[inaudible conversations] ..

before i begin this hearing i want to take a few minutes to recognize the subcommittee on crime, terrorism, homeland security investigation and caroline lynccarolinelynch aften capitol hill she decided to move back to her home state of arizona to be closer to her family and pursue their next steps in her career. needless to say we are very sad to see her go. during her time she worked for representative john shadegg and then asked the council of the public policy committee. in 2006, caroline came to work for the judiciary committee and in 2008 became keith davies co. chief counsel of the crime subcommittee. * the committee caroline has had an enormous impact on the reform of the criminal national security wall. wall. few people have done as much to

promote the safety. caroline has overseen the drafting negotiation and passage of critical legislation regarding the foreign intelligence surveillance act, the electronic communications privacy act and the most sweeping set of reforms the government practice in 40 years the usa freedom mac among many other priority of legislative initiatives. anyone who has met caroline knows she is immensely intelligent, hard-working, loyal and a discerning chief counsel and of course those people she has negotiated would hav with hd her to be a skillful and formidable but fair advocate. her team at the subcommittee know her to be a determined leader and a steadfast friend. i'd appreciate if caroline's deep knowledge of criminal laws, strength of her convictions and courage to speak the truth. we wish her well in her new

endeavors and thank her for her dedicated service to the committee's u.s. house of representatives and the american people. [applause] this is indeed a unique moment on behalf of the democratic staff and the democratic members of the committee i want to recognize caroline lynch for her hard work and dedication the past ten years the chief crying council she worked with her democratic colleagues on a broad

range of criminal justice issu issues. the crime subcommittee is legislatively the busiest of all of congress and every crime related though that has been enacted during her time here has had the benefit of her expertise. there are many examples of this, but i would cite her role in helping the members find common ground on section 215 of the patriot act so we can enact important reforms in the freedom act. this important law will safeguard the national security and our civil liberties. and it set a precedent for how we can proceed on such issues in the future work on this

legislation was essential to the ultimate success. we will miss her insight on these issues as well as her friendship and friendliness as she meets the committee for other endeavors in her home state of arizona. we wish you all the best. [applause] i think you would agree with me in saying while the work isn't quite done, she's also been very critical to the bipartisan work we have been doing here the past few years culminating in 11 bills so far dealing with criminal justice reform and we thank you for the contribution that you have made for that and that work has been very

bipartisan, so we thank you all. we now welcome director comey to the fourth appearance before the house judiciary committee since your confirmation as the director of the fbi. needless to say, the past year since the last oversight hearing has been challenging on a number of fronts and we hope to review with you today. i want to begin by commending the men and women of the fbi and the nypd new jersey police departments for their action in apprehending the cold cowardly acts of terrorism last week injured 29 american citizens. this was the latest in a string of attacks stretching back to the 2013 boston marathon bombing continuing through the attacks in san bernardino, orlando and minneapolis. they share a common thread mainly radical islam. the administration including the

fbi has claimed this with the euphemism of countering violent extremism. the fbi and the rest of the national security apparatus continues about focusing on the issues of extremism on the mission to protect the american people will always be one of following up on th the trigger r some aftermath. i look forward to hearing from you about how we are working to combat the terrorism and put an end to this string of violence while it is a malignancy that must be purged, other events have called into question the confidence americans have historically held in a blind and impartial justice system. secretary of state hillary clinton and the investigation into the criminal conduct is a case in point. it seems clear the former secretary of state committed multiple felonies involving the passing of the classified information through her private

e-mail server however declined to refer the case for prosecution on some very questionable pieces. this past friday afternoon, the fbi released additional investigative documents from the investigation which demonstrate among other things that more than 100 of the e-mails on secretary clinton's private server contained classified information and e-mails preserved under federal law were destroyed. even more we've recently learned president obama used a pseudonym to converse with her on the e-mail server. why is this relevant? as the top aide when informed by the fbi between her boss and the presidentpresident, how is thatt classified? armed with knowledge of the president's now known to be false claims that he only learned of clinton's private e-mail account, quote, the same

