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

remains no reasonable prosecutor would bring this case. no reasonable prosecutor would bring the second case in 100 years focused on gross negligence. i know that's been a source of some confusion for folks, that's just the way it is. i know no reasonable prosecutor would bring in the case. i wonder where they were the last 40 years because i'd like to see the cases they brought on gross negligence. so my just a minute was, the appropriate resolution of this case was not with a criminal prosecution. folks can disagree with that. i hope they know the view was honestly held, fairly investigated and communicated with unusual transparency. i look forward to this conversation, answering as many questions as i possibly can. i'll stay as long as you need me to stay. i thank you for the tonight. >> thank you, director. i'm going to recognize myself

here. physically where were hillary clinton's servers? >> the operational server was in the basement of her home in new york. the reason i'm answering it that way, sometimes after they were decommissioned they were moved to other storage facilities, but the live device was always in the basement. >> was that an authorized or unauthorized location? >> it was an unauthorized location for the transmitting of classified information. >> is it reasonable or unreasonable to expect hillary clinton would receive and send classified information? >> as secretary of state, reasonable that the secretary of state would encounter classified information in the course of the secretary's work. >> via e-mail? >> sure. depending upon the nature of the system. to communicate classified information, it would have to be a classified rated e-mail system. >> but you did find more than

100 e-mails that were classified that had gone through that server correct? >> through an unclassified server correct. >> so hillary clinton did come to possess documents and materials that contained classified information via e-mail on these unsecured servers is that correct? >> that is correct. >> did hillary clinton lie? >> to the fbi? we have no basis to conclude she lied to the fbi. >> did she lie to the public? >> that's a question i'm not qualified to answer. i can speak about what she said to the fbi. >> did she -- did hillary clinton lie under oath? >> to the -- not to the fbi. not in a case we're working. >> did you review the documents where congressman jim jordan asked her specifically and she said, quote, there was nothing marked classified on my e-mails either sent or received, end quote? >> i don't remember reviewing that particular testimony, i'm aware of that being said,

though. >> did the fbi investigate her statements under oath on this topic? >> not to my knowledge. i don't think there's been a referral from congress. >> do you need a referral from congress to investigate her -- her statements under oath? >> sure do. >> you'll have one. you'll have one in the next few hours. did hillary clinton break the law? >> in connection with her use of the e-mail server, my judgment is that she did not. >> are you just not able to prosecute it or did hillary clinton break the law? >> the question i always look at is is there evidence that would establish beyond a reasonable doubt that somebody engaged in conduct that violated a criminal statute. and my judgment here there is not. >> the fbi does background checks. if hillary clinton applied for the job at the fbi, would the fbi give hillary clinton a

security clearance? >> i don't want to answer a hypothetical. the fbi has a robust process in which we adjudicate the susbility of people. >> given the fact pattern you laid out less than 40 hours ago, would that person be granted a security clearance at the fbi? >> it would be a very important consideration in a suitability determination. >> you're kind of making my point director. the point being because i injected the word hillary clinton, you gave me a different answer. if i came up to you and said that this person was extremely careless with classified nofgs, exposure to hostile actors, had created innes burdens and exposure, if they said they had one device and you found out they had multiple devices, if there had been e-mail chains

with somebody like jake sullivan asking for classification changes, you're telling me that the fbi would grant a security clearance to that person? >> i hope i'm giving -- i'm not saying what the answer would be. i'm saying that would be an important consideration in a suitability determination, for anybody. >> it's -- personally, i think that sounds like a bit of a political answer. because i can't imagine that the fbi would grant a security clearance to somebody with that fact pattern. do you agree or disagree with that? >> say what i said before. again, very hard to answer an hypothetical. it would be a very important consideration in a suitability determination. >> did hillary clinton do anything wrong? >> what do you mean by "wrong"? >> i think it's self-evident. >> i'm lawyer. i'm an investigator and i'm hope normal human being. >> do you really believe there should be no consequence for hillary clinton and how she

dealt with this? >> i hope folks remember what i said on tuesday. i didn't say there's no consequence for someone who violates the rules regarding the handling of classified information. there are often severe consequences in the fbi involving their employment, pay, clearances. that's what i said on tuesday. i hope folks walk away understanding that just because someone's not process could sec doesn't mean there aren't consequences for it. >> so if hillary clinton or if anybody had worked at the fbi under this fact pattern, what would you do to that person? >> there would be a security review and an adjudication of their suitability and a range of discipline could be imposed from termination to reprimand and in between, suspensions, loss of clearance. so you could be walked out or depending on the nature of the facts, you could be reprimanded. there is a robust process to handle that.

>> i recognize the ranking member mr. cummings. >> i want to thank you for being here today, especially on such short notice. you and your staff should be commended for the thorough review you conducted. infortunately my colleagues are now attacking you personally because it conflicted with their preconceived political outcome in this case. some have tried to argue that this case is far worse than the case of general petraeus who was convicted of knowingly and intentionally compromising highly classified information. one very vocal politician said, if she isn't indicted, the only reason is because the democrats are protecting her. she is being protected 100%. you look at general petraeus. you look at ail the other people that did a fraction of what she did, but she has much worse judgment than he had and she's

getting away with it and it's unfair to him, end of quote. director comey, you were the director of the fbi when general petraeus pled guilty. >> yes. >> if i understand that case correctly, general petraeus kept highly classified information in eight personal notebooks at his private residence. >> that is correct. >> his notebook included the identities of covert officers. also included war strategy, intelligence capabilities, diplomatic discussions, quotes and discussions from high level national security council meetings, and discussions with the president. general petraeus shared his information with his lover and then biographer. he was caught on audiotape telling her, i mean, they are highly classified, some of them. they don't have it, on it, but i mean there's code word stuff in

there end of quote. director comey, what did general petraeus mean when he said he intentionally shared quote code word information with her? what does that mean? >> the petraeus case indicates cases that the department of justice is willing to prosecute. in that case, you had vast quantities of highly classified information, that's the reference to code words. vast quantity of it. not only shared with someone without authority to have it, but we found it in a search warrant hidden under the insulation in his attic and then he lied to us about it during the investigation. so you have obstruction of justice, intentional misconduct and vast quantity of information. he admitted he knew that was the wrong thing to do. that is the perfect illustration of the kind of cases that get prosecuted. it illustrates importantly the distinction to this case.

>> and general petraeus did not admit to these facts when the fbi investigators first interviewed him did he? >> no, he lied about it. >> but he did admit to these facts in a plea agreement is that correct? >> yes. >> here's what the department filing said about general petraeus and i quote, the acts taken by the defendant david petraeus were in all respects knowing and deliberate and were not committed by mistake, accident, or other innocent reason, end of quote. is that an accurate summary in your view, director comey? >> yes, it leaves out an important part of the case which is the obstruction of justice. >> was he charged with obstruction of justice? >> no. >> and why not? >> a decision made by the leadership of the department of justice not to insist upon a plea to that felony. >> the question is, do you agree with the claim that general petraeus, and i quote, got in trouble for far less, end of

quote? do you agree with that statement? >> no, it's the reverse. >> what do you mean by that? >> his conduct, to me, illustrates the categories of behavior that mark the prosecutions that are actually brought. clearly intentional conduct, knew what he was doing was a violation of the law. huge amounts of information that even if you couldn't prove he knew it, it raises the inference that he did it. an effort to obstruct justice. that combination of things makes it worthy of a prosecution. >> sitting here today, do you stand by the fbi's recommendation to prosecute general petraeus? >> oh, yeah. >> do you stand by the fbi's recommendation not to process could it hillary clinton? >> yes. >> how many times have you testified before congress about the general petraeus case? do you know? >> i don't think i've ever testified -- i don't think i've testified about it at all. i don't think so. >> with that, i'll yield back. >> have to check the record, but i believe i asked you a question

about it at the time. but maybe not. >> you could have. tha it could have been a judiciary committee hearing i was asked about it. >> we'll now recognize the gentleman from south carolina mr. gowdy for five minutes. >> good morning director comey. secretary clinton said she never sent or received classified information over her private e-mail. was that true? >> our investigation found -- >> so it was not true? >> that's what i said. >> okay. well, i'm looking for a shorter answer so you and i are not here quite as long. secretary clinton said there was not anything marked -- >> that's not true. there were a small number of portion markings on i think three of the documents. >> secretary clinton said i did not e-mail any classified material to anyone on my e-mail, there is no classified material. that was true? >> there was classified e-mail. >> secretary clinton said she used just one device.

