter] don't do it. i guess i can't control congress. if you work for us, don't do it.

>> i have absolutely no intention of doing it. so, again, i just want to say don't get frustrated when we continue to ask these questions, because we're not badgering you because we want to badger you. we are talking to you because the american people are upset about this and don't think it was handled appropriately, and that's the basis, at least, of my questioning, and i thank you for appearing here. >> and i totally understand that. i think there are lots of questions people have which is why i've worked so hard to try and be transparent. there's never been this kind of transparency in a criminal case ever. but because i understand the questions and the importance of it, i've tried. i hope people separate two things; questions about facts and judgment from questions and accusations about integrity. as i said before, you can call us wrong, you can call me a fool, you cannot call us weasels, okay? that is just not fair, and i hope we haven't gotten to a place in american public life where everything has to be torn

down on an integrity basis just to disagree. you can disagree with, there is just not a fair basis for saying we did it in any way that wasn't honest or independent. that's when i get a little worked up. sorry. >> i'm out of time. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan for five minutes. >> thank you, director comey. i appreciate your testimony today. just in follow up to all this discussion regarding the clinton investigation, specifically with regard to the interview of secretary clinton, i'm holding in my hand a memorandum from deputy attorney general james cowles dated may 2014. this memorandum was issued to you and others on the policy concerning electronic recording of statements. are you familiar with this memorandum? >> yes, uh-huh. >> the policy establishes a presumption that the fbi will electronically record statements made by individuals in their custody. now, i know that secretary clinton was not technically in

custody, but the policy also encourages agents and prosecutors to consider clerk tronic recording in -- electronic recording in an investigative or other circumstances where that presumption does not exist. the policy also encourages agents and prosecutors to consult with each other in such circumstances, and given the magnitude of what we've been talking about today and the huge public interest and demand for information or with regard to the public trust, i think this is specifically important to this discussion. now, you're aware of this policy, correct? >> right, that applies to people that are in handcuffs. >> but not -- it also applies to, the policy also encourages agents and prosecutors to consider electronic recording in an investigative matter and other matters where that presumption does not exist, does it not? >> sure. the fbi doesn't do it, but, sure, i understand -- they encouraged us to talk about it. >> so the agents did not consider to conduct the interview in a recorded situation then. >> we do not record

non-custodial interviews. now, maybe someday folks will urge us to change that policy, but we don't, and we sure wouldn't change it in one particular case. >> i'm just reading the policy issued by the deputy attorney general, james cole, that is to you and to others in the department of justice that establishes the policy. so if you don't do it, i assume that you're doing it against the policy of the department of justice. >> no. that policy only governs custodial interrogations, so people who have been locked up. we do not and it is not inconsistent with department of justice policy record non-custodial, that is voluntary interviews where someone's not in our custody. >> i'm reading this different then, because it does say it's within your discretion to record such -- >> well, sure, you could. and, i don't know, maybe some other federal investigative agencies do. the fbi's practice is we do not record non-custodial interviews. >> okay, thank you, director. i want to pivot and build off representative desantos'

questions with regard to the refugees attempting to enter the united states and specifically with regard to syrian refugees. wondering if you can tell me, weave talked about -- we've talked about this process and the fact that we do not have a process in place that we can rely upon. you've indicated before when you testified and i asked the question that it's, we just simply don't have enough information to insure that we have the information that we need to insure that these people are not a threat to our country. can you, can you expand upon that now after a year? can you tell me whether or not we've got more information, more capabilities to vet these refugees? and i say this because in my district in michigan in this fiscal year, michigan has taken the fourth most refugees of all states, 4,178, and we're the -- we've taken the third most from iraq, the second most from

syria. michigan has absorbed an enormous number of refugees, and i think you can understand our concern with regard to the fact that we don't have information necessary to identify whether or not they're a threat. can you assuage my concern, the concerns of my constituents that we have a system in place that we can vet these individuals and they don't pose a threat to our country? >> i can assuage in part and restate my concern in part. our process inside the united states government has gotten much better at making sure we touch all possible sources of information about a refugee. the interview process has gotten more robust, so we've gotten our act together in that respect. the challenge remains especially with respect to folks coming from syria, we're unlikely to have anything in our holdings; that is, with people coming from iraq, the united states government was there for a long period of time, we had

