and no chance of getting an athletic scholarship. and that is why you invest. the best returns aren't just measured in dollars. >> all right, thanks to morgan, dagen mcdowell, and gabriel. "varney & company" begins now and lelizabeth macdonald is in for stuart. >> i'm elizabeth macdonald, don't adjust your set. stuart will be back. and james comey will testify an hour from now, the decision not to charge hillary clinton. and here it is, what's the difference between negligence and carelessness? negligence is a crime and

carelessness is not. here is mr. comey statement earlier inhe week. >> although we did not find evidence that secretary clinton and her staff-- there is evidence they were extremely care leless. >> you had that intent and. >> and listen to president obama on fox three months prior. >> hillary clinton was an outstanding secretary of state and would never potentially put america in any kind of jeopardy. i continue to believe that she has not jeopardized america's national security. now, what i've also said is that, and she's acknowledged that there's-- there's an a carelessness in terms of managing e-mails that she has and recognizes.

>> you caught that, right. the president uses the same words, intentional and carelessness. similar to what the fbi director said and that may be raised as wellment and meantime, donald trump not capitalizing on this story as much as you would expect. mr. trump talking a lot about his comments about saddam hussein and the media's coverage of him. now, is mr. trump missing a golden opportunity? getting the answers on "varney & company." about to begin. >> . stuar stuart: liz: much more on the fbi director hearing in the hour. and futures are lower, in a holding pattern probably until the jobs report tomorrow and we also have a key measure of the market recently, it's the yield and the 10-year treasury. look at that, near a record low.

we're going to get the latest read on mortgage rates next hour trending as well. look at gold and silver. investors settle worried, and sending those metals higher. mcdonald's will make the mcgriddle part of the all day menu and that stock is up nearly 30% since introducing all day breakfast. can't beat that. don't forget about amazon, that could be our horse race stock of the day. near a record high. next week, it's amazon prime day. meaning christmas in july for amazon. and guess who we have joining us, louise, let's talk about the broader market. fear seems to be back, because the british exit vote and the breakup. you see the german bund yield. what do you think? >> i think it affects european markets more than british markets. but we're in the middle of

picking a new president obama. once it's clear who is the next prime minister of britain and the brexit vote. >> there are questions, how will britain leave? can they join in orderway in a trading association and regent mo migrants from coming in. >> and i think you'll see a free movement of labor where somebody who actually has a job is allowed to come into the united kang dom, but we do not have self-benefitting people to play the system. we've got deutsche bank, now there's nearly a two-thirds chance of recession. and maybe brexit was the black swan event. what do you think is the chance of u.s. recession? >> a u.s. recession in the

united states, an incredibly resilie resilient economy. our exports are competitive and u.s. exports are less competitive. >> stay there, you're with us for the hour. we'll head to james comey testifying in front of congress at the top of the next hour. >> u.s. attorney general loretta lynch expected to testify as well. loretta's lynch statement, i received and accepted their, meaning the fbi, unanimous recommendation that the sear long investigation be closed and that no charges be brought for any individuals in the scope of the investigation. we've got jason chaffeets, he's going to be the first. >> we want to get to the truth. if you look at the fact pattern he laid out you'd be led to believe that she broke the law

and she would be prosecutedment we that's not what they're doing. we want to know the difference between that and careless. >> mr. trump is seeming distracted. >> he seems to want to know what's happening with him and people want it 0 know what's happening with them. they feel there's double standard and donald trump has a great opportunity to jump all over that. i watched the speech last night and he spent so much time defending the saddam hussein statements and on the press. people are not voting for donald trump because he's getting the short end of the stick. they're voting for donald trump because they're getting the short end of the stick. and they think he's going to pick it up and wave it on their behave bah. >> and we've seep the jobs

report and then they were distracted by the university. >> i think sometimes he acts vicerally and he needs to not watch as much tv and read more letters from american people who support him because i think that rallies him and they see him as their champion. if he'll go after the clintons living by a totally different set of laws and he's going to change it, fix it, he's going to hold people accountable, it doesn't matter whether their last name is clinton or a schmuck that lives out there in middle america. and let me say something else, there ain't going to be no recession in america, you know why i know? they're serving all day breakfast. >> comfort food. >> what a time to be alive. here is the thing, getting back to the clinton controversy, and

