you mentioned previous testimony about the bedrock and importance of public confidence in public safety institutions. i want to give you an out anortunity -- you opportunity. i think it is important for the american people to know that the system is not rigged. there are people that do their job and believe in the constitution. commentsve further about the system being rigged. director comey: one of the reasons i welcome this opportunity is i was raised by parents that told me you cannot care about what other people think about you. i have to. againstem is not fixed rich people or powerful people. there are people that you pay

for with tax dollars that do not give a rip about democrats or republicans, that care about finding out what is true. i am lucky to lead an organization that is that way to its core. an organization that is resolutely apolitical. we are tough people. if we can make a case, we will make a case. we do not care what the person's stripes are or what their bank account looks like. i worry when people doubt that. i care about the fbi's reputation. i care about the system deeply. i decided i would do something no director has ever done before. i will not tell the attorney general what i'm going to say. they did not know until i walked out what i was going to talk about. i offered extraordinary

transparency. that people see as much as they can to make their judgment. again, they may conclude i am an idiot. what i hope they do not conclude is that i am a dishonest person. i'm trying to do the right thing the right way. 36,000 people with that as their spine. at its core, there are good people trying to do the right thing all day long. you pay for them. >> i appreciate that. arein the context of these human institutions, it is clear to me that you had a line about your decision in pursuing prosecution. you spent a period of time talking about what i take as objective analysis in terms of what was careless in terms of handling. quote, weand i

developed evidence that a security culture of the state department in general with respect to the use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, were generally lacking in classification found elsewhere. director comey: yes, sir. >> struggling with this in the as tot of this hearing and how torom here be clear about how the state department will talk about this powell has, colin commented on the absurdity of retroactive classification. we have e-mails out in the public that are being spread further. there are other people involved. how does this committee go forward to make sure that the state department can still function in the way it does with human beings and have conversations that are transparent?

what are the things we need to do to make sure this does not happen again. director comey: a good start, i think the reason the chairman has the ag from the state department here is to start the conversation. the ag is far better equipped to say you need to focus here or there to make it better. >> thank you, mr. director. >> i will recognize the gentleman from tennessee. >> director comey, thank you for appearing quickly on short notice. it is important that you are here because of the way you laid out the case on tuesday. there is a perception you felt one way and came to another conclusion. i let my district know you were coming. questionss, i had 750 to ask you. thank you for being here. to summarize a lot of those concerns, clinton

was above the law. there was a double standard in the way you presented findings. your team, you said you did not personally interview her, but your team did for 3.5 hours. did theyg the review, ask hillary clinton about her comment she had never sent or received classified information over private e-mail? director comey: i think so. i cannot remember specifically. it is a very long 302. >> we will get access to that. do you know if they asked her, when they said there is nothing marked classified on my e-mails sent or received? director comey: same answer. >> the same answer when she said i did not e-mail classified material to anyone on my e-mail? you do not know if they asked her that? director comey: i do not know if they asked her that question.

the entire interview was focused on, what did you know, what did you see. >> did they asked her if she stands by the fact she used one device that was sort of convenient? director comey: i do not know. i know the established she used many devices during her four years. i do not know if they asked her that statement. >> my point is you are trying to get inside the head of hillary clinton in this investigation to know if there was intent. we know what she told the people. she said she did not do those things. she did not send or receive classified e-mails. she used one server and one device. since then, even in your statement, the recognize those were not correct. is that fair? director comey: i do not want to get into the business of trying to judge her public statements. i have tried to avoid doing that sitting here. >> why do you feel that is important? director comey: what matters to me is what she said to the fbi.

that is first and foremost for us. >> honest people do not need to lie, is that right? director comey: honest people do not need to lie? i hope not. >> in this case, for some reason, she felt the need to misrepresent what she had done with this server throughout the investigation. you guys brought her in on cameday for 3.5 hours and in with the decision she should not be prosecuted. i do not want to put words in your mouth. is it fair to say your interpretation of hillary clinton's handling of top-secret documents was careless? director comey: yes. >> is it fair to say that you went on to define "extremely careless" as hillary clinton's handling was sloppy? director comey: that is another way. clintonaid that hillary is not nearly as sophisticated as people thought.

is that correct? director comey: i think that is fair. not as people bought, but as people would assume. i should be clear. technically sophisticated. i am not opining on other forms of sophistication. >> i want to talk a little about precedent. there is no precedent in terms of punishment for this behavior. are you familiar with brian nishimura? he is a naval reservist. he was prosecuted. what is the difference between his case and hillary clinton's in terms of extreme carelessness and gross negligence? we are dealing with statute 793, section f. it does not require intent, is that correct? director comey: 793 is gross negligence. >> is that why brian nishimura was punished? director comey: he was punished

under the misdemeanor statute on facts that are very different. if you want, i can go through them. >> i think there has been a review of this case, and they are similar. director comey: what they are reading in the media is not a complete accounting of facts in the case. >> would you agree there is still no precedence for punishing someone like hillary clinton? she could potentially be elected president and doing this again without fear of being punished. director comey: i do not think i am qualified to answer that question. >> thank you. >> i want to recognize the gentlewoman from new mexico. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have had the benefit of, when to are last or nearly last, really have both the benefit and to question the kinds of

statements and the dialogue back and forth. where i am settled at this point in time is in a couple places. i do not think there is any member in this committee, or frankly any member in congress that does not both want and expect that the fbi and department of justice should be and operate in a fair, unbiased, highly independent manner. otherwise, you cannot appropriately uphold or enforce federal law. have all -- this has been stated in a couple different ways -- i want to get direct answers. mr. comey, is there any evidence, given that is the standard 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 previous public positions? director comey: zero. if there is such evidence, i would love folks to show it to me. >> in that regard, was there a double standard? director comey: my entire goal was to avoid a double standard, to avoid what prosecutors called "celebrity hunting," doing something for a famous person you would never do for an ordinary joe or jane. >> thank you. i appreciate that you are here today and explaining the process in great detail, frankly. this committee works at getting specific details about a variety of reviews, investigations, policies, concepts, throughout federal government. i think i can say this committee often finds we do not get very much clarity or specific responses to the majority of questions that we ask. so i really appreciate that.

and explaining what led the fbi to conclude that hillary clinton should not be charged. i amg that, however, concerned that the use of the hearing and some of the public statements made by elected officials accusing the department of justice of using a double standard without any evidence at all to support that statement, leaning on accusations, jeopardizes the thing we want the most, which is olitical and independent department of justice. we have every right to ask these tough questions and to be clear that the process that you used for everyone, including elected officials, works. there is a responsibility not to te your own- substiu preferences for the outcome of a department of justice

investigation on any level, whether it involves hillary clinton or anyone else. do you agree with that general statement? director comey: yes. >> for me, that is an important line thatthical should not be crossed. i worry that some of what we did today could be interpreted as violating that varies angered -- very standard. the americanant people and my constituents watching to understand that very important line and be sure our responsibility is making sure we do have, in fact, an independent body whose aim it is to bring about truth and justice and , based on everything you , i do not have any reason to disagree with the process. with the little time i have

left, i want to say that, given that some of the classified materials we had debated and talked about today can be classified later or up classified, or that other agencies have different classifications of what constitutes classified and not, that is a process that warrants refining. if something can come out of this hearing to make sure we do something better in the future for everybody, that ought to be something we do. i am 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. i am not sure who is making those decisions. i honor my responsibility to the highest degree, but i think that is a process that could use significant refining. and thank the gentlewoman will recognize the gentleman