was that true? >> she used multiple devices during the four years of her term as secretary of state. >> secretary clinton said all work-related e-mails were returned to the state department. was that try? >> no. we found thousands that were not returned. >> secretary clinton said neither she nor anyone else deleted work related e-mails from her personal account. was that true? >> that's a harder one to answer. we found traces of work related e-mails in -- on devices or slack space. whether they were deleted or a server was changed out something happened to them. there's no doubt that the work related e-mails that were removed electronically from the e-mail system. >> secretary clinton said her lawyers read every one of the e-mails and were overly inclusive. did her lawyers read the e-mail content individually? >> no. >> and the interest of time and because i have a plane to catch

tomorrow afternoon, i'm not going to go through anymore of the false statements. but i am going to ask you to put on your hold hat. false exculpatory statements, they are used for what? >> either for substantive prosecution or evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution. >> exactly. intent and consciousness of guilt right? is that right? consciousness of guilt and intent? in your old job, you would prove intent as you just referenced by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record and you would be arguing in addition to concealment the destruction you and i talked about or certainly the failure to preserve. you would argue all of that under the heading of intent. you would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme,

when it started, when it ended, and the number of e-mails whether they were originally classified or up classified. you would argue all of that under the heading of intent. you would also probably under common scheme or plan argue the burn bags of daily calendar entries or the missing daily calendar entries as a common scheme or plan to conceal. two days ago, director, you said a reasonable person in her position should have known a private e-mail was no place to send and receive classified information. you're right. an average person does know not to do that. this is no average person. this is a former first lady, a former united states senator, and a former secretary of state that the president now contends is the most competent qualified

person to be president since jefferson. he didn't say that in '08. but he says it now. she affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account. she kept these private e-mails only two years and only turned them over to congress because we found out she had a private e-mail account. so you have a rogue e-mail system set up before she took the oath of and i was, thousands of what we now know to be classified e-mails, some of which were classified at the time. one of her more frequent e-mail comrade comrades -- and this scheme took place over a long period of time and resulted in the destruction of public r0rds. you say she was extremely careless, but not intentionally so. you and i both know intent is very difficult to improve. very rarely to defendants

announce, on this date, i intend to break this code section. it never happens that way. you have to do it with circumstantial evidence. or if you're congress and you realize how difficult it is to prove specific intent, you will formulate a statute that allows for gross negligence. my time is out, but this is really important. you mentioned there's no precedent for criminal prosecution. my fear is there still isn't. there's nothing to keep a future secretary of state or president from this exact same e-mail scheme or their staff. and my real fear is this. it's what the chairman touched upon. this double tracked justice system that is rightly or wrongly perceived in this country, that if you are a private in the army and you e-mail yourself classified information, you will be kicked out. by if you are hillary clinton and you seek a promotion to commander in chief, you will not

be. so what i hope you can do today is help the average person -- the reasonable person you made reference to, the reasonable person understand why she appears to be treated differently than the rest of us would be. with that, i would yield back. >> now recognize the gentleman from new york, ms. maloney. >> director, thank you for your years of public service. you have distinguished yourself as the assistant u.s. attorney for both the southern district of new york and the eastern district of virginia. that's why you were appointed by president bush to be the deputy attorney general at the department of justice and why president obama appointed you as the director of the fbi in 2013. despite your impeccable reputation for independence and integrity, republicans have turned on you with a vengeance

immediately after you announced your recommendation not to pursue criminal charges against secretary clinton. let me give you some examples. representative turner said, and i quote, the investigation by the fbi is steeped in political bias, end quote. was your investigation steeped in political bias, yes or no? >> no, it was steeped in no kind of bias. >> the speaker of the house, paul ryan, was even more critical. he accused you of not applying the law equally. he said your recommendation shows, and i quote, the clintons are living above the law. they're being held to a different set of standards that is clearly what this looks like, end quote. how do you respond to his accusations that you held the clintons to a different set of standards than anyone else? did you hold them to a different standard or the same standard?

>> it's just not accurate. we try very hard to apply the same standard whether you're rich or poor, white or black, old or young, famous or not known at all. i hope folks will take the time to understand the other cases because there's a lot of con fiegs out there about the facts of the other cases that lead reasonable people to have questions. >> senator cruz also criticized. he said there are serious concerns about the integrity of director comey's decision. he saided that you, quote, you had rewritten a clearly worded federal criminal statute. did you rewrite the lay in any way or rewrite any statute? >> no. >> now, i truly hesitate to mention the next win. by donald trump took these conspiracy theories to a totally new level. he said, and i quote, it was no accident that charges were recommended against hillary, the

exact same day as president obama campaigned with her for the first time. so did you plan the timing of your announcement to help secretary clinton's campaign event on tuesday? >> no. timing was entirely my own. nobody nigh i was going to do it including the press. i'm proud of the fbi. nobody leaked that. we didn't coordinate it, didn't tell. just not a consideration. >> mr. trump also claimed that secretary clinton bribed the attorney general with an ex-tension of her job and i guess this somehow affected your decision. i know it's a ridiculous question, but i have to ask it. did you make your decision because of some kind of bribe to the attorney general? >> no. >> i tell you, are you surprised as i am by the intensity of the attacks from the gop on you

after having made a decision, a thoughtful decision, an independent decision, with a professional staff of the fbi? >> i'm not surprised by the intense interest and debate. i predicted it. i think it's important that we talk about these things. they inevitably become focused on individual people. that's okay. we'll continue to have the conversation. >> i believe that what we're seeing today is that if the gop does not like the results of an investigation or how it tirurns out, they originally were lauding you, the minute you made your announcement, they're now attacking you, the same people. now i predict they'll be calling for more hearings, more investigations, all at the expense of the taxpayer, and they do this instead of working on what the american people really care about, they want congress to focus on jobs, the

environment, homeland security, the security of our nation, affordable child care, affordable college educations. and an economy that works and helps all people. i thank you for performing your job with distinction and the long history of your whole profession of integrity and independence and thank you very much. my time is expired. >> we'll now recognize the gentleman from ohio, mr. jordan. >> thank you for being with us. on tuesday, you said any reasonable person in secretary clinton's position should have known that as unclassified system was no place for these conversations. you said on tuesday some of her e-mails bore classified marking and potential violation of the statutes. some would look at that evidence, you even referenced it in your opening statement. some of your friends have been on tv and said they would have

looked at that same evidence and would have taken it to a grand jury. on tuesday you said, no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. then in your statement tuesday, you cite factors that helped you make that decision and make that statement. and one of the factors you said was consider the context of a person's actions. typically when i hear context in the course of a criminal investigation it's from the defense side not the prosecution side, it's at the end of the case after there's been a trial and a guilty verdict and it's during the sentencing phase, mitigating circumstances. but you said it on the front end. you said consider the context of the person's actions. i'm curious. what does consider the context mean? the american people are thinking what the chairman said, there are two standards. lot of folks i get the privilege

of representing back in ohio think that when you said "consider the context" they think that's what mr. gowdy just talked about, the fact that she's former first lady, former secretary of state, former senator. major party's nominee for the highest office in the land. and oh, by the way, her husband just met with the individual you work withago. so you said none of that influenced your decision. but tell us what consider the context means. >> thank you, mr. jordan. what i was trying to capture is the fact that the excise for prosecutorial discretion is always a judgment case. it is in every single case. among the things you consider are what was this person's background, what was the circumstances of the offense. were they drunk, were they inflamed by passion, was it somebody who had a sufficient level of education and training and experience that we can infer certain things from that to consider the entire

circumstances of the conduct and background. i did not mean to consider political context. >> the entire circumstances, and mr. gowdy just talked about this scheme. remember what she did, right? she sets up this unique server arrange. she alone controlled it. on the system are her personal e-mails, work e-mails, clinton foundation information, and now we know, classified information. this gets discovered. we find out this arrangement exists. then what happens? her lawyers, her legal team decides which ones we get and which ones they get to keep. they made the sort on the front end. then we find out the ones they kept and didn't give to us didn't give to the american people, didn't give to congress, the ones they kept, they destroyed them. and you don't have to take my word. i'll take what you said on tuesday. they deleted all e-mails they did not return to the state department, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete

forensic recovery. now, that sounds like a fancy way of saying they hid the evidence. right? and you just told mr. gowdy thousands of e-mails fell into those categories. now, that seems to me to provide some context to what took place here. did secretary clinton's legal team -- excuse me, let me ask it this way. did secretary clinton know her legal team deleted those e-mails that they kept from us? >> i don't believe so. >> did secretary clinton approve those e-mails being deleted? >> i don't think there was any specific instruction or conversation between the secretary and her lawyers about that. >> did you ask that question? >> yes. >> did secretary clinton know that her lawyers cleaned devices in such a way to preclude forensic recovery? >> i don't believe she did. >> did you ask that question? >> yes.

