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

that this breach of the state department e-mails was one of the largest ever of the federal system and was accomplished by, according to the press either china or russia. i'm i'm wondering if you are able to give us any insight into whether it was in fact the russian who had been to the state department email system or whether that is still under investigation? >> not in this open form i cannot. >> okay, i'm hoping we can get some insight in an appropriate classifieds setting on that. now, we have watched was some concern, i know you are also concerned about the russian intrusion into our election system. it is been reported to us that the russian hacked into the democratic national committee database, they also hacked into the democratic congressional campaign committee.

it seems that they are making an effort to influence the outcome of this election. we have been warned that the information stolen my not just be release but also be altered and forged and then leaked in an effort to impact the election here in the united states. yesterday there was press reports and i don't know if they're accurate, i'm interested if you're able to tell us that the russians have also hacked a telephone of democratic staffers and there is a request for democratic staffers to bring their cell phones into the fbi to have the mirrored area can you tell us anything about that? >> i can't at this point. what i can say say in response to the first part of your question, any hacking is something we take very seriously. any hacking in connection with this nation's election system is

something we take extraordinarily served seriously. it's something that we're spending a lot of time on right now to try to understand. what are they up to them what is it involved it was a the scope of it, to equip the president to decide upon the appropriate response per that is why we are to be very careful about what i say about it. that work is ongoing. i should make clear to folks when we talk about our election system there's been a lot of press reporting about attempts to intrude into voter registration databases. those are connected to the internet. that's very different than the electoral mechanism in the country. >> we had a hearing and a hearing and i had a chance to talk with alex was a secretary of state in california. number when they crip their database, number two, number two, even if you were to steal it, there is backups that you cannot steal. you can't really manipulate that. but you could cause a lot of damage. you could create chaos on election day and you could

target that chaos to areas where voters had a tendency to vote for one candidate over another in an attempt to influence the outcome. it's not a benign situation certainly had one that we want to worry about. i want to quickly touch on a concern i have also on cyber on rule 41 and how the fbi is interpreting that. i'm concerned that the change is understood by the fbi would allow for one word for multiple computers but would include allowing the fbi to access victims computers in order to clean them up. cyber security experts that i have been in touch with have raised very strong concerns about that provision, specially using malware zone signaling system to disable the malware.

the cyber experts who have talked and express concerns believe that it ultimately could trigger attacks. i'm wondering wondering if you have any comments on how the fbi intends to use rule 41 vis-à-vis malware victims computers. >> it your time with a gentleman has expired you will be permitted to answer the question. >> thank you. i'm nonexpert but one of the things that we deal with with these botnets is how do we execute a search warrant to try to figure out where the bad guys are and get them away from those innocent people. what the challenge we've been facing is to go to every single jurisdiction and get a warrant would take literally years. so

were charter. how can we use reporting want to have one judge give us that authority. >> i know my time, just like to close by expressing the hope that the fbi might seek the guidance of some of the computer experts at our national labs on this very question of triggering malware attacks and i yelled back. >> the point is well taken. we recognize the gentleman from ohio for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. coming, the chairman in his introduction of you mentioned you are a graduate of the college of william and mary and you may know i'm a graduate from there as well. you may remember that our alma mater is very proud of something called the honor code. i checked out the wording of the honor code to make sure that i was correct on it now will tell you exactly what it says, it says is a member of the women marry community a pledge in my honor not to lie, cheat, or steal either my academic work personal life. one of the people whose behavior you investigated, hillary clinton didn't have the good fortune to attend college of women married but she did attend

wesley. i wonder if whether they had not honor code and i found out, i looked it up they do. they did and here's what it says. at the wesley college student i will act with honesty, integrity and respect in making this commitment i am accountable to community and dedicate myself to a life of honor. let me repeat that i will act with honesty. i'm sure young women attending wesley today of those would have attended in the past are proud that one of their own could be the next president of the united states. but, the majority of american people have come to the conclusion that hillary clinton is not honest. and cannot be trusted. it's about two about 221. who say that she is dishonest. the latest poll for example the question being, would you say that hillary clinton is honest or not, 65% said no and only 32%

said yes she is on us. republicans and democrats not surprisingly were overwhelmingly one-way the other but independence, 80% said no she's not honest and only 19% said she is. so director, since you and your people would want to investigate it hillary clinton's email scandal i would just like task couple of questions. hillary clinton claimed over and over that none of the e-mails that she sent contain classified information. was she truthful when she said that? >> as i said when i testified in july, there were, forgetting the exact number but there were 80 or so emails that contain classified information. >> so she said they did not contain classified information and they did so that sounds to me not being truthful, i not trying to put words in your mouth but i think that's what that means. hillary clinton i came back on a fallback fallback position sandwell, none of the e-mails i sent were marked classified, but that that wasn't true either was it?

>> there were three as i recall three emails that were within the body of the text portion market classify the confidential. >> and again that putting words in your mouth that that means no she did not tell the truth in that particular instance. hillary clinton said she decided to use a personal e-mail server system for convenience and that she would only have to carry around one blackberry, was she being truthful when she said she just use one device? >> during her tenure as secretary of state she is multiple, not at the same time but sequentially. >> again i'm going to take that as she said one and it was more. so therefore it [inaudible] us. in fact, some of the devices were destroyed with a hammer, as that has already been mentioned. is that the type of behavior that you would expect from someone who is fully cooperative with an investigation, destroying devices with a

hammer? >> we uncovered no evidence that devices were destroyed during our investigation. so, why people destroy devices when there is no investigation is in a question i'm not able to answer. >> thank you. mr. director a little less than two months ago hillary clinton, talking about talking about her e-mails claim that you said, and i quote, that my answers were truthful. pull in effect gave this appearance on fire rating. did you say that she was telling the truth with respect to her e-mail claim? >> i did not. i never never say that about anybody. our business is not to say whether we believe someone our businesses to say what evidence is there to not believe that person it's an odd window look at the world. >> it must've been very awkward for you, your task with investigated a person who could be the next president of the