from georgia. >> director comey, thank you for being here today. i am going to be real quick. i want to clarify some things you said. look, i do not want to go over everything everybody said through the day. we have had some great questions. they have asked you about you said this, she said that. representative gowdy made a great case of this is what she said under oath publicly. yet, you dispute that and say, no, this is the case. i just have a couple questions, ok? first of all, did i understand you correctly that this decision was made within 3.5 hours of an interview and that was all? director comey: we investigated for a year. >> you investigated, but you interview her for 3.5 hours and

came to the conclusion? director comey: correct. the last step in a year-long investigation. >> hillary clinton has testified that the servers she used were always safe and secure. you review that and say, that is not the case at all. were they ever secure? were the servers ever secured? director comey: security is not binary. it is degrees of security. at thecure than one state department or a private provider like gmail. >> she has staff and people around her. did they know she was doing this? did they know she was using these other devices? did anyone bring it to her attention and say, you are not supposed to be doing that? director comey: i think a lot of people around the secretary understood she was using private e-mail. >> why didn't they say

something? don't they have a responsibility? director comey: that is a question that goes to the culture of the state department that is worth asking. >> look, we surround ourselves with good people that we depend on to help us. but should they be held responsible for not bringing that to someone's attention? if i see someone not following protocol, is it my responsibility to report them? director comey: yes. securityomes to matters, you have an obligation to report a violation you may witness, whether it is you or one of your coworkers. agliano?about brian p did he know she was not following proper protocol? director comey: he set it up. >> so obviously he knew. director comey: obviously he knew. >> is anything going to be done to him? any discipline? director comey: i do not know

about discipline. there will not be prosecution. >> will the gentleman yield? >> i yield. >> my understanding is that you offered him immunity. why did you offer him him immunity? director comey: i am not sure what i can talk about in an open setting. >> he is not going to be prosecuted. director comey: i want to be careful. i am doing this 24 hours after the investigation closed. i am following the law about what i can disclose. i do not want to answer off the cuff. >> director comey, i am not a lawyer. i am not an investigator. i am a citizen. citizens are upset. i watched with great interest earlier this week when you laid out your case. i am telling you, you laid it out bam, bam, bam. here is what she did wrong,

wrong, wrong. then you heard the word "however." it is like you could hear a gasp throughout the country. do you regret presenting it in a way like that? director comey: i do not think i used the word "however." i try not to use that in speaking. out in the way i thought made sense and what i hoped was maximum transparency for people. >> that is the point. you did not make sense. the way you were laying it out would have made sense. the way questions have been asked here, we made all these points about where she was obviously -- told lies under oath. it would have been, ok, we finally got one here. director comey: i hope folks go back with a cup of tea and an open mind and read my statements

again. if you disagree, that is ok. >> look, i've only been here 18 months. this inside the beltway mentality, no wonder people do not trust us. rep. degette: carter: this is an example, as a non-investigator, it would appear to meet you have a hell of a case. director comey: and i'm telling you we do not, and i hope people take the time to understand why. represented carter: i yield back. recognizew the german from south carolina -- tillman from south carolina -- gentleman from south carolina. >> you made along list of statements that ms. clinton made both to the public and to

congress that were not factually accurate, a whole long list. when she met with you folks on saturday last week, i take it you do thi she did not say the e things in the interview? director comey: i am not equipped without the 302 in front of me, but we do not have a basis for concluding she lied to the fbi. representative: did anybody ask her why she told y'all one thing and as another? director comey: i will figure that out. representative: would that have been of interest in establishing intent? representative it could have director comey: it could have been, sure. representative: did anybody ask her why she set up, for convenience? were you aware the just earlier this week her assistant actually said it was an entirely different reason, to keep e-mails from being accessible, for concealment purposes.

she said it was set up to keep her personal e-mails from being accessed meant, to whom, to anybody. are you aware? director comey: yes. representative: the summary i take from today, over the course of the system, what she did was intentionally set up a system, according to your testimony, she was careless regarding technical security. i think he said even a basic free gmail account have better security. and she did that for the purpose of preventing access to those e-mails. as result of this, she exp osed top-secret information to foreign that actors, the e-mails could be of the sort them up with national security at risk. we had testimony the got you to acknowledge that that might even put agents overseas at risk. director comey: i don't know if

i agree with that, but still important. representative: to get all of until after she left the state department. after it finally came to light, she ordered the destruction of evidence, evidence that was destroyed so thoroughly that you folks cannot do an adequate recovery. yet she receives no criminal penalty. so i guess this is my question to you, are we to assume as we sit here today that the next president of the united states does the exact same thing, sets up a private e-mail service for the purpose of concealing information from the public or anybody, that the result is that 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 are the fbi director, against that person? director comey: that is not a

question the fbi director should answer. representative: if you does the exact same thing as president that she has done today, would there be no criminal findings? director comey: if the facts were exactly the same, and the law exactly the same, the result will be the same. representative: i guess under the theory that if the law is to be equally applied to everybody, that if a white house staffer does the exact same thing, for the exact same purpose and exposes the exact same risk, that there be no criminal action against that person. there could be administrative penalties, but there are none i understand if the president, correct? director comey: i don't think so. but i am not -- representative: you can take away the president's top security clearance, and you can't fire the president, because we have tried. staffer not have

any criminal charges brought against them, but i suppose a summer intern to do the exact same thing, under the theory we are going to apply the law equally, regardless of who the people are. my question to you is this, and it is not a legal question, i guess it is a common sense ordinary question folks are asking me. from a national security standpoint, a lecture on that, does that bother you? director comey: the mishandling of classified information bothers me, no matter what circumstances because it has national security implications. representative: does it bother you that the precedent you are setting today may well lead to a situation where our top-secret information continues to be exposed to our potential enemies? director comey: no, in this sense. what i am setting today is my absolute best effort to treat people fairly, without regard to who they are. if that continues to be the record of the fbi and justice department, that is what it should be.

the rest of the implications in your questions are beyond that, they are important, but not for the fbi to answer your we should aspire to be a political, treat joe the same as sally, as secretary so and so. that is my goal. representative: by the way, i agree with everything you said. do you think it would have a different presidential value that would keep our information more safe? director comey: if we decided to recommend criminal charges here, i don't know. that is a good question. i can argue it both ways, i guess a lawyer can argue both ways. >> now recognizing the gentleman from arizona, five minutes. representative: thank you for being here. my colleague alluded to the i.t. advisor, were you made aware of the deal with immunity? director comey: i am aware. representative: now that

attorney general lynch as stated no charges, there are many that you failed to answer questions in the deposition, that he had something to hide. why did your investigators at the doj decide to offer him immunity? director comey: as i said response to the earlier question, i need to be more thoughtful about what i say about an immunity deal in public. maybe totally fine, but i don't to screw up because we are doing so quickly, and generally i can answer many times the prosecutor, you make a grant of immunity to get information you can i get otherwise. representative: but you know there may be something there, in hindsight, right? you are looking ahead because of pertinent information this person possesses. director comey: you believe they have relevant information to the investigation. representative: the ?nvestigators drafted a 302 will you commit to voluntary

disclosure of other witness interview, as part of your investigation? director comey: i will commit to giving you everything i can possibly give you under the law and doing it as quickly as possible. that means i have to go back and sort it out. for example, the 302 of clinton is classified, so we have to sort through all that. we will do it quickly. representative: i know you have done this because you have done this for lois lerner, and we would expect that. clinton, henry testified that she -- hillary clinton testified that he never e-mailed anyone on private servers. realizesstigation rela 52 chains. and the laws and regulation e-mail me to use my h for work. you reveal that was also not true. clinton claims she turned over all of her work e-mails. the investigation revealed this

was not also true. clinton claims there is no security breach, numerous safeguards. your investigation revealed eight e-mail chains on her private server containing top-secret information and it was possible hostile actors gained access to sensible information. mosul she e-mailed with regularity were hacked, and her private servers were less secure than a gmail account. it is a federal crime to mishandle information, and you stated clinton was externally aswas extremely careless. there is a growing trend of abuses and senior-level employees. the only difference between her and others is her total resistance to acknowledge her irresponsible behavior that our national security in the american people. i think you should recommended her be prosecuted under section