>> do you see how someone could view the context of what she did, set up a private system, she alone controlled it. she kept everything on it. we now know from ms. abedin's deposition they did it for that reason, so no one could see what was there. based on the deposition ms. abedin gave, and then when they got caught, they deleted what they had and they scrubbed their devices. is that part of the context in evaluating this decision? >> sure, sure. and understand what infrnls inf can be drawn from that set of facts, of course. >> mr. chairman, i yield back. >> will now recognize the gentle woman from the district of columbia, mrs. norton. >> thank you, mr. chairman. director comey, i appreciate your conduct of this investigation in a nonpartisan way. in keeping with the sterling reputation, which has led presidents of both parties to

appoint you to highly placed law enforcement positions, in our federal government. i want to say for the record that this hearing where you call the prosecutor, mr. comey, stands in the place of the prosecutor, because the attorney general has accepted entirely the fbi's recommendations. when you call the prosecutor to give account for the decision to prosecute or not a particular individual raises serious questions of separation of powers and particularly when you're questioning the prosecutor's decision with respect to the decision to prosecute or not a particular individual, it raises serious

constitutional questions. these hearings are so often accusatory that they yield no guidance as to how to conduct business in the future. and that's the way it looks -- it looks as though that is how this hearing is going. of course, now, everyone understands in the abstract why it is important for security reasons to use official government mail or e-mail rather than private e-mail. if security matters are involved. it's a very broad, wide proposition. now, there are no rules so far as i know requiring members of congress to use their -- as to

how they use their official e-mail accounts. whether involving security or not. the chairman of this committee lists his personal account, for example, on his business card. no one says that's wrong. i don't know if it's wrong or right, because there's no guidance. federal agency employees, members of congress, often have secure information or at least sensitive information that shouldn't be made public. some of our members on the intelligence committee or the defense committee or even this committee, and they have such matters. some of these matters may concern national security issues. and i don't know if something is sensitive, as the itinerary, if

you're going to a hotel, the route you're taking and where you will be, all that could be on people's personal e-mails. of course, there's a legislative branch, and i spoke of separation of powers. i'm not indicating that there should be a government-wide sense that it is ordained from on high, but there ought to be rules that everybody understands about especially after the clinton episode, about the use of personal e-mail. so i would like your insight for guidance as far as other federal employees are concerned or other members of congress. because i think we could learn from this episode. so strictly from a security

standpoint, do you believe that federal employees, staff, even members of congress, should attempt guidance on the issue of the use of personal e-mails versus some official form of communication? what should we learn from the process the secretary has gone through? i'm sure there will be questions about how there was even confusion, for example, in the state department. but what should we learn when it comes to our own -- our own use of e-mail and the use of federal employees on this question? >> may i answer, mr. chairman? the most important thing to

learn is an unclassified e-mail system is no case for an e-mail conversation about classified matters. by that, i mean either sending a document as an attachment over unclassified e-mail that is classified, or having conversation about something that is a classified subject on an unclassified e-mail system. that's the focus of the concern, that's the focus of this investigation. that it was also a personal e-mail adds to the concern about the case because of the security vulnerabilities associated with a personal system. but the brute of the problem is people using unclassified systems to conduct business that is classified. so all of us should have access to, which we have access to classified information, classified communication systems. the fbi has three levels. unclassified system is secret system, and top secret system. you can e-mail on all three. but you need to make sure you don't e-mail on the unclassified system, even if that's a government classified system,

about matters that are classified. that's the important lesson learned. everybody ought to be aware of it, everybody ought to be trained on it. we spend a lot of time training on it in the fib to make sure folks are sensitive to sending a document to the appropriate forum. >> members of congress included? >> of course. >> we'll recognize the gentleman from florida for five minutes. >> the reason that's so important is because of top secret information is compromised, it would compromise security, and american lives are at stake in some cases, right? >> yes. >> you mentioned people are upset there are no consequences for secretary clinton, but you pointed out administrative and security consequences would be appropriate if someone demonstrated extreme carelessness. those would include potentially termination of federal employment? >> correct. >> revocation of security clearance? >> yes. >> and ineligibility for future

employment in national security positions? >> it could. >> would you as the fbi director allow someone to work in a national security capacity if that person had demonstrated extreme carelessness in handling top-secret info? >> the answer to that is we would look very closely at that in a suitability determination. it's hard to answer yes in all cases and no in all cases, but it would be a very important suitability scrub. >> there wheare cases someone cd maintain competence? >> we have a lot of people who would love to work for your age enls, yet it would be potentially, you would allow someone to be potentially careless and carry on? >> i can imagine if it was a long time ago and it was a small amount of conduct or something, that's why it's hard to say other than it would be a very important part -- >> let's put it this way. would being extreemely careless expose an employee of the fbi to

potential termination? >> yes. >> why shouldn't u.s. officials use mobile devices when traveling to foreign countries, especially if they're discussing classifying or sensitive information? >> because the mobile device will transmit its signal across networks that are likely controlled or at least accessed by that hostile power. >> that's the guidance that the fbi gives all officials when they're traveling overseas. that's still good guidance, correct? >> good guidance. >> how did top secret information end up on the private server, because your statement addressed secretary clinton. you did not address any of her aides in your statement. attorney general lynch exonerated everybody. that information just didn't get there on its own. how did it get there? were you able to determine that? >> yes, by people talking about a top secret subject in an e-mail communication. >> so -- >> not about forwarding a top secret document. it's about having a conversation about a matter that is top secret. i and those were things that were originated by secretary

clinton's aides and sent to her, which was obviously in her server, but it was also included secretary clinton originating those e-mails, correct? >> that's correct. in most circumstances, it initiated with aides starting the conversation. in the one involving top secret information, secretary clinton not only received but sent e-mails talking about the same subject. >> in that top secret information you found, would somebody who is sophisticated in those matters, should it have been onious that was sensitive information? >> yes. >> i guess my issue about knowledge of what you're doing is in order for secretary clinton to have access to top secret fbi information, didn't she have to sign a form with the state department acknowledging her duties and responsibilities under the law to safeguard this information? >> yes. anybody who gets access to sci, sensitive compartment information would sign a read-in form that lays that out. i'm sure members of congress have seen the same thing. >> and it stresses in that

document and other training people would get that there are certain requirements to handling certain levels of information. for example, a top secret document, that can't even be on your secret system at the fbi, correct? >> correct. >> so you have to follow certain guidelines. and i guess my question is, is she's very sophisticated person. she did execute that document, correct? >> yes. >> and her aides who were getting the classified information, they executed similar documents to get a security clearance, correct? >> i believe so. >> and she knowingly clearly set up her own private server in order to -- let me ask you that. was the reason she set up her own priver server in your judgment because she wanted to shield communications from congress and the public? >> i can't say that. our best information is that she set it up as a matter of convenience. it was an existing system her husband had and she decided to have a domain on that system. >> so the question is, is very sophisticated. this is information that clearly anybody who had knowledge of

security information would know that it would be classified. but i'm having a little bit of trouble to see how would you not then know that that was something that was inappropriate to do? >> well, i just want to take one of your assumptions about sophistication. i don't think that our investigation established she was actually particularly sophisticated with respect to classified information and the levels and treatment, and so far as we can tell -- >> isn't she an original classification authority? >> yes, sir. >> good grief. i appreciate you coming. >> ione is the sensitive compartmented information nondisclosure agreement. the other one is the classified information nondisclosure agreement, both signed by hillary rodham clinton. without objection, so ordered. now recognize the gentleman from missouri, mr. clay, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, director comey, for

being here today. and for the professionals whom you lead at the fbi. two years ago, after my urgent request to then former attorney general eric holder for an expedited justice department investigation into the tragic death of michael brown in ferguson, missouri, i witnessed first hand the diligence, professionalism, and absolute integrity of your investigators. and i have no doubt that was the case in this matter as well. i did not think it was possible for the majority to exceed their unprecedented arrogant abuse of official channels and federal funds that we have witnessed over the past two years. as they have engaged in a partisan political witch hunt at

taxpayer expense against secretary clinton. but i was wrong. this proceeding is just a sequel to that very bad act. and the taxpayers will get the bill. it's a new low, and it violates both house rules and the rules of this committee. so with apologies to you and the fbi for this blatantly partisan proceeding, let me return to the facts of this case as you have clearly outlined them. first question. did secretary clinton or any member of her staff intentionally violate federal law? >> we did not develop clear evidence of that. >> did secretary clinton or any member of her staff attempt to obstruct your investigation? >> we did not develop evidence of that. >> in your opinion, do the

mistakes secretary clinton has already apologized for and expressed regret for rise to a level that would be worthy of federal prosecution? >> as i said tuesday, our judgment, not just mine, but the team's judgment at the fbi is that the justice department would not bring such a case. no justice department under any rather republican or democrat administration. >> thank you for that response. i know the fbi pays particular attention to groups by training agents and local law enforcement officers and participating in local hate crime working groups. is that right? >> yes, sir. >> some of these organizations seem relatively harmless, but others appear to be very dangerous and growing. some even promote genocide in their postings and rhetoric online. in your experience, how dangerous are these groups and

have they incited violence in the past? >> i think too hard to answer, congressman in the abstract. there are some groups that are dangerous. some groups that are exercising important protected speech under the first amendment. >> let me ask about a more direct question. a gentleman named andrew england is the editor of a website called the daily stormer that is dedicated to the supremacy of the white race as well as attacking jews, muslims, and others. the website features numerous posts with the hash ta tag #whitegenocide, to protest what they contend is an effort to eliminate the white race. are you familiar with this movement? >> i'm not. >> okay. well, this hash tag has been promoted all over social media by a growing number of white supremacists. for example, one nazi sympathizer tweeted repeatedly using the

handle,@whitegenocidetm. are you concerned that some groups are increasing their followers in this way, particularly if some of those followers could become violent? >> i don't know the particular enough to comment, congressman. we are always concerned when people go beyond protected speech, which we do not investigate, moving towards acts of violence. eso our duty is to figure out when have people walked outside the first amendment protection and are going to hurt folks. i don't know enough on the particular to comment. >> one of my concerns is certain public fegs are promoting these groups even further, and one of our most vocal candidates for president retweete retweeted @whitegenocidetm. three weeks later, he did it again. two days after that, he retweeted a different user whose image also included the term

white genocide, and that's not even all of them. director comey, don't these actions make it easier for these racist groups to recruit even more supporters? >> i don't think i'm in a position to answer that in an intelligent way sitting here. >> i appreciate you trying, and thank you, mr. director, for your exceptional principled service to our country. i yield back. >> thank you. we'll now recognize the gentle woman from wyoming for five minutes. >> welcome, director. thank you so much for being here. my phone has been ringing off the hook in my washington office, in my wyoming office, from constituents who don't understand how this conclusion was reached, so i appreciate your being here to help walk us through it. and here's the issue that the people that are calling me from wyoming are having. they have access to this statute. it's title xviii u.s. code 1924.