time everybody else learned it through the news reports did the fbi review why the president was also sending classified information in fact this president and former secretary of state and properly transmit communications were nonsecure channels placing the nation's secrets in harms way. the decision to play fast and loose with our national security concern not only her daughter's wedding planning work and yoga routine but according to you, send an e-mail chains concerned matters that were classified in the top-secret special access program level when they were sent and received. the top-secret special access programs contained some of the most sensitive secret information maintained by the government. this is a truly remarkable fact for anyone of lesser notoriety guilty of doing this that person

would already be in jail. for americans unsure of what the special access program is, it is the kind of information a war planner would use to defeat an enemy or clandestine intelligence operation. "the wall street journal" explained that the sap usually refers to the highly covert technology programs involving weaponry. knowledge of the programs are usually distracted to small groups of people on the need to know basis. for those wondering whether this kind of information on the unsecured server is a problem, read no further than the huffington post which reported february clinton's private e-mail server containing tens of thousands of messages from the tenure as the secretary of state with the attempts from china, south korea and germany after she stepped down in 2013.

to conclude, let me ask everyone to engage in a thought experiment. one of the signature accomplishments in the war on terror was the raid of pakistan in may of 2011 that resulted in the killing of osama bin laden. that operation was conducted by a team of the special operators and was of course highly classified. now imagine if you will that classified information was passed through the nonsecure e-mail server with access by nations or individuals, hostile to the united states. rather than a highly successful covert operation, we might have had a team of dead u.s. servicemen. hillary clinton chose to send and receive top-secret information over a unsecured server house in her home and placed in a bathroom closet. these actions without a doubt handpiece communications to thee interception fight the enemies

interceptions by the enemies and those who wish america harm. use facts and not the imagined history i've asked you to contemplate the basis of the investigation by the fbi, and these are the fact that chose to hold on the recommendation to prosecute saying that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. we as congress and the american people are troubled on how such gross negligence are not published and why there seem to be a different standard for the politically well-connected. i look forward to your testimony today and at this time i'm pleased to recognize the ranking member from michigan for his opening statement. >> thank you mr. chairman. while both an ican in again dirr your appearance here today. the fbi mission is a complex undertaking to protect the united states from terrorism and

to enforce our criminal law and to lead the nations law enforcement community. that ought to mirror our own priorities in this committee. in the past few days, for example, we have written this attack in minnesota, new york and new jersey. these attacks underscored the growing fear that individuals can be moved to violence at home and at the propaganda of other terrorist groups abroad even though they have no direct connection to those organizations. to me, this threat is dire. we should be doing all he can in the communities within the constitutional framework to mitigate the danger that while

the majority here in the house used hehouseused her time todays these attacks, i suspect they will not be in their focus in this campaign season. in charlotte and pulls out and dallas, right here in washington and other cities across the country, our citizens demand answers to questions about race and policing and the use of lethal force by law enforcement. our police are under siege, often under resourced and in some cases hard pressed to build trust with the communities they serve. director, your work to foster the lines of communication

between police officers and the general public is commendable and necessary if we are to keep our citizens safe from harm. but will my colleagues discuss this issue with the director of the fbi for its leadershi his ld law enforcement community as paramount? i hope so. i am also afraid the focus may be elsewhere. the fbi is the lead agency in the investigation of th of thise or paste terrorism, online sexual exploitation and fraud. we have known for some years about the persistent cyber threat to our critical infrastructure. now we hear reports of the new

threat to the very basis of our democratic process. twice this summer i wrote to you with my fellow ranking members to ask you to look into reports that the state actors are working to undermine in the process. without objection i ask that both of these be placed in the record. it is now a consensus of the intelligence community that the russian government was behind the hack of the democratic national committee and is not as some suggested somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds. on friday we learned from one report that the united states