793, or title 19. your recommendation deprives the american people. there should not be double standards for the clintons and they should not be above the law. i will yield the rest of my time to the general and from south carolina, mr. gowdy. representative gowdy: we can disagree on whether or not, but let us assume that you are right and i am wrong, and that it is a valid defense. secretary clinton said that she was well aware of classification requirements. those are her words, not mine or yours. so if she were well aware of classification requirements, how does that impact your analysis of her intent? because i heard you this morning describe her as being less than sophisticated. she disagrees with that. director comey: i was talking about technical sophistication. the question is i would hope everybody the 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 is the intent question? representative gowdy: we will have to discuss all the people we prosecuted who were unaware that they were breaking the law. there are lots of really dumb defendants out there who do not know that what they're doing is against the law. but let us go with what you say. director comey: you may prosecute a lot of those folks. representative: i was a gutter prosecutor, you were white color. there are people who know you should not kill other people. let me ask you this. on the issue of intent, you say it was convenient. ok, you are really smart lawyer. if it were convenience, director, she would not have waited two years to return the documents and she would not have deleted them four years after they were created.

you cannot really believe her intent was convenience which he never turn them over until congressman asking for them, could you? director comey: my focus is on what was the thinking around the classified information. it is relevant why the system is here, i the thinking t have said already. that is my focus. i know iative gowdy: am out of time. but it just strikes me you are reading a specific intent element into a gross negligence statute, not even general intent. the specific intent -- >> gentlemen, time has expired. director comey: i enjoy talking with them. the question you have to ask is that why is the department of justice, since 1917, have not used that gross negligent charge, but once in an espionage case. that is a record of fairness. so you have to decide, do i

treat this person against that record? is that a fair thing to do? no reasonable prosecutor would do that. that would be celebrity hunting, treating that person differently than john doe. director, i want to follow on that. why did you do what you did? my interpretation of what the fbi is supposed to be doing is come to the facts and then turn it over to a prosecutor. you were a prosecutor. but you are not now. fbis unprecedented that the director gave the type of press conference that he did, and took a position that unreasonable prosecutor would only take this case forward. why did you do that? director comey: yeah, great question. everything i did would have been done privately, in a normal course. we have great conversations between the fbi and prosecutors, we make recommendations and argue back-and-forth third what

i decided to do was offer transparency to the american people about the why. because i thought that was very, very important for their confidence in the system of justice. and within that, the confidence in the fbi. i was very concerned that i did not show transparency, that lack of transparency, people would say what is going on? squirrelly.ems the next president may find him herself bound by precedne.t i decided it was worth doing. representative: i have just one question, director. i have been sitting your listen ing to this. this is something that bother me in the lois lerner case, and this case. i am wondering your opinion. ms. lawrence talks about this,

the chilling effect of your having to come here and justify your decisions. and i know that you have been really nice, you just explained why you did what you did. i'm glad you are doing it. --, you know, do you at all i'm just talking about, here you have people making decisions. being pulled here in ok,congress to then say, be questioned about the decisions. one point the you even think about it becoming a chilling effect? most people when there are decisions made don't get this kind of opportunity, as you well know. there are no statements. you either get indicted, or not. this --ow that you see but i wonder if you agree with

miss lawrence that we may be just going down a slippery slope. that is all i want to ask. director comey: my honest answer is i don't think so. i talked to the chairman, and i agreed to come because i think the american people care deeply about this. there are folks watching at home being told lots of other cases are prosecuted, and she was not. i want them to know that is not true. so i want to have this conversation. and actually welcome the conversation. look, it is a pain. i have to go to the bathroom. [laughter] >> we are halfway done. director comey: it is really important to do because thi transparency is the best thing for me and democracy. mr. chairman, my folks only i screwed up one fax. in the david petraeus case, we do not find the notebooks in the attic, but his death. i want to make sure i was fair. i don't think it has a chilling effect. if this another

president of candidate, they will be bound by this. lord willing, it will not happen again. i have days left in the job. but i will not be chilled. >> we need a humanitarian break, just give me the cue. we're on the right trajectory, yes. but we would like to recognize that woman from alabama, mr. palmer. yoursentative palmer: statement on tuesday indicated that hillary clinton and her colleagues sent and received e-mails marked classified on an unsecure server that may or may not have been hacked by a foreign power. are you aware that teenage hackers have the personal imo accounts of cia director john brennan, the director of u.s. national intelligence james clapper, and fbi director mark giuliana? director comey: i am intensely aware. by trickery, they got access. representative: these were

protectedcommercially e-mail accounts that contained no classified information. yet, with clinton used her personal information on a server in her basement, without even as basic protection. and transmitted classified information through the account. if teenagers in england were able to hack the personal e-mail , does it concern you that sophisticated hackers or hackers working for foreign is itsts never attempted, seem reasonable that they never attempted or were never successful in hacking clinton's e-mail accounts on whatever devices? director comey: a concert be a great deal. why we spent so much time to see if we could see fingerprints of that. representative: you said in your statement, regarding your recommendation not to prosecute,

to be clear this does not suggest that in similar circumstances a person who engages in this activity would face no consequence. to the contrary, they are subject to sanctions, but that is not what we are deciding here. do you stand by that? director comey: yes. representative: i thought you would. you also said you cannot prove intent. a reasonable person would not have compromised classified information by keeping that information on private 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? director comey: i agree it would be negligent. i cannot prejudge a suitability determination, but it would be stared at very hard. representative: let me tell you why i bring this up. i sat here next to mr. hurd, valiantly and

put his life on the line, he knows people whose lives are on the line right now. if someone, a u.s. intelligence agent had a mission compromised, or were seven killed or injured or captured because of carelessness of someone responsible for protecting classified information, would intent matter at that point? director comey: in deciding whether to prosecute the person? of course. of course it would. a deadlymatter, serious matter. the legal standards would be the same. representative: what we are dealing with in this hearing is not the lack of due diligence information, but the lack of due diligence by secretary clinton and her carelessness that could have compromised american national

security.and is mr. hurd pointed out, the missions of our intelligence agents. that troubles me greatly. and i think the issue here, and i do respect you, i have spoken in your defense many times. at this point, to my detriment. but i do believe your answers are honest and factual. but based on your answers regarding clinton's use of e-mails, based on what we know, it seems to me that she is stunningly incompetent and her understanding of the basic technology of e-mail, stunningly incompetent and handling classified information. i mean, you should never associate the secretary of state and classified information with the word careless. it does not matter. i mean, we have to exercise the

utmost due diligence. all of us in this committee do, you do in prosecuting cases, and i see that and what you're trying to do. 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. gentlemanto the general an from wisconsin. >> 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 cannot prove guilt

beyond a reasonable doubt, and in part because she did not understand the laws with regard and servers and that sort of thing. question for you. when she even raced these e-mails, no, i digress for a second. you ever did say that if someone did this under you, there would be consequences. if someone did exactly what mrs. clinton did, one of your some other, what yo agency that deals with top-secret documents, what would you do to those underlings? director comey: i would make sure they were adjudicated through a security disciplinary proceeding, to figure out what are all the circumstances, what punishment and discipline is appropriate. that can range from being terminated to being recommended, a whole spectrum in between suspension, loss of clearance, a bunch of different options.