i'm going to read you the statute. it says whoever being an officer employee, contractor, or consultant to the united states and by virtue of his office employment position or contract becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the united states knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year or both. armed with that information, they're wondering how hillary clinton, who is also an attorney, and attorneys are frequently held to a higher standard of knowledge of the w law, how this could not have come to her attention. she was the secretary of state.

of course, the secretary of state is going to become possessed of classified materials. of course, she was an attorney. she practiced with a prominent arkansas law firm, the rose law firm. she knew from her white house days with her husband, the president, the classified materials can be very dangerous if they get into the wrong hands. she had to have known about this statute because she had to have been briefed when she took over the job as the secretary of state. so how, given that body of knowledge and experience, could this have happened in a way that could have potentially provided access by hackers to confidential information? >> you know, it's a good question. a reasonable question.

the protection we have as americans is that the government in general and in that statute in particular, has to prove before they can prosecute any of us that we did this thing that's forbidden by the law, and when we did it, we knew we were doing something that was unlawful. we don't have to know the code number, but that we knew we were doing something that was unlawful. that's the protection we have, when i have worked for very hard when i was in the private sector, i did a lot of work with the chamber of commerce -- >> may i interrupt and suggest that this statute says knowingthy removes such documents or materials without authority and with the attempt to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location. the intent here in the statute is to retain the documents at an unauthorized location. it's not intent to pass them on to a terrorist. or to someone out in internet

land. it's just the intent to retain the documents or materials at an unauthorized location. >> it's more than that, though. you would have to show that and prove criminal intent. both by law, that's the way the judgment would instruct the jury, and practice of the department of justice. they have reserved that statute, even though it's just a misdemeanor, for people who clearly knew they were breaking the law, and that's the challenge. should have known, must have known, had to know, does not get you there. you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they knew they were engaged in something that was unlawful. that's the challenge. >> then may i turn to her attorneys? did all of secretary clinton's attorneys have the requisite clearances at the times they received all of her e-mails, especially those that were classified at the time they were sent? >> no. >> they destroyed, as has been

noted, 30,000 e-mails of secretary clintons. do you have 100% confidence that none of the 30,000 e-mails destroyed by secretary clinton's attorneys was marked as classified? >> i don't have 100% confidence. i'm reasonably confident some of them were classified. there were only three in the entire batch we found that bore any markings to indicate they were classified. so that's less likely, but surely, it's a reasonable assumption some of the ones they deleted contained classified information. >> thank you, director. thank you, i yield back. >> i now recognize the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, director comey, for appearing here to help the committee with this work. director comey, secretary clinton is certainly not the only secretary of state to use a personal e-mail account with information later identified as

being classified. i want to show you, this is a book that was written by former secretary of state colin powell, and in his book, he says to complement the official state department computer in my office, i installed a laptop computer. and on a private line. my personal e-mail account on a laptop allowed me to direct access to anyone online, so i started shooting e-mails to my principle assistants, to individual ambassadors, and increasingly, to my foreign minister colleagues who like me were trying to bring their ministries into the 186,000 miles per second world. were you aware of this, that secretary colin powell actually had a private server as well? >> not a priver server. i think he used a commercial e-mail account for state department business. >> private line? unprotected? >> correct. not a state department e-mail

system. >> right. >> right. >> he went rogue, so to speak. right? >> i don't know whether i would say that. >> all right. i'm not going to put words in your mouth. do you think this was careless for him to do that, to start -- get his own system. he installed a laptop computer on a private line. my personal e-mail account was on a laptop and allowed me direct access to anyone. anyone online. that's his own statement. i'm just trying to compare secretaries of state because secretary powell has never been here. as a matter of fact, when we asked him for his e-mails, unlike the 55,000 that we received from secretary clinton, he said i don't have any to turn over. this is saquote. this was on abc's this week. he explained i don't have any to turn over. i didn't keep a cache of them. i did not print them off. i do not have thousands of pamgs somewhere in my personal files. but he was secretary of state. he operated, you know, on a

private system. were you aware of that? >> not at the time 15 years ago, but i am now. >> yeah. okay. so recently, well, back in october 2015, the state department sent secretary powell a letter requesting that he contact his e-mail provider, aol, to determine whether any of his e-mails are still on the unclassified systems. are you aware of that ongoing investigation? >> i don't know of an investigation. >> well, that request for information from secretary powell? >> yes. yes, i am. >> you're aware of that. are you surprised that he has never responded? >> i don't know infenough to comment. i don't know exactly what conversation he had with the state department. >> i try to look at where we have a lot of comparisons of other cases, and it seems like all the cases where prosecutions

have gone forward, the subject of the investigation has demonstrated a clear intent to deliver classified information to a person or persons who were unauthorized to receive that. so if you look at the, you know, pfc bradley manning, now chelsea manning, that was a court-martial, but he demonstrated a clear intent to publish that information, which was classified. julian assange, wikileaks editor, i guess, and publisher. again, a wide and deliberate attempt to publish classified information. general petraeus, which we talked about earlier today, shared information with his biographer. jeffrey sterling, for the "new york times," former cia officer who was interested in writing a book, so he hung on to his

information. and even former director of the cia, john deutsche, who retains classified information on a couple of servers, one in belmont, massachusetts, and one in bethesda, maryland, now is after he became a private citizen. in all those cases, there's a clear intent. as you said before, you look at what people did and what they were thinking when they did that. and i would just ask you, is there a clear distinction between what those people did and what secretary clinton did in her case? >> in my view, yes. the deutsche case illustrates it perfectly. he took huge amount of documents, almost all of the tssci level, had them in hard copy at his house. had them on an unclassed system attached to the internet. attempted to destroy some when he got caught. admitted i knew i wasn't supposed to do this. clear intent, obstruction of justice. those are the kind of cases that

get prosecuted. that's what i said, i meant it when i said it. in my experience, which is three decades, no reasonable prosecutor would bring this case. i know that frustrates people, but that's the way the law is, and that's the way the practice is in the department of justice. >> thank you for your testimony and for your service. i yield back. >> thank the gentleman. we'll go to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. meadows, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. director comey, thank you. there has been much said today about criticizing you and your service. and i want to go on record that even though many of my constituents would love for me to criticize your service because of the conclusion you reached, never have i, nor will i criticize your service, and we appreciate your service to this country and the integrity. i'm going to focus on the things that you said, not the conclusion that you drew. and congressman trey gowdy and i talked a little bit about this. on february 4th, 2016, secretary clinton during a presidential

debate said, i never sent or received any classified material. they are retroactively classifying it. close quote. and so in your statement on july 5th, you said that there were indeed 110 e-mails, 52 e-mail chains which there was classified information on it at the time it was sent or received. so those two statements, both of them cannot be true. is that correct? your statement and her statement. >> it's not accurate to say that she did not send or receive classified -- >> she did not tell the truth during that presidential debate that she never sent or received classified information, and it was retroactively classified? >> i don't think that's a question i should be answered, what was her in head. >> either your statement is not true or hers is not true. both cannot be true. is your statement true? >> that i can speak to. >> your statement is true.

so the american people will have to judge with her statement not being true. so let me go on to another one. on october 22nd, she said there was nothing marked classified on e-mails either sent or received, and in your statement, you said a very small number of e-mails contained classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information at the time. so she makes a statement that says there was no markings. you make a statement that there was. so her statement was not true? >> that one i actually have a little insight into her statement because we asked her about that. there were three documents that bore portion markings where you're obligated when something is classified to put a marking on the paragraph. >> right. >> there were three that bore "c" which means that's confidential classified information. >> a reasonable person who has been a senator, a secretary of state, a first lady, wouldn't a

reasonable person know that that was a classified marking? as a secretary of state. a reasonable person. that's all i'm asking. >> before this investigation, i probably would have said yes. i'm not so sure. i don't find it incredible -- >> director comey, come on. i mean, i have only been here a few years and i understand the importance of those markings. so you're suggesting that a long length of time that she had no idea what a classified marking would be? that's your sworn testimony today? >> not that she would have no idea what a classified marking would be. an interesting question as to -- a question about sophistication came up earlier, whether she was sophisticated enough to understand what a "c" means. >> you're saying the former secretary of state is not sophisticated enough to understand a classified marking? >> that's not what i said. >> that's a huge statement. >> that's not what i said. you asked me did i assume someone would know. probably before the

investigation, i would have. i'm not so sure of that answer any longer. i think it's possible, possible, she didn't understand what a "c" meant when she saw it in the body of the e-mail like that. >> after years in the senate and secretary of state. i mean, that's hard for me and the american people to believe, director comey. and i'm not questioning your analysis of it, but wouldn't a reasonable person think that someone who has the highest job of handling classified information would understand that? >> i think that's the conclusion a reasonable person would draw. it may not be accurate. >> let me go a little bit further. because that last quote actually came on october 22nd, 2015, under sworn testimony before the benghazi committee. so if she gave sworn testimony, a reasonable person would suggest is not truthful, isn't it a logical assumption she may