united states. in the current president of the united states has already pre-judge the case and telegraph to you and the entire justice department that he, your boss has come to the conclusion that there is not even a smidgen of corruption, his own words before you have even completed your investigation. you are aware that he said that, weren't you? >> yes, saw the report in the press. >> finally, just seems to me that there is clearly a double standard going on. like for example if anybody else had done this like a soldier, serviceman who did virtually the same thing, they would've been prosecuted but not hillary clinton and that is a double standard. and that is not the way it is supposed to work in america. i'm out of time, you'll back. >> i disagree with that characterization. >> the gentleman is permitted to respond. >> i don't think so. i think if we were to direct that should be prosecuted be a

if someone else did this year be discipline. you not be prosecuted, that would not be fair. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. we recognize a gentleman from texas for five minutes. >> thank you. many americans have come to see hillary clinton as a dedicated servant, but i believe this is an porton, my colleagues have our ready made it and i look for to may be coming back to washington in dealing with the potential intrusion on the elect shouldn't system. i'm not asking at this time, and also the issue of connecting the dots as we deal terrorism across america. i want to acknowledge eric williams and the outstanding detail for this and thank him for the service. i want to thank those in houston

for helping us with a shooting in houston. he gave us a great deal of fear and scare a couple of days go. my republican colleagues have questions and attacked you and your team of fbi agents. they disagree with the results of the investigation, they want you to prosecute or as the doj to prosecute linton regardless of the fact. they engage in a daily ritual of trying to tear down the investigation. any recommendations. any recommendations. i believe you testified previously that your recommendation in that case was unanimous in your investigation was carried out by what you call an all-star team of career agents and prosecutors. is that that right? >> yes. these are some of our very best.

i'm like enough to be the person who represents the fbi people think it's my conclusion, sure it's my conclusion, but i'm reporting what the team thought and their supervisors and so on. this is painful as it is for people, this is not a close call. >> let me continue. you say continue. you say that the case was not a cliffhanger. >> correct. >> recently republicans have attacked the decision to provide limited immunity to individuals during the investigation for example, when congressman shave it's learned about this he stated and i quote, no wonder they couldn't prosecute a case, they're handing out immunity deals like candy. i understand the fbi does not make the final call on immunity agreement, that that was doj. sustainment was just wrong but. >> our job is to tell them what facts we want access to. the prosecutor's job is to figure out how to do that. they negotiate five agreements of different kinds. >> did you or anyone ever object

to these decisions to grant immunity, did you think it made sense. >> it was fairly ordinary stuff. >> did the fbi or doj handing out immunity agreements like candy? >> that's not how i saw. >> christening gouty, good friend also objected to granting immunity, he said there's two people that pi gives immunity to come and those are the two that you would want to prosecute see you give immunity to the trigger people and everybody. to agree with his assessment. did the the fbi screw up and let everybody go for because of these limited immunity deals? >> i don't so. the goal and investigation is to work up. the people have information that their lawyers who are telling you you're not gonna get without some limited form of immunity and their lord down you try to get that information to get a case against her subjects. >> congressman gaudi also said this, i've been underwhelmed by

an agency that i once had tremendous respect for. let me just say sitting on this judiciary committee for many years, going to a number of investigations, i've never been proud of an agency that has always been there when vulnerable people are hurting and when there's a need for for great work. my question is what is your response to that director, do you believe the criticisms are fair? >> i think questions are fair. i think criticism is healthy and fair. i think reasonable people can disagree with how i announced it and how i should've done it. what is not fair is any implication that the bureau acted in anyway other than honestly here. that's not true. i knew this was going to be controversial. i knew there'd be rocks thrown, but this organization and the people who did this are honest, independent people. we do not carry water from one side or the other. it's from one side or the other. it's hard for people to see because we see things through sides. we are [inaudible] anybody side. this was done exactly the way you would want it to be done. that said questions and feedback are fair.

>> absolutely but the food soldiers, you take issue of whether they're compromised or if they're adhering to someone else's messages. >> absolutely. you can call us wrong but do not call us weasels, we are not. we are honest people. we did this in that way whether you agree or disagree with the result. >> you are able to learn what other set and if anyone provided seems to the fbi had actually provided evidence that secretary clinton has committed a crime, would you then have recommended prosecution to the doj ? >> the case was there, very aggressively. >> re: sure you want to been nervous about doing so, little intimidated? >> know, i really don't care. >> it i have a ten year term that's a beauty this. one of the great things is that a certain amount of job security so no, either way we would've

done what the facts said to do. >> so are you now second-guessing your decision regarding hillary clinton? >> no. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. >> mr. chairman i want to thank the director and asked my colleague to give the respect that this agency in this instance deserves. think of her service. i yelled back. >> thank you i reckon is the german from california for five minutes. >> thank you. director, have a lot of concerns but one refuse to read it. at the time that the department of justice at your involvement gave paul immunity, did you do so knowing about all of the post

he had unthreaded and capturing those posts and correspondence were he was asking how to wipe or completely erase on behalf of a very vip so to speak? >> i'm not sure sitting here that we had so where. we had a good understanding of what we thought he had done but that is my best recollection. >> in the last week they have been deleting them from reddit post, is set consistent with preserving evidence? i said that because they're still an ongoing interest by congress and only in spite of read its own senior what they call flak team trying to hide it only because a few people caught it do we even know about it and is it in this and other committees interested in getting the backups that may exist on these deletions. my question to you is, is he

destroying evidence relative to congressional inquiries and i will answer for you, yes he is and what are you going to do about it? >> that's not something i can comment on. >> let me go into something that concerns the spotty in a very specific way. as a former chairman issuing subpoenas, i issued a subpoena and additionally i issued preserved letters and in addition to that now chairman has issued preserved letters. some work directly to hillary clinton while she was secretary and others in 2013 was to secretary carry. these individuals destroy documents pursuant, or took it out of federal custody pursuant to our subpoena and our discovery. as a result they committed crimes. my question to you is, when i was a chairman and i chairman and i wanted to grant immunity to someone i had to go to the department of justice in your consultant, isn't that correct?