there's one who says she may have perjured herself. the fact that any secretary of state would put an unprotected server in their home and get classified information in the battle against terrorism. i don't see why he's not drilling and driving that home. >> he should talk about the word game that comey is playing, is it intentional. prisons of filled full of people who didn't intend to do what they did. when i was governor, all of them thought they should be let go and the fact is, people aren't in prison because they intended. the bank robber was just taking out a loan. he unintentionally forgot to fill out the paper work. >> what was the intent to begin with of the server in the home. hillary said with all the investigations, why would

anyone use e-mails and she said that in-- she said she only this one and she lied about that. the fact is she put it in their home and she didn't want public scrutiny. i've known the clintons for 40 years. they don't want to be asked the question the rest of us little people-- >> no foia, it's right in mr. trump's wheel house, we're talking cia drone stykes and the like in pakistan. that's classified information threeing through many four servers, and even mr. comey didn't have the support that they had. >> the fact that the apparently the account was hacked and there are secrets out there. that's scary if you think about it. i don't think that the russians were hacking the account because they wanted to know what colors chelsea was using

in his wedding. i think they were searching for state secrets and sadly i think they got them. >> spear phishing attacks and even mr. comey said the e-mails, the correspondents and this is mrs. clinton on unprotected servers and e-mails. >> i think one of the things that trump should be using is the fact that he's going to stand up for all the soldiers out there who are held to a standard, even if they're private first class or corporal, or an e-5. the question is, should they be held to a higher standard than the person who acquires to be their commander-in-chief, seriously? >> what does it do to the morale for the people on the ground? >> what morale? it's gone. >> thank you. back in a second. this is going to be moving huge

at the open. we're talking danone, and white milk and organic products. and we have protesters inside the, and they are protesting about gmo. and they threw 2000 on the floor and yelled "monsanto money". sales and profits are expected to be up. and getting back to hillary clinton. using her blackberry overseas often in unsecured locations justs a the governor and i were talking about, it's possible that hostile abbi actors could .

we'll talk about that next. ♪ ♪ [announcer] is it a force of nature? or a sales event? the summer of audi sales event is here. get up to a $5,000 bonus on select audi models.

>> welcome back. i want you to take a look at this stock chart. big name you know, verizon up more than a fifth this year despite the global turmoil. verizon is the only stock on the dow that operates only in the usa, gets all the sales from the united states. back to the fbi director about to testify on capitol hill next hour. on tuesday, mr. comey said, quote, it is possible that hostile actors obtained access to hillary clinton's personal e-mail. now, we've got former cia director james woolsey is with us now. do you agree with that? >> i think it's totally, highly likely, rather than possible. if you take cell phone, say, to russia and even had it with you, you're liable to get an e-mail from somebody who looks

like it's your nephew sending you some football scores with an attachment, in fact, it's spear phishing and you open that attachment and they have a lot of things in your phone. they can use it as a microphone to listen to conversations, do a lot of things with it. >> have you ever seen mr. comey, a secretary of state using at least four servers, unprotected if their home. have you ever seen anything like that? >> no, i haven't. but i must say, i find it amazing that there wasn't at least a consideration of a prosecution on a misdemeanor charge here. set aside the felony, i mean, there are reasons why that was a candidate as well, but the misdemeanor charge all you have to do is file that is to leave classified material in an unauthorized place and forget it and leave it on your desk,

table in the hotel, rather than taking it with you to the meeting and you left it for half an hour and whoops, i have to go back and get it, and you informally violated that misdemeanor statute. so, it seems to me it's -- it's pretty easy to show violation of that misdemeanor statute. that's what general petraeus was charged with, when he lent the sheets of paper to his biographer. and they only stayed out of his hands apparently a brief period of time and she didn't pass them on to anybody else. so, that would seem to be a case that's, you know, if you'd prosecute that you would think that they would prosecute a misdemeanor charge here. >> were you surprised by the decision? >> yes, i was. i had a great regard for fbi director comey and he has a

distinguished record and is highly praised and valued by people in the law enforcement community and with good reason. this seems very odd though. to say that you couldn't show gross negligence. >> right. >> but he was extremely ca careless-- she was extremely careless, as he does in his statement, what's the difference between extremely careless and grossly negligent. they're definitions of one another. >> and broad implications for u.s. secrets leaked in the war on terror. that's another thing. cia director woolsey, thank you, sir. police protests igniting overnight in multiple cities after an officer-involved shooting. this video in minneapolis where an officer shot a man in a car four timesment part of the incident was live streamed on facebook.