representative: one of your top found out theyou had a separate server out there, keeping secret documents, you know, slipping them around your do you think they should be fired? not criminally charged, but fire. director comey: i don't think it is appropriate is a very robust process. there ought to be a very intense suitability review of that person. maybe there is something that t we are missing. but would have to go through our system. representative: just for the listening audience here, my hear of erasing e-mails and i think of auto insurance. this was not just mrs. clinton pressing delete, much greater effort made to these e-mails would never be recovered. do you want to comment on what was done to erase the e-mails? director comey: i think what you're referring to is that after her lawyers, her lawyers

say, although i am not able to verify this, there were 60,000 or so left at the end of 2014. they went through them in a way i described two days ago in my statement. they produced the ones that were work at related, and their race from their systems that were not work-related. that was done using technical tools, basically to remove them from the servers, to wipe them away. goingentative: not just delete, delete. they went above and beyond so that your top technical efforts -- top technical experts cannot get them. director comey: not fully. representative: you recovered a few. director comey: we could see some traces in the laptops, but not fully recovered. representative: the information i have, correct me if i'm wrong, implies these erasures were done in december of 2014, after the benghazi scandal broke, questions about the clinton

foundation. the jew ever come across why he allowed these e-mails to sit out there, even before she allowed secretary of state, beginning to bubble up, she or her lawyers felt she had to erase them? director comey: yeah, i think the way the process worked is she had e-mails that were just on her system. she actually had deleted some overtime, as an ordinary user would. and the state department contacted her and other former secretaries to say we have a gap in our records, we need to get the e-mails back. she then passed her lawyers, make that cut of some 60,000, was asked by her lawyers of the end, do you want us to keep personal e-mail? she said i have no use for them anymore. it is then that they issue the direction that the technical people should delete them. representative: do you think mrs. clinton knew they were erasing e-mails, so that even

your top technical experts cannot recover them? director comey: based on my sense now offer technical sophistication, i don't think so. representative: you don't think lawyers told her that waas what they were doing, racing e-mails everybody wanted to look at? what type of lawyer would not tell their client there were doing that? director comey: i think our evidence in the investigation, they did not. they asked her do you want to keep them? she said no. and they wiped representative: them away. representative:as i understand the goal was to raise personal e-mail. you recover e-mails that would not be considered personal at all. director comey: correct. representative: you cannot 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, benghazi

scandal. because the water lawyers dead, is it possible they were erasing things that were incriminating? even involving items that you yourself were not investigating, but now they have been destroyed forever? director comey: possible. as i said in my statement on tuesday, we do not find evidence that they did the erasure to conceal things, of any sort. it is possible, as i said on tuesday, there were work-related e-mails in the batch that were deleted. representative: i'm sorry. h,en you go to this lengt when using the intent is to make your no one ever looks at them again? why otherwise? >> we will give the director time to respond. director comey: you delete because you want to delete. but that is, i mean we did not find any evidence of evil intent, intent to obstruct justice of there. representative: you would not have been able to, because you

don't know what was the leader. >> now recognizing mr. russell of oklahoma for five minutes. representative russell: director thank you for your service and your long-suffering. we are at the end of line. with regard to national security, i sleep a little easier at night knowing you're at the helm of the fbi. thank you for your dedicated service and integrity. you stated, in your statement and multiple times here, there should because it went as mishandling of state secrets. if i held a top-secret sci and the bureau, and i did hold one when i was in the notice states army, in a career of service, handling classified information here, but if i held that in the fbi and you discover that i mishandled state secrets on a private server in my basement, what i be trusted by the bureau to further handle top-secret sci

information? director comey: 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. representative: if i violated the handling of state secrets in the fbi, would you consider me the best suitable candidate for promotion and hire is possibility? director comey: it would be a serious concern, s and we would stare at a very hard in a suitability review. representative: you have recommended no criminal charges, but are you recommending to the department of justice that there be no consequences for the mishandling of state secrets? director comey: no, my recommendation was solely respect to criminal charges. representative: what would you recommend? director comey: i don't think it is for me to recommend. representative: but you do, you have been very open, even stating 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. scire talking top-secret, information that has been mishandled. you would take a dim view to that if i were an agent, what consequences, 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 e invasion of be trusted for hire is possibility? director comey: that is not a question the fbi should be put to. i can answer to the things in mind remit. i understand the question. but it is not one for me to

answer in my role. representative: i hope it is one the american people get answered in the future, because we do have a choice about those who would mishandle information. while we are all fallible human beings and we make mistakes, in a case like this, and decades in my service in the army infantry handling information as a member of congress, we know that responsibility. is it your view, and others that have interviewed mrs. clinton, that she would not have known what those responsible at his were? director comey: no, i think in a way you would expect she understood the importance of protecting classified information. representative: well, i would agree with that. and there has been a breach. and i think the american people demand a consequence, that they demand accountability. and 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 will likely yield the remainder of my time to chairman chaf. chairman: we have agreed that we do have about a dozen or so ask follow-up questions. you have the most generous with your time. but i like to get to this last bit. and we will do so with equal time. how to the department of justice, the fbi, view the incident in which hillary clinton instructed jake sullivan to take the markings off a document, that was to be sent to her. director comey: we looked at that pretty closely. there was some problem with the secure fax machine. there is an e-mail in which he says in substance, take the header off and send it as a non-paper. as we dug and more deeply, we learned that there is just one view that is reasonable, that a non-paper in state department parlance means a document that

contains things we could pass to another government. to essentially take out anything that is classified and send it to me. it turns out that that did not happen. we actually found the classified fax was centered but that was our best understanding. chairman: there was a classified fax? director comey: correct. chairman: let me go back. jake sullivan says they had issues sending secure fax. they're working out. hillary clinton since to jake sullivan if they cannot turn into non-paper with no identifying heading and send nonsecure, so you are telling me it is a classified piece of information that she is taking off the header, and she is instructing them to send it in a nonsecure format? is that not intent? director comey: that caught my attention when i first saw it. when she explained during our interview, other incidences as well, what she meant was by making it into a nonclassified

document, that is what a non-paper is in their world. i don't need classified stuff. chairman: why take off the heading? why take off the heading if it is what we turn into a nonclassified document? director comey: i assume because it would not be classified anymore. you would have a header, what she said during her interview. : chairman that she wanted to be technically correct. director comey: she was saying simian unclassified document. take the hetero. turn it into a non-paper. i've never heard that term before. but into the medic circles, something we can pass to another government. you are very generous in your accepting of that. let me ask you director, did any uncleared individuals receive unclassified information over the hillary clinton server? director comey: any uncleared people receive classified information? i don't think any of the

correspondence on the classified e-mails were uncleared people. these were all people with clearances. working, doing state department business, on the class system. chairman: did he have the requisite security clearance? director comey: as i sit here today, i cannot remember. he was not a participant on the classified e-mail exchanges though. chairman: he is running it. director comey: i misunderstood your question. there is no doubt that unclear people have access to the server. there were others to maintain it never private sector folks. there are hundreds of classified documents on the servers. how many people without a security clearance had access to that server? director comey: i don't know the exact numbers as i sit here, it is probably more than 2 less than 10.

chairman: i appreciate your willingness to follow up. did secretary clinton's attorneys have a security clearances needed? director comey: they did not. chairman: does that concern you? director comey: oh, yet. chairman: is there any consequence to an attorney rifling through e-mails, without a security clearance? director comey: criminal greatuences, but concern about a not clear person, we talk about the documents having access, that is why it is very important for us to recover everything we can back from the attorney. chairman: what is the consequence? here, hillary clinton gave direction to her attorneys, without a security clearance, to go through documents that were classified. director comey: i think that is what happened in fact, whether that was direction is the question i cannot answer sitting here.

chairman: you are parsing that one. director comey: no. chairman: what is the consequence? they don't work for the government. we cannot fire the. should they lose their bar license? director comey: acting with criminal intent or malintent. chairman: i may be innocent enough, i like the secretary, i'm trying to help hillary clinton, i'm not try to give it to the chinese of the russians. i'm just try to help her. there is no intent? it doesn't matter if these people have security clearances? director comey: of course it matters. chairman: there is no consequence, director, no consequence. director comey: i don't know what comes with you have in mind. chairman: prosecute them. director comey: attorneys sharing information that ends up being classified?