>> in a particular matter? >> in any matter. >> i don't know whether the fbi is consulted. >> okay for your record, yes. the department. the department of justice does not grant immunity to check to see if it will impact any ongoing investigation. that's the reason why we have a requirement requirement to give notice. when the reverse was occurring, you are granting and handing out like candy according to some, immunity. did. did you or to your knowledge the department of justice confer with chairman goodlad, board chairman smith or any of the other chairman who had ongoing sis subpoenas investigations? >> that's my knowledge. >> as their double standard that when you granted immunity to these five individuals you took them out of the reach of prosecution for crimes committed related to destruction of documents or withholding or

other crimes pursuant to congressional subpoenas? >> i don't don't think anybody was given transactional immunity? >> all really. we can't make these public but i'm going to take a privilege of making part of a privilege. >> i read that you gave immunity from destruction to both of those attorneys, not just turning the documents over, specifically, specifically destruction. you did the same thing with these other two individuals, brian and paul. you gave them immunity from destruction. >> again, i could always be wrong but i don't have it in front of me. >> well because you don't let us take that out it's hard for us to but the fact is when you read them. >> i'm pretty sure that what was granted was use immunity in the case of those two people coextensive 6001 which is no statement you make can be used

against you directly or indirectly. transactional immunity is sometimes given which says he cannot be prosecuted in any event for the set of facts. i don't think there's any transactional immunity. >> when i read for the attorney that immunity was granted in both cases said destruction, in addition to the turning over. why would you believe that was necessary or do you believe it would be necessary. you wanted the physical evidence, why did you have to get them them immunity from destruction of materials? because my time is expiring, when 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 so that other destruction by cheryl mills can still be prosecuted. >> my recognized recollection is no immunity was given. the the protection of statements was given. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> we recommend that you live from tennessee for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, i asking him this consent quickly that a group of documents being

included in our summarize them. they're they're basically the letters and subpoenas that led up to the destruction of documents or previously held for preservation. additionally the blog post from reddit if those can be placed in the record. >> without objection. >> thank you sir. director, would you consider the fbi's most important job presently, fighting terrorism and threats to the homeland? >> that is our top priority. >> , time to think the fbi and you have spent responding to congressional inquiries and on this particular e-mail investigation? could you give me an idea of how many man months or years have been expended on responding to the different committees that have called you in time after time and repetitious lady

accused you of doing politics rather than be in an fbi director? >> i can't. i don't have any sense. >> would it be months of cumulative man-hours are years? >> i don't know. a lot of folks have done a lot of work to try to provide the kind of transparency we promise. it has been a lot by lotta people. i just don't have a sense speemac, a a sense. >> , he hours have you spent before congress on this? >> testimony, four hours and 40 minutes without a bathroom break i want to know for the record. and whatever today is, those of be the two main appearances. i was asked questions that senate homeland yesterday about this and then house homeland in july. i'm guessing ten hours or so. >> and he prepared for this. >> ten hours is just the iceberg. >> yes. >> could your time and the fbi times it better be used fighting

terrorist threats in america? >> we are still doing it all. no one should think that we have taken a play off because we are also doing oversight. we do both. >> and the case in new york where mr. romney tried to -- bonds. they tried to -- did the fbi in her view him when he was in jail about his possible trips to pakistan. >> i'm trying to be very circumspect to on how to answer these because he's entitled to fair trial. i don't do anything that would allow him to argue that he lost the ability to have a fair trial. we. we did not interview him when he was in jail. in 2014.

>> why would that be? you interviewed the father i believe, you may have talked to the brother or friend, the best evidence with him. he's in jail. why did they not going talk to him? >> sitting here i don't want to answer that question yet. i have commissioned as i doing all these cases a deep look back. were trying to make the case now but will go back carefully and try to make a look at the decisions and whether there's learning from that. i don't want to answer just now because i be speculating. >> thank you. some people suggested you made it legal calculation in your recommendation until he was secretary clinton in the emails. did you make a political calculation your ultimate decision? >> none. >> some said that a national television that secretary clinton's e-mails were destroyed after a director from the cling campaign. units are decision and stated publicly that we found no evidence that secretary clinton's were intentionally

deleted to conceal them a second? >> that's great. >> others have said they lost confidence in the investigation question the genuine effort which was carried out. did the fbi make a genuine effort to carry out a thorough investigation? >> yes, very much. >> did you take some hits from the position you talk when you announce your decision? >> a few. yes. difficult. >> i just thought it was the right thing to do. i'm not loving this but i think it is important to come and answer questions about it criticize people have questions i'll try to answer it. >> do you need a bathroom break? >> i will let you know at 4:40 p.m. >> an fbi bill we know they should not be named in you know my position on that and i hope you keep that will mine. you are

credit credit the fbi and government service. into your alma mater. i yelled back my time. >> recognize the gentleman gentleman from iowa for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. is listening the exchange between yourself and -- i would just like to confirm that you are confirming that they made the reddit post? >> i'm not confirming it, i think it is my understanding. that's my understanding, thinking they come i haven't dug into it myself. i've been focused on other things. >> esther lincoln except that. i like to just go back to the interview with hillary clinton and how that came about on that july 2 date. first, you at the dates of the additional immunity documents i have review. and i see that one was dated

december 2 and 1 december twentieth. can you tell me why the first wasn't adequate and if there was an interview with him in between those dates of december 2222 and 28th of 2015? >> i think what it is, the first was the mode colloquy for the day agreement which was to govern an interview. a limited use immunity and the second was an agreement was for use immunity in connection with the investigation. i a tryout for him to be interviewed and for that investigators to poke at him and then the second is an agreement they reached. >> if were going to go any further will go off of it december 28 agreement. >> i think they're both important to him and his lawyer, but but the first is an intermediate step to the second. >> thank you.

were you aware of the president's statement on octobed on october 9, 2015 that he said that hillary clinton would not have endangered national security? >> i don't know the dates but i remember public reporting on a statement like that. >> , i will stated as october 9. on april 10, 2016 it was reported that the president had said hillary clinton was careless but not intensely daydreaming national security. were you aware of that as well? >> yes. >> if you could characterize the interview around may 16 it was reported that you said you intended to interview hillary clinton personally. >> i never said that because i never intended that. i'm sure he did not say that publicly. >> where you aware of the report that was your public statement?