now we'll head to baton rouge. people are angry about the shooting. and it's recorded on a cell phone. we'll turn to this. the european migrant crisis leading to a spike in violent crime. we've got sexual assaults in sweden possibly involving two migran migrants, and also a spate of crimes at public schools in germany. here we have louise. is the pc culture contributing to the crime? >> certainly, in cologne, you saw disgusting for the women that they should keep at arm's length. we'll have more on this. stay with us, we've got more varney next.

you guy's be good. i'll see you later

[ bark ] [ bark ] bye. see ya pal. ever wonder what your pets do when you leave home?

[ laughing ] aw you cutie pie. aw. aw. aw. aw. [ barking ] [ washing machine running ] party's on! know what your pets are up to with xfinity home. xfinity. the future of awesome. see the secret life of pets, in theaters july 8th. >> welcome back. we have more big names, these are household names, near all-time highs. take a look at general mills. they make cheerios. the shares are up 20% this calendar year. look at dollar general, also hit another lifetime high up 32% year to date. back to the election, hillary clinton expanding her college plan offering free public school tuition to millions of people.

her plan is similar to bernie sanders. and we've got louise with us. here we go. bernie pushed hillary to the left and colleges are gouging middle class families. it's no hypocritical of the democrats, bernie sander's own wife ran a college to the ground, and jacked up tuition after the college had to close, is that what hillary clinton wants to do to american colleges? >> the colleges are operating like mini donald trump hotel empires on the backs of taxpayer families. but at least donald trump makes a profit. and hillary clinton's plan is going to plunge america and students into debt. >> let's get back to europe. we've got, for example, reports of migrants raping women and children even at pools in germany and austria. what do you make of that? >> it's completely disgusting, and the argument that a lot of

people are making in europe, these are not refugees, these are economic migrants to seek a better life. these are all young men who are coming in, fighting age, abandoned their women and children and have come to europe and there have been horrible sex attacks and what are the pc people doing? they're just excusing them. >> thank you for your time. we're awaiting the opening bell. the market is in wait and see mode. big names that you know and we're waiting on fbi director james comey about to get grilled on capitol hill over the decision about hillary's e-mails. a member of that committee joins us in a few minutes. politico releasing this cartoon search of the clintons, compared them to teflon scandals, none of them stick. don't go away.

if you need advice for your business, legalzoom has your back. our trusted network of attorneys has provided guidance to over 100,000 people just like you. visit legalzoom today. the legal help you can count on. legalzoom. legal help is here.

..

and for it we are just moments away from the opening bell. trading just about flat right now. we are taking a look at the certain stocks moving higher. we've got mike murphy here. here's the thing. goldman sachs are now saying 10% correction in the s&p 500. the s&p 500 thing quickly?

they are right that we closed flat on the air from where we are now. 2100 on the s&p. downside in rally appeared trent or what are you buying right now? >> european banks make money in bank of america and jpmorgan. the opening bell is ringing. we will check the big board. we've got a mixed bag right now. they simply also the son action going to the downside. verizon to the downside. travelers and home depot as well. the witness also in the bread. we want to also check the price of gold. gold is just at the tipping point of the major bull run. if you go above 1400 training at 1475 by the end of 2018 date we've got silver training to the downside down more than 1%. let's check the price of oil. oil basically up fractionally.

now take a look at the 10 year 1.38. but now one point for a taping up a little higher. we haven't seen these deals in a 10 year period the safe haven still is a trade going on. amazon shares opening at an all-time high. prime day happening kicking off next week. take a look at netflix down yesterday after a downgrade. let's check the shares of netflix where they are treated now. mcdonald's. micky mc riddle me all day bright as menu. make him all the way trade in very nicely right now. hanging in a 121 but did big-name city lifetime highs. general mills,.pepper, snapple, dollar general, dollar tree and campbell soup good let's bring in larry glavine. mike murphy, deirdre barton. of course we heard from the sad

the minutes were released yesterday they are invading the note. larry levin, are they holding that markets hostage? it's been fairly obvious from a lot of your viewers and traders behind me sat in a corner. they were saying they were going to do something. they were going to do something in july. obviously tomorrow will be very telling. i don't think the feds will do anything. keep striving the market higher. we will continue to see that effect. we will see those records pretty soon which really looks like they will. >> even in december, the fed is basically not just exhaust they, all over the excuses never to raise rates. >> i believe we might be getting to that point. the fed has continued the mental way to form a safety mat.