chairman: i asked you at the beginning, is there reasonable expectation that hillary clinton would receive hourly, if not daily, classified information? that is reasonable to think of 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 is up to 10 people without security clearances, and there is no consequence? so, why not do it again? director comey: that is a question i don't think you should put to me. i'm talking about my criminal investigation. chairman: there is no intent there? does she not understand these people don't have security clearances? director comey: surely, she understands at least some of them do not. chairman: it is reasonable to think she is reading classified

information, is that not intent to provide a non-cleared person access to classified information? director comey: you are mixing fault, butyour someone maintaining your server is reading your e-mails. that is not the case here. there is a separate thing, when she isengaging counsel to reply with the state department's request, there is information that is classified. chairman: did hillary clinton's attorneys, without security clearances, see classified information? director comey: as i sit here, i don't know the answer. chairman: it has to be. yes, they came across 100 and 10, read them all. we saw the e-mails but did not read them? director comey: i said this in my statement on tuesday. by using headers and search

terms. chairman: i know you read them all. is it reasonable to think that her attorneys under her direction did or did not read those e-mails? let me go back to this. yes or no, were there or were there not classified e-mails that hillary clinton's attorneys read? director comey: i don't know whether they read them, at the time. clinton: did hillary give non-cleared people access to classified information? director comey: yes. chairman: what you think or intent was? director comey: to get good legal representation, and to make the production to the state department. order,n be a very tall in that circumstance i don't see

criminal intent actions, engaging with her lawyer. chairman: i guess i read criminal intent that you allow someone 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. reprimandrepresentative cumming: thank you for your patience, mr. director. i want to clear up a couple of things. let me make sure i understand toctly what you testify to, the issue that secretary clinton received e-mails that were marked or file is classified. you stated that only a very small number of e-mails contained classified information, or markings. markings,asize indicating the presence of

classified information. republicans have pounced on this statement that secretary clinton lied. but today, we learned some significant new facts, that i hope the press listens to this. first, you clarified that you are talking about only three e-mails out of 30,000. reviewed, is that right, three out of 30,000? director comey: at least 30,000. representative cummings: at least 30,000. secondly, you confirmed these e-mails were not properly marked as classified at the time, based on federal guidelines and manuals. that did not have a classification header, did not list the original classifier, origin,cy, office of reason for classification, or

date of declassification. instead, these e-mails included parentheses, for paragraphal, when one lower down the tax, is that right? director comey: yes. representative cummings: you testify that based on these facts, it would have been a reasonable inference for secretary clinton to conclude that these e-mails were not in fact classified. so, that was also critical new information. there is one more critical fact. that these e-mails were not in press,irector and to the these e-mails were not in fact classified.

the state department explained that yesterday. they reported that these e-mails were not classified, concluding that the little c on these e-mails was a result of a human error. the bottom line is that those little c's should not have been on the documents that they were not in fact classified. when representative watson this, youk you about testified you had not been informed. i understand that. i'm not beating up on you. i promise you that. can you tell us, republicans are pouncing on this saying that the secretary live. anded. i want to make sure we are clear on this. can you tell me why you consulted with the state department about these three thanils, out of more 30,000, it is just not come up? what happened? director comey: i'm not remembering for sure, but i'm

highly confident we consulted with them and got their view on it. i don't know about what happened view isy, maybe their changed and they found of things we do not know. but i'm highly confident we consulted with them about it. representative cummings: this is totally different than what we learned,, that these e-mails were not in fact classified that they should not have been included. the mission not have included a stray markings, and the fbi director believes it was reasonable for secretary clinton to assume these documents were not classified. you raise a question about whether the attorneys had security clearances. it is my understanding that they did. we can double check that. but that is my understanding. we will double check that. move to thet me next topic. you explained on tuesday that you are providing an update on

fbi's investigation on the use of a personal e-mail system during her time as secretary of state. you explained that you received referral on this matter from the inspector general of intelligence on july 20 6, 2016. is that right? director comey: yes. theysentative cummings: are publicly available on the state department's website. our staff has been reviewing the e-mails that were retroactively determined to include classified information. based on this review, it appears that these e-mails included more than 1000 individuals, who sent or received the information that is now redirected as classified. let me make that clear. about 1000 people sent or received the same information that was contained in secretary clinton's e-mails and retroactively classified. were you aware of that? the numbermey: no,

does not surprise me though. representative cummings: why not? director comey: i don't know how many thousands of people work at the state department, but there are thousands on this chain. representative cummings: something needs to be done with regard to the classification stuff. because things are classified, the not classified, then they are retroactively classified. does that go into your consideration when looking at a case like this? director comey: i don't pay much attention to the unclassified stuff, because we are focused on intent. if someone classifies it later, is impossible to form intent because it was not classified and a time. i know that is a process. i was not familiar with before the investigation. i don't spend a lot of time focused on it in the course of a criminal investigation. representative cummings: i understand. we also reviewed for these people are, career double

mats with years of experience -- diplomats with years of experience. when you receive this about the e-mails, did you also receive any referrals or any of the other 1000 people who sent and received those e-mails, did you? director comey: no. i should stop there. within the scope of our investigation was a group of people closer to the secretary. we looked at their condo. i forget the number, 4-5. but the hundreds of others on the chain the subject of the investigation. cummings:tive it is not make sense that hillary clinton was singled out for referral to the fbi, do you agree? director comey: i don't think i agree with that. representative cummings: let us go back to: how appeared should

you ought to look at his situation? there is been a referral. on the superficial circumstances, this case strikes me as very different from those, not inappropriate referral from the inspector general. chairman: i thank the gentleman. who was hillary clinton e-mailing that was hacked? director comey: i don't want to say in an open forum. we can get you that information. but again, i don't want to give any possible adversaries into what we figured out. i know the names. chairman: fair enough. i understand. was there any evidence of hillary clinton attempting to avoid compliance with the freedom of information act? director comey: that was not the subject of our criminal investigation, so i cannot answer that sitting here. chairman: it is a violation of law, is it not? director comey: yes, my

understanding is there are civil statutes. chairman: let us for the boundary on what you did not look at, you did not look at whether there was an intention or the reality of noncompliance with the freedom of information act. director comey: correct. chairman: you did not look at testimony that hillary clinton gave in the united states congress, both house and senate. director comey: to see whether it was perjury? no, we did not. chairman: did you review a look at those transcripts as to the intent of your recommendation? director comey: i am sure my folks did. i did not. chairman: so, ok, this is an important point. those of us in congress knowing you have a criminal referral from inspector general thought that you were also looking at whether or not hillary clinton had provided false testimony, which is a crime, to the congress. but you did not look at that.

director comey: correct. as i said, i'm confident my folks look at the substance of the statement, try to understand the entire situation. chairman: can you confirm that? director comey: we will confirm that. maybe i'm missing this, but i don't think we had a perjury referral. chairman: it was the inspector general that initiated that. the fact that hillary clinton refused to be interviewed by the inspector general, what did that say to you about intent? director comey: at least for our criminal investigation, not particularly germane. familiar,are you there is a website, me lots of government agencies have website, the state department has a website, state.gov. they have a youtube site, videos that are uploaded to youtube

site, with those be considered federal record? so, they are paid for by federal dollars. there maintained by federal employees. with an obvious federal record? director comey: i just don't know. i am sure there is an expert answer that in two seconds. chairman: we have kept in your long time. i want to follow on that. is the fbi still investigating hillary clinton's aides? director comey: no, the subject medicating for the system. chairman: what recommendations if you make? director comey: the same, no one prosecuted on those facts. us whon: if you can help precisely had been ruled out for prosecution -- director comey: sure. chairman: did you look at the clinton foundation? director comey: i'm not going to

comment on the investigation or any other investigations. chairman: was the clinton foundation tied into this? director comey: i'm not going to answer that. server inthe her home was originally set up by president bill clinton, unit paid for that -- do you know who paid for that? director comey: i don't, sitting here. chairman: ok. i will have time for mr. cummings. repetitive cummings: i will yield to mr. lynch. tative lynch: we're talking about hacking. we review of the major hacks going on.