yes. i think i read it and smiled about it people imagine the fbi director just think the fbi director doesn't do. noted [inaudible] on. >>

the. >> light general tell you for sherbet egg king give you a general sense of the witness stand her the gold team and on our side of the table the agents prosecutors from the department of justice and of the analysts are in there are not more dash or not. >> comedy fbi investigators crack. >> i don't know for sure sitting here. i think maybe eight or 10 people prosecutors. >> prosecutors? did the redolent have heard people? connect apartment adjust as lawyers? yes. >> i think it was about four lawyers but i could be wrong

>> with four investigators for potential prosecutors from the doj that would set the scene? >> hillary clinton's team was bigger than that but i don't remember the exact number. >> flicking at the recommendation of privilege privilege, add to go through this quickly to review a videotape for a transcript to have to rely upon the everything for those in the room on the investigative team. >> the agents that conducted the interview. >> they write them up with the fbi. >> sunday but had access to your investigators and out of that came a p. seven vice to you that she already said she would have the

responsibility or for tea you to make that recommendation whether or not to indict hillary clinton? >> i am not sure i follow entirely. >> might formed a recommendation but to be uncoordinated from the department of justice. to make that final comment. >> hacking into the database of the democratic congressional campaign committee with the voter registration system in arizona to serve on this

warning to the american people of the electoral process in the modern era. with those damn e-mail's. and then closed his perth's convicted after five years of fruitless investigation. and then those persecutions. it is increasingly focused with that infrastructure. but on monday the ranking members issued enjoyed statement to set forth the status of this investigation.

that the russian intelligence agency to influence and then to put the state and now to the american public. but is that statement accurate? >> i cannot comment in this forum. in what the russians may be up to in connection with political institutions. but i don't want to comment at this point. >> a compromise of a disruption of the elections

process is something that this congress certainly should be looking into. du agree with that? >> with the fbi looking into this very hard. to take this extraordinary seriously. >> >> estates officials are attempting to penetrate the election system. the title was with the state board elections peeler disclosed the fbi is currently investigating cyberattacks and later with the russian assault on the election system offering to

provide cybersecurity experts for those vulnerability is the end of the cedras security helping to defend the election system. but director since these / alerts went out by appreciate you letting us know to have more attacks on state operations spinet there is a variety of scanning activities with that voter registration

database from july and august we are urging the state's two major the deadbolts are on to get the best information they can then this is very different in it was very hard to hack into and dispersed and they're not connected to the internet that we urge the states to make sure you have the most current intermission. no doubt some bad actors have been poking around. >> with the fbi can control

through a witness to come into an interview i have seen a lot of the fbi agents and then this case i am sure you have heard the questions raised by this more lawyers about providing immunity to people like cheryl mills in return for her presenting a laptop with every authority to get a subpoena and a request for a search warrant based what we now know to get it anywhere that you want and in fact, talking to

the people that say if we give immunity to a witness to get out laptop then i would ask the fbi can you explain sissy where you chose to give immunity lozano laptop to cheryl mills was she was an important witness. >> i will give it my best shot. what you are talking about the details we want to give you a thing we will use anything we find. >> i understand that. and that is what is so

shocking. working directly with hillary clinton and the evidence indicates with so many of those e-mail's that pretty much at what have been usable. and can you clean the slate? >> some of the immunity's it was proper so was it proper of what the witness would say before those immunity deals were given? >> can answer first? why that made sense. >> my time is so limited. >> it is an important question.

i fidelista in one of the cases. >> guess or no. was it proper as to what they would say before you give him immunity? >> and it's one of them to understand what they would say. >> but what i have seen 30 years ago, and the fbi would say and the doj just like it is in the fbi job to find a reasonable prosecutor should version not due to give them the evidence and let them decide. to say this is what my client will say. based on the offering here

is the plea in the immunity and the deal is off. it is nothing substantial it is the investigation determined instead of getting a warrant where the people that you would need to make a case. we have people across the aisle to say only because she is of president happens to be in my case i don't care she is a presidential candidate or not. with the civilization of justice and fairness. if they're treated fairly across the board ended does not appear in this case that fbi agents and they tell me they have never seen

anything like this. and there was 700 pages of material for those who would go undercover. it was wiped out because some of the people that were not indicted or co-conspirators of the holy land foundation, they do not allow agents what was put into the 700 pages that was so accurate that we could invent them without chitin and they would not suspect them. you need to start training your fbi agents so san bernardino or orlando or new jersey they can talk to radicalized islamist to determine if they are radicalized. otherwise you can never spot

them and we will keep having people die. >> your time has expired. you may respond. >> i have nothing at this point. >> director comey last year i asked about the cases of u.s. citizens who were arrested by the fbi and accused of different crimes of the espionage for china. since the day last testified kind new york not personally familiar or may not be inclined to comment but could he be willing to provide a written explanation to clarify how

new york? >> with the privacy act but i would certainly consider that. >> we will take a look at what we can do but not in the open forum. >> i appreciate that. >> i will address a different topic. with the on-line initiative about violent extremists them this was designed for teachers and students towards violent extremism however the national education groups the way in which presents the of problem and what is particularly troublesome that they should look for

warning signs with the slope of violent extremism of what may or may not be indicative. what website encourages them to report to use unusual language or suspicious places. and it is left to draw inferences or what language is unusual. for example, a trip to france or germany that may not sound suspicious but home to various muslims in the possibly would. august night in american federation when n number of national groups in a letter written to you for the

record. among disconcert earns is the initiatives to exacerbate the profiling of the middle eastern background so how do respond to the concern about the impact of the fbi dolby a puppet? >> i'm glad they share their feedback. before or after i have done it but i cannot understand the concerns but one of the big challenges of the kids go sideways towards violence had to a get them to a place where they have common-sense judgment they may be headed

in a very dangerous direction? all clients of civic groups with good common sense and education for kids and teachers. we should meet with them they can show us what part is problematic and it is my overall reaction. >> so what place in is suspicious? or what was you consider to be unusual language. >> with the unusual language it been speaking in the unusual way and if somebody

is talking to classmates about going to syria the teacher ought to be sensitized. >> do you have evidence to show that is recruiting the efforts quick. >> i don't but it makes sense to be. to equip the kids coming from radical islamist or the hate groups of different kinds. it isn't perfect but we welcome feedback but the general idea. >> did gentleman from ohio. >> to say this was an unusual case. the three ede's for secretary clinton is