have misled congress, and we need to look at that further? >> well, the reasonable person test is not what you look at for perjury or false statements. but like i said, i can understand why people would ask that question. >> all right. so let me in the last little portion of this, in your three and a half-hour interview on saturday, did she contradict some of these public statements in private? because you said she didn't lie to the fbi, but it's apparent that she lied to the american people. did she change her statements in that sworn testimony with you last saturday? >> i haven't gone through that to parse that. >> can you do that and get back to this committee? it's important, i think to the american people and to transparency. >> i'm sure. and as the chairman and i have talked about, i'm sure the committee is going to want to see documents of our investigation and whatnot, and we'll work to give you whatever we can possibly give you under our law, but i haven't done that analysis at this point. >> will you do that and get back

to us? >> the gentleman's time has expired. we'll now recognize the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cooper, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, director comey. i hate to see one of america's most distinguished public servants pilloried before this committee. we're all highly partisan here. we're a good back seat drivers. we're all today, apparently, arm chair prosecutors. and you stated the truth when you said you didn't know of anyone who would bring a case like this. some of the prosecutors had the case to do that. i hope that this committee's effort is not intended to intimidate you or the fbi or law enforcement in general or government employees. and i'm thankful at this moment that you have such a lifetime record of speaking truth to power. because that's very important. it's also very important that apparently you're a life-long

republican. you're just here to do your job, state the facts. i think the key issue here is whether in fact there is a double standard, whether some americans are being treated differently than others? i think i can rely on my republican colleagues to make sure that hillary clinton is treated no better than anybody else. there should be some attention given to make sure she's not treated any worse than anybody else. i think we all know that we wouldn't be having this hearing, especially on an emergency basis, unless she were running for president. my colleague from massachusetts has just pointed out the previous secretaries of state are not being called on the carpet. whether that be condoleezza rice or colin powell or others. but i think the grossest double standard here today is the fact that all of the members of this committee, every member of congress, is not subject to the same law that secretary clinton

was subject to. and as lawmakers, that means that we have exempted ourselves from the standard of other federal employees. my colleague from d.c., ms. norton, referred to this. why did we exempt ourselves from the same rules? appare apparently, our chairman lists his private e-mail account on his business card. we all have access to classified information. i would like to challenge my republican colleague s here today. let's work together and introduce legislation to make the same laws apply to us as apply to the executive branch under secretary clinton. i would be happy to join in such legislation to make sure that we're not being hypocritical on this panel, that we're holding ourselves to the same standards as secretary clinton. and not trying to accuse her of things that we may be guilty of ourselves. i bet my colleagues would be the first to complain if, for example, e-mails were

retroactively classified. that's a situation most people in public service would object to pretty strongly. how did you know at the time if you had no idea? so i think it's very important if we want as congress to have the trust of the american people, to not being hypocritical. to uphold the same standards that we want to see upheld by others, and i'm just thankful at this moment in our history that we have someone like you who is in charge of the fbi. because too many things are highly politicized. the last thing we should do is criminalize our political system. i didn't see any of my republican colleagues complain when bob mcdonnell was exonerated for having done certain things i think most americans would find objectable, but our court exonerated him just a week or two ago. so i think this is a moment for committee members reflect, to

take a deep breath, to calm down, and realize exactly what you said, that no reasonable prosecutor would have brought this case. and thank you for stating that so clearly and publicly. i yield back the balance. i yield to the ranking member. >> mr. director, let me ask you this. first of all, i associate myself with everything the gentleman just said. you were talking about some markings a little earlier. is that right? can you describe what those markings are like? markings on documents. you said there were three documents with certain markings on them. >> yeah. >> indicated classified. >> there were three e-mails that down in the body of the e-mail, in the three different e-mails, there were paragraphs at the beginning of the paragraph had a parenthesis, a capital "c" and then a parenthesis. that's a portion marking to indicate that paragraph is classified at the confidential level, which is the lowest level

of classification. >> so out of 30,000 documents, this is -- you found these three markings. is that what you're say sng. >> three e-mails bore "q" markings down in the body. none had headers, which is at the top of a document that says classified. three had within the body the portion marking for "c." >> thank you. >> i thank the gentleman. i now recognize the gentleman from tennessee, mr. duncan, for five minutes. >> mr. meadows mentioned one instance in which secretary clinton said that she had -- that she did not mail any classified material to anyone. actually, she said that several other times, but it is accurate, director comey, that you found at least 110 instances of which she had mailed, e-mails classified material. >> 110 that she either received or sent. >> right. and it also is accurate that,

quote, clinton's lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery. >> correct. >> and also, when she said -- when secretary clinton said that nothing she sent was marked classified, and you said in your press conference, but even if information is not marked classified in an e-mail, particularly participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it. do you feel that secretary clinton knew or should have known that she was obligated to protect classified information? >> yes. >> with her legal background and her long experience in government. also, she said at one point that she has directed all e-mails, work-related e-mails, to be forwarded to the state department. is it also accurate that you discovered thousands of other

e-mails that were work-related other than the 30,000 she submitted? >> correct. >> before i turn to congress, i spent several years as a criminal court judge. i tried several -- presided over several hundred felony criminal cases. i can assure you i saw many cases where the evidence of criminal intent was flimsier than the evidence in this case. but do you -- do you realize or do you realize that great numbers of people across this country felt that she presented such a strong -- such an incriminating case against secretary clint in your press conference that they were very surprised or even shocked when you reached the conclusion to let her off? do you doubt that great numbers feel that way? >> i think so, and i understand the questions. i wanted to be as transparent as possible. we went at this very hard to see if we could make a case. i wanted the american people to

see what i honestly believed about the whole thing. >> do you understand as the chairman said earlier that great numbers of people feel now that there's one standard of justice for the clintons and another for regular people? >> yeah, i have heard that a lot. it's not true, but i have heard it a lot. >> well, even the ranking member who was here, who of course, as we understand, had to defend secretary clinton as strongly as possible, he almost begged you to explain the gap between the incriminating case you presented and the conclusion that was reached. did that surprise you, that he felt so strongly that there was this big gap? >> no, not at all. it's a complicated matter. it involves understanding how the department of justice works across decades, how prosecutorial discretion is exercised. i get that folks see disconnections, especially when they see a statute that says

gross negligence. the director just said she was extremely careless. how is that not prosecutable. it takes an understanding of what's gone on over the last 99 years, what's the precedent. i get people's questions and i think they're in good faith. >> do you -- we talked about gross negligence here, and you said that secretary clinton was extremely careless with this classified material. and how dangerous it could be, how threatening to even to people's lives that it could be to disclose classified material. do you agree that there is a very thin line between gross negligence and extreme carele carelessness? and would you explain to me what you consider to be that difference? >> sure, judge. congressman. as a former judge, you know there isn't actually a great definition in the law of gross negligence. some courts interpret it as close to willful, which means you know you're doing something

wrong. others drop it lower. my term extremely careless, trying to be kind of an ordinary person, a commonsense way of describing it sure looks careless to me. the question of whether that amounts to gross negligence frankly is really not at the center of this because when i look at the history of the prosecutions and see, it's been one case brought on a gross negligence theory. i know from 30 years there's no way anybody at the department of justice is bringing a case against john doe or hillary clinton for the second time in 100 years based on those facts. >> you ended your statement to congressman cooper a while ago saying once again that no reasonable prosecutor could have brought this case, yet you also mentioned earlier today that you had seen several of your friends and other prosecutors who have said publicly, many across this country, they would have been glad to prosecute this case. >> i spile because they're friends, and i want to say, guys, where were you over the last 40 years?

where were these cases? they have not been brought for reasons i said earlier. it's a good thing the department of justice prosecutes people for being careless. i want them to show they were breaking the law and then we'll put you in jail. >> of course, you know many people have been prosecuted for gross negligence by the federal government, by the fbi. >> the time has expired. we'll now recognize the gentleman from virginia for five minutes. >> thank you, and welcome, director comey, and although our politics are different, i gather you're a republican. is that correct? >> i have been registered republican for most of my adult life. not registered any longer. >> we don't register by party in virginia, but many have suspected my politics as being democratic. and i thank you for your integrity. as my colleague said, and i said in my opening statement, your career has been characterized as speaking truth to power. and you're doing it again today. just to set the context, director comey, not that you're unaware of this, today's hearing

is political theater. it's not even the pretense of trying to get at the truth. this is the desperate attempt under an extraordinary set of circumstances, an emergency hearing. i don't know what the emergency is other than one side is about to nominate somebody who is a path logical narcissist who, you know, was talking about banning muslims and mexicans crossing the border are rapists and women who are pigs. and terrified at the prospect of the consequences of that in the election, so let's grab on to whatever we can to discredit or try to discredit the other nominee. punitive nominee. and you took away their only hope. and so the theater today is actually trying to discredit

you. my friend from south carolina uses big words like exculpatory and kind of goes through what a prosecutor would do. the insinuation being you didn't do your job. my friend from wyoming is apparently flattered with citizens in her home state who are reading the statute that governs classification. a lot of time on the hands back there, i guess, but yeah, this is all designed to discredit your finding. now, the fbi interviewed secretary clinton, is that correct? >> yes. >> did she lie to the fbi in that interview? >> i have no basis for concluding that she was untruthful with us. >> is it a crime to lie to the fbi? >> yes t is. >> david petraeus did lie to the fbi? >> yes. >> he was prosecuted for that -- well, could have been. >> could have been.