just recently, last 18 months, februarymajor hack in 2016 of the department of homeland security and the fbi. we had a hacking group, the site intelligence group order that a group called crackers with attitude had hacked 9000 employees' data from the department of homeland security, including name, e-mail addresses, locations, telephone numbers. also 20,000 fbi workers. we had another hack, direct evidence obviously, of those. we had another hack of opm at 4.2 million current and federal employees. information had been stolen, increase of 3, including social security numbers, which were not

redacted. attempted,000 100,000 successful. we had state department announcing a breach of its computer systems after infiltration forced temporary shutdown of the classification system. we have the u.s. postal service, 800,000 services, the white house, this is back in 2014, a washington post reporter's computer was hacked. national oceanic atmospheric administration, we had another committee for financial services, we had verizon, ucla health system, thousands and thousands of employees. anthem health care. sony picture.

jpmorgan. home depot. they go to the millions. community health systems. target. all of this, we have direct evidence, millions of people packed. a direct evidence that hillary clinton's enough perhaps? director comey: no. representative: i have no further questions. i yield back. representative cummings: we are back at the end. i will do a concluding statement, and the chairman, first of all i want to go back to something that mrs. watson coleman said a little earlier. as an african-american man in old country, 66 years 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 y in batonf this gui rouge. minneapolis.ed at and i hope you watch them. there is something wrong with this picture. and don't get me wrong, i am all for, i have supported police, i am a lawyer. i know how important police are. i know there are so many great folks. but mr. director, if you do nothing else in your 2000 plus days left, you have to help us get a hold of this issue. it is so painful. i can't even 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 haven't stopped 50 million times. hearing, i to this would to thank you again. as i listen to you, you said something that i will never forget. 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. 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 they are proud of you. is, thatd thing i hope no matter what has happened in this hearing, i hope that you know that your reputation is still intact. and so i conclude by summarizing that i think some of our key findings today, first, first he d testified that 15 investigators unanimously agree on the recommendation not to prosecute secretary clinton. second, director comey made crystal clear that republican claims some of the talking heads claims of bias are completely

false, testified that he would treat john doe the same way he would treat hillary clinton and that he was very forceful on that point. that on the claim secretary clinton sent e-mails that were marked, that claim has been significantly undercut. those documents were not classified and those markings were not proper. finally, republicans have repeatedly cried foul about a double standard when it comes to secretary clinton's e-mails. director comey testified the real double standard would be to prosecute with this completely inadequate evidence. gain, director, i thank you. but i thank somebody else. i thank and having practiced law for many years and -- and having dealt with the f.b.i. on many , i want to thanking the

people that work with you. this is not just about you. this is not just about secretary clinton. when we are addressing you, there are a whole kadray of people who give their blood, their sweat and their tears to protect us as americans. and i just want to thank them because sometimes i think they're forgotten, unseened, unnoticed, unappreciated and unapplauded. thank you very much and i yield back. >> i concur with the idea that every f.b.i. agent i've ever met have been above reproach. they make us proud and they work hard. they put their lives on the line. they serve overseas. they serve domestically. can't thank them enough for what they do. i hope that is part of the message that we carry back.

i cannot thank you personally enough, you on a personal level for your accessbility, your ability to get on the phone with me, the same day that you make your announcement and in rapid fire when i said to you what day -- we're going to have to do this, which day is best for you and you said thursday. and here we are doing it. i wish all of the government employees would have that attitude and approach. i really do. i can't thank you new. i look forward to working with you and your staff on getting this documentation things that you can't share publicly and others. it is the intention of the committee -- i had told mr. cummings here that we would come back after votes. votes have been pushed back a bit. i would light to go under recess in five minutes and then we would start with our second panel. committee stands in recess until five minutes from now. thank you again, director comey.

[captioning performed by

national captioning institute] [captions copyright national able satellite corp. 2016] >> after the hearing wrapped up this afternoon, the state department announced it would reopen its review of hillary clinton's private e-mail address and now she handled classified material. the democratic presidential candidate will make a campaign stwop vice president joe biden in scranton, pennsylvania. we'll bring it to you live, noon astern on c-span2. earlier today on capitol hill speaker paul ryan told reporters hat he's looking all options for discipline all democrats for sit-ins. he's concerned it will become a trend and will threaten bipartisan. here's a look.

>> this morning f.b.i. director james comey is testified before the house and oversight committee. right now there are still far more questions than answers. the director himself says this matter requires unusual transparency and i completely agreement that is why i have sent a let tore director comey requesting that he release all of the unclassified findings of this investigation in addition, i sent a let tore the trecttor of national intelligence asking him to refrain providing classified briefings to

secretary clinton. in director comey's statement he would say this is not to suggest that a person who engages in this activity would face no consequences. to the contrary. those individuals are subject to security ored a administrative sanctions. and just this morning there are often severe consequences from mishandling classified information. so it stands to reason that ndividual "extremely careless" with classified information should be denied further access to that further information. i want to make a further point. the recklessness we have seen from secretary:ton, this cavalier attitude is not confined to one person or one government agency. it goes on every day in this administration. just this morning two congressional committees released a report detailing on the administration spent

billions of dollars in obamacare. this was not an ined a ver at that particular time violation. there was a clear effort to circumvent the law. a commission released a report shows that the veterans administration have not changed the way they do business. as a result too many veterans continue to wait too long for care. -- we in congress have a responsibility to provide oversight and we will fulfill that obligation in addition as part of our better way ageneral darks we have put forward several ideas on how to restore accountability and reclaim the separation of power. encourage you to go to better .gop.

>> why you do think that's an appropriate matter to take over the house floor again and do -- what is the effort the g.o.p. -- speaker ryan: i didn't know until you mentioned it to me. looking back, i don't think that's appropriate. one of the things that really concerns me with this move is the press dent it sets. we are the oldest democracy in the world. we operate on the constitution and the legislative branch of government where we're supposed to debate our rules, our law, our reforms civilly. if we break those rules how can we have civilized democracy. that's point one. point two, you know, you don't get to know people in the other party a lot around here. that's one of the big regrets for be it's way politics works these days. i got to know democrats because

of the people i serve with in my committee, ways an means -- and means committee. t where you get to know them on the floor. that floor is the best way to actually get to know each other, to strike up conversations, strike up friendships, to compromise, to talk and discuss. this is where bipartisan curse. it's only vestige for republicans and democrats to come together. if we turn it into a partisan tweeting,omplete with have copping then we have the chance to get to know.

most of us don't live in washington. we live in our districts. modern air travel and for a bunch of reasons we don't do that. the reason he regretted that is because we never got to know each other. our kids didn't play on the same basketball teams together. and the last place we have where republicans and dem crasses spend casual time with each other working up the differences getting to know each other is the floor if we turn the floor into a partisan war zone then there's no chance left for any kind of commentee or partisan. i know that's a wrong answer but on your question specifically we want to get this terrorism legislation right. loss of our members when we posted the bill have given us many suggestions. so we're trying to get this legislation right. we're trying to bring a bill on the floor that deals with this violence that deals with terrorism, these issues. we're not going rush it. we're going to get it right. and that's what we're working with our members.