people still think of anything happening at the center banks, the fed included around the world will come in through the market. i think that is one of those things that in all of the purchases of the purchases, with their bond purchases and bond prices right now at all-time highs, all of those things keep us a little bit under the market, and it keeps us from going down. i agree with michael. we've got eight correction between here and the election. >> i think the fed hostage maybe not, but i can't wait until it's out of the market. the market is too dependent on the fed get at the fed is going to raise rates and stand and not raise rates at the market rally. that is not a healthy market or the way to market normally reacts. the sooner the fed can get rates to a normalized range, the better. be not you will not let control of that in talking more about the federal reserve doing there forward expectation and the ceo

in the normal market. that's the whole point. it is the market. new normal. you don't walk around by janet yellen in the fed. you want to run by ceos. liz: back in the day. remember that. the june jobs report tomorrow. more weakness after the may report. a solid read on the adp numbers. >> you have a job market is showing some signs of recovery. you see some decent news from an economic standpoint which would tell you the fed could hike rates. we heard from the minutes yesterday brexit have a lot to do with it. liz: i will go around with everybody. what is the jobs number? >> 220. train for larry, what he think the jobs number will be tomorrow? >> over 100,000. >> i am much lower than my call. i think adp number has been a fairly poor predictor. liz: pick a number.

the >> i'm taking a number down about 110. >> i will pick 150 because i know nothing about it. liz: would love it. basically talking about prime dates on fractionally at that right now. higher profits of pepsi raising its outlook. the poll, what is the action in the shares right now? >> amazon is at an all-time high. so was pepsi. 109 today. what happened when they came down with quarterly numbers, they raised the outlook. when you look at this relatively cheap remedy on the cheaper one in the group would be dr. pepper snapple. they've done everything to budgeting to more automation to the market and this is what they've done to manage it. they had better pricing which offsets things. take a look at coca-cola which is fared well. look at valuation of

forward-looking earnings. dr. pepper is the cheapest of the bunch. stuart: thanks, nicole. amazon does have prime day were discounts are given by amazon products. are you buying amazon right now? >> i'm not. by the stock at an all-time high is a big mistake although they hit on all cylinders. not just the shopping, which is how they became famous, but it is also -- >> you are giving argument to buy it. >> it's an expensive stock. great company, expensive stock. >> i'm with michael again. i like buying amazon because over the long-term it's got a couple more aces up his sleeve. what i find finally tells us how many prime numbers they have come at the stock will get another bump, whichever earnings report they choose to do that. does it bother anyone else that prime day falls on 712, not a prime number?

liz: wouldn't you think of that. a retail investor here. louise, would you buy at amazon? >> i actually would. services like he says, everybody using it these days with us good value. as a consumer i love the product. liz: next upcoming $10 billion deal. organic food maker white wave. white wave mix that silk soy milk and horizon organic dairy products. nearly 20%. back to make donalds, adding that griddles to the all-day breakfast menu. i know you'd love this one. >> yeah, absolutely. we were sitting there in the studio last october when i was extolling all-day breakfast as the next big thing. i got them derision from the panel. it is part of the things that they have done well to bring more foot traffic into the story

and duster rain to stop price higher. >> i don't like the donalds. mcdonald's is a burger company that is having major difficulty with their prime business, with their burger business. liz: what do you like? >> i like stocks that have had a pullback. i like something like the banks. this is range bound. near 18,000 on the dow. >> larry levin, do you like make donalds? >> i do. i don't think you see a pullback in amazon. those stocks after have to buy them. liz: you can't do all day comfort food. people love it it the next stock we've got a big name, verizon of running 20% this year and it's although global turmoil. verizon only operates in the u.s.a., get good sales in the u.s. what do you think? >> the stack is have a great run. it is a chase for yield good

investors going into verizon instead of looking out lower yields on bonds. this is in a high-growth company. to pay 20 times earnings roughly for a company not growing enough to support that, he ran into trouble. you're going to get your 4% yet but you can only send% to 8% pullback. >> that is the correction. liz: what do you think? verizon. >> i am like men with michael here because i think it is overvalued because everybody has been highly meant to it. all of those names you mentioned at the top of the show that we make new highs, dollar general, clorox, all of those kind of defensive names. that makes me a little bit worried that the stocks except for amazon making all these new highs, the consumer staples and retail discounters are very defensive. not a buyer of the whole group right here.