was not for that. >> right, that's always a judgment call. >> correct. >> was she evasive? >> i don't think the agents assessed she was evasive. >> hmm. how many e-mails are we talking about? total, universe. that were examined. by your team. >> tens of thousands. >> tens of thousands. and how many are in a questionable category that maybe could have, should have been looked at more carefully because there could be some element of classification, apparently my friend from north carolina assumes we're all intimately familiar with a fact if a "c" appears, it means a classification, though there seems to be dispute about that because the state department as i said it has actually said some of those were improperly marked andtient ha shouldn't have had " are you aware of that? >> yes. >> yes, so could it be that in her hundred trip, four years,

100 overseas trips to 100 countries as secretary of state trying to restore u.s. credibility that had been destroyed in the previous eight years overseas and tens of thousands of e-mail communications, not including phone calls and classified conversation and skips and the like, that maybe the small percentage of e-mails she didn't pay as much attention to them as maybe in retrospect one would hope she would have. is that a fair conclusion? could that be a fair conclusion? >> i don't usually deal in maybes. it's possible. >> well, you do deal in distinguishing between willful and inadvertent. >> sure. >> in this case, you concluded it has to be in the latter category. it wasn't willful. >> we concluded there was not adequate evidence of willful conduct. >> right, so there's no obfuskation, here, unlike in the petraeus cay, and no evasion, no

lying. there's no willful attempt to compromise classified material, despite the insinuations by my friends on the other side of the aisle. and the only hope left in this political theater is to discredit you and your team in the hopes that therefore you won't have credibility and we can revisit this monstrous crime of using a private server, that server being the server of the former president of the united states, that maybe mrs. clinton thought would be more secure than the leaky system at the state department. i yield back. >> i now recognize the gentleman from texas, mr. herd, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i'm offended. i'm offended by my friends on the other side of the political aisle saying this is political theater. this is not political theater.

for me, this is serious. i spent nine and a half years as an undercover officer in the cia. i was the guy in the back alley collecting intelligence, passing it to lawmakers. i have seen my friends killed, i have seen assets putting themself in harm's way. it's about protecting information, the most sensitive information the american government has, and i wish my colleagues would take this more seriously. mr. comey, director comey, you alluded that includes fbi information. does sci information include humans? >> yes. >> human intelligence information collected from people putting themselves in harm's way to give us information to drive foreign policy. signals intelligence, some of the most sensitive things to understand what al qaeda is doing, what isis is doing. so, the former secretary of state had an unauthorized server. those are your words.

in her basement, correct? >> correct. >> who was protecting that information? who was protecting that server? >> well, not much. there was a number of different people who were assigned as administrators of the server. >> and at least seven e-mail chains or eight that was classified as tssci. >> correct. >> so the former secretary of state, one of the president's most important advisers on foreign policy and national security, had a server in her basement that had information that was collected from our most sensitive assets, and it was not protected by anyone. and that's not a crime? that's outrageous. people are concerned. what does it take for someone to misuse classified information and get in trouble for it? >> it takes mishandling it and criminal intent.

>> and so an unauthorized server in the basement is not mishandling? >> no, there is evidence of mishandling here. this whole investigation is focused on is there sufficient evidence of intent. >> was this unanimous opinion within the fbi on your decision? >> the whole fbi wasn't involved, but the team of agents, investigators, analysts, technologists, yes. >> did you take into any consideration the impact that this precedence can set on our ability to collect intelligence overseas? >> yes. my primary concern is the impact on what other employees might think in the federal government. >> and you don't think this sends a message to other employees that if a former secretary of state can have an unauthorized server in their basement that transmits top-secret information, that that's not a problem? >> oh, i worry very much about it. i talked about it in my

statement, because an fbi employee might face severe discipline, and i want them to understand that those consequences are still going to be there. >> director comey, do you have a server in your basement? >> i do not. >> does anybody in the fbi have a server in their basement? or in their house? >> i don't know. not to my knowledge. >> do you think it's likely? >> i think it's unlikely. >> i would think so too. i was proud to serve alongside the men and women you represent. so there was no dissenting opinion when you make this decision. it's your job to be involved in counterintelligence as well. >> yes. >> so that means protecting our secrets from foreign adversaries collecting them. is that correct? >> correct. >> did this activity you investigated make america's secrets vulnerable to hostile elements? >> yes. >> do you think that pattern of behavior would continue? >> i'm sorry?

do you think that pattern of behavior would continue? >> would continue -- >> by our former secretary of state? >> i'm not following you. you mean if this had not come to light? >> right now. based on what we see, do you think there's going to be other elements within the federal government that think it's okay to have an unauthorized server in their basement? >> they better not. that's one of the reasons i'm talking about it. >> what is the ramifications of them doing that? how is there going to be any consequences levered if it's not levered here? because indeed, you're setting a president. >> the precedent. i want people to understand, again, i only am responsible for the fbi. that there will be discipline from termination to reprimand, and everything in between, for people who mishandle classified information. >> director comey, i'm not a lawyer, so i may misstate this. is there such a thing as a case of first impression and why was

this not possibly one of those. >> there is such a thing, which means the first time you do something. the reason this isn't one of those is that's not fair. that would be treating somebody differently because of their excellent st celebrity status or some other factor. we have to treat people -- the bedrock of our justice, we treat people fairly, the same. >> and that person fairly, we treat them the same -- >> and that person mishandling the most sensitive information that this government can collect is not fair? it is not fair to punish someone who did that? >> not on these facts. if that person worked for me, it would be fair to have a robust disciplinary proceeding. i would not prosecute on these facts. >> now recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. cartwright for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to open by acknowledging my colleague from north carolina, mr. meadows, for acknowledging your integrity,

director comey. i think bipartisan sentiments like that are few and far between around here and i appreciate congressman meadows' remark. you are a man of integrity, director comey. it is troubling to me that remark from congressman meadows is not unanimous at this point. it used to be. just weeks ago our chairman, representative chaffetz, stated on national tv that republicans "believe in james comey." he said this, and i quote, "i do think that in all of the government, he is a man of integrity and honesty. his finger's on the pulse of this. nothing happens without him. and i think he is going to be the definitive person to make a determination or a recommendation." but just hours after your actual recommendation came out, chairman chaffetz went on tv and

accused you of making a "political calculation." and then our speaker of the house weeks ago referring to you, director comey, said, "i do believe that his integrity is unequalled." so your integrity -- it was unanimous about your integrity before you came to your conclusion, but after, not so much. that's troubling. and i want to give you a chance, director comey, how do you respond to that? how important to you is maintaining your integrity before the nation? >> the only two things i have in life that matter are the love of my family and friends, and my integrity. so i care deeply about both. >> all right. now director comey, you discussed your team a little bit and they deserve a lot of credit for all of the hard work and effort that went into this investigation. and i think you just said that

they were unanimous that everyone who looked at this agreed that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case. am i correct in that? >> yes. >> how many people were on this team? >> it changed at various times but somewhere between 15 and 20. then we used a lot of other fbi folks to help from time to time. >> how many hours were spent on this investigation? >> we haven't counted yet. i said to them they moved -- they put three years of work into 12 cal lar months. >> how many pages of documents did the fbi review in this investigation? >> thousands and thousands and thousands. >> were the agents doing the document review qualified or unqualified? >> they are an all-star team. they are a great group of folks. >> how about secretary clinton? did she agreed to be interviewed? >> yes. >> come in voluntarily without the need of a subpoena? >> yes. >> was she interviewed? >> yes. >> was she interviewed by

experience critical veteran agents and law enforcement officers or by some kind of credulous, gullible, newbies doing their on-the-job training, director? >> she was interviewed by the kind of folks the american people would want doing the interview. real pros. >> all right. you were asked about markings on a few documents. i have the manual, marking classified security information. were these properly documented, were they properly marked according to the manual with the little "cs"? >> no. >> i ask unanimous consent to enter this into the record. >> without objection. >> if you're going to classify something, there has to be a header on the document. right? >> correct. >> was there a header on the three documents that we've discussed today that had the little "c" in the text someplace? >> no.

they were three e-mails. the "c" was in the body, in the text but there was no header on the e-mail or the text. >> so if secretary clinton really were an expert at what's classified and what's not classified and were following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. am i correct in that? >> that would be a reasonable inference. >> all right. i thank you for your testimony, director. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. will now recognize the gentleman from coll, mr. buck, for five minutes. >> good morning, director comey. >> morning, sir. >> thank you for being here. i also respect your commitment to law and justice and your career. and first question i want to ask you, is this hearing unfair? has it been unfair to you? >> no. >> thank you. one purpose of security procedures for classified information is to prevent hostile information -- hostile

nations from obtaining classified information. is that fair? >> yes. >> and did hostile nations obtain classified information from secretary clinton's servers? >> i don't know. it's possible but we don't have direct evidence of that. we couldn't find direct evidence. >> without making this a law school class, i want to try to get into intent. there are various levels of intent in the criminal law, everything from knowingly and willingly doing something all the way down to strict liability. would you agree with me on that? >> yes. >> in title 18, most of the criminal laws in title 18 have the words knowingly and willfully in them and that is the standard. ically that unites states attorneys prosecute under. >> most do. unlawfully, knowingly, willfully is our standard formulation for charging a case.