biometrics, source information. we're unlikely to have that kind of picture about someone coming from syria, and that's the piece i just wanted folk to be aware of. >> has anything changed in your vetting process? have you updated it? do you have any concerns with regard -- we've seen an increase in terrorist activity in the last six months including new york, new jersey and minneapolis. has anything changed in the vetting process? can you be confident that foreign fighters or the refugees entering the country are not planning future attacks on our country? >> as i said, over the last year since i was last before you, the vetting process has gotten more effective in the ways i described. i'm in a business where i can't ever say there's no risk associated with someone, so we wake up every day in the fbi worrying about who might have gotten through in any form or fashion to the united states or who might be getting inspired while they're here, so i can't ever give a blanket assurance. >> director, i respect your opinion, and this is not a policy question. i'm asking you based on your

personal opinion as a law enforcement officer that we rely upon to keep this country safe. is there anything that you would do to insure, as you said, that our country is safe with regard to this refugee process? >> anything that i would do? >> anything that you'd do, any recommendations that you have for congress, for this country that would insure our safe i? >> -- safety? >> yeah. i shy away from assurances of safety given the nature of the threats we face. i do think that there may be opportunities to do more in the social media space with refugees in particular, and i talked to jeh johnson yesterday about it. i know there's a work in progress. so much of people's lives, even if we don't have in our holdings, may be in digital dust that they've left in different places. are we harvesting that dust on people who want to come into this country in the best way, and i think there may be ground for improvement there. >> thank you, director. and i would yield back but, mr. chairman, i'd ask unanimous consent to enter the memorandum

that i referenced earlier from, dated may 12, 2014, into the record. >> without objection, it will be made a part of the record. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. collins, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. director comey, i am -- i appreciate you being here. you are, i believe, forthright, much more so than you said in any criminal case we've had, but i'm also still in the military. i'm still in the air force reserve. i went to my drill back in july. i was hit by an amazing amount of questions from different service members on in this issue of how -- on this issue of how does the former secretary of state get to do this and yet we have members of the military who are prosecuted all the time? your statements earlier were fairly startling when you said i don't know of anybody else that's been classified -- just since 2009 department of justice prosecuted at least seven people under the espy a imagine the act all -- espionage act all for similar cases.

you said look at the facts, well, we're looking at the facts in these cases. the interesting one, and you said mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case to bring criminal charges. well, it didn't take nothing but a simple legal search -- now, i get their name is not jane or joe, so they did get prosecuted, okay? and under 18usc793f, gross negligence. this is what the marine did. out of -- they took classified information that was put into a gym bag, cleaned out, washed and took. simple mishandling. court of appeals actually upheld this case, and this is what they said, that the purpose of the federal espionage act is to protect unclassified documents from unauthorized procedures, how you deal with, regardless of means or removal, appearance of gross negligence and with a proximate cause of the document's removal.

it is in united states v. mcginnis, it is clear that congress' intent is to create a hierarchy of offenses. it was sort of also ironic for me that when i had to go back in july, this past month when i went back, i had to do my annual information assurance training that went through everything that we have to do with handling classified information. i have been in a war zone, i've been -- this is just common knowledge among most everybody in the world. obviously not to the secretary. how can you then explain to me this marine's mistake in taking classified documents or mishandling them is more severe than the secretary of state who sent and received classified e-mails on a regular basis including those that were originally classified, not those classified later, but were originally classified? >> first off, i'm familiar with the case, and i'm quite certain it's not a 793f case -- >> his conviction was under