interviewed one of those was the chief of staff five people get some kind of immunity. and then they take the fifth in front of congress one doesn't even bother to show up with the subpoena and of course, the attorney general announces she would not follow your recommendations even though she does not know what they are. we have never seen anything like that. and use said earlier so let's examine it now. and they don't want that cip e-mail address. so when i hear the e-mail

address food from these two sentences. >> into is a vip? >> is it likely this a very important person is it likely that is secretary clinton could. >> yes. >> that it refers to the staff greg. >> add-on know that either her lawyers. >> what is important july 24 if, 2014. to remember that timeframe or directly after that. with those reports that were given to us this said during

the summer of 2014 they indicated the state department as a request but none the same page the house select committee to reach an agreement with the state department regarding production of documents july july 23rd 2014. that is interesting then from your report reviewing several documents and after reviewing july 24 he explained that cheryl mills was concerned of what would be disclosed.

>> and also they are urging to cover that up. >> it sure seems they're trying to strip out the actual e-mail address. >> but here is the take away in my mind. in the summer of 2014 july july 23rd the day before they reached an agreement on production of documents. he goes to try to figure out how he can get rid of the males even though he is not successful. and then just last week he

tries to cover up his tracks and cover-up the cover-up. so in light of all of this big about reopening the investigation. >> ed don't understand about the deleting the mills. >> maybe i misunderstood? >> but my question the guy that you gave immunity and to change evidence that will not testify in front of congress and cheryl mills who walked out of certain questions and that is pretty

compelling as well. >> node doubt it was involved in defeating the mills per after conversations with cheryl mills becky had a moment that he told us and it is very important for us who told you to do that corrects that is why. >> >> trying to cover up your post to figure of '02 cover-up the e-mail address so just the day before with the state department that they want the very documents . i find that compelling.

this is just one more on that blessed -- rommel listed as high unusual. >> the director is permitted to respond. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. >> director -- director comey there is serious response abilities of public corruption and as i told you enter agents all women and men of the dedication innermost grateful. with those laws involving because director comey never american national goes

outside government channels on behalf of the united states that would violate the logan act which were violated the law would they take allegations in your jurisdiction? >> yes. >> and if that violated the logan act? we certainly well in thee future. am i correct in assuming that publicly quoted comments that have said that russia has targeted the united states the legal state directed hacking. >> if they address them. about the potential weakening of u.s. sanctions in violationpo of the logan act with the fbi

investigate. >> i don't think that is appropriate to answer that. it seems too close to real life so as i'm not going to comment. >> i appreciate that you the fbi would treat these violations of law and urgently because everything i just outlined that you said they would investigate has apparently happened already. the logan act may have been violated by carter page one of the men donald trump signal out. now becomes eager to revise his role given the attention being given to his illicit negotiation with the russian official. law-enforcement may already be looking into this issue and i assume we all agree that the allegations are very serious. a nation that hacks america

continues to enable the regime to slaughter the people the nation that threatens and violates the integrity of its neighbors and our european allies is a dangerous a violation of federal law if donald trump's advisor is engaging in freelance negotiations with russia. in march donald trump named tim the foreign policy advisor he traveled to give a speech that was harshly critical of the united states. and during that trip he was reported to have met with the russell -- russian official in the president of the petroleum company who is sanctioned by the united states under executive order 13361 prohibiting him from traveling to the mental united states are conducting business. as a clear and personal interest in lifting u.s. sanctions against him and other top russian officials

know if these two men met for a potential trump administration this would be enormously concerning. just last week at the press reported that u.s. intelligence officials are seeking to determine whether an american business person is o open up a private communications with senior russian officials includinge pos talks about the possible sanctions. it is a legal if they met with the russians. and i'm grateful for your research this morning that the fbi would investigate potential violations by any individual who engages an unauthorized negotiations with a foreign government. i remind my colleagues a donald trump invited russia to hack the united states.

is there a connection between these dangerous policy proposals and the potential violation of the logan act by donald trump in the russian advisor. we appreciate the vigilance in pursuing justice mister chairman i yelled back. the chair now recognizes the individual from carolina. i think we worked on a couple of cases together. does it go beyond the scenario that i'm going to state you ask for computer from a witness you give that witness ad

an act of production immunity that the agent who has that now in his or her hands the witness is immune from the agent getting on the scene and saying that person this is that person's computer because they i gave it to me. does it go beyond that and it was there additional immunity stating that anything on the computer cannot be usedre against her. >> you give us this computer we will not use anything we find other computer directly against you in connection with an investigation or prosecution for the mishandling of classified information.

>> that goes on what the act of production. does it state and the aged i can't can get on the scene and say that belongs to the individual because they simply gave it to me. it sounds like 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.e tht that's what i had characterized for that agreement. there could be a more limited form which simply says your fact of giving us this object well not be used against you directly after think through whether it can be parceled that way. >> we both impaneled many grand juries.

why not and pam know the investigative grand jury whereby you have reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed and then you have the ability to get warrants, subpoenas and this information before the grand jury under oath. and if they take the fifth if it's not the target and say and i i'm not can talk to you you can give them whether it's use immunity and you have that authority and then the transaction has to come to the judge. and then you will sit in jail until you answer questions.s. once i had been much simpler and more defective than the way this is gonna bounce. and most of the time we find

there is enough evidence. and i want to talk about grand jury in connection with this case i can answer more generally than that. anytime you're talking about the prospect of subpoenaing a computer from a lawyer that involves them practice of law. >> i understand that clearly. why did you not decide to go to an investigative grand jury. it would've been mucho simpler. you would have more authority to make these testify not to target that seems the way to go we have done it thousands w of times but this was too convoluted and it does steer

clear of talking about this in a particular matter. in general in my experience you can often do things faster with informal agreements especially when you're interacting with lawyers. they really wanted to get access to the laptops that were used to sort these e-mails. >> they said that she repeated i do not recall i do not1 remember variations of that. with a hammer and taken into consideration the nature and quality of the subjects memory is always a factor. my time has expired think you sir. thank you director comey for