intelligence officials over to determine whether an american businessman identified by donald trump as one of his former policy advisor is opened up private communications with senior russian officials including talks about the possible lifting of economic sanctions if the republican nominee becomes president. the report cites an unnamed senior u.s. law enforcement official, which i presume means someone in your order to mr. director. without objection i ask for this article be placed into the record. let me be clear if true, this

represents a danger to national security and a violation of federal law which prohibits this type of negotiation. and i am not alone in describing the nature of the threat. the speaker himself said russia is led by a devious thug and putin should stay out of this. well the majority press you on this problem today instead i believe the focus of the hearing will be more of the same come and attack on you and your team at the department of justice for declining to recommend criminal charges against secretary

hillary clinton. in recent weeks, this line of attack has been remarkable only for its lack of substance. the character assassination and procedural minutia like the scope in the agreement in your decision to protect the identities of individuals unrelated to the investigation. i consider that an unfortunate waste of time with so many problems confronting the nation and so many of the challenges in your jurisdiction and powers you would think my colleagues would set their priorities different differently. i hope they do and they listen to our conversation today.

i thank the chair man and yield back. >> without objection all other members opening statements will be made a part of the record. we welcome the distinguished witness and if you please rise i will begin by swearing un. >> do you swear the testimony you are about to give will be the truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? like the record reflect the witness answered in the affirmative. fbi director james comey at the college of william and mary and university of chicago law school. served as the united states attorney for both the southern district of new york and eastern district of virginia he'd returned to become the u.s. attorney for the southern attorney for the southern district of new york and in 2003 served as the deputy attorney general and the department of justice. we look forward to your

testimony, the written statement will be entered in its entirety and we ask that you summarized your testimony in five minutes. you may begin. welcome. >> thank you mr. chairman. members of the committee is good to be back before you as the chairman said for the fourth time, i have six more to go and i look forward to the conversations each time i know this morning there will be questions about the e-mail investigation and i'm happy to answer those at the best of my ability. in july when we closed the case i promised the transparency and i think we delivered on that and frankly in an unprecedented way i will do my best to be transparent in every way possible. what i thought i would do because i know we will talk about that quite a bit, i want to focus on some of the other things the fbi has been doing and my objective is to make it clear to you the quality of the

people that have chosen to do this with their lives that isn't about money or living but it's about the life they make and i just picked for different examples of things that we have been working on that illustrate the quality of the focus of the scope of the work that is extraordinary and the importance of partnerships because it is true that the fbi does nothing allowed to just to pick off for different parts of the organization as the chair and mr. conyers both mentioned in the last couple of weeks, our folks have been working with their partners of federal, state and local organizations of all kinds to bring to justice very quickly the bomber in the new jersey attacks and that was done in a way that would have been hard to imagine 15 years ago in a time of battles and worry about my jurisdiction coming your jurisdiction. they showed you how it should be and must be done and we should all be proud of them.

second, within the last week, a hacker from kos about that worked for the so-called state on taking the information from american military employees and then giving it to the islamic states so they could target these people was sentenced to 20 years in jail. our folks together with lots of partners around the world found him in malaysia and they arrested him and brought him back to virginia where he was sentenced to 20 years. a terrific work by the cyber investigators and as you know through the intelligence investigators to understand just what mistress is russia up to and that his work that goes on all day every day about which i implemented in terms of answering questions but i want you to know that as a part of

our work we don't talk about an awful lot that the core of the fbi and last i want to mention two weeks ago, a six-year-old girl was kidnapped on her front lawn in eastern north carolina and a stranger kidnapping. all of law enforcement searched on that case. when he rolled up a team that is a capability we have built around the country to help in these situations they are agents and analysts that are expert at doing what has to be done in the gold in 24 hours you have two try to save a child so we worked with our partners at state and local levels and overnight we found that little girl chained by her neck to a tree of life than goalive togod and she was . the picture they showed me that morning with her wide eyes and hair with a thick chain around