793f. >> i don't think -- i'll go back and check again, i'd urge you to too. i'm pretty sure it's not under 793f. but it's a uniform court of military justice prosecution, not by the department of justice, am i remembering correctly? >> this was from and appealed out in the u.s. court of appeals for the armed -- >> okay. regardless, i think even -- i don't think this is under the same provision, but even there that's a case involving someone ohio actually stole classified information, hard copies. what people need to remember, and i don't say this to make little of it. i think it's a very serious matter. what happened here is the secretary used an unclassified e-mail system, her personal system, to conduct her business -- >> and let's just stop right there. that in and of itself, and i understand, director comey, you've been through a lot of questions, i apologize. but let's just come back to the basics here. we're trying to parse that they took a hard copy. in today's society and even

understanding if you go through any information assurance class, anything else, they tell you it cannot be on a personal laptop. in fact, there was another chief petty officer who had classified information on a personal computer, went back and forth -- that is not physical documents, it's on a, to parse words like that is why the american people are fed up. they're fed up with the irs commissioner when he does it, they're fed up here. i'm not attacking -- i think you're one of the more upright people i've met. i think you just blew it. i think the attorney general blew it, i shared this with her, and i think there's no other way you can say there's no others that restem bl this -- resemble this. as a lawyer, you're taught all the time to take facts and put -- they a may not be exact, but they fit under the law. i guess maybe i'm going to change the question, because we're going to go down a dead end -- >> can i respond? >> relate me ask you this -- let me ask you this, i want to change questions. do you honestly believe that a

lady, a woman of vast intelligence who is the first lady of -- who was the first lady of the united states, who was a senator, who had access to classified information, all the members here do, who was secretary of state who had even further classification ability even beyond what we have here, do you believe that in this case, honestly, she was not grossly negligent or criminal in her acts? >> first of all, i don't believe anyone other than my wife. my question, what evidence do i have to establish that state of mind. and i don't believe i have evidence to establish it beyond a reasonable doubt. >> then really what we're saying here is this, this is in essence what you're saying, i can't prove it, and i understand that. there's a lot of folks out there, i'm an attorney as well, and they kind of say it's not what we know, what we think, it's what we can prove. i get it. but here's the problem with this, and this is the person who's asking to lead this country. if she can hide behind this and

get a approval from the fbi for an investigation which has been covered here thorough toly, then i just do not understand. she is even the most arrogant, probably so, or the most insanely naive person we've ever met. because when i actually show evidence of, basically, the same thing which you can take fact and correlate to law, this is why the armed forces right now have a new term called the clinton defense. i didn't know, hey, i didn't mean to. it's on my -- it's the clinton defense. with questions like this, director, we give the ability now to where nobody takes this seriously. be and this is why people are upset. when it was originally classified, she can tell all the stories she wants. she can have the backup from you that no prosecutor -- which is, again, amazing to me -- that law enforcement would tell the prosecutor, because how many times i've been on both sides of this. the law enforcement agencies said i'm not sure we have a case

here, but the prosecutor says, yeah, there's a case here. i don't really, frankly, care. if i can see the case and make it, that's my job, not yours. and yet now we have a whole system that has been turned upside down not because i don't believe the honesty of your people, but i believe you blew it because you, frankly, didn't have the whole situation into effect where the fbi would look political. and, unfortunately, that's all you've become in this. and it's a sad thing because y'all do great work. you have done great work and you will do great work. but i think it's time to start -- we just bring down the curtain. there's a wizard behind the thing, ms. hillary clinton, who is playing all of us because she's not that naive, she's not stupid. she knew what she was doing because she was simply too bored. if she, god forbid, gets into 1600 pennsylvania avenue and just gets bored with the process, then god help us all. mr. chairman, i yield back.