spending all this time with us today in 2010 the white house set up the vulnerability process for the ep's to give the government a process for determining how to discover these. in a couple situations i know there was disclosure from the fbi. it's first vulnerability disclosure under the equities process in may of this year the fbi cyber division warned of the private sector about a fake charger that can log the keystrokes of certain wireless keystrokes.e of the

in the warning the fbi stated if placed strategically in an office or other location where individuals might use wireless devices or other sensitive information. other instances of using this are scarce and there had been reports that it's rare for the fbi to use this process i wanted to ask you why this is and what is your view of the process in a structured fashion bring everybody who might have an uptick on thiscou in the government together to talk about how we think about disclosing vulnerability to the private sector as against the equities that may be at stake.es sense

the fbi participates in it when we come across this. in the 15 month delay. that is my overall reaction. if did know the vulnerability. we have to know what allows the vulnerability to be exploited. we bought accessible we did not know the vulnerability. is there another process that you might use i know they

would make disclosure to private entities but i don't think there is a process outside of the ep. but you're not sure if in every situation that they are used whenever you discover vulnerability. >> i did read it before coming here today.ourse, red if it falls in the definition of things that had to be discussed of course we do. i can't remember what that definition is exactly.iatrib is there always a standard process that you would go to.asl and if that process is the vep. >> that's a great question. that would fall outside of the process i don't know sitting

here. you said that stakeholders needed to take some time too collect information on the going dark issue i agree with you. would you agree that there is room for us to work together on ways to help law enforcement but don't include mandating a back door. i am not i have never advocated that. we have to figure out how to solve the problem together. and it has to be everybodydy coming together about it. the tools you're coming on to keep you safe. they are less and less effective. that's a big problem. but what to do and how to do it is a really complicated thing and i think everybody

has to participate. thank you so much for that. i yelled back at mister chair. >> we recognize the gentleman from south carolina.minute >> i think it's important that we acknowledge progress this morning. i suspect the reason they have not ask for immunity from director comey they have said they've done nothing wrong. i find it interesting. they said it just a few days ago. ago t they considered my clients to be witnesses and nothing morein and then their attorneys said this. the justice department assured us that they did nothing wrong. if you are assuring.

it does back to the question. whether you are seeking immunity from. laptops don't do this. people do. it was not for the laptop it was for cheryl mills and if the department of justice says you've done nothing wrong it begs the question why you are seeking immunity and it could be for a couple of different reasons. it could be for the destruction of federal records which came from thatcame fro additional investigation or could be i want to ask you this. did the bureau interview everyone who originated in e-mail that contained

classified information. you and i have a discussion the last time about intent. we see the statute differently. my opinion doesn't matter.nd it does not appear on the face of the statute. and that then we have a discussion about intent. why would you not interview the originator of the e-mail to number one determine whether that originator have a conversation with the secretary herself. >> they decided it wasn't a smart use of resources to track down. b one was a civilian in japan put forward at something and the other was a group of low-level state department state department people had written things that ended up being classified nearly everyone was interviewed but. there was a small group that it wasn't worth the

resources.. of the originators of the e-mail would you make those available to congress i counted this morning 30 thirtysomething 302's that we do not had. very rarely do they announce at a time i intend to commit this time on the state go ahead and check the code section. that rarely happens. such as whether or not the person intended to set up an e-mail system outside the state department. such as whether or not the person knew or should've known that his or her job involved h handling classified information.

whether or not the person knew that they had been hacked or whether she took any remedial steps. that they had been hacked and whether or not i think you would agree with this director. false statements are gold in a courtroom. i would rather have a false statement that a confession. i would rather had someone lie about something and be provable that that is a lie all of that to me goes to the issue of intent i've two more

questions than i will be out of time for those who may have to prosecute these cases in the future what would they had had to do. if all that's not enough would have to be able to prove b that. and then on the face of the statute itself who else has been prosecuted. those two things would be the key questions. can you prove that the person knew that they were doing something they shouldn't do. the way to prove that is

whether or not they took stepsok to conceal or destroy what they've done. that is the best evidence you have. that they lied about it. always want to look at what the subjects said about their conduct. it all falls under the headingng of false statement. i'm out of time. the director started off byughty giving us examples of things the bureau has done and everyone of us who has worked with the fbi that is the fbi i know. the one that went and saved the girl in north carolina. concerns me when you have five immunity agreements and no prosecution. when you're allowing witnesses who have been to be lawyers or targets to sit in on interview. that is not the fbi that i used to work with.

i've been really care of's fault to not criticize you. did someone corrupt him. no i just disagree with you.hels it looks to me and ask him things were done differently that i don't recall being done when i used to work with them.e fbi y this is the fbi that you know and love. it was in my pros in the right way. >> thank you director comey for your extraordinary service to our country and please convey to the professionals mye gratitude for their service to

the people of this country and particularly i want to acknowledge the extraordinary prompt and effective response resp after the recent bombings in new jersey in new york. many of us had expressed concerns about the growing incidence incidents of gun violence. five people lost their lives.irs we share the same sentiments. as they lose their lives this congress has been absolutely silent and inactive on this issue. i like to turn to you both of you was so much experience in dealing with the consequence of gun violence and ask you to share with you what might be able to do to reduce gunun violence in this country.

i am wondering what you think it would be effective for us to do to help reduce the instances of gun violence in this country.ue are r >> we spend a lot spent a lot of time thinking and investigated and morning the deaths and mass shootings. i think it's important that they not be in the policynt business and be in the enforcement business. i will avoid your question honestly we should not bee suggesting laws with respect to guns or anything else. i introduced a piece of legislation to get us this issue of the proceeds.

they're not allowed to buy oneas 15,000 and 729 sales to prohibited persons occurred. they can then make a decision should we go prosecute thisos person. a person should not had again bought one so they can take some action. i know atf is notified and those circumstances. it's a very different set of priorities. their state and local prohibitions on that that

could be acted upon. >> i want to think it through. thth it's a reasonable thing to look at.look a there has been recent discussion about implementing cities to address crime at the national level. 2011 when they reach an all-time high 53 percent of those individuals were black. of the 685,000 people that were stopped in to frisk 88% were arrested or did they receive any sort of segmentation.d how ca

how can congress minimize racial profiling and instead promote activities that build trust and confidence between the police and the community. >> i don't know what a federal program would look like because were not in the policing business but that stop which is the stop of individual based on reasonable suspicion is a very important law enforcement tool. it is infected. someone has stopped there told i stopped to because.stop weaver report of a guy with a great sweatshirt. the danger is it can be a

source of estrangement for community and you need the help of the community. it makes the difference between right and wrong. what is the nature of the conversation of the person that you stopped. >> i would just like to relate myself to the comments that were previously made. to interfere with our process. to continue to understand. to protect that integrity. they recognize the gentleman from utah.tleman f i want to thank him this very nice time to us. they had recognized five minutes with my thanks.