liz: next up we are going to talk about tesla. it is under siege, under criticism and fire. the company and its founder, elon musk. here's the report from fortune and tesla is really not about this. fortune is saying that tesla did not disclose the fatal crash when insiders sold about $2 billion worth of stock in may. dr, i will start with you. another black eye for tesla? >> well, i think it is a pr black eye. i think disclosing every accident that happened in your car is a microscope that only tesla is under and maybe google because of the autonomous trading futures. we are going to have to keep a close eye on what the regulators are going to do to step in. are they going to start this amazing technology back? this is one of those things that is a battle between the free market and capitalism in

regulation. they've had a good record coming in there. >> also keep an eye on the balance sheet. $1.5 billion with global ambitions. you just bought a tesla. what do you think? >> i love the car appeared to technologies unbelievable. the driver assist and i want to emphasize that. the autopilot is an amazing thing, but you've got to pay attention. if you ask me, all the people driving on the road playing with the funds are paying attention either. they are driver assist, not driver takeover, not driver fall asleep or taken out. i love the car and the technology and it will keep evolving and it's amazing. liz: thank you, larry, dr, mike, luis, you are sticking with us. appreciate that. the big board action with the dow trading up about 52 points, 53 write-down. not quite near 18,000 but we will be watching out for you if that comes around the corner. also waiting on that hearing

featuring fbi chief james call me happening at the top of the next hour. main street america, any main street americans would have been sent to jail for doing what hillary clinton did, but instead hillary gets a free ride on air force one. we are back in a moment. ♪ , who lives here and flies to hong kong, to visit this company that makes smart phones, used by this vice president, this little kid, oops, and this obstetrician, who works across the street from this man, who creates software. they all have insurance crafted personally for them. not just coverage, craftsmanship.

not just insured. chubb insured.

liz: let's do another check of the big word. a nearly 52 points. trading a little bit higher right now. yields up to 1.41. it would hit about 1.37 earlier.

a political cartoon, a big advertisement. if you like teflon, you'll love clinton. getting in bed with bankers and brokers won't stick. extremely careless with classified e-mails won't stick. believes, would he think about this? >> is incredibly demoralizing to the ordinary person or even perhaps jenner petraeus to his wanting to be commander-in-chief is not being held to account. one rule in america apparently for big people and another rule for letter people. liz: back up and look at this dory, what was the intent to use by some accounts for e-mails servers that have no security. saturday's fundraiser said mbeki that why would she do e-mail as much as i'd then investigated, why would anyone -- why would i

ever want to do e-mail? that's the intent right there. >> this is someone who thinks that she is about the blog, that she does not want to open her e-mails were screwed me. i always knew what was going to go down that way because after the two planes passed together in a meeting between bill clinton between bill clinton went to lynch, we knew which way would go down. the obama administration was always going to whitewash hillary because he k own secretariat it was doing. if they've gone after her, they would've gone after the president as well. liz: think it's demoralizing? >> totally demoralizing. in 15 minutes time, the congreressman we did this. the decision not to charge secretary clinton is just the latest example of a double header that it is for those in washing to d.c. secretary clinton did something that would give street americans arise to prison with a ride on air force one.

congressman mark meadows is a republican from north carolina. he is here. thank you for joining us. would you want to find out at this hearing. it's played out each and every day. we know that a navy reservist actually got wind $7500 probation from what appears that are less of an event that secretary clinton. why the double standard? the american people want standards and hopefully in a few minutes we will start to see that in this hearing we have. again, he cannot national security without national can. e. the server and e-mail may have had hacked. fbi dirt same as the possibility may have been hot. no fortune 500 ceo say they've

never been hacked as a clinton campaign. was our national security put at risk? >> obviously, i believe that was put at risk. whether there was actually a breach or not, obviously the jury is still out on that. so many of us are focusing on what director subs dates didn't do and now is recommend prosecution. he did lay out a whole lot of areas or indeed put our national security at risk. that's why enjoyed the speaker and college for her classified as clear in to be revoked at this point. if she can handle it in a responsible way, we need to make sure we take action on our and to call on the appropriate authorities to make sure it's protected. liz: congressman kennedy fbi director did say that anyone who made similar action would have

been sanctioned administratively and via security clearances. we are excited u.k. monday showed. we will be watching it closely. thank you so much. appreciate it. just moments away, congressman jim jordan saying hillary clinton and perjured herself falling under a shared a federal prosecutor on that one. next, right here. if only the signs were as obvious when you trade. fidelity's active trader pro can help you find smarter entry and exit points and can help protect your potential profits. fidelity -- where smarter investors will always be.