>> mr. chairman? >> director may respond. >> two things. first, this case was investigated by a group of professionals, so if i blew it, they blew it too. career fbi agents, the very best we have were put on this case and career analysts. we are a team. no one hid behind anything. american citizens should insist that we bring criminal charges if we're able to investigate and produce evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to charge somebody. that should be true whether you're investigating me or you or joe smith on the street. that's the way this case was done. it's about evidence. and the rest of it i'll let go. >> i apologize. this is the problem though, when you take it as a whole, you've talked about it being a unique case. director, this is a unique case because i truly -- and i don't think you convinced hardly anybody except your own group -- i don't think you ever said they

couldn't blow it. they blew it. anybody else would have been -- >> wrong. we'll just have to agree to disagree. >> unfortunately, there's a lot to disagree on this. thank you, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman from ohio is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. director comey, i've always appreciated your testimony before this committee, and i respect the work that you do for the fbi. when you made your recommendations to the department of justice to not prosecute hillary clinton, i actually disagreed with your decision, but i appreciated your candor in explaining to the american people and to us those recommendations. since that decision i continue to view you as honorable and a strong leader for the critical federal agency. in fact, i did 20 town hall meetings over the recess, and i was lambasted at every one of them. in fact, i think i lost votes because i defended your integrity at every one of those town hall meetings, and i told them why even though i disagreed with your conclusions, i thought you came to it from an honorable place.

however, as more information has come to lighting, i question the thoroughness -- and i'm not questioning your integrity ors but the thoroughness and the scope of the fbi's investigation. in the past week, we have learned of the grants of immunity to several key witnesses in the clinton investigation including hillary clinton's former chief of staff and one of the individuals responsible for setting up her server. i'm really disappointed by this revelationing and confused as to why these immunity grants were necessary and appropriate given the circumstances. it appears to me that the fbi was very early in this investigation too willing to strike deals and insure that top officials could never be prosecuted for their role in what we now know was a massive breach of national security protocol. we have a duty to insure that our our fbi is still in the business of investigating criminal activity. so at what point in the investigation was cheryl mills offered immunity?

>> cheryl mills was never offered immunity -- not to quibble, but she was given immunity to -- >> at what point? >> june of 2016, so june of this year. so about 11 months into the investigation. >> and to be clear, was she offered immunity for interview and potential testimony or for turning over the laptop as evidence? >> turning over the laptop as evidence. it governed what could be done in terms of using it against her, that laptop. >> to your knowledge, was cheryl mills an uncooperative witness appreciate the immunity deal? >> i think our assessment was she was cooperative. i forget the month she was interviewed, but she was interviewed fully before that. >> and she always cooperated? >> our assessment was -- again, the odd way i look at the world, we had no reason to believe she was uncooperative. >> so could this investigation have been completed without these grants of immoonty in place? -- immunity in place? >> in my view, not without doing our best to figure out what was on those laptops. it was important to me and the

investigate i have teams. >> in your vast experience now as fbi director, how many times have you allowed a person who is a material witness to a crime you're investigating to act as the lawyer in that same investigation? >> well, to let is what i'm stumbling on. the fbi has no power to stop someone. in a voluntary -- >> no, no, no. you're speaking -- just be honest. you allowed the fbi allowed cheryl mills to act as the attorney in a case that she was a material witness. how many times have you -- >> the same sense i'm allowing you to question me, i can't stop you -- >> how many times have you done that prior? >> i have not had an experience where the subject of the interview was represented by a lawyer who was also a witness in the -- >> okay. so you have never had that experience. >> not in my experience. >> you've prosecuted terrorists and mobsters, correct? >> correct. >> and during your time in justice, how many times did you allow a lawyer who was a material witness to the case

that you were prosecuting to also act as the subject of, as the attorney to the subject of that investigation? >> yeah, as i said, i don't think i've encountered the situation where a witness, a lawyer for the subject of the investigation was also a witness to the investigation. >> so this was highly unusual, to have -- >> in my experience, yes. >> okay. in your answer to chairman chaffetz, you indicated that you had no reason to disbelieve paul cumbeta when he told you he erased the hard drive on his own, is that correct? >> correct. >> however, in the exchange on reddit, he said i need to strip out a vip's e-mail address from a bunch of archived e-mail. basically, they don't want the vip's e-mail address exposed to anyone. those two statements are not consistent. how can you say that he was truthful when he told you nobody told him to act this way, but yet you saw this reddit account that says "they" told him that