>> thank you for your accessibility. we do appreciate that. this investigation started because they found classified information in a nonsecure setting they found this information they seized at least one computer did you need an immunity agreement to get those. i'm certain there was no immunity agreement. did it really take them a full year to figure out that sheryl mills they also had computers with classified information on them. it took us to that point to insist that we try to get them. those were the tools that we

use to sort the e-mails. of how that have been done. what did they delete and what do they keep. why did they just cooperate and hand them over. that is a question i can't answer. her lawyer thought it was in her interest to get an active production immunity agreement. they interviewed david kendall's partner but did not interview david kendall. >> i don't remember that decision. this is put up on july 24 of 2014. you believe this to be associated with mister comella. >> yes that is correct. >> this is the one that he put

up about the very vip e-mail address. he's referring to a federal record isn't he. >> i do not know what he is referring to. how is it not a conscious effort to alter federal records. the proximity to the date is just stunning. >> what is a question.t >> how is is not altering atl federal record? >> they were saying that we changed this for privacy purposes we just don't know sitting here. they were documents are under subpoena they were under a preservation order. did they destroy documents. did he destroy federal

record. he used bleach bit did he not. >> the reason he wanted immunity he have done the business after.blicity there was communication that there was a preservation order. and he did indeed use it on these records. and that's where the guy would not talk to us without immunity. we learned that no one had directed them to do that. you really thinks that he just did this by himself? >> i don't believe anybody but my wife but i do have evidence to disbelieve him. he was told to do it.

when he realized he have it. that was his moment. we do not had evidence to disbelieve that and establish that. no e-mail, no phone call. the hope was if he had been told to do that that would been a great piece of evidence. maybe he will say so-and-so asked me to. then were working up the chain. who told him to do that initially he was supposedly december and he didn't do it. who told him to do that. >> one of the staff members we know that one of her lawyersnevr someone on the team said we don't need those e-mails anymore get rid of the archive file. there is classified information there are federal

records that were indeed destroyed. that was just the fact matter. here is another one that i will draw to your attention. four days later they were destroyed or taken down.hey were i would hope that the fbi we are trying to get to this information. let's go to heather mills really quick. the summary they did not learn that she was using a private e-mail server until after the tenure.

also you have this interview who said he approached sheryl mills and her office and then relayed the concerns.in use of a peg ran out remembers they do similar have done similar things to include: foul. goes then onto a page at ten the immediate aids to include told the fbi they were unaware of the existence of a private server until after the tenure of state. but if you look back at the e-mail from heather mills if you go back to 2010 this is justin cooper mills to cooper. he doesn't work for the state department., fyi.is the serve

his server okay. 's hrc e-mail coming back. >> were on the same server.e he she knew there was a server. what do they do when there is a problem. she called the person who had no background in this who is not a state department employee and then tells the fbi i never knew about that. there is direct evidence that contradicts this. that she have no knowledge of this. having done many investigations myself there's always conflicting recollections of fact. i don't remember sitting here about that one. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida for five minutes.

violent crime is up in this country is in it. it shows up rise in homicide and other violent crimes. i think the homicides were up 10% is that correct do you agree. i don't know if you have data in 2016 but is your sense that it will look closer to 2015 or as are is there any indication that the rate will go back down. we continue to see spikes in some big cities and away we in a way we can't quite make sense of. there's no doubt that they are continuing to see the spike. the fbi has now assumed control of the terrorist investigation. we are still working on it he was motivated by some sort of

inspiration from the groups which groups and how we are not sure of yet. i know isis isys did take responsibility for that correct they will claim responsibility for anything they can get their name on we are going through his entire electronic records to try to understand that. >> there was record from the homeland security that minnesota was the number one source for isys fighters in the united states. one do knowledge or agree that that is true? and why is it turning out 70 jihadist? >> i don't know for sure if it's true but it sounds about right. fr even over the last two years. there had been a number of

somali american heritage young men who have gone to fight i suspect the reason is that'st one of the few areas that we have a large concentration. it's susceptible to that recruiting. everybody has dispersed that is one of the areas where it's an immigrant muslim community that seems to be susceptible for some reason and small measure. >> but what is the fbi doing to deal with us. they make this problem more significant how is the fbi combating that. to make sure that we know the folks in the american community they've done a great job. they don't want their sons or daughter involved in this craziness any more than anyone else does.

he never said that he a remembered anything from that march 25 phone conversation that was days before he have those e-mails. as a basic statement he didn't provide any information. you probably seen it more recently.ut i a once that he pled the fifth. another said there is implication of client privilege at one point. so en i'm just try to trying to figure what happened. he have immunity this was something that was much more fresh in his mind than previous conversations and yet you said he was credible. that is not credible given the timeline where you have the new york times saying that this server existed.

he has this conversation and then lo and behold a few days later all of the e-mails are gone. behold. >> with immunity that no one directed him to do it. were not in the business of believing the people what evidence do we have. establ his account is uncontradicted by hard facts. these things are now under subpoena. then he takes it. is it more reasonable to think he would've just said i need all of this.emo to your you sent a memo to your place of the fbi basically defending the way they handled this

investigation why did you sendat that. it was about how we were doing transparency. about how we were doing our productions into congress. the people in the community. not within the fbi. not within i should've asked them.mr. gilb. if they are concerned or confused about this please contact me we will get you the transparency we need. i will say when i was in the military you said no one would be prosecuted.mi i could tell you that if you had compromised top-secret information there would've

been a court-martial in your future and i yelled back. >> as you stated in your news conference that no prosecutor would prosecute under those circumstances. i just had not seen the cases that show me on the public record that that's true. director, did you make the decision not to have the criminal charges before or after hillary clinton was interviewed by the fbi. >> i'm in a need your help in trying to understand how the as possible.