>> and there are also a variety of others between the knowingly and willfully standard and the strict liability standard. many like environmental crimes have a much lower standard because of the toxic materials that are at risk of harming individuals. is that fair? >> that's correct. >> let's talk about this particular statute, 18 usc 1924. i take it we could all agree -- you and i could agree on a couple of the elements. secretary clinton was an employee of the united states. >> correct. >> as a result of that employment, she received classified information. >> correct. >> and there is no doubt about those two elements. now i don't know whether the next element is one element or two, but it talks about knowingly remove such materials without authority and with the intent to retain such material at an unauthorized location. i'm going to treat those as two separate parts of the intent element. first of all, do you see the word "willfully" anywhere in

this statute? >> i don't. >> and that would indicate to you that there is a lower threshold for intent? >> no, it wouldn't. >> why? >> because we often -- as i understand the justice department's practice and judicial practice will impute to any criminal statute at that level with a knowingly also requirement that you know that you're involved in criminal activity of some sort. a general mens rea requirement. if it specifically says it is a negligence-based crime, i don't think a judge would impute that. >> but congress specifically omitted the word "willfully" from this statute, and yet you are implying the word "willfully" in the statute. is that fair? >> that's fair. >> okay. what this statute does say is knowingly removes such materials without authority. is it fair that she knew that she didn't have authority to have this server in her basement? >> yes, that's true. >> and she knew that she was receiving materials, classified

information, in the e-mails she received on her blackberry and other devices. >> i can't answer -- i'm hesitating as a prosecutor because to what level of proof. i do not believe there's evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that she knew she was receiving classified information in violation of the requirements. >> but that's not my question. my question, in fairness, is did she know that she was receiving information on the servers at her location? >> oh, i'm sorry. of course, yes. she knew she was using her e-mail system. >> as secretary of state, she also knew that she would be receiving classified information. >> yes, in general. >> okay. >> did she then have the intent to retain such material as an unauthorized location? she restained the material she received as secretary of state at her server in her basement and that was unauthorized.

>> you're asking me did she have the -- i'm going to ask you the burden of proof question in a second. did she have the intent to retain classified information on the server or just to retain any information on the server? >> well, we've already established that she knew as secretary of state that she was going to receive classified information in her e-mails. so did she retain such information that she received as secretary of state on her servers in her basement? >> she did in fact -- there is, in my view, not evidence beyond certainly probable cause. there's not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that she knew she was receiving classified information or that she intended to retain it on her server. there is evidence of that, but when i said there's not clear evidence of intent, that's what i meant. i could not, even if the department of justice would bring that case, i could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt those two elements. >> thank you. >> thank the gentleman. we'll now go to the gentle woman from illinois, miss duckworth

for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. when i first entered congress three years ago, like many freshmen members, i'm like many freshmen members. i actually sought out this committee. i wanted to be on this committee because i wanted to tackle the challenges of good government, like working to eliminate proper payments or prevent wastewastef programs and duplication. i served in the army for 23 years before joining congress. as i tackled those challenges and in the challenges of helping reduce veterans homelessness i witnessed firsthand the real world importance of improving and streamlining government operations, how even the best policies in the world will not work without proper implementation. and so when it comes to implementing true and lasting reforms that will make sure electronics records and other records and the history of our great nation are preserved for future generations, i've done my best to approach this goal seriously. i'm focused on making sure that our nation sustains a long-term

commitment to improve the laws governing what needs to be collected to ensuring our civil servants across government have the necessary tools to achieve what should be nonpartisan and a shared goal. with respect to examining tough lessons learned from numerous record keeping incidents which transcend any single administration, my mission is clear -- make sheer we in congress move beyond partisan politics and engage in the serious hard work of ensuring that the laws written in an era of pen and paper are overhauled to meet the digital challenges of the 21st century. a memorandum was released known as "the managing government records directive" in 2012. this directive states, "by december 31st, 2016, federal agencies will manage both permanent and temporary e-mail records in an accessible electronic format. federal agencies must manage all e-mail records in an electronic

format. e-mail records must be retained in an appropriate electronic system that supports records management and litigation requirements which may include preservation in place models, improving the capability to identify, retrieve and retain the records as long as they are needed. a director of a bureau who deals with sensitive information on a daily basis. do you believe that this directive is necessary and attainable for agencies across the board within that four-year time frame from august 2012 to december 2016? >> i don't know enough to say both. i can say it is certainly necessary. i don't know whether it is achievabl achievable. >> are you familiar with the cap stone approach? that's the federal -- it's approach that says federal agencies should save all e-mails for select senior level employees and that e-mails of other employees will be archived for a temporary period set by the agency so that senior employees' e-mails are kept forever and those by other lower level employees are actually archived for a shorter period. >> i'm aware generally.

i know what applies to me and when i was deputy attorney general in the bush administration. >> in fact, i understand that fbi is currently actively using this approach according to the agency senior records official. my understanding the cap stone approach is aimed at streamlining the record keeping process for e-mails and reducing volume of records that an agency has to maintain. nearly all agencies will be required to comprehensively modernize their approach in the future. as the head of a component agency, director comey, within the departments of justice which appears to be a leader in adopting the innovative cap stone approach across the agency, would you agree with respect to instituting foundational reforms that will strengthen records preservation the cap stone approach used by doj should be accelerated and rode out across federal government? >> i think we're doing it in a pretty good way. i'm not expert enough to say

whether anybody should do it the way we do it honestly. >> are you satisfied with the way you are doing it? >> i am but i don't want to sound overconfident because i am sure there is a why we can do it better but i think we are doing it in a pretty good way. >> do you have any one person within the fbi that continually reviews your records keeping or do they report directly to you, as well as is there a periodic review of how you are implementing this process? >> yes. we have an entire division devoted to record management. assistant to the deputy director to reports to me. it is an enormous operation as you might imagine requiring constant training. that's what i mean when i say i think we are doing it in a pretty good way. we have record marking tools. we prompt with dialogue boxes requiring employees to make a decision what's the nature of this record you are creating now and where should it be stored. i think we are doing it in a pretty good way. that's why i say that. >> have you seen that in any of

the other agencies that you have interacted with or have you had an occasion to look at what some of the other agencies are doing with their sensitive and classified information? are they following this same technique as you are doing in the fbi? >> i don't know enough to say. i personally. >> okay. i am out of time but thank you. >> thank the gentle woman. now recognize the gentleman from michigan. >> i thank the chairman. thank you, director comey, for being here. mr. chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. director comey, for making it very clear that you believe we've done this respectfully with good intention. i wish some of my colleagues that had instructed us on our intent were here. they have a great ability to understand intent better than i guess the director of the fbi. but it is an intent that's important here that we understand we are oversight and government reform committee. and if indeed the tools aren't

there to make sure that our country is secure and that officials at the highest levels in our land don't have the understanding on what it takes to keep our country secure, that we do the necessary government reform to put laws in place that will be effective and will meet the needs of distinguished agencies and important agencies like the fbi. thank you, mr. chairman, for doing this hearing. it is our job as oversight and reform as necessary. going back, director comey, to paraphrase the espionage act, people in the 7th district of michigan understand it from this perspective in common sense. what it says, whoever being entrusted with information related to national defense through gross negligence permits the information to be removed from its proper place in violation of their trust shall be find or impresideimprisoned statute. there doesn't seem to be a double standard there.

it doesn't express intent. you've explained your understanding of why intent is needed. and we may agree or disagree on that, but the general public looking at that statute says it is pretty clear. question i would ask, director comey, what's your definition of extremely careless if you could go through that? >> i intended it as a commonsense term. it is one of those kind of you know it when you she it sort of things. somebody who is -- should know better, someone who is demonstrating a lack of care that strikes me as there's ordinary accidents, and then there is just real sloppiness. i think of that as kind of real sloppiness. >> you stated you had found 1 10 e-mails on secretary clinton's server that were classified at the time they were sent or received. yet secretary clinton has insisted for over a year publicly that she never sent or received any classified e-mails. the question i have from that,

would it be difficult for any cabinet level official -- specifically any cabinet official, let alone one who is a former white house resident or u.s. senator, to determine if information is classified? >> would fit be difficult? >> would it be difficult? >> that's hard to answer in the abstract. dependent upon the context in which they are hearing it or seeing it. obviously if it is marked, which is why we require markings, it is easy. it's too hard to answer because there are so many situations you might encounter it. >> but with the training that we receive as certainly a secretary of state would receive or someone who lives in the white house, that goes a little above and beyond just the common sense individual out there trying to determine, knowing that classified information will be brought and to remove to an unauthorized site might have caused a bit of pause there. shouldn't it? >> yeah. and if you are a government