approaching medicare eligibility? you may think you can put off checking out your medicare options until you're sixty-five, but now is a good time to get the ball rolling. keep in mind, medicare only covers about eighty percent of part b medical costs. the rest is up to you. that's where aarp medicare supplement insurance plans insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company come in. like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, they could help pay some of what medicare doesn't, saving you in out-of-pocket medical costs. you've learned that taking informed steps along the way really makes a difference later. that's what it means to go long™. call now and request this free decision guide.

it's full of information on medicare and the range of aarp medicare supplement plans to choose from based on your needs and budget. all plans like these let you choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients, and there are no network restrictions. unitedhealthcare insurance company has over thirty years experience and the commitment to roll along with you, keeping you on course. so call now and discover how an aarp medicare supplement plan could go long™ for you. these are the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp, an organization serving the needs of people 50 and over for generations. plus, nine out of ten plan members surveyed say they would recommend their plan to a friend. remember, medicare doesn't cover everything. the rest is up to you. call now, request your free decision guide and start gathering the information you need

to help you keep rolling with confidence. go long™. ♪ liz: welcome back dear we are waiting for the james comey hearing on capitol hill. before congress just moments away we are expecting fireworks there. we are staying tuned to that in covering up eyes. his accident lifetime highs. white wave hitting a high there. pepsico is up, smuckers is out, monster beverage up actually. given the food scares there. to the downside more than 2%. a takeover target pushing a higher. as we wait for the hearing,

coming up on the way, citing the eighth the clue what she told the benghazi committee that she turned over all of her work related e-mails from her private e-mail server to the government. fbi director stubbs six said there was nothing marked classified under e-mail. she also said her attorneys went through every single e-mail again. the director saying all the statements were false. let's bring in former prosecutor katie fang. >> what a fantastic question. when you look at the federal perjury statute which is code section 1621. knowingly under a new has committed perjury. i don't know about you, but that

sounds like like what hillary rodham clinton did when she testified before the benghazi committee about based upon not it is actually a lot easier to prove if you pursue a perjury charge according to fbi director stubbs six this extremely careless verses grossly negligent standard which according to him are not the same name. liz: who knows what the standard is good katie, let's stay on this issue of perjury. or as a perjury case against hillary clinton strongest? >> it is going to be cherry-picking and it won't be that hard for them to do. the specific unrest statements made to the committee when she testified and you consider that versus what the findings were by the fbi. who is saying they turned over

the findings to and they ultimately had a unanimous recommendation not to prosecute anything. that have to do with just as server issue. let's talk about what representative is talking about, which was sent to the benghazi committee. liz: thanks for joining us today. really appreciate your insights. again. two minutes away from fbi chief james comey testifying for the oversight committee. fireworks up next.

liz: fbi director james comey testifying on his decision not to recommend charges against hillary clinton or improper use of personal e-mail servers while secretary of state. we are expecting fireworks. opopening statements on high dra on capitol hill taking place moments away.

anthony k. williams, attorney. would you want to hear? >> a blanket statement that no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute that case. i'm curious what he makes of the john birch prosecution where he was pardoned by bill clinton in i'm about to be prosecuted for bringing class of five materials to his home and not intentionally distributing or anything other than rock was he mishandling that. there are various cases involving military now where they just innocently mishandle some green and got punishment. they are very curious what his take is. liz: to your point, the fbi director did say anyone under similar circuit and this would face administrative or security sanctions. we've got paul ryan and do not give hillary clinton in a

classified material on the campaign. do you think there may be more action on that front? >> no, i think is a great kidney punch for paul ryan to take, but no one is going to strip her of her security clearance. look, she's not going to face an administrative punishment the way anyone else would. or prosecution. one is gross negligence. the others willful and intentional conduct. this case willfulness would be required. there's two ways to skin this cat. why is one only applicable. i want him to be specific about why he felt intense and willfulness was necessary when that's not the only way according to this batch you. liz: people say is an extreme