>> you spoke so passionately on the floor and enforcing the rules here. based on what you know of that and you've got a meeting with them, what should be the discipline? hould there be rebuke? sensor, reprimand? >> all those things we're considering right now. we had a good meeting with the parliamentarian. every option is on the table. we just had our meeting with them who did an exhaustive review, researched the tape looked at whats of infractions occurred. and we're looking at all of those things because my biggest concern is that a bad trend happens where we throw the rule of law out the window, congress doesn't function and there's no hope for bipartisan again. that's why i want to make sure that we establish the right precedence which is we get back to debating policies. there are motions to recommit.

we had a vote last night where they were able to bring up an issue. there are ways of having congress civilly engage frevpb the minority standpoint. those rules are to be heated. and so yes, i'm very worried about the trend and the precedence. and so we are looking at all options for consequences to make sure that we can get congress working again. > are you looking at something -- speaker ryan: we just got a number of recommendations from the authorities here in congress from parliamentarians, from the sergeant of arms. we want to get this right. we don't want to do this in a rash, wrong way. and we're work on our terrorism legislation. >> you just had a meeting with your presumptive nominee. what were you takeaways and you have talked about in the past you being uncomfortable with some of the lack of the discipline of the zphain you

guys were on message and he went on a tangent the star of david tweet. >> i think we had a great meeting with our presumptive nominee. this is the first time just about every one of our members had a chance to meet and engage with donald trump. so i thought it was great that he came. i'm glad he accepted our invitation and we had a very good exchange on lots of ideas and policy issues. it's very clear he's working on puts together a strong general election campaign. he's has got the convention coming up. but what i thought was helpful is our members got access angott to request sk questions. >> are you more comfortable with him today? >> i think he did a great job engaging. and our members appreciated it. plan b is the democrats stop their filibuster which is reckless in the senate and pass

zika. we found out all of the money that's been appropriated only 1/6 of it has been spent so far. that's the kind of answers we've been trying to get to questions for a couple of monthses now. it hit the 1137b9 billion dollar funding level. everyone knows. that and the democrats are playing politics with this including a phil buster. they should pass the bill. >> so donald trump is standing by the tweet with the star of david -- >> i'm not going to comment -- you think i'm going comment on every tweet? metic. said it was anti-se >> no, i didn't. i'm not going to get into the tweet talk. >> if he refuses your request to

talk hillary access of classified information will congress take snax do you feel comfortable with donald trump with classified information? >> i am. con i don't know if congress has the power to do that. let me go back for a second. when i came out of the 2012 as the vice presidential nominee. i then got deeply classified briefings by the c.i.a. and the rest of the intelligence committee that. is part of the transition of government. and so we just are in a week here with the director of the f.b.i. just said that hillary clinton recklessly mishandled sensitive classified information. and even though he didn't recommend criminal prosecution. he did say that the appropriate case here is administrative actions. and in three weeks when she comes out of the convention, she's going to get unforgetted

action for the most classified information our government has? no way. so i really believe that we f we have someone who is so recklessly mishandled information the kind of thing i get as speaker of the house in the transition in government, i think that we should think this through and i think that the d. n. i. has an obligation especially given for what we learned the f.b.i. has said that she will not get classified information. >> will you honor her decision. >> i don't know if we have the able to change that or not. my guess is you don't. just as the director said, there ought to be consequences. usually there are severe consequences at least administratively. and from my own personal experience she is about to get the deeply sensitive classified information that our country has. and she's been proven to be dishonest about what she said e did and she's been handled

by her. >> were you satisfied with the explanation about his remarks about saddam husain. do you think he will reassure members here? >> i we all -- not you, but we do these things. i think his point was to put it on the context so people understood the context in which he was speaking tough on terrorism and used colorful language to do that. >> last question. >> was there any discussion on your the better way agenda? and if so, was there an endorsement? >> we talked about them quite a bit. most of the members what brought in the components that if you feel like that. and theus something that we enjoin the support to the rapes.

although our agenda are constitutional agenda. so we talked about lots of issues. and so we clearly have a presumptive nominee who wants to work with us on moving this agenda forward. thank you very much, everybody. >> community organizer in black mckeson ters deray will discuss the latest shootings in minnesota and louisiana. join the discussion. our "road to the white house" coverage continues live with the

democratic party's platform committee in orlando. friday july 8th, continuing saturday july 9th at 10:00 a.m. eastern. members will debate and vote for this year's elections. live coverage on c-span, the c-span radio app and c-span.org. >> health an human services secretary sylvia burrwell will answer questions on the cost sharing reduction program. we'll take you to the house, live. 19:15 a.m. eastern eastern -- on c-span2. f.b.i. director james comey testified before the house oversight committee on hillary clinton's use of a private e-mail network when she was secretary of state. this comes after he recommended against filing criminal charges in the case. director comey answered questions on the investigation and mrs. clinton's truthfulness

for about four and a half hours. order. i want to thank director comey for being here and doing so on short notice. my -- i have the greatest admiration for the fbi. my grandfather was a career fbi agent. here because we're mystified and confused by the fact pattern that you laid out and the conclusions that you reached. it seems that there are two standards. and there's no consequence for these types of activities and

dealing in a careless way with classified information. it seems to a lot of us that the average joe, the average american, that if they had done what you laid out in your statement, that they'd be in handcuffs and they might be on their way to jail and they probably should. and i think there is a legitimate concern that there is a double standard. if your name isn't clinton or you're not part of the powerful elite that lady justice will act differently. it's a concern that lady justice will take off that blindfold and come to a different conclusion. hillary clinton created this mess. wasn't republicans. it wasn't anybody else. she made a very conscious decision on the very day that she started her senate

confirmation, she set up and got a domain name. and set up a system to avoid and bypass the safety, security, and the protocol of the state department. classified information is classified for a reason. it's classified because if it were to get out into the public, there are nefarious actors, nation states, others who want to do harm to this country. and there are people who put their lives on the line protecting and serving our country. when those communications are not secure, it puts their lives in jeopardy. this classified information isn't trusted to very few, but there is such a duty and an obligation to protect that, to fall on your sword to protect th

that. and yet, there doesn't seem to be any consequence. i was talking to tray gowdy. he made a really good point with us yesterday. mr. gowdy said in your statement, mr. director, you mentioned that there was no precedent for this. but we believe that you have set a precedent and it's a dangerous one. the precedent is if you sloppily deal with classified information, if you're cavalier about it. and it wasn't just a innocent mistake, this went on for years. that there's going to be no consequence. we -- we're a different nation in the united states of america. we are self-critical. most nations would never do this. but we do it in the spirit of making ourselves better. there will be all kinds of accusations about political this and political that. i -- i have defended your

integrity, every step of the way. you are the definitive voice. i stand by that. but i am mystified and i am confused because you listen to your fact pattern and come to the conclusion that there is no consequence, i don't know how to explain that. we'll have constituents ask us, they'll get mad, they're frustrated. they've seen this happen time and time again. i don't know how to explain it. and i hope that it -- through this hearing, we can stick to the facts and understand this because there does seem to be two standards, there does seem to be no consequence, and i want to understand that. and i want to be able to explain it to the person that's sitting at home. and that's where we're here. and so i yield back. i recognize the ranking member

mr. cummings. >> director comey, thank you for being here today. i want to begin by commending you and the public servants at the fbi for the independent investigation you conducted. you had a thankless task. no matter what recommendation you made, you were sure to be criticized. there is no question that you were extremely thorough. in fact, some may even say you went too far in your investigation. but of course that was your job, that is your job. secretary clinton has acknowledged that she made a mistake in using a personal e-mail account. and you explained on tuesday that she and her colleagues at the state department were extremely careless with their

e-mails. but after conducting this exhaustive review, you determine that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case based on this evidence. and you and the career staff recommended against prosecution. based on the previous cases you examined, if prosecutors had gone forward, they would have been holding the secretary to a different standard from everyone else. amazingly, amazingly some republicans who were praising you just days ago for your independence, for your integrity, and your honesty instantly turned against you because your recommendation conflicted with the predetermined outcome they wanted. in their eyes, you had one job, and one job only.