official you should be attentive to it because you know the matters you deal with could involve sensitive information. so sure. >> so secretary clinton's revised statement she never knowingly sent or received any classified information is probably also untrue. >> i don't want to comment on people's public statements. we did not find evidence sufficient to establish that she knew she was sending classified information beyond a reasonable doubt to meet the intent standard. like i said, i understand why people are confused by the whole discussion. i get that. but you know what would be a double standard? if she were prosecuted for gross negligence. >> but your statement on tuesday said there is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in secretary clinton's position should have known that an unclassified system was no place for the conversation. >> i stand by that. that's the definition of carelessness, of negligence. >> which happened. >> oh, yeah. >> as a result of our secretary of state's -- former secretary

of state's decisions. >> yes. >> is it your statement then before this committee that secretary clinton should have known not to send classified material and yet she did. >> certainly, she should have known not to send he classified information. as i said, that's the definition negligence. i think she was extremely careless. i think she was negligent. that i could establish. what we can't establish that she acted with the necessary criminal intent. >> do you believe that since the department of justice hasn't used the statute congress passed, it's invalid? >> no. i think they are worry it is invalid, that it will be challenged on constitutional grounds which is why they've used it extraordinarily sparingly in the decades. >> thank you. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. will now go to -- recognize mr. lu of california for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chair. as i read some of my republican colleagues sea's press statements and as i sit here today i am reminded of that quote from macbeth, full of

sound and fury signifying nothing. i've heard some sound and fury today from members of the committee. the reason they largely significant nothing is because of two fundamental truths that are self-evident. the first of which, none of the members of this committee can be objective on this issue. i can't be objective. i've endorsed hillary clinton for president. as have the democratic members of this committee. my republican colleagues can't be objective. they oppose hillary clinton for president. which is why we have you. you are a non-partisan career public servant that's served our nation with distinction and honor. and not only can you be objective, it is your job to be objective to apply the law fairly and equally regardless much politics. i think it would be important for the american people to get a fuller appreciation of your public service, so let me ask you, before your fbi director, how many years did you serve as a federal prosecutor? >> i think 15. >> for a period of time, you were at columbia law school as a scholar and you specialized in

national security law. is that correct? >> sometimes i fantasize i still am. >> when you served in the republican administration of president george w. bush, you were then thesecond-highest member of the department of justice. >> president bush appointed me to be u.s. attorney in manhattan, then number two at the department of justice. >> when you were confirmed for the fbi director position, the vote was 93-1. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> with that strong bipartisan support, it is not surprising that senator grassley, a republican, said during your confirmation, and i quote, director comey has a reputation for applying the law fairly and equally regardless of politics. in this case, did you apply the law fairly, equally regardless of politics? >> yes. >> did you get any political interference in the white house? >> none. >> did you go et any politicl a

interference frhillary clinton campaign? >> no. the second fundamental truth today about this hearing is that none of the members of this committee have any idea what we're talking about because we have not reviewed the evidence personally in this case. when i served on active duty in the u.s. air force in the 1990s, one of my duties as a prosecutor. one of the first things i learned as a prosecutor, it is unprofessional and wrong to make allegations based on evidence that one has not reviewed. so let me ask you, has any member of this committee, to the best of your knowledge, reviewed the 30,000 e-mails at issue in this case? >> no i don't know. not to my knowledge. >> has any member of this committee sat through the multiple witness interviews that the fbi conducted in this case? >> no. that i know. no. has any member of this committee received any special information about the files that you kept or other fbi agents kept on this case? >> not to my knowledge. >> now let's do a little bit of math here. 1% of 30,000 e-mails would be

300 e-mails. is that right? >> i think that's right. >> 30 e-mails would be .1%. and three e-mails would be .01% of 30,000. right? >> i think that's right. >> so of throws three e-mails, .01% of 30,000, they bore these tiny little classified markings which is, as you describe, a "c" with parentheses. correct? >> correct. >> it is certainly possible that a busy person who has sent and received over 30,000 e-mails just might miss this marking of a "c" with parentheses. it is possible, correct? >> correct. >> so let me now just conclude by stating what some of my colleagues have, which is, there is just the strongest whiff of hypocrisy going on here. the american public might be interested in knowing that all members of congress receive security clearances. just for being a member of congress. we get to have private e-mail

servers. we get to have private e-mail accounts. we can use multiple devices. we can take devices overseas. and really, at the end of the day when the american people look at this hearing, they need to ask themself this question -- do they trust the bias partisan politicians on this committee who are making statements based on evidence we have not reviewed, or do they trust the distinguished fbi director? i would trust the fbi director. i yield back. >> thank you. will now recognize the gentleman from florida, mr. micah, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. director, how long did did you investigate this matter? >> just about a year. >> a year. >> do you believe you conducted a legitimate investigation? >> yes, sir. >> it was a legitimate subject that was something that you should look into? you had that responsibility, is

that correct? >> yes. >> we have a responsibility to hear from you on the action that you took. this weekend -- well, tomorrow, we'll go back to our districts and we have to explain to people, albeit couple of cafes where i see folks and meetings. they're going to ask a lot of questions about what took place. have you seen the broadway production "hamilton"? >> not yet. i'm hoping to. >> i haven't either. but i understand it won the choreography tony award. i think you and others know that. the problem i have in explaining to my constituents in what's come down, it almost looks like a choreography. let me just go over it real quickly with you.

last tuesday -- not this week. one week ago. former president clinton meets with the attorney general in phoenix. the next friday, last friday, mrs. lynch, the ag, says she's going to defer to the fbi. on saturday morning i saw the vans pull up. this is this past saturday. and you questioned secretary clinton for three hours? i guess that's correct? >> three and a half. >> and then on tuesday morning, the morning after july 4th, we watched in our office -- i had my interns, i said come in. we've got the fbi director, let's hear what he has to say. we're all kind of startled. you basically said you were going to recommend not to prosecute. correct? >> yes, sir. >> and then tuesday -- well, we

had president obama and secretary clinton arrive in charlotte at 2:00. shortly thereafter we had the attorney general as closing the case. this is rapid fire. i mean now my folks think there is something fishy about this. i'm notiracy theorist but there are questions on how this came down. i have questions. did you personally interview the secretary on saturday morning? >> i didn't personally, no. >> how many agents did? >> i think we had five or six. >> did you talk to all of those agents after the interview? >> i did not speak to all of them, no. >> did she testify or talk to them under oath? >> no. >> she did not. well, that's a problem. >> no, it's still a crime to lie

to us. >> i know it is. do you have a transcript of that -- >> will no, we don't record. >> do you have a 302 i guess it is called -- >> i don't have it with me but i do. >> did you read it? >> yes. >> you did? can we get a copy of it since the case is closed? >> i don't know the answer. >> i would like a copy of it provided to the committee. i would like also for the last 30 days any communications between you or any agent or any person in the fbi with the attorney general or those in authority in the department of justice on this matter. could you provide us with that? >> we'll provide you whether we can under the law and our policy. it would actually be easy in my case. >> you see the problem that i have though, is i have to go back and report to people what took place. >> sure. >> now did you write the statement that you gave on

tuesday? >> yes. >> you did. and did you -- you said you didn't talk to all of the agents. but all of the agents, did they meet with you and then is that the group that said that we all vote to not recommend prosecution? >> i did not meet with all of the agents. i've met with -- i've met with all of them -- >> we're getting the word that it was like unanimous out of fbi that we don't prosecute. >> what's your question, congressman is it. >> well, again, i want to know who counseled you. you read their summary. she was not under oath. and it appears -- members have cited here where she lied or misled to congress which will lead now to the next step of our possibly giving you a referral on this matter. you're aware of that.

>> yes, someone mentioned that earlier. >> and that probably will happen. thank you for shedding some light on what took place. >> mr. chairman, can i respond just very briefly? >> go ahead. >> i hope what you'll tell the folks in the cafe is, is look me in the eye and listen to what i'm about to say. i did not coordinate that with anyone. the white house, the department of justice. nobody outside the fbi family had any idea what i was about to say. i say that under oath, i stand by that. there was no coordination, no -- there was an insinuation what you were saying -- i don't mean to get strong in responding but i want to make sure i was definitive about that. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you. >> will now recognize the gentle woman from the virgin islands for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you all for being here. director comey, i would rather be here talking with you about the fbi's investigation and their resources to those individuals who are acting under color of law who have apparently committed egregious violations

in the killings that we've seen in the recent days. but instead, mr. chairman, i'm sitting here and i've listened patiently as a number of individuals have gone on national tv and made accusations against director comey, both directly and indirectly, because he recommended against prosecution based upon facts. i've listened just very krreceny here in this hearing as my esteemed colleague from florida insinuates a investigation into a week that actually occurred over a much, much longer period of time. and using that condensation and conspiracy theory to say that there is some orchestration. and that they have accused mr. director comey of basing his decision on political considerations rather than the facts. i've heard chuckles and laughter here in this hearing, and i don't think there is anything to

be smiling or laughing about. because i want to say something to those individuals who are chuckling and laughing and making attacks on director comey for doing his job. you have no idea who you're talking about. your accusations are completely off base, utterly offensive to us as american people. i know this because i've had the honor of working for director comey during my own service at the department of justice. from 2002 to 2004 i served as senior counsel to the deputy attorney general. i worked with both director -- the deputy attorney general, larry thompson, and deputy attorney general jim comey when he became deputy as a staff attorney. and i know from my own experiences that director comey is a man of impeccable integrity. there are very few times when you as an attorney or as an individual can