her neck is one i will never be able to get out of my head because it is both terrible and wonderful, terrible because of what happened but wonderful because together we found her and saved her. i called the sheriff's and the team to thank them and they said they were relieved and they all stood in the command center and cried together because it almost never ends this way. i said i wish we didn't live in a world where little girls were to up off their front lawns where we had to do this kind of work but unfortunately we do and i'm so glad of those people and the rest of the people that worked in that world because we are safer and better and they've chosen to do this with their lives the best part of my job is to people like to watch to see their work and admire their work in any way that i can they are doing extraordinary work for the american people across an array

of responsibilities. i know you know that if we are grateful for the support you gave the men and women and look forward to the conversation about that work. >> thank you, director we will begin the five-minute rule an ai won't recognize myself. you testified that the fbi did not investigate the testimony to the committee under oath we referred the matter to the united states attorney for the district of columbia. as this the fbi now investigatie veracity of secretary clinton's testimony to the committee? >> the department has a referr referral. now it's pending so i'm not going to comment on the matter at this point. but it has been received by the department of justice.

>> and you can tell u can't telr or not you are investigating? when do you expect you will be able to tell us more about this pending matter before the fbi? >> i don't know. >> with the platte river networks asking how to strip out the e-mail address from a bunch of archived e-mail he went on into the issue is that these e-mails involved a private e-mail address of someone you would recognize and try to replace it with a placeholder address that did not expose it. this demonstrates actions taken to destroy evidence by those operating in the previous server and by her staff. certainly he didn't take it upon himself to destroy evidence that had been instructed to do so by

secretary clinton or her staff. was the fbi aware of this post prior to offering immunity on may 3, 2016? >> i am not sure. i know the team looked at it i don't know if they knew about it before then or not. >> isn't this evidence of obstruction of justice and a violation of the immunity deal? >> not necessarily, no. >> it depends on why he wanted to do tha and i think he conclud it didn't have the actual address but it had some name or placeholder instead of the address in the front line. >> last week the american people learned that cheryl mills and former state department chief of staff and heather samuelson were

granted immunity for the production of their laptops. why did they not targets of the investigation? >> it's someone you have evidence at some point during the investigation unfolds and the scope of the investigations with respect initially because she was an e-mail correspondence and was the subject of the investigation. >> did the fbi find classified information on the computer's? >> i think there were some still on the computer that were recovered as my recollection. >> is that a crime having classified information on computers outside of the server system in the department of state? >> you would have to know what are the circumstances and what

was the intention but it's certainly the reason that we conducted the investigation to understand where e-mails have gone in the unclassified system that contained classified information. >> what did you determine? >> my troops will correct me if i'm wrong but they were duplicates of e-mails that had been produced and used to sort before the production. >> both were granted immunity for the production of these computers. why were they then allowed to sit in on the interview with secretary clinton? >> they reached a letter agreement with the two lawyers to give them the act of production immunity meaning nothing that is found on a laptop he turned over to be used against them directly which is a

fairly normal tool in the investigations. she was a member of secretary clinton's legal team, so they decided which of the lawyers come to the voluntary interviews with the fbi. >> is it unusual to allow a potential witness in a subsequent prosecution had one been undertaken to the present in the room when the fbi interviews another witness and a potential target of an investigation? ..

>> if it was a judicial proceeding the judge could please who could be there and the lawyers are governed by ethics to decide what matters they can be involved inches it doesn't fall to us to say that you can be in are you campion. >> when she agree that is a conflict of interest for them to serve as attorneys for clinton having been interviewed from the fbi from witnesses. >> that's a question the lawyer has to answer for him or herself. >> your lawyer, what's your opinion? >> i don't offer an opinion on that but that's something a lawyer has to decide on themselves. i see with counsel and with consulting the canons of ethnic what matters you can be involved in what you can. the bureau's role is to interview the subject, who they the subject, who they bring is up to