recklessness -- >> would call it a two prong test. there is one problem that we know he said at his own mouth and we've got all the evidence we concluded she was in violation according to this gross negligence standard but we are not going to prosecute. >> explained the difference between extreme carelessness and gross negligence. we've got michael loves with us. when we talk about intent, michael, what is the intent for private e-mail servers that were dead. basically a system. we have hillary clinton on tape around 2001 at a fund raiser's day and i've been under so many investigations. why would ever want to do e-mail? >> thank you for having me. on behalf of mr. trump on his immigration work and i'm an ardent friend and supporter of

mrs. clinton for the united states senate. >> so you are conflict at every which way. liz: more transparent than what we've seen about this situation. we are all over it right now. they have the lens back or try as best as i can on the eve of an election. liz: wait, answer the question. what about the intent of using from the get-go for private e-mail servers. we've got director james comey walking into the hearing room. he is going to take the microphone. he is moments away from speaking. we are covering this live. quick answer for you. >> very quick, we have secretary of state who's using confidential information. i'm reassured today that commerce is going to look over the shoulders and send messages and procedures are agents in the

field and hostile actors compromising these things. we want to make sure there's not only affecting others does. the only gentleman here that does all the facts. who is mrs. clinton communicating too. what access to or service and why would you need to have others personal redundancies in place and are we going to top this in this new normal. liz: you have a lot of questions about this. >> as an american idea. she she has been cleared of criminality. we have to attract a ping-pong, the tennis ball policies here. liz: just moments away from fbi director stubbs six testifying. he is expected to give an opening statement. the fbi released a detailed memo of the evidence supporting the decision not to recommend

charges or be brought against hillary clinton. do you think that the doj should basically make a totally transparent? >> we should see as much as possible. none of this was in front of a grand jury. all of this should be released. for better or worse, if they care for the political process and they should have as much information to decide. liz: let's go right to the hearing. >> my grandfather was a career fbi agent. i am here because we are mystified and can use by the fact pattern that you've laid out and the conclusions that you've reached. it seems that there are two standard and there is no consequence for these types of that dignity is dealing in a careless way with classified information. it seems to a lot of us thath average joe, the average

american, that if they had done what you've laid out in yours they made, that they would be in handcuffs and they might be on their way to jail and they probably should. i think there is a legitimate concern that there is a double standard. if your name isn't clinton or you are not part of the powerful elite that lady justice will act differently. there is a concern that lady justice will take up that line of thought and come to a different conclusion. hillary clinton created this mess. what the republicans. it wasn't anybody else. she made a very conscious decision on the very day that she started her senate com permission, she set up a domain name and set up a system to avoid and bypass the safety and

security of protocol of the state department. classified information as classified to get out into the public is not very fact is, nationstates do want to do harm to this country and their are people who put their lives on the line attacking serving our country. windows communication are not secure, it puts their lives in jeopardy. this classified information is in trust me to very few. but there is such a duty and obligation to protect back, took all your sword to protect that. and yet, there doesn't seem to be any consequence. i was talking to trey gaudi and he made a really good point but that's yesterday. he said, you know, in your statements, mr. or, you

mentioned that there was no precedent for this, but we believe you have set a precedent and it's a dangerous one. if you sloppily deal with classified information, if your cavalier about it. it wasn't just an innocent mistake. this went on for years, that there's going to be no consequence. we are a different nation and the united states of america. most nations would never do this. we do it in the spirit of making ourselves better. there will be all kinds of accusations about political bias and political that. i have defended your integrity every step of the way. you are the definitive voice. i stand by that. but i am mystified and i am confused because you listen to

your fact pattern and come to the conclusion that there is no consequence. i don't know how to lay not. we will have constituent asked us. they will get mad. they are oppressed traded. they see this time and time again. i don't know how to land in and i hope that through this. we can stick to the facts and understand this because there does seem to be two standards. i want to understand that. i want to explain this to the person. i yield back. i recognize the ranking member, mr. cummings. >> director comey coming thank you for being here today. i want to begin by commending you and the public surveys that

the fbi for the independent investigation, you conducted. you had a thankless task. no matter what recommendation you made, