>> how many years have you been the director? >> three years. i know the exact date county think at this point. >> so how many cases have you investigated approximately that you had to render a decision? >> the bureau investigates tens of thousands of cases. the director only gets involved in a very small number of them. >> so about how many? >> i think i've been deeply involved in probably ten to 20. >> have you ever been called before congress on any of those other decisions? >> no, this is the first time. >> thank you. there are some republicans who support you, not surprisingly. they're the ones who actually know you. and i have a letter here and i would like to enter into the record from richard painter, mr. chair. he was president bush chief ethics lawyer.

and may it be entered into the record? >> it's being sent without objection. so ordered. >> he refers to mr. coming as a man of, and i quote, a man of the utmost integrity who calls the shots as he saw them without regard to political affiliation or friendship. he states and i quote, throughout the fbi investigation of secretary clinton's e-mail server, i had been convinced that the director would supervise the investigation with being impartial and strict adherence to the law as well as prosecutorial precedent. he also adds, although i'm aware of verify prosecutions for carelessness and handling classified information as a pose to intentional disclosure, i knew that the director would recommend prosecution in any and all circumstances where it was warranted. i cannot think of someone better suited to handle such a politically sensitive

investigation. finally, and i quote, i urge all members of the united states congress to stop from inferring in specific decisions particularly those involving political allies or opponents. during my tenure in the white house, there were very unfortunate allegation that powerful senators sought politically motivating firing of united states attorney. whether or not such allegations were true, it is imperative -- and i'm still quoting -- that members of the senate or the house never again conduct themselves in a manner with such interference could be suspected. and i want to be on the record, i wholeheartedly agree with mr. painer.

director, you have demonstrated yourself, you sat here and asked the questions, and i would never oppose to finding the answers to any situation that is directly related to federal agencies which we on this committee are responsible for. but i want to be clear that congress has no business, no business interfering with these types of decisions that are coming in this -- in your responsibility. these type of attacks are not only inappropriate, but they're dangerous. they're dangerous because they could have a chilling effect on the future investigations. and i ask that question, how long have you been this position, how many times have you made decisions, and it were not pulled in 24 hours before this committee.

how many times. and then we say it's not political. and you have said repeatedly regardless of who it was, you conducted the investigation as required under your responsibility. and here you have republicans who are saying you are an honorable man. until this day, i have not heard any complaints of your judgment. so i sit here today as a member of congress on the record that the slippery slope that we're seeing today in this hearing, i want every member to be cautious of what we're saying, that in america when we have investigations that we will allow our own elected congress and senate to make this a political agenda to attack, but only if it's in their agenda. this goes for democrats and republicans.

we are not here to do that. thank you and i yield back my time. >> we'll now recognize the gentleman from iowa, mr. blum. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you mr. comey for being here today. i'm not a lawyer. that's the good news. i'm a career businessman. i spent most of my career operating in the high high-tech industry. today, i heard words such as common sense, reasonable person, carelessness, judgment, or lack thereof. i like these words. i understand these words. i'd like to focus on that. last tuesday you said, and i quote, none of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff like those found at agencies of the united states government or even with a

commercial e-mail service such as gmail. my small iowa business doesn't even use gmail for our e-mail because it's not secure enough. i know some security experts in the industry. i check with them. the going rate to hack into somebody's gmail account, $129. for corporate e-mails, they can be hacked for $500 or less. if you want to hack into an ip address, it's around 100. this is the going rate. director comey, are you implying in that statement that the private e-mail servers of secretary clinton's were perhaps less secure than a gmail account that is used for free by a million people around this planet? >> yes. and i'm not looking to pick on gmail. the weakness is individual users. but, yes, gmail has full-time security staff and thinks about patching and logging and protecting their systems in a way that was not the case here.

>> what kind of judgment -- we talked a lot about judgment today -- does this potentially expose to hackers classified information on e-mail service that's less secure than gmail, your words, what type of judgment does that suggest to you? >> it suggests the kind of carelessness i talked about. >> secretary clinton was asked by fox news whether she had wiped her entire server. her response, you mean with a cloth? march of 2015, during a press conference, secretary clinton assured us her private e-mail server was secure saying the server was on private property guarded by the secret service. now, this would have laughable if it wasn't so serious.

i know, you know, my constituents in eastern iowa know you don't need to be a cat burglar to hack into an e-mail server and you don't need a cloth to wipe a server clean. one would think that a former united states senator, one would think that a former secretary of state would know this as well. would you agree with that statement? >> you would think, although as i said before, one of the things i learned in this case the secretary may not have been as sophisticated as people assumed. she didn't have a computer in her office at the state department for example. i would assume the same thing. i'm not sure it's a fair assumption in this case. >> in your opinion, did secretary clinton know that a server could in fact be wiped clean electronically and not with a cloth? >> well, i assume -- i don't know -- >> would you assume she knows that? >> i would assume it was a

facetious comment about a cloth. >> would you also assume director that secretary clinton nigh that a server could be wiped clean electronically, that it could be hacked electronically, not physically? would you assume -- reasonable to assume she knows that? >> to some level of understanding. >> then once again, for someone who knew these things or we assume to some level she knew these things, what kind of judgment does a decision to expose classified material on personal servers suggest to you? what type of judgment? >> it's not my place to assess judgment. i talk in terms of state of mind, negligence in particular. i think there was carelessness here. >> was her server hacked? >> i don't know. i can't -- can't prove that it was hacked. >> that answer says to me it could have been hacked. >> sure. >> and if it was hacked, potentially damaging material, damaging to american secrets, damaging to american lives,

could have been hacked, could have been exposed, correct? lives could have been put at risk if that server was indeed hacked. >> i'm not prepared to say yes as to that last piece. that would require me going into a way i can't here the nature of the classified information. information that's classified because it could damage the united states of america. >> so it could i have happened, the fbi just isn't aware? >> yes. >> thank you very much. i yield back the time i do not have. >> now recognize the gentlelady from new jersey, ms. watson coleman for five minutes. >> thank you. and thank you, director. i've got a number of questions so i'm going to zip through these. this is a question i'm going to

ask you and you may not even have the answer to it because you may not have known this. this is about the classification marking issue that you've been asked about earlier. according to the state department which addressed the issue yesterday, a spokesman said that the call sheets appear to bear classified markings but this was actually a mistake. to quote, there's a standard process for developing kale sheets for the secretary of states. they are often marked, but it's not untypical at all for them to be marked at the confidential level. often times, once it is cleared, the secretary intends to make a call, the department will then consider the call sheet sbu sensitive by unclassified or unclassified ail together and marked appropriately. the classifications of a call sheet therefore is not necessarily fixed in time and staffers in the secretary's office involved in preparing and finalizing these call sheets, they understand that. it appears that markings in the documents raised in the media reports were no longer necessary or appropriate at the time they

were sent as an actual e-mail. those markings were human error. they didn't need to be there. did you know this? >> no. >> thank you mr. director. can you tell me based upon your information has there been and is there any evidence that our national security has been breached or at risk as a result of these e-mails and their being on this server? >> there's no direct evidence of an intrusion. >> thank you very much. i have to tell you that while i think that this should conclude this discussion, i know we're going to hear this issue ad nauseam. but i am concerned about another issue that i think really is resonating with the people in this country. that issue has to do with experiences that we had just the last two days. mr. director, i want to bring this up for your consideration because i want to ask you what can the fbi do, fbi do in this

issue. this morning, we woke up to another graphic and deeply disturbing video that actually brought me to tears when my staff played it for me where in a minnesota woman's boyfriend has been shot as her young child sat in the backseat after apparently telling the officer he was licensed to carry a weapon, he had it on him, and was going to reach for his identification. just the other day, there was a -- an incident in baton rouge involving a mr. alton sterling, an african-american man who was shot while pinned to the ground by police officers in baton rouge. and interaction taped by two bystanders with cell phones capture this. so i think that we've got an issue here, an issue of real national security. and i want to ask you, mr. director, do we have an opportunity to direct our time and resources in your department to those issues? is it -- is it not important that we save their names to remind people of the loss of a

tamir rice, to an eric garland, to an alton sterling, to a john crawford iii, michael brown, walter scott, and even a sandra bland, deaths in the hands of police custody or by police. are these not happening at an alarming rate and is this not a legitimate space for the fbi to be working in? >> yes, is the emphatic answer. those are incredibly important matters. the fbi spends a lot of time on them because they're very, very important. we have an investigation open on the baton rouge case. i was briefed this morning on the minnesota case and i would expect we'll be involved in that as well.

it's an important part of our work. >> do you feel that you have the sufficient resources to address these cases and what seems to be a disturbing pattern in our country today? >> i'm a bad bureaucrat, but i have -- i believe i have sufficient resources. and we are applying them against those situations. because i believe the individual cases matter enormously, but also the people's confidence in law enforcement is one of the bedrocks of this great country of ours. i have the resources and we're -- >> in addition, we believe that our law enforcement is by and large of high integrity and have the desire to keep us protected and safe. but when we find out that there are these occasions, and when there's an indication that there's a pattern that is taking

place in this country, we have a responsibility to ensure that everyone in this country is safe. and simply because you're a black man or a black woman does not make you a target. thank you. i yield back my time. >> thank the gentlewoman. we'll now recognize the gentleman from north carolina, mr. walker. >> thank you director comey for being here. few things in this town that people agree on. one is your reputation. swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath. i am a little disappointed in some of the things i've heard from my colleagues about some of the attacks on your character and integrity. i haven't heard those. and i hope that we have not -- you've not experienced that. i also struggle with a chang of heart that we're hearing today. i have a list of elected officials who have questioned your investigation, even attacked it. former president clinton said

this is a game. congresswoman wasserman schultz said -- my question to you today, do you feel like this has been a republican witch hunt? this hearing? >> no. i said from the beginning, i understand people's questions and interest. i'm a huge fan of transparency. i think that's what makes our democracy great. >> to me, this hearing is about understanding and disseminating the facts and how you saw them and how the american public sees them. and specifically in the areas of where this was wrongdoing admitted under your investigation where there was obviously breaking the law, but

also some coverups. did congress ask you to pir sue this investigation? >> no. it was a referral from the inspector general of the intelligence community. >> so it wasn't republicans either was it? >> no. >> how did you go about collecting the evidence? >> we use the tools we normally use in a criminal investigation. >> did or do you receive a congressional referral for all the information you collected? >> not to my knowledge. >> one of the things i'm struck ling with or would like to know specifically is, under oath ms. clinton made these three comments. number one, she's turned overall her work related e-mails, number two telling the committee that her attorneys went through every single e-mail. and finally, problem the one that continues to stick the most, there was and i quote, nothing marked classified on my e-mails, end quote. now, earlier when the chairman

questioned you about this, you said something about needing a congressional referral, recommendation. my question is something of this magnitude, why -- can you help me understand why didn't it rise to your investigation or someone bringing that to your knowledge, saying this is a problem, here she is lying under oath specifically about our investigation? >> we out of respect for the legislative branch being a separate branch, we do not commence investigations that focus on activities before congress without congress asking us to get involved. that's a long-standing practice of the department of justice and the fbi. we don't watch on tv and say we ought to investigate that, joe smith said this in front of the committee. it requires the committee to

say, we think we have an issue here, would you all take a look at it. >> if you have secretary clinton under oath speaking about your very investigation, and you've talked about your wonderful staff, why wouldn't that rise to the level of suspicion that here she is saying this under oath. lying under oath is a crime is it not? >> yes. >> that's considered perjury right? >> it's potentially years in prison. >> i don't understand would you help me understand why somebody wouldn't have tipped you off that she's talking about the specific case under oath that you're investigating? >> there's a difference between is being aware of testimony and us opening a criminal investigation for potential perjury. it's not this case in particular, but all cases. we don't do that without committee saying we think there was an issue in testimony given in this separate branch of the government. >> you also mentioned earlier

and it's been quoted several times, that no reasonable prosecutor would move forward with some of the facts. is there any room at all that somebody would differ on the opinion? i know that general michael mccasey said with an illegal server disqualifies her from holding any federal office. so there are people of highest steam may differ. can you make any room. you said no reasonable person. would you understand why people may say that she has stepped across a line or broke enough law here that you would come to a different conclusion? >> sure, i respect different opinions. none of those guys in my position i believe knowing what i know would think about it differently. but i also respect that they have a different view from the outside. >> thank you, mr. chairman. yield back. >> now recognize the gentleman from california. >> thank you, mr. chairman. director, i just want to thank you as others have, and i know you don't need this. but i think the american people clearly need to hear it. you've done a wonderful job today.

there are moments in my political life and as an american i despair for the future of this country, not often. those moments comes an individual like yourself, providence or good fortune or framework of the u.s. constitution, i really believe you served this country and all americans well irrespective of their party filluation. two lines of questions. one is i -- another colleague brought this up. but you mentioned just previous testimony about the bedrock and the importance of public confidence and public safety institutions, yours and all. so i just want to give you an opportunity, i think you have responded to this multiple times, but give you a little more tonight because i think it's important for the american public to know that the system isn't rigged, that there are people such as yourself and the 15 individuals who worked on this case and others that do their job and believe in the constitution of the united states. and if you have any further comments about comments that would say that the system's rigged and americans should give up on the system. >> i was raised by great parents

who taught me you can't care what other people think about you. in my business, i have to and deeply do, that people have confidence that the system's not fixed, against black people, for rich people, for powerful people. it's very, very important that the american people understand that there really are people that you pay for with your tax dollars who don't give a rip about democrats or republicans or this or that, who care about finding out what is true. and i am lucky to lead an organization that is that way to its core. i get a ten-year term to ensure that i stay outside of politics, by in a way it's easy. i lead an organization that is resolutely apolitical. we are tough aggressive people. if we can make a case, we'll make a case. we do not care what the person's stripes are or what their bank account looks like. i worry very much when people doibt that. it's the reason i did the press conference two days ago. i care about the whole system deeply. and so i decided i'm going to do something no director's ever done before. i'm not going to tell the

attorney general or anybody else what i'm going to say or even i'm going to say it. i walked out and offered extraordinary transparency which i'm sure confused and bugged a lot of people. it's essential that people see as much as they can so they can make their judgment. they may conclude i'm an idiot. but what i hope they will not conclude is that i'm a dishonest person. i'm here trying to do the right thing in the right way. that's what i want them to know. i don't care that peopledy agree or disagree. but at its core, you need to know there are good people trying to do the right thing all day long. you pay for them and we'll never forget that. >> i appreciate that. within context of these are human institutions, pretty clear to me as nonlawyer that you had a bright line in terms of your decision about pursuing prosecution. but you did spend an extended period of time talking about what i think i take from you being fairly objective analysis

of what was careless in terms of hand ling of it, either ascribed to the former secretary of state or to the department. you said, while not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that a security killture of the state department in general and with respect to the use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular was generally lacking in the kind of care classified information found elsewhere in the government. >> yes, sir. >> so struggling with this, in the context of this hearing, in this committee as to how do we go from here, and be clearer about how the state department, we'll talk about this with the ig, and some of the comments former secretary powell has made including the absurdity of the retroactive classification and now we have 1,000 of these e-mails out in the public and being spread even further. there are other people involved.

how does this committee go forward to make sure the state department can still function in the way it does with human beings and have conversations that are both transparent, but also national security. what are the things we need to do to make shire that this doesn't happen again? sgli think the reason the chairman has the ig from the state department here is to have that conversation. the ig knows deeply the culture of the department and is far better equipped than i to make it better. i think that's the place to start. >> thank you, mr. director. >> now recognize the gentleman from tennessee for five minutes. >> director comey thank you for appearing so quickly on short notice. of the way you laid out the case on tuesday, there is a perception that you felt one way and then came to another conclusion.

i put a post up back in my district and let them know you were coming. in less than 24 hours, i had 750 questions sent to ask you. so again, thank you for being here. a common theme just to summarize a lot of those concerns were that in this case clinton was above the law, that there was a double standard and a lot of that was based on the way you presented your findings. now, your team, you said you did not personally interview her on saturday, but your team did for about three and a half hours correct? >> yes. >> do you know did they ask hillary clinton about her comment that she had never sent or received classified information over private e-mail? >> i think so, but i can't -- i can't remember specifically. >> okay. >> it's a very long 302. i'd have to check. >> and we'll get access to that. do you know if they asked her when she said there was nothing marked classified on my e-mails sent or received? >> same answer. i'm not sure. >> the same answer then when she said i did not e-mail any

classified e-mail to anyone on my e-mail. >> i don't know whether they asked her that question. the entire interview was focused on what did you know, what did you see, what is this document, that kind of thing. >> do you know if she asked her whether she stands by the fact she said she just used one device and that was for her convenience? >> i don't know. i know in talking to her, she used many devices during her four years. i don't know whether they asked her specifically about that statement. that's easy to check, though. >> my point is, you're trying to get inside the head of hillary clinton in this investigation and know whether there was intent. we all know what she told the people. that's been well documented. she said she did not do those things, that she did not send or receive classified e-mails, that she used one server and one device for her convenience. and since then, even if your statement, you recognize that those were not correct. is that fair? >> i really don't want to get in the business of parse and judge her public statements. and so i think i've tried to avoid doing that sitting here. >> why do you feel that's important? >> because what matters to me is what did she say to the fbi.

that's obviously first and foremost for us. >> right. >> our -- >> honest people don't need to lie, is that right? >> honest people don't need to lie? i hope not. >> well, in this case, for some reason, she felt the need to misrepresent what she had done with this server all throughout the investigation. you guys after a year, brought her in an saturday and in three and a half hours came out with a conclusion that she shouldn't be prosecuted because there was no intent is that right? >> no. >> i don't want to put words in your mouth. is it fair to say that your interpretation of hillary clinton's handling of top secret information classified documents was extremely careless? >> yes. >> is it fair to say that you went onto define extremely careless, that hillary clinton's handling of top secret information was sloppy or represents sloppiness? >> yeah. that's another way -- >> and then just a few minutes

ago, you also stated that you now believe that hillary clinton is not nearly as sophisticated as people thought, is that correct? >> yeah, i think that's fair, actually. not as people thought, but as people would assume about somebody with that background. >> so -- >> i'm sorry. i should be clear about this. technically sophisticated. i'm not opining on other -- >> in the last minute, director, i want to talk about precedent. because i think my colleague tray goidy made a great point. there is no precedent in terms of punishment for this type of behavior. are you particular with brian initial mira's case. >> yes. >> what is the difference between his case and hillary clinton's case in terms of extremely carelessness and gross negligence because we're dealing with statute 793 section f where it does not require intent is that correct? >> i'm sorry, 793 f is the gross

negligence standard. >> right. is that why brian was punished? >> no. he was produced under the misdemeanor statute, 1924 on facts that are very -- if you want me to go through them, i'll go through them, but -- >> i think there's been a review of this case, and they're very similar. that's why people feel -- >> what they're reading in the media is not a complete accounting of the facts in that case. >> would you agree then with representative gowdy that there still is it really no precedence for punishing someone like hillary clinton and she would be potentially elected president and do this again without fear of being punished? >> i don't think i'm qualified to answer that question. >> my time's expired. >> now recognize the gentlewoman from new mexico. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i've had the benefit of when you're last to -- or nearly last, to really have both the

benefit and then to question the kinds of statements and the dialogue back and forth. where i'm settled at this point in time is in a couple of places, but particularly, i don't think there's any member in this committee or quite frankly any member in congress who doesn't both want and expect that the fbi and the department of justice to be -- to operate in a fair, unbiassed, highly independent manner. otherwise, you can't appropriately uphold or enforce federal law. and while we've all -- this has been stated in a couple of different ways, i'm -- i want to get direct answers. mr. comey, is there any evidence

given that that's the standard that we all want, desire, and expect, to suggest that hillary clinton was not charged by the department of justice due to inappropriate political influence or due to her current or previous public positions? >> zero and if there is such evidence, i'd love folks to show it to me. >> and in that regard, was there a double standard? >> no. in fact, i think my entire goal was to avoid a double standard, to avoid what sometimes prosecutors call celebrity hunting and doing something for a famous person that you would never do for an ordinary joe or jane. >> thank you. and i really appreciate that you're here today and explaining the process in great detail, frankly. and i've -- this committee works

at getting specific detail about a variety of reviews, investigations, policies, concepts throughout federal government. and i think i can say that this committee often finds that we don't get very much clarity or specific responses to the majority of questions that we ask. so i really appreciate that. and that in explaining that what led the fbi to conclude that hillary clinton should not be charged. saying that, however, i'm still concerned that the use of this hearing and some of the public statements made by the elected officials accusing the department of justice of using a double standard without any evidence at ail to support that statement, leaning on accusation of such, jeopardizes the very thing we want the most which is an apolitical and independent department of justice. we have every right to ask these tough questions and to be clear that the process that you use for everyone, including elected officials, works and that there's a responsibility not to substitute your own political

preferences for the outcome of an independent and apolitical department of justice investigations. on any level, whether it involves hillary clinton or anybody else. do you agree with that general statement? >> yes. >> for me, that's a really important ethical line that i believe should never be crossed. i worry that some of what we did today could be, frankly, interpreted as violating that very standard. and for that, i certainly want the american people and my constituents watching to understand that very important line and to be sure that our responsibility is better served making sure that we do have in fact an independent body whose aim it is to bring about truth and justice and uphold the federal law.

sir, based on everything you've said today, i don't see any reason to disagree with your statements, your assessments, or the explanation of that process. with the little time i do have left, i do want to say that given that some of the classified material that we've both debated and talked about today can be classified later or up classified, or that other agencies have different determinations of what constitutes classified and not, i do think that's a process that warrants refining. and if something can come out of this hearing about making sure that we do something better in the future for everyone, not just appointed or elected officials, that that ought to be something that we do. i'm often confused by some of

the things that are clearly told to us in a classified briefing that appear to be different or already out in the public in some way, and i'm not sure who's making those decisions. i honor my responsibility to the highest degree. but i think that's a process that could use some significant refining and that's my only suggestion, sir. thank you for being here today. >> we'll now recognize the gentleman from georgia, mr. carter, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. director comey, thank you for being here today. i'm over here. i'm going to be real quick and try to be succinct. i want to clarify some things that you said. look, i don't want to go over everything that everybody's been through today. we've had some great questions here that have ask you about you said this, she said that, representative gowdy made a great case of this is what she said under oath and publicly, yet you -- you dispute that and say, no, this is the case. by look, just got a couple questions okay? first of all, did i understand you correctly that your decision -- that this decision was made within three and a half hours of an interview and that was all?

>> no, we investigated for a year. >> but you interviewed her for three and a half hours last week and then came to the conclusion? >> correct. we interviewed her on saturday for three and a half hours. the last step in a year-long investigation. >> okay. now, as i understand it, hillary clinton has testified that her -- the servers that she used were always safe and secure, yet you refute that and say, no, that is not the case at all. were they ever secure? were the servers that she was using, were they ever secure? >> security's not binary, it's just degrees of security. less secure than one at a state department or a private commercial provider like a gmail. >> let me ask you this. she's got staff and she's got people around her. did they know she was doing this? did they know she was using these other devices? did anybody ever bring it to her attention and say, you're not

supposed to be doing that? >> i think a lot of people around the secretary understood she was using a personal e-mail -- >> then why didn't they say something? don't they have a responsibility as well? >> that's an important question that goes to the culture of the state department that's worth asking. >> i mean, look we saul surround ourself with good people and depend on them to help us. should they be held responsible for that, for not bringing that to someone's attention? is it my responsibility to report them? >> yes. >> well --

>> especially when it comes to security matters, you have an obligation to report a security violation you may witness whether it's involving you or one of your coworkers. >> what about brian pagliano. did he ever know? do you know if he knew that she was not following proper protocol here? >> he helped set it up. >> he helped set it up. so obviously he knew. >> obviously -- >> is anything going to be done to him? any prosecution or discipline? any -- >> i don't know about discipline. not going to be prosecution of him. >> hmm. >> will the gentleman yield? >> i yield. >> my understanding director is that you offered him immunity. >> i'm not sure what i can talk about in open -- >> he's not going to be prosecuted -- >> i want to be careful. i'm doing this 24 hours after the investigation closed. i want to be thoughtful, as we're big about the law, that i'm following the law about what i disclose about that. i don't want to answer that off the cuff. >> director comey, i am not a lawyer. i'm not an investigator. i'm a pharmacist. but i'm a citizen.

and citizens are upset. i watched with great interest earlier this week when you laid out your case. and i'm telling you, you laid it out, bam, bam, bam, here's what she did wrong and then all of the sudden you iced the word however. and it was like you could hear a gasp throughout the country of people saying, aw, here we go again. do you regret presenting it in a way like that? >> no. i'm highly -- i think i didn't use the word however. i try to never use that in speaking. i did lay it out i thought in a way that made sense and that i hoped was maximum transparency for -- >> that's the point -- i'm sorry. but that's the point, it didn't make sense. the way you were laying it out, it would have laid sense and the way the questions have been asked here and we made all these points of where she was obviously told lies

underneath -- under oath that it would have been okay, we finally got one here. >> i think it made sense, i just hope folks go back with a cup of tea and open their minds and read my statement again carefully. again, if you disagree, that's okay. >> but it -- but when we -- look, i've only been here 18 months and i'm going to tell you, this inside the beltway mentality, people -- no wonder people don't trust us. >> i -- i have -- i have no kind of inside the beltway mentality. >> but this is an example of what i'm talking about here. just as a nonlawyer, as a noninvestigator, it would appear to me you have got a hell of at indicates. >> and i'm telling you we don't. and i hope people take the time to understand why. >> mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank the gentleman. i will now recognize the gentleman from arizona. let's go ahead and go to

gentleman from south carolina first. >> thank the gentleman. director comey, earlier today heard a long list of statements that mrs. clinton has made previously, both to the public and to congress, that were not factually accurate. when she met with you folks on saturday last week, i take it she didn't say the same things at that interview? >> i'm not quipped sitting here without the 302 -- >> but it's your testimony -- >> i have no basis -- we do not have a basis for concluding that she lied to the fbi. >> did anybody ask her on saturday why she told y'all one thing and told us another? >> i don't know as i sit -- >> would that have been of interest to you in helping to establish intent? >> it could have been sure. >> did anybody ask her why she

set up the e-mail system as she did in the first mace? >> yes. >> and the answer was convenience? >> yeah. it was already there, a system her husband had. >> were you aware that earlier this week, her assistant said it was to keep e-mails from being accessible and that it was concealment purpose. she was asked in the deposition why it was set up and it was set to keep her personal males from being accessible. >> generally, yes. >> here's the summary from today. over the course of the entire system, she intentionally set up a system according to your testimony, your findings, she was careless regarding its technical security. i think you said even a basic free account had better security than she had. and she did that according to her own staffer's sworn deposition for the purpose of preventing access to those e-mails. as a result of this, she exposed top secret information to

potential hack by foreign actors. you've seen the e-mails. we have not. i think you said it could be of the sort that could put national security at risk. there was testimony earlier that might even put our agents overseas at risk. >> i don't think i greed with that, but it's still important. >> all right. she kept all of that secret until after she left the state department. she lied about it, or at least made untrue statements about it after it finally came to light. she thereafter ordered the destruction of evidence, destroyed so thoroughly that you folks could not do an adequate recovery, yet she receives no criminal penalty. i guess this is my question to you. are we to assume that if the next president of the united states does the exact same thing on the day he or she is sworn into office, sets up a private e-mail service for the purpose of concealing information from

the public or from anybody that vilt of that potentially exposes national security level information to our enemies, lies about it and then destroys the evidence during an investigation that there will be no criminal charges if you're the fbi director, against that person? >> that's not a question the fbi director should answer. >> i'm asking if she does the exact same thing as president as she's done today your result would be the exact same as it was 48 hours ago. >> if the facts were exactly the same and the law was exactly the same, the result would be the same. >> i guess under the theory that if the law is to be equally applied to everybody, that if a who is staffer does the exact same thing for the exact same purpose and exposes the exact same risks that there will be no criminal action against that person. there could be administrative penalties. there are none against the president, correct? >> i don't think so. >> i don't think you can take

away the president's top security clearance and i'm pretty shire you can't fire the president because we've tried. not only would a staffer not have any criminal charges brought against him. i suppose a summer intern could do the exact same thing under the theory we're going to apply the law equally. my question to you is this, and it's not a legal question. i guess it's a common sense ordinary question that folks are asking me. from a national security standpoint, somebody who used to lecture on that, does that bother you? >> the mishandling of classified information bothers me no matter what circumstance it occurs in. >> does it bother you that the press debt you're setting today may well lead to a circumstance that our classified information continues to be exposed to potential enemies. >> the precedent that i'm setting today is my absolute best effort to treat people fairly without with regard to

who they are. if that continues to be the record of the fbi and justice department, that's what it should be. the rest of your implications in your question are not for the fbi to answer. we should aspire to be apolitical, facts in the law, treat joe the same as sally as secretary so and so. >> by the way, i tend to -- >> gentleman. >> if you had come to a different decision, do you think it would have a different precedential value? >> if we decided to recommend criminal charges here? >> yes, sir. >> i don't know. that's a good question. i guess i'm a layer, i could argue everything both ways. i could argue both ways. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> now recognize the gentleman

from arizona for five minutes. >> thank you mr. comey for being here. my colleague eluded to brian pagliano, the i.t. advisor. were you made aware of the deal pagliano, the i.t. advisor. were you made aware of the deal of immunity with him? >> i am aware. >> now that attorney general lynch has stated there will be no charges, there are many that suspect that in his -- that he failed to answer questions in his congressional deposition, that he had something to hide. why did your investigators at the doj decide that it was necessary to offer mr. pagliano immunity? >> as i said in answer to the previous question, i need to be more thoughtful about what i say about an immunity deal in public. may be totally fine. i just don't want to screw up. in general, i can answer because i've done it in times as a prosecutor. you make a grant of immunity in order to get information that you don't think you could get otherwise. >> but you know that there may be something there in hindsight, right?

you're looking ahead because the pertinent information this person possesses. >> right. you believe they may have relevant information to the investigation. >> did the investigators draft an interview report known as a 302 with mr. pagliano? >> yes. >> given the toons this case will, you commit to voluntary disclosing of 302s for the review of pagliano and other witness? >> i'll commit to giving you everything i can possibly give you under the law and to doing it as quickly as possible. that said, that means i got to go back and sort it out. for example, the 302 of secretary clinton, it's classified at the tssci level. we got to sort through all that. but we'll do it quickly. >> i know you've done this because you've done this for lois lerner and other cases. so we would expect that. director comey, hillary clinton testified before congress and told the american people multiple times that she never e-mailed any classified information to anyone on her private e-mail servers.

your investigation revealed 52 e-mail chains contained classified information. clinton told the american people that the laws and regulations allowed me to use my e-mail for work. this is undisputed. end of quote. your investigation revealed that that also wasn't true. clinton claims she returned over all her work-related e-mails. your investigation revealed that this wasn't also true. clinton claimed there was no security breaches and her private server had numerous safeguards. your investigation revealed eight e-mail chains on clinton's private servers containing top secret information and it was possible, quote, hostile actors gained access to sensitive information. further, multiple people she e-mailed with regularity were hacked by hostile actors and her private servers were less secure on a gmail account. making a security breach all the more likely. director comey, it's a federal crime, as you know to mishandle classified information in a grossly negligent way. and you stated clinton and her colleagues were extremely careless. clinton stated she was well aware of the classification

requirements, yet she broke the law anyway. multiple people have been prosecuted for less and there's a growing trend of abuses in senior level employees. the only difference between her and others is her total resistance to acknowledge her irresponsible behavior that jeopardized our national security and the american people. i think you should have recommended clinton be produced prosecuted under section 793 or section 1024 of title 18. if not, who, if not now, when? your recommendation deprived the american people of the opportunity for justice in this matter. there shouldn't be a double standard for the clintons. and they shouldn't be above the law. with that, i'm going to yield the rest of my time to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. gowdy. >> thank you. director comey, i want to go back to the issue of intent for just a second. we can disagree on whether or not it's an element of the defense. let's assume for the sake of argument that you're right and i'm wrong and that it is an element of the defense. secretary clinton said she was quote well aware of classification requirements. those are her words. not mine and not yours. so if she were, quote, well

aware of classification requirements, how did that impact your analysis of her intent? because i've heard you this morning describe you as being less than sophisticated. she disagrees with that. >> i was talking about technical sophistication. the question is i would hope everybody that works in the government is aware of classification requirements. the question then is if you mishandle classified information, when you did that thing, did you know you were doing something that was unlawful. that's the intent question. >> you and i are going to have to together some time and discuss all the people we prosecuted who were unaware that we were breaking the law. there are lots of really dumb defendants out there who don't know that what they're doing is against the law. but let's go with what you said -- >> i disagree. you may have prosecuted a lot of those folks. i did not prosecute a lot of those folks. >> well, i was a gutter prosecutor and you were a white collar prosecutor. trust me. there are lots of people who don't know you can't kill other people.

let me ask you this, on the issue of intent, you say it was convenience. okay. you're a really smart lawyer. if it were convenience, director, she wouldn't have waited two years to return the documents, and she wouldn't have deleted them four years after they were created. so you can't really believe that her intent was convenience when she never turned them over until congress started asking for them, could you? >> my focus, and i hope i made this clear, what was the thinking around the classified information. it's relevant why the system was set up and the thinking there. but i don't understand her to be saying -- i think i've said it already. that's my focus. >> so i know i'm out of time. but it just strikes me you are reading a specific intent element into a gross negligence statute. not even general intent. >> gentleman's time -- >> a specific intent element. >> gentleman's time is expired. >> that -- i'm sorry.

>> the director can answer. >> i enjoy talking with him. the question you got to ask is why is it that the department of justice since 1917 has not used that gross negligence statute by charging it once in an espionage case, and whether their decision was smart or not, that is the record of fairness. so you have to decide do i treat this person against that record, and if i do, is that fair thing to do? if you're not worried about the constitutionality of it, my judgment is no prosecutor would do that. that would be celebrity hunting that would be treating this person differently than john doe. >> i want to follow up on that. my determination is come to a determination of the facts and then turn it over to a prosecutor. you were a prosecutor but you're not a prosecutor. now. >> right. >> it is unprecedented that an fbi director gave the type of press conference that he did and took a position that an

unreasonable prosecutor would only take this case forward. why did you do that? >> it's a great question. everything i did would have done privately in the normal course. what i decided to do is offer transparency to the american people about the whys of that, what i was going do. because i thought that was very, very important for their confidence in the system of justice. and within that their confidence in the fbi. i was very concerned if i didn't show that transparency that in that lack of transparency people would say what is going on here? something seems squirrely here. so i said i would do something unprecedented because i think it is unprecedented situation. the next director who is criminally investigating one of the two candidates for president may find himself or herself bound by my precedent. okay. so if that happens within the next 100 years, they'll have to

deal with what i did. i decided it was worth doing. >> i have just one question. i'm sitting here listening to this and i really, this is something that bothered me in in the lois lerner case, and it bothers me in this case. i'm wondering your opinion. ms. lawrence talked about this, the chilling effect of your having to come here and justify your decisions. i know that you have been really nice and you explained why you did what you did and i'm glad you are doing it, but, you know, do you at all -- taking off -- i'm talking about here you have people making decisions and then being pulled here in the congress to say, okay, to be questioned about the decisions. at what point, or do you even think about it becoming a chilling effect?

because most people when their decisions don't get this kind of opportunity, as you well know, there are no statements. you know, they either get indicted or they're not. i know you see this as a special case. i'm wondering whether you agree with ms. lawrence that we may be just going down do you know slippery slope. that's all i want to ask. >> my honest answer is i don't think so. when i talked to the chairman, i agreed to come because i think the american people care deeply about this. all kinds of folks watching this at home. or being told, well, lots of other cases were prosecuted and she wasn't. i want them to know that's not true. i want to have this conversation. i welcome the opportunity. look, it's a pain. i have had to go to the bathroom for about an hour. >> don't worry, we're halfway done. >> it is really important to do because this is an unprecedented situation. transparency is the absolute best thing for me and for democracy.

and i realize, mr. chairman, my folks told me i screwed up one fact that i missed. the petraeus case we didn't find the note books in the attic, we found it in his desk. i wanted to make sure i was fair to him than. i really don't think so. i don't think it has a chilling effect. if there is another presidential candidate being investigated by the fbi, maybe they will be bound by this. lord willing it will not happen again. certainly, i have 2,619 days left in this job. it won't happen on my term but if it does i won't be chilled. >> thank the gentleman. if we need a humanitarian break, just give me a cue. >> i feel like we are almost done. >> we're on the right trajectory, yes. we would like to recognize the gentleman from alabama, mr. palmer for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. director comey, your statement on tuesday indicated tuesday may or may not have been hacked by a foreign power. are you aware that teenage

hackers hacked the personal e-mail accounts of cia director john brennan, the u.s. director of national intelligence james clapper and fbi deputy director mark juliano? >> i am aware of it. they didn't hack but by trickery got access. >> these are protected e-mail accounts that contained no classified information. mrs. clinton used her personal e-mail, not a commercial account, on a server in her basement without even this basic protection and transmitted classified information through that account. if teenagers in england were able to hack personal e-mail accounts of director of cia, the director of u.s. national intelligence and the deputy director of the fbi, does it concern you that sophisticated hackers or hackers working for foreign interests never attempted? does it seem reasonable that they never attempted or were never successful in hacking mrs. clinton's personal e-mail accounts or one of her devices?

>> it concerns me a great deal. that is why we spent so much time trying to see if we could figure out, see fingerprints of that. >> you said in your statement regarding your recommendation not to prosecute, to be clear, this is not suggested in similar circumstances. a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. to the contrary, these individuals are often subject to security or administration sanction. but that is not what we're deciding here. do you stand by that? >> yes. >> i thought you would. you also said you could not prove intent. i want to touch on a couple things here. one, a reasonable person would not have compromised classified information by keeping that information on inadequately secured devices. in other words, such a person would be viewed as unreasonable and unsuitable for any position in our government that included any responsibility for handling and protecting classified

information. would you agree? >> i would agree it would be negligent. i can't prejudge a suitability determination but it would be stared at very hard. >> well, let me tell you why i bring this up. i sat up here next to mr. herb. who served our country valiantly, put his life on the line. i don't know if you can sense the passion and intensity of his questions because he knows people whose lives are on the line right now. in regard to his questions if someone, a u.s. intelligence agent had their mission compromised or worse had been killed or injured or captured because of the carelessness of someone responsible for protecting classified information, would intent matter at that point? >> in deciding whether to prosecute the person, of course. that's the answer. of course it would. the matter would be deadly serious, but the legal standards would be the same. >> what we are dealing with in

this hearing is not the lack of due diligence in handling routine government data or information, but the lack of due diligence by secretary clinton and her carelessness in handling classified information that could have compromised american national security. and as mr. herb pointed out, the missions and personal safety of our intelligence agents. that troubles me greatly. and i think the issue here -- i do respect you. i have spoken in your defense many times at this point to my detriment. i do believe that your answers are honest and factual. but based on your answers regarding mrs. clinton's use of e-mail, and based on what we know, it seems to me that she has stunningly incompetent in her understanding of the basic technology of e-mail and

stunning incompetent in handling classified information. i mean, you should never associate the secretary of state and classified information with the word careless. it doesn't matter. i mean, we have to exercise the utmost due diligence. all of us in this committee do. in handling this. you do in prosecuting cases. i see that in what you are trying to do. i just think we need to leave here with this understanding that there is more to this story than we know. if a foreign hacker got into this i can assure you that they know what was in those e-mails that were deleted. they read them all. they know what is in the e-mails that we never received. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. we'll now go to the gentleman

from wisconsin for fife minutes. >> thank you. thanks for coming on over to the rayburn building. as i understand it your testimony today is that you have not brought criminal charges against hillary clinton in part because you feel you can't prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and in part because she didn't understand the laws with regard to e-mails and servers and that sort of thing. question for you. when she erased these e-mails -- oh, no i digress for a second. you however did say that if somebody did this under you there would be consequences. if somebody did exactly what mrs. clinton did but was one of your lieutenants, or you think one of the lieutenants under the cia or some other agency that deals with top secret document, what would you do to those underlings? >> i would make sure that they

were adjudicated through a security disciplinary proceeding to figure out what are all the circumstances and then what punishment, discipline is appropriate. that could range from being terminated to being reprimanded and then a whole spectrum in between, suspension, loss of clearance, it's a bunch of different options. >> okay. but let's say somehow one of your top two or three lieutenants, you find out that they have this separate server out there and they're keeping secret document, flipping them around. do you think they should be fired? not criminally charged but fired? >> i don't think it is appropriate to say. i think it should go through. we have a very robust process. there ought to be a very intense suitability review of the person. maybe there is something we're missing that would mitigate the punishment we would impose. but it would have to go through our system. >> okay, next question, just for the listening audience here. first when i hear about erasing e-mails i think it is like on my phone where i might erase an auto insurance solicitation.

the erasers here were not just mrs. clinton pressing delete. there was a much greater effort made to make sure that these e-mails would never be recovered. do you want to comment on what was done to erase the e-mails? >> i think what you are referring to is after her lawyers, her lawyers say although i'm not able to verify this, there were 60,000 or so left at the end of 2014 that they went through uthem in a way i described in my statement two days ago, and then they produced the ones that were work-related, and then they erased from their systems the ones that were not work-related. that was done using technical tools basically to remove them from the lawyers -- from the servers to wipe them away. >> in other words, the effort was not just mrs. clinton. went delete, delete, delete. they went above and beyond that so that your top technical experts could not get back at these e-mails. correct? >> right. not fully. we were able to -- >> you recovered a few.

>> we could go through the lawyers' lap tops and see some traces but not fully recover them. >> now, the information that i have and you can correct me if i'm wrong implies that these erasures were done in 2014 after the benghazi scandal broke. did you ever come across why she allowed the e-mails to sit out there even for years after she stopped being secretary of state but all of a sudden as the other scandals began to bubble up she felt or her lawyers felt that she had to erase them? >> i think the way the process worked is she had e-mails that were just on her system. she had deleted some over time as an ordinary user would. and then the state department contacted her and others and said we have a gap in our records. we need you to look and see if you have e-mails. and give them back. she tasked her lawyers to engage in the review process and make that cut and then was asked by her lawyers at the end do you

want us to keep the personal e-mails. she said i have no use for them anymore. it is then that they issued the direction that the technical people delete them. >> do you think mrs. clinton knew the technical people were erasing the e-mails so that even your top technical experts could recover them? >> based on my sense now for technical sophistication i don't think so. >> you don't think the lawyers told her that is what they were doing, erasing e-mails that everybody on this committee wanted to look at? >> i'm sure we have asked this. >> what type of lawyer wouldn't tell their client they were doing that. >> i think our evidence from our investigation is they did not. they asked her do you want to keep them and they said no and said wipe them away. >> okay. now as i understand it, the goal was just to erase personal e-mails. but you've recovered e-mails that wouldn't be considered personal e-mails at all. >> correct.

>> i don't know if you didn't recover them, but based upon the e-mails that you recovered, presumably her lawyers or somebody was going well beyond personal e-mails. is it possible we will never be able to recover e-mails that dealt with the clinton foundation or dealt with the benghazi scandal? is it possible because of what her lawyers did that they were erasing things that were incriminating, maybe involving items that you yourself were not particularly investigating, but these have now been destroyed forever? >> yes it's possible as i said in my statement on tuesday. we did not find evidence to indicate that they did the erasure to conceal things of any sort. but it's possible as i said on tuesday that there were work-related e-mails that were in the batch that were deleted. >> when you go to this length to make sure you can never recover the e-mails erased wouldn't you think the intent is to make sure nobody looks at them again? why otherwise wouldn't you go delete, delete, delete. >> i thank you the gentleman. we will give the director time

if he wants to respond. >> sure. i guess it's a bit circular. you delete because you want to delete. what i mean is we didn't find evidence of evil intent and intent to obstruct justice. >> you wouldn't have been able to because you don't know what was deleted. >> thank the gentleman. now recognize mr. russell of oklahoma for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. director comey, thank you for your long service and long suffering. i think we are towards the end of the line here. i want to say for the record with regard to national security i sleep a little easier at night knowing that you're at the helm of the fbi. and thank you for your dedicated service and your integrity. you have stated in your statement and also multiple times here that there should be consequences for the mishandling of state secrets. if i held a top secret sci in the bureau, and i did hold one

when i was in the united states army in a career of service. i handle classified information here. but if i held that in the fbi and you discovered that i mishandled state secrets on a private server in my basement, would i be trusted by the bureau to further handle top secret sci information? >> maybe not. you would go immediately through a security process to review whether you should continue working for us and if you do what clearances you should retain. >> if i violated the handling of state secrets in the fbi would you consider me the best suitable candidate for promotion and higher responsibility? >> it would be a serious concern and we would stare at it very hard in a suitability review. >> although you have recommended to the department of justice that no criminal charges be brought to bear, are you recommending to the department of justice that there be no consequences for mishandling of state secrets? >> no.

my recommendation was solely with respect to criminal charges. >> what would you recommend? >> i don't think it is for me to recommend. >> but you do, you have been very open and stated why you felt that these were unique sets of circumstances that called for greater transparency. you do make recommendations routinely as you have stated here today. we are talking top secret sci information that has been mishandled. you would take a dim view to that if i were an agent. what consequence -- this is what the american people feel exasperated about. there seems to be no consequence. so in a case like this if it is not going to be criminal charges recommended, what are the american people to do to hold their officials accountable if maybe they shouldn't be trusted

for further promotion and higher responsibility? >> what i meant earlier is that is not a question the american people should put to fbi director. i can answer about things within my remit. i understand the question, but it's not one for me to answer in my role. >> well, i hope it's one that the american people answer in the future, because we do have a choice about those that would mishandle information. and while we are all human beings and we all make mistakes, in a case like this, for decades of my service in the army infantry in handling top secret sci information, and as a member of congress, we know those responsibilities. is it your view and others that have interviewed mrs. clinton that she would not have known what those responsibilities were? >> no. i think in a way you would expect she understood the importance of protecting classified information. >> i would agree with that and there has been a breach and i

think that the american people demand a consequence, that they demand an accountability. i think it is important to uphold the form of our republican government that we have a consequence. and with that thank you for your appearance here today. i would like to yield the remainder of my time. to chairman chaffetz. >> thank you. i think if you yield back, through mutual agreement, mr. cummings and i have agreed that i do have about a dozen or so quick follow-up questions. you have been most generous with your time. but i would like to get through these last bit. and again, we'll do so with equal time. how did the department of justice or how did the fbi view the incident in which hillary clinton instructed jake sullivan to take markings off of a document that was to be sent to her? >> we looked at that pretty closely. there was some problem with their secure fax machine. and an e-mail she says take the

headers off of it and send it as a nonpaper. as we dug into that we come to learn that there is one version that is reasonable. a nonpaper in state department parlance means a document we could pass to another government. so essentially take out anything that is classified and send to it me. it turned out that didn't actually happen because we actually found the classified fax was actually sent. but that's our best understanding what that's about. >> this was a classified fax? >> correct. >> so hillary clinton sends to jake sullivan -- let me go back. jake sullivan says they say they had issues sending secure fax. they're working on it. hillary clinton sends to jake sullivan, if they can't, turn into nonpaper with no identifying heading and send nonsecure. so you're telling me it is a classified piece of information. she is taking off the header and she is instructing them to send

it in a nonsecure format. is that not intent? >> it actually caught new attention when i first saw it. what she explained to us in her interview was and other witnesses did as well is what she meant by that is make it into a nonclassified document. that's what a nonpaper is in their world and send it to us. because i don't need the classified stuff. >> why take off the heading if it is turned into nonclassified document, why take off the heading? >> i assume because it would be nonclassified anymore so you wouldn't have a classified header because of what she said during her interview. >> she wanted to be technically correct? is that what you're saying? >> i think she said is i was telling him send me an unclassified document. take header off, turn it into nonpaper which is a term i have never heard before. i'm told by people a credit that in diplomatic circles that means something we can pass to another government. >> you are very generous in your accepting of that.

let me ask you, did any uncleared individuals receive any classified information over hillary clinton's server? >> did any uncleared people receive classified information? i don't think any of the correspondents on the classified e-mails were uncleared people. these were all people with clearances working, doing state department business on the unclass system. >> did mr. pagliano have security clearance? >> as i sit here today i can't remember. he was not a participant on the classified e-mail exchanges. >> he is running the server. he set it up. >> that's a different question. i'm sorry, i misunderstood your question, then. there is no doubt that uncleared people had access to the server because even after pagliano, there were others who maintained the server who were private sector folks. >> so there are hundreds of

classified documents on these servers. how many people without a security clearance had access to that server? >> i don't know the exact number as i sit here. it's probably more than two, less than ten. >> i appreciate your willingness to follow up. did secretary clinton assets -- clinton's attorneys have the needed security clearances? >> they did not. >> does that concern you? >> yeah, sure. >> is there any consequence to an attorney rifling through secretary clinton's, hillary clinton's e-mails without a security clearance? >> criminal consequences but a great deal of concern about an uncleared person not subject to requirements we talked about in read-in documents potentially having access. that is why it is important for us to recover everything we can back from attorneys. >> what is the consequence?

here hillary clinton gave direction to her attorneys without a security clearance to go through documents that were classified. >> i think that is what happened in fact, whether that was the direction is a question i can't answer sitting here. >> so you -- you are parsing that one a little bit for me. what's the consequence? they don't work for the government. we can't fire them. is there no criminal prosecution of those attorneys? show should they lose their bar license? what is the consequence to this? >> if they acted with criminal intent or acted with some mal intent. >> what you're telling us is it doesn't matter if you have a security clearance or not. i may be innocent enough. hey, lie like the secretary. i like the secretary and trying to help hillary clinton. i'm not trying to give it to the chinese or russians. i'm trying to help her. so there is no intent. it doesn't matter if these people have security clearances? >> of course it matters.

>> there is no consequence, director. there is no consequence. >> i don't know what consequence you would have in mind. >> prosecute them. >> an attorney for receiving from his client information that ends up being classified. >> i asked you at the very beginning does hillary clinton, is there a reasonable expectation that hillary clinton would send and receive, if not hourly, if not daily classified information? that's reasonable to think that the secretary of state would get classified information at every moment. she is not the head of fish and wildlife. so the idea that she would turn over her e-mails, her system, her server to what it sounds like up to ten people without security clearances and there is no consequence. so why not do it again? >> that's a question i don't think you should put to me. i'm talking about my criminal investigation.

>> how can that -- there is no intent there? does she not understand that these people don't have security clearances? >> surely she understands at least some don't have security clearances. >> she understands they don't have security clearances and it's reasonable to think she is going to be in classified information. is that not intent to provide noncleared person access to crassified information? >> you're mixing it up, though. i don't think it's reasonable to assume -- mixing me up, sorry. it's not your fault, that someone who is maintaining your server is reading your emails. in fact, i don't think that's the case here there is a separate thing which is when she is engaging council to comply with the state department's request, are her lawyers then exposed to information that may be on there that is classified. >> did they see any classified information? did hillary clinton's attorneys without security clearances see classified information? >> i sit here, i don't know the answer to that. >> it has to be yes. you came across 110 and they

said they went through all of them. >> they didn't read them all. they just looked at headers. >> their excuse is we saw the e-mails but we didn't read them? >> i think i said this on my statement on tuesday. they sorted the e-mails by using headers and search terms to try to find work-related e-mails. we read them all. >> i know that you read them all. do you think it is reasonable or unreasonable to think that her attorneys under her direction did or did not read those e-mails? because there were -- let me go back to this. yes or no. were there or were there not classified e-mails that hillary clinton's attorneys read? >> i don't know whether they read them at the time. >> did hillary clinton give noncleared people access to classified information? >> yes. yes.

>> what do you think her intent was? >> i think then was to get good legal representation and make the production to the state department. i think it can be a very tall order. i don't see evidence to make a case that she was acting with criminal intent with engagement with lawyers. >> i guess i read criminal intent as the idea that you allow somebody without a security clearance access to classified information. everybody knows that, director. everybody knows that. i have gone way past my time. let me recognize mr. cummings for an equal amount of time. >> director, thank you for your patience. i want to clear up some things. i want to make sure i understand exactly what you testified to on the issue of whether secretary clinton sent or received e-mails that were marked as classified.

on tuesday you stated only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information or markings, i emphasize or markings, indicating presence of classified information. end of quote. republicans have pounced on this statement as evidence that secretary clinton lied. but today we learned some significant new facts. i hope the press listens to this. first, you clarify that you were talking about only three e-mails out of 30,000. your office reviewed. is that right? >> three, yes. >> 3 out of 30,000, is that right? >> yes. at least 30,000. >> at least 30,000. second, you confirm that these three e-mails were not properly marked as classified at the time based on federal guidelines and manuals.

they did not have a classification headers. they did not list the original classifier, the agency, office of origin, reason for classification or date for de-classification. instead, these e-mails included only a single, quote, end of quotation mark for confidential one pair lower down in the text, that right? >> correct. >> third, you testified that based on these facts it would have been a, quote, reasonable inference for secretary clinton to, quote, immediately conclude that the e-mails were not in fact classified. so that was also critical new

information. but there is one more critical fact that these e-mails were not in fact -- imagine this, director. and to the press, these e-mails were not in fact classified. the state department explained to us yesterday they reported that these e-mails are not classified and that including this little c on these e-mails was result of human error. the bottom line is that those little cs should not have been on those documents because they were not, in fact, classified. when representative watson asked you a few minutes ago about this you testified that you had not been informed. i understand that. i'm not beating up on you, i promise you. but can you tell us why, director comey? i want -- because republicans are pouncing and saying the secretary lied. so i want to make sure we're clear on this.

can you tell us why, director comey, and we're just curious, did you consult with the state department about these three e-mails out of the more than 30,000, did this just not come up? what happened there? >> i'm not remembering for sure while i'm here. i'm highly confident we consulted with them and got their view on it. i don't know about what happened yesterday. maybe their view has changed or they found things out that we didn't know. i'm highly confident we consulted with them about it. >> so this is totally different than what we understood yesterday. today we learned the e-mails were not classified. they should not have been included in the stray markings. they were not properly marked at classified and director of fbi believes it was reasonable for secretary clinton to assume the documents were not classified. chairman, you raised a question

about whether secretary clinton's attorneys had security clearances. it is my understanding that they did. we can double check that. that is my understanding. we will double check that. going on, let me move to the next topic. you explained on tuesday that you were providing, quote an update on the fbi's clinton's use of a personal e-mail system during her type as secretary of state. you explained that you received a referral on this matter from the inspector general of the intelligence community on july 6, 2016. is that right? >> yes. >> today tens of thousands of secretary clinton's e-mails are probably available on state department's website. our staff have been reviewing e-mails that were retroactively determined to include classified information. based on this review, it appears that these e-mails included more than 1,000 individuals who sent or received the information that has now redacted as classified.

let me make that clear. about 1,000 people sent or received the same information that was contained in secretary clinton's e-mails and retroactively classified. were you aware of that? >> no. the number doesn't surprise me, though. >> why not? >> because this was, they were doing the business of the state department on the e-mail system. i don't know how many thousands of people work at the state department. but it doesn't surprise me there would be lots of people on these chains. >> but you agree that we need to -- there is something needs to be done with regard to this classification stuff. because things are classified and then they are not classified. then they are retroactively classified. and does that go into your consideration when looking at a case like this? >> yeah, i don't pay much attention to the upclassified stuff because we're focused on intent. so if somebody classified it later it is impossible that you formed intent around that because it wasn't classified at

the time. i know that's a process. i wasn't familiar with it before the investigation, but i don't spend a lot of time focussed on it on the course of a criminal investigation. >> i understand. we also reviewed who these people are and they include a host of very experienced career diplomats with many years of experience. so let me ask you this. when you receive this referal from the inspector general about secretary clinton's e-mails, did you also receive any referrals for any of the other 1,000 people who sent and received those e-mails? did you? >> no. i should stop there. within the scope of our investigation was a group of people closer to the secretary. we looked at their conduct. i forget what their number is, four or five of them. the hundreds of other whose may or may not have been on the chains were not the focus of the

investigation. >> i understand that secretary clinton is the only one running for president. it does not make sense that she was singled out for a referral to the fbi. do you agree with that? >> i don't think i agree with that. >> so let's go back to colin powell. do you think you ought to look at his situation? condoleezza rice? >> there has been no referal on them this case strikes me as very different and not an this case strikes me as very different from those and not inappropriate for referral to the inspector general. >> thank you. who was hillary clinton e-mailing that was hacked? >> i don't want to say in open forum. which we can get you that information. i don't want to give insight into what we figured out. >> fair enough. understood. was there any evidence of hillary clinton attempting to

avoid compliance with the freedom of information act? >> that was not the subject of our criminal investigation. so i can't answer that sitting here. >> it is a violation of law, is it not? >> yes, my understanding is there are civil statutes that apply to that. >> let's put boundaries on this. what you didn't look at. you didn't look at whether or not there was an intention or the reality of noncompliance with freedom of information act. >> correct. >> you did not look at testimony that hillary clinton gave in the united states congress both the house and the senate? >> to see whether it was perjury? in some respect? >> yes. >> no, we did not. >> did you review and look at those transcripts as to the intent of your recommendation? >> i'm sure my folks did. i did not. >> so this is an important point because i think those of us in congress knowing you got a

criminal referral from an inspector general thought that you were also looking at whether or not hillary clinton provided false testimony which is a crime to the congress. but you didn't look at that. >> correct. as i said, i'm confident my folks looked at the substance of the statement, trying to understand the circumstances around the entire situation. >> can you confirm that? >> we'll confirm that. also, again, maybe i'm missing this, but i don't think we got a referral from a congressional committees, a perjury referral. >> no, it was the inspector general that initiated this. did the -- the fact that hillary clinton refused to be interviewed by the inspector general, what did that say to you about intent? >> at least for criminal investigation not particularly

germane. >> are you familiar -- there is a website, lots of government agencies have websites. the state department has a website, state.gov. and they have a youtube site. videos that are uploaded to a youtube site, would those be considered federal records? >> i don't know. >> so they are paid for by federal dollars. they are maintained by federal employees. would that not be a federal record? >> yeah, i just don't know. i'm sure there is an expert who can answer that in two seconds. but i'm not that expert. >> we have kept you here a long time. i want to follow up on that. is the fbi still investigating hillary clinton's aides? >> no. is the answer. the department of justice declined on all of those who were subjects communicating with her through that e-mail system. >> what recommendations did you make about her aides? >> same. same. we didn't recommend anybody be prosecuted on those facts.

>> if you can help us understand who precisely had been ruled out for prosecution. that would be -- >> sure. >> did you look at the clinton foundation? >> i'm not going to comment on the existence or nonexistence of other investigations. >> was the clinton foundation tied into this investigation? >> i'm not going to answer that. >> the server that was set up in her home was originally set up by, you said, former president bill clinton. >> correct. >> do you know who paid for that? >> i don't sitting here. >> okay. i'll allow some quell time now for my colleague and friend, mr. cummings. >> let me go two minutes for my 3.43 to mr. lynch.

>> thank you, mr. director. we are talking about hacking. and so on this committee we are very much interested in cyber security. we review a lot of major hacks that are going on. just recently i would say in the last 18 months we have had major hack february of 2016 at the department of homeland security and the fbi. we had a hacking group, the site intelligence group reported that a group called crackers with attitude had hacked 9,000 employees' data from the department of homeland security, including names, e-mail addresses, location, telephone numbers. also 20,000 fbi workers. we had another hack direct evidence obviously of those. another hack at opm of 4.2

million current and former federal government employees. their information had been stolen including social security numbers which are not redacted. we had irs in may 2015 200,000 attempted and 100,000 were successful. we had state department announced a breach of its computer systems after infiltration forced the agency to temporarily shut down its classification system. we had united states postal service, 800,000 postal employees, 2.9 million customers. the white house, washington post reported back, this is back in 2014 that the white house computer was hacked.

national oceanic and atmospheric administration. we had -- i'm on another committee for financial service. we had verizon, ucla health systems. thousands and thousands and thousands of employees, anthem health care, sony pictures, staples, home depot, jp morgan, community health systems, target, tjx, all of these we have direct evidence, millions and millions of people their accounts being hacked. any direct evidence that hillary clinton's e-mails were hacked? >> no. >> okay. i have no further questions. i yield back. >> director, we are about at the end. i'm going to do a concluding statement and then i think the chairman will. first of all, i want to go back to something that ms. watson

coleman said a little earlier. as an african-american man in this country, 66 years old, moving towards the twilight of my life, we cannot allow black men to continue to be slaughtered. this morning i woke up to my wife literally crying watching the tape of this guy alton sterling in baton rouge and then she looked at the one for near minneapolis. i hope you watch them. it's something wrong with this picture. and don't get me wrong. i am a lawyer. i am all for, i supported police. i know how important police are. i know there are so many great folks, but mr. director, if you do nothing else in your 2,000 plus days left, you have got to

help us get ahold of this issue. it is so painful. i can't begin to tell you. and so i don't want -- i have been fortunate in my life. i have been very fortunate that i have not been harmed by the police, but i have been stopped 50 million times. with regard to this hearing i want to thank you again. as i listen to you you said something that i will never forget. and for some reason it gave me a chill. you said there are two things that are most important to me, two things. you said my family and my reputation. my family and my reputation. and i don't know whether your family is watching this, but i

hope that they are as proud of you as i am. because you are the epitome of what a public servant is all about. sacrificing over and over and over again, trying to do the right thing, sometimes coming under ridicule, but yet still doing the right thing. so i hope that they are proud of you. the second thing i hope is that no matter what has happened in this hearing, i hope that you know that your reputation is still in tact. so i conclude by summarizing that i think some of our key findings today, first director testified that his entire team of 15 to 20 fbi investigators and analysts unanimously agree on the recommendation not to