them. >> how can you trust the veracity of secretary clinton's answers knowing that witnesses previously interviewed by the fbi were allowed to participate? >> we assess the answers by what set in the evidence gathered. in consultation with her attorneys who are also witnesses to what was previously done earlier i may fact have themselves violated the wall for which there were requested and granted immunity. >> the answers the same, we make the assessment based on what the witness says and the other evidence we gathered in the case, who is sitting there to me is not germane. >> thank you, my time has expired. i recognize the gentleman for michigan. >> thank you. thank you so much, director james, twice this past week the city of charlotte, north carolina has been shaken by the shooting death of black men, it is only one city out of many in this country looking for answers

about the use of force by police. we come come on this committee are looking for answers to. you are a vocal advocate for better collection of information about violence it and encounters between police and civilians. has the fbi's ability to collect this information been proved in the year since we have less discussed it? and why are these statistics so important to our current discussion on the use of force by police? >> thank you. we are having passionate, important conversations conversation in this country about please use of force in connection with encounters with civilians, especially with african-americans. all of the conversations are uninformed today. they're all driven by anecdote because as a country country we simply do not have the information to know, do

we have an epidemic of violent structure by law enforcement against black folks? to have an evident regarding from folk or white folk. we don't know. an absence of that data they're driven by anecdote and that's a very bad place to be. i don't know if there's an epidemic of violence. my instincts tell me there isn't but i don't know. i can't tell you whether. i can't tell you whether shootings involving people of any different color are up, down, sideways nor can anybody else in this country. so to discuss the most important things that are going on in this country we need information. the government should collect it. i can't think it. i can't think of something more inherent in lee governmental than the need to use deadly force in encounter during law-enforcement work. so what what has changed in the last year for which is good news with is that everybody and leadership in law-enforcement and the united states has agreed and they've agreed that the fbi will build and maintain a database, so we collect important information information about

all encounters involving the use of deadly force. that will allow us to know what is going on in the country so we can have a thoughtful conversation and resist being ruled by individual anecdotes. that's that's what matters. were making progress, will have it done, we would like it done in the next year or two years, this database will be up and running because everybody gets white matter so much. >> thank you on august 30, i wrote to you regarding donald trump's expensive connections to the russian government. the letter cites to a number of troubling reports some that suggest mere conflicts of interest, others that might suggest evidence of a crime. last friday, we read a new report suggesting that mr. trump's foreign policy advisor has been meeting with high-ranking sanctioned officials in moscow to discuss lifting economic sanctions.

if mr. donald trump becomes president. the same report quotes this is a senior united states law-enforcement official who says this relationship is being quote actively monitored and investigated, and quotation. is the fbi investigating the activities of mr. trump or any advisor to the trump campaign with respect to any line of communication between the campaign and the russian government? >> i cannot say sir. as as i said in response to different question we do not confirm or deny investigations. >> more generally then, is it lawful for a private citizen to

enter into official government negotiations with a foreign nation? >> i don't think it's appropriate for me to answer that hypothetical. >> well, in my view our research shows that it is not. the 18 usc section 953 prohibits this conduct in my view. and finally just mr. trump currently receive intelligence briefings from the fbi? >> at both candidates and their running mates are offered on a regular basis briefings from the entire intelligence community. some portion of the first briefing including an fbi segment, so yes. >> does his staff attend those meetings as well? >> know, just the candidate and the vice presidential candidate. >> and finally, if a member of

either -- >> know i'm wrong. i have to to correct. each was allowed to bring two people, as i recall trump did bring to individuals with clearances to the briefing. secretary clinton did not. i'm sorry, i miss stated that. >> okay. that. >> okay. finally, if a member of either campaign were engaged in secret back channel communications with a foreign adversary, could that line of communication pose a threat to national security? >> i don't think it's appropriate given that i'm not commenting on it might make me look at whether we have an investigation side prefer not chance of us are. >> well, thank you for being here today. i think the chairman and i yelled back. >> the chairman think the gentleman away recognize the gentleman from wisconsin. >> thank you mr. chairman, director, welcome.