to prosecute hillary clinton. but you refuse to do so. so now you are being summoned here to answer for your alleged transgressions. and in a sense, mr. director, you're on trial. contrary to the claims of your critics, there is absolutely no evidence that you made your recommendation for political reasons, no evidence that you were bribed or coerced or influenced, no evidence that you came to your conclusion based upon anything but the facts and the law. i firmly believe that your decision was not based on convenience but on conviction. today, house republicans are doing what they always do. using taxpayers' money to continue investigating claims

that have already been debunked just to keep them in the headlines one more day. hear a political siren, they rush towards it over and over again, even if the evidence is not there. exhibit a, majority leader kevin mccarthy who admitted on national television that republicans established the benghazi select committee to bring down secretary clinton's poll numbers. i didn't say that. mccarthy said it. the fact was confirmed by a republican staffer on that committee who reported that he was fired in part for not going along with the hyper focus on secretary clinton. i give house republicans credit. they certainly are not shy about what they are doing. they've turned political investigations into an art form. if our concerns here today are with the proper treatment of

classified information, then we should start with a review of our previous hearing on general david petraeus who pled guilty last year to intentionally and knowingly compromising highly classified information. the problem is, mr. director, we never had that hearing. this committee ignored that breach of national security because it did not match the political goals of the house republicans. if our concerns today where we're finally addressing a broken classification system in which security levels are arbitrarily changed up and down, that would have been a legitimate goal. that would have been a valuable addition to reforming and improving our government. after all, we are the government

reform committee. we have held hearings here on zika, the zika virus, preventing gun massacres like the one in orlando or a host of other topics that could actually save people's lives. but that's not why we're here. that is not why our chairman called this emergency hearing 48 hours after you made your recommendation. everyone knows what this committee is doing. honestly, i would not be surprised, and i say this with all seriousness. i would not be surprised if tomorrow republicans set up a new committee to spend $7 million plus on why the fbi failed to prosecute hillary clinton. director comey, let me conclude with this request. even with all that i have said,

i believe that there is a critical role for you today. i've listened carefully to the coverage on this issue. and i've heard people say recently as this morning, three hours ago, that they were mystified by your decision. as a matter of fact, the chairman repeated it a minute ago. and so there is a perceived gap between the things you said on tuesday and your recommendation. there's a gap, mr. director. so in this moment, and this is a critical moment, i beg you to fill the gap. because when the gap is not filled by you, it will be filled by others. share with us, the american people, your process and your thinking. explain how you examined the

evidence, the law, and the precedent. describe in clear terms how you and your team, career professionals, arrived at this decision. if you can do that today, if you can do that, that could go a long way towards people understanding your decision. finally, i want to make it clear that i condemn these completely unwarranted political attacks against you. they have attacked you personally, they have attacked your integrity, they have impugned your professionalism and even suggested that you were somehow boiught and paid for because you made your recommendation based upon the law and the facts a. i know you're used to working in the world of politics, but these attacks have been beyond the pale. so you do not deserve this.

your family does not deserve it. and the highly skilled and dedicated agents of the fbi do not deserve it. i honor your professionalism and your service to our country. and again, even if it takes until hell freezes over, i beg you to close the gap. tell is what happened between what you found and your decision so that not only the members of this panel and this congress will understand, but so that americans will understand. and if you do that, if you do that, then it will be all worth it today. with that, i yield back. >> plt chairman -- >> hold on one second. with -- with your indulgence, to the ranking member of which i have the greatest respect, you asked for a hearing on general petraeus and how that was dealt with. you got it. we will have one in this oversight committee. and the record will reflect in

the judiciary committee i repeatedly questioned attorney general holder. i repeatedly questioned the fbi director about the disposition of that case, probably more than any member of the house or senate. and if you want a hearing we'll do that. >> does gentleman yield? >> yes. >> thank you. >> number two, you complained that we haven't done a hearing on zika, the oversight and government reform committee i believe was the very first committee to actually do a hearing on zika. and i'm proud of the fact that we did a zika hearing and we did it first. >> chairman yield? >> yeah. >> can we have another one because the problem is still there? >> mr. chairman, unanimous consent request that we put the day to the hearing and the record at this time that i chaired. thank you. >> absolutely. and the ranking member knows that we have hold multiple hearings on the criminal justice and criminal justice reform. you've asked for it, you're passionate about it, and we did

do that as well. to suggest that we didn't address -- >> i don't think i did that, mr. chairman. but again, as late as yesterday with the problem in minnesota with an african-american man being killed, i'd like to have some hearings still on the criminal justice system. >> thank you very much. without objection -- i'm going to work with you on that, as i have every step of the way. the declare is authorized to declare a recess at any time. i will hold the record hope for five to seven days. we recognize our distinguished witness. pleased to welcome the honorable james comey, the director of the federal bureau of investigations. thank you for being here. all witnesses are to be sworn before they testify. if you'll please rise and raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole

truth, and nothing but the truth? thank you. let the record reflect that the witness answered in the affirmative. mr. comey, the floor is yours. you can take as long or as short as you'd like. if you have a written statement afterwards, we're happy to do that as well. the time is now yours. director comey, you're recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman. i am proud to be here today representing the people of the fbi who did this investigation as they do all their work in a competent, honest, and independent way. i believe this investigation was conducted consistent with the highest traditions of the fbi. our folks did it in an apolitical and professional way, including our recommendation as to the appropriate resolution of this case. as i said in my statement on tuesday, i expected there would be significant public debate about this recommendation, and

i'm a big fan of transparency. so i welcome the conversation we're going to have here today. and i do think a whole lot of folks have questions about so why did we reach the conclusion we did and what was our thinking. i hope to get an opportunity to address that and explain it. people can disagree, can agree, but they will at least understand that the recommendation was made the wait people would want it to be, people who care about what is the facts, what is the law, and how similar people, all people have been treated in the past. maybe i can say a few words at the beginning. there are two things that matter in a criminal investigation of a subject. what did the person do, and when they did that thing, what were they thinking. when you look at the hundred years plus of the justice department investigation and prosecution of the mishandling of classified information, those two questions are present.

what did the person do, and when they did it, did they know they were doing something that was unlayful. that has been the characteristic of every charged criminal case involving the mishandling of classified information. i'm happy to go through the classifications in particular. it's important to know what you did when you did it, this latin phrase means what were you thinking. we don't want to put people in jail unless we prove that they knew they were doing something they shouldn't do. that is the characteristic of all the prosecutions involving mishandling of classified information. there was a statute passed in 1917 that on its face makes it a crime for someone to engage in gross negligence. maybe in that circumstance you don't need to prove they were doing something unlawful. maybe it's enough to prove they were really, really careless. at the time congress passed that statute in 1917, there was a lot

of concern in the house and senate about whether that was going to violate the american tradition, you proved they knew they were doing something wrong. the statute was passed. as best i can tell, the department of justice has used it once in the 99 years since reflecting that same concern. i know from 30 years with the department of justice, they have grave concerns about whether it's appropriate to prosecute somebody for gross negligence, which is why they've done it withes that i know of in a case involving espionage. when i look at the facts we gather here, i see evidence of great carelessness, but i do not see evidence that is sufficient to establish that secretary clinton or those with whom she was corresponding both talked about classified information on e-mail and knew when they did it, they were doing something that was against the law. given that assessment of the facts, my understanding of the law, my conclusion was and