if there was ever any real possibility that she might be charged with something that she admitted to on july the second why would two of the witnesses be allowed to sit in the same room to hear the testimony. i've heard your earlier answers today. it was because the interview was a voluntary and they were her lawyers but i think you are skirting the real issue there. i didn't have to be. and i know you had set about whether or not there should've been a grand jury care. but since you didn't had one a ghost to the issue. the f

it absolutely controls whether or not i will take place. those interviews never take place. could have resulted in criminal charges that might result in a trial against or relating to this classified information. central to the prosecution improving the case against her to sit in the room with the interview of the subject of the investigation. if i heard you earlier today and your long career i heard you say we never had that circumstance. that >> that's correct.mark mecca i n >> i've never met a prosecutor that has ever had that. the only way that interview

takes place with the two central witnesses in the subject of the investigation is if the decision had already been made that all three people in that room are not going to be charged. >> sometimes we casually agree. but if they believe that the i am light about this decision please urge them to contact me privately. all i can do is tell you again it was made after that i did not know what was can happen. let me finish i would also urge you to tell me what tools we have as prosecutors in investigators. >> that's not my point. and never should've taken place.

to sit there and listen to the testimony that the subject was in a get. and never happened to you and never happened to me. i know you have defended the people involved in this. you and i don't control the universe. the key factors we have already concluded. we didn't have a prosecutable case against those two at that point. maybe we would have canceled the interview but our focus is on the subject recorded the fbi's own documents in the first interview on february the 18th . he have no knowledge about the preservation order from the clinton e-mails. i don't know the dates of that but i'm sure it's in the 302.

he admitted that in fact he was aware of the preservation order. i need your help again here. it was a charge of potential obstruction of justice it was not immunity. you might think about it differently. it's very important.appens a it's very important sometimes you prosecute that person if s we lie to an fbi agent they violated the terms of the immunity agreement. >> he should have immunity anymore. >> med he lied to us before he came clean under the immunity

agreement and admitted that he have deleted the e-mails. these interviews took place in february of march and may of this year. and i don't think that's right. my time has expired but i one last question do i think that.k there is i don't think there is evidence to establish that. establis there is no evidence to establish that. we've a pen here. they said that the fbi didn't

have the personal apple server that was never located so the fbi could never examine it. a macbook laptop that contained the e-mails was lost. were they clearly did not examine this. after the state department notified ms. clinton that the records cap copies of her e-mails they were wiped clean. after that the e-mail archives were also permanently deleted from the platte river network the fbi did not review that. after the subpoena backups of the server were manually deleted.

hopefully that list is accurate. it says to me obstruction of justice collectively they scream obstruction of justice. not to prosecute hillary clinton. and with that i yelled back. >> we are in a fact-based world. using the tools that we have. it's hard to react to the things that they don't head. thank you for being here. i know there are a lot of things that you would muchey

rather be doing than sitting on the hot seat so to speak. here is where i'm coming from on this. am c even ask about the clinton investigation. inve what i'm hearing from folks back in texas this stuff to simply doesn't pass the smell test. a long list of things you didn't have in the investigation. what would it take. with five people given immunity. i have your interpretation in your previous testimony before congress.

a required intent. the standard is gross negligence.ce a long list of things that had people scratching our heads at this were to happen to me i would be in a world of hurt. how heidi respond to people who are saying that this is not how average american would be treated.ry clinton >> i've heard that a lot. my responses when people tell you that that others had been treated differently demand from a trustworthy source a detail of this case. i may be very aggressively investigating it.ses under oath to prosecute on these facts would be a double

seder. because jane and joe smith would not be prosecuted on these facts. they talk about classified topics. you'd be in big trouble. we are certain you would not be prosecuted. that's what they tend to loveis together. i care deeply about what they care about the justice system.. in his handling of classified information. and i will go back to what you're saying demanded to know the facts the case is over but i would be happy to go through ply have very different that circumstances than this circumstance. and you talk about.

it will potentially be fired. fd she didn't get in any trouble in the state department. she just has to try to explain it to the american people. the normal range of discipline doesn't apply and i gather and i think that is there. it is what it is. demand the facts. if somebody were let's say someone here in congress were to e-mail my personal e-mail my classified information they come to my cell phone. that probably should be on there. i don't do anything.

to me that is the choice of being grossly negligent. that is exactly what hillary clinton did. i think. i will point do you get to intent. the classified information was on an unsecured server. you knew it was there. i would think i would be prosecuted for that. >> i'm confident that you would it. except agree to disagree. i have no intention of doing it. don't get frustrated when we continue to ask these questions. we are talking to you because

the american people are upseteo about this and don't think it was handled appropriately. that is a basis of my questioning. >> i think there are a lot of questions people have but because i have to understand the questions of this. i hope they will separate the two things. questions and accusations about integrity. that is just not fair and hopefully we haven't gotten to a place where everything has to be torn down on integrity bases just to disagree.in there is not a fair basis for saying that we did it in any way that wasn't honest and independent. that's when i get a little worked up.

i appreciate your testimony here today.just as a with all of the information with the clinton investigation. i'm holding in my hand a memorandum that was dated may 4, 2014. it was issued to you and t others on the policy concerning electronic recording of statements are you familiar with this? it would recorded statements made by and vigils in their custody. they were not technically in custody. to consider electronic recording in other circumstances where that presumption does not exist.y ani

specifically important to that discussion. you are aware of that policy. >> and applies to it applies to people in handcuffs but it also applies to this. i understand it. they did not consider to conduct the interview and in recorded situation then. we sure wouldn't want to change it in one particular case. to you into others in the department of justice that

establishes the policies.you dot i assume you guys are doing it against the department of justice. who have .. not custodial voluntary interviews. or if that is within your discretion. i am sure that you could. the fbi practices and with regard to refugees and with the syrian refugees we talk about the process