who authorized cheryl mills immunity? >> the decision was made by the department of justice, don't know what level. >> in our investigation any kind of immunity comes from the prosecutors not the investigators. >> okay, did she request immunity? >> i don't know for sure what the negotiations of all, i believe her lawyer asked for active production immunity with respect to the production of her laptop. that is my understanding. the fbi was not a part of those conversations. >> now it is been a matter of public record that secretary clinton brought nine people into the room where two fbi agents were questioning her. is that normal practice? >> weather is a normal practice, i've, i've done interviews with a big crowd, and some with just the subject, it's unusual to have that large of a number, but

not unprecedented in my experience. >> now cheryl mills, also stated that she was an attorney. very concerned that when a fact witness represents a client who might be the target of an investigation that there is a conflict of interest, rather than letting this mills make the determination, with the fbi be willing to refer the matter, a fact witness of ms. mills in this case representing a target secretary clinton in this case to the appropriate bar association for investigation? >> that is not a role for the fbi. even though i happen to be a lawyer, were not lawyers, were investigators. that's a question investigators. that's a question for the legal part of the department of justice. >> okay. why did ms. mills request

immunity? >> was she hiding something are afraid something would incriminate her that was on her laptop? >> i do not know. i'm sure that is a conversation she and her lawyer had and then her lawyer had with department i just do not know. >> okay. there was an op-ed by professor jonathan that appeared in the media that says there were a lot of good cases scuttled by granting immunity and there is lots of immunity that was granted here. doesn't concern you as an investigator that your peace in the justice department decided to become an immunity producing machine for many people who would have been very key witnesses should there have been a prosecution? >> i don't think of it that way. it doesn't strike me that there is a lot of immunity issued in this case.

i know it's a complicated subject. there are many different kinds of immunity, probably three different kinds featured in this case. it's fairly typical fairly typical in a complex white-collar case especially to try to work your way up towards your subject. my overall reaction is that this looks like ordinary investigative process to me. >> will the target was not an ordinary target, i think we all know that. since you announced that there be no prosecution of secretary clinton in july there have been several, very material issues that are troubling. would that not require avenue reopening of the investigation to solve those issues? >> i've not seen anything that would come near to that kind of situation. >> there's lots of question about the controversy and very proud of the way this is done. >> , now, with all due respect, since you made this announcement there have been many more issues

that came up that were [inaudible] the table prior to your announcements that the investigation against secretary clinton had been dropped. i think the american public is entitled to answers on this, particularly since we have to know the extent of the classified information which ended up being in the private e-mail server. all of us on this committee have got security clearance of some kind or another. i'm kind of worried that you know if i got some classified information and went back to my office and used in unsecure server to send it to somebody who may also have had a classified information, i would be in big trouble and i should be in big trouble if i did something like that. there seems to be different strokes for different folks on this.

that's what americans are concerned about. particularly when we're looking to elect someone to the highest office of the land and the leader of the free world. i do not think your answers are satisfactory at all the circle me. i do have a great great deal of respect for you, but i think there is a heavy hand coming from someplace else and with that, i yield back. >> that you think the gentleman to recognize the gentleman from new york for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman, first let me express my admiration and thanks to the fbi for the professional manner and the excellent work they did in the bombings that occurred in new york about a block out of my district to apprehend the suspect within 48 hours and do everything it was a very good indication of teamwork and i congratulate you on that. secondly, let me say that i

think the mud that is being thrown on the other side of the table only continue because the ongoing presidential election. in the case in which the fbi decided there's nothing to prosecute, it's over. we all know nobody would be talking about it if one were not, if hillary clinton were not a presidential candidate for this is a political maneuvering. is political maneuvering. let me talk about a case that may pose a current national security threat to the united states. the earlier remarks and the reference on august 30 letter asked if the fbi was investigating the trump campaign officials. and whether they contributed to the illegal hacking of the democratic national committee and the democratic national campaign committee. you're familiar with that letter

? >> yes. >> i'd like you to ask you a few questions. the letter said that on august 8, 2016 roger stone, donald trump stone, donald trump confidant revealed that he has communicated with someone with it release of additional illegally hacked democratic documents. he made the statements during republican campaign event will answer a question about a potential october surprise. obviously if somebody is stating publicly that his intercommunication with the organization that obtained these illegally hacked documents, i assume the fbi would want to talk to that person. has the fbi interviewed stone about his relationship or how he got these documents? >> i cannot comment on that. >> mr. stone stated that his knowledge about upcoming leaks of additional illegally hacked documents, has the fbi asked about those mutations? >> i also cannot comment on that. >> because of the nine going investigation. >> i don't want to confirm whether there is or is not it investigation, that's that's how i answer the question.

>> they knowledge and public statements and testimony that it was acknowledged that it was investigating secretary clinton's use of private email service service and that was while the investigation was still ongoing, now you can't comment on whether there is investigation. is there different standard for secretary clinton and donald trump, if not way is a consistent standard? >> our standard is we do not confirm or deny the existence of investigation for the exception for that is when there's a need for the public to be reassured that when it's apparent given the activities and public activities at the investigation is ongoing. our overwhelming rule rule is that we do not, except in certain exceptional circumstances. >> are these exceptional circumstances when close officials to a candidate of a major political party for the united states says publicly he think medication with foreign officials and anticipates further illegal activity? >> i do not think so.

>> mr. trump's campaign manager resigned after failing to disclose his role in a pro-russian party of ukraine. associated press reported in a quote, donald trump's campaign chairman help the pro-russian party in the ukraine the ukraine secretly with 2,200,000 dollars in payments to put $2 million in payments to two prominent washington lobbying firms in 2012. they did so in a way that effectively obscured the form political parties to influence u.s. policy. has the fbi interviewed mr. manford about it this? >> have to give you the same answer. >> has the fbi interviewed were rick gates who work for the trump campaign? >> same answers are. >> after you investigated secretary clinton, you made a decision to explain publicly who you interviewed and why, he also disclosed also disclosed documents including those from this interview. why shouldn't the american people have the same level of information about your investigation of those associated with mr. trump? >> i'm not confirming that we are investigating people associated with mr. trump. in a matter of e-mailing

investigation it was our judgment, my judgment of the rest of the fbi's judgment that those were exceptional circumstances where the public needed to know. >> my final question, you investigated secretary clinton's e-mails and so forth, everything we've been talking about. you concluded i believe that there's nothing to prosecute and you announced in my opinion quite properly, that you had investigated it there is nothing in, nothing to prosecute. that was proper. but having announced and that prosecutorial agency announces that we've investigated so-and-so and decided that we've decided to prosecute because all we've investigated and we decided not to prosecute because, why is it appropriate for that prosecutorial agency to go further and say, even though we decide not to prosecute, we still think this person did this that or the other thing and i was proper and improper, why is it proper prosecutorial agency to characterize your opinion of

the propriety of the actions of someone whom you have announced that you'd decided there's nothing criminal should not be prosecuted? >> that's her decision that is why the it is the exception to the rule. you do risk of damaging someone who is not convicted. the the judgment i made in this case is given the unusual, i thought on net -- it was not an easy call. i wrestled with it. >> let me just say before my time expires that i think and i just talking to myself that was highly inappropriate with having determined that there is nothing to prosecute and having announced that quite properly but prosecuting agencies and the department of justice to comment with commas that will be looked upon as authoritative that what she did was right or wrong, good, are back, not the appropriate role of the prosecuting agency and risks not in this case but i talk really now because of the future, don't

want to see that happen again regards anybody because it puts anybody who did not commit a crime, who you have determined did not commit a crime and there's no evidence to prosecute it puts them at the mercy of the opinion of an individual or individuals within the prosecuting agency and that's not right. >> i you'll back. >> the chair recognized gentleman from texas for five minutes. >> think mr. chairman. tractor, thank you for those examples of the fbi's good work in your opening statement. i think we all appreciate what the fbi has done. my first question is this, would you reopen the clinton investigation if you discovered new information that is both relevant and substantial? >> it is hard for me to answer. in the abstract we would look at new and substantial information. >> in general, and let's

personalize it in general if you discover new permission that was substantial and relevant, you would reopen an investigation, would you not? >> again, even in general can't answer that in the abstract. what we can say is that any investigation that people have new and substantial information we would like to see it so we can make an evaluation. >> let me give you some examples mentions several new developments that i think have occurred and ask if you have become aware of them. >> the first example is what the chairman mentioned a while ago. an employee at at a company that managed former secretary clinton's private email server said that i need to strip out a vips, very vip email e-mail address from a bunch of archived e-mails. basically they don't want the vips email address exposed to anyone. i assume you are aware that. >> i'm aware of that. >> the same employee called a

new retention policy designed to delete e-mails after 60 days, quote hillary cover-up operation and you saw that, did you not? >> i'm sorry. >> this aiming ploy called the new retention policy to delete e-mails after 60 days a hillary cover it cover-up operation. >> i don't know that particular language. >> will give us or speak and take my word for it that is what he said. >> i will. >> another example, former former clinton foundation employee who also manage the clinton server destroyed devices used by former secretary clinton by smashing them with a hammer. you are aware that question are. >> yes. >> to employees of a company that managed former secretary clinton's recently put the fifth amendment to congress to avoid self-incrimination. >> your wear that? >> yes. >> lastly, 15000 more work-related e-mails were discovered and there have been an attempt to wrongly delete them. your wear that? >> i think we discover them. >> to me, what i cited is not

the actions of innocent people. there's a distinct possibility that mrs. clinton or her staff directed others to destroy evidence in a government a government investigation which of course is against the law. so, i would urge you to reopen your investigation. do you want to comment on that? >> i do not. >> i know you can't tell us whether you have or have not, but i believe i've given evidence of new information that is relevant and substantial that would justify reopening the investigation. my next question is this. i know you granted immunity to a number of individuals. if you had new information that was relevant and substantial, you would be able to investigate them further, wouldn't you? >> the fbi doesn't grant immunity tenable to, the department of justice can grant different kinds of immunity. immunity. immunity, if new and substantial evidence develop that either

someone lied or under and a kind of immunity that department of justice can pursue it. nobody gets lifetime immunity. >> thank you. the last question is as chairman of the science committee i issued the fbi subpoena on september 19, 2016. the due date for response was two days ago, september 26. your staff. your staff has still not provided the requested information and documents. yesterday we pointed out to them that the science committee has jurisdiction for the national institute of standards and technology which sets standards for the federal information security modernization act of 2014. i trust you intend to comply with the subpoena? >> i intend to continue the conversations we've been having about the subpoena. as you know we've made a lot of documents available to at least six committees and the question of whether we should make additional committee is something were struggling with but talking to folks about. >> to me there's no struggle, we have cleared jurisdiction which we can demonstrate a think it obligate you to comply.

>> yes sir, were not trying to be disrespectful. were continued to talk about it. >> thank you. >> with the gentleman yield. >> i will yield to the gel moved to california. >> thank you, the chairman of the committee had asked something earlier and i want to ask to be placed in the record, according to the maryland code of ethics 19301.11 prohibits a governor officer employee by acting as a council to some of they represented in government. i'd like that to be placed in the wrecker. in in light of the fact that the maryland bar, that -- that has this prohibition, that had changed your view of allowing her in and saying you had no authority? >> i am not qualified nor my going to answer questions about legal ethics and the swarm. the fbi has no basis to exclude somebody from an interview with the interview is on their legal

team. >> thank you director coming. thank you mr. chairman, you'll back. >> of the chair think the gentleman the requisite gentleman wreck is a gentleman from california, for five minutes. >> thank you. thank you director coming for once again appearing before this committee as you appear before somebody committees in the house. sometimes sometimes i wonder how you get any work done at all because you are called appear so frequently. there has been a lot of focus on the private e-mail that secretary clinton used as her predecessor : powell used. so there's no forensic evidence that there is a breach of that service although theoretically you could intrude in that evidence. there has been very little focus on the breach at the state department email system, it has has been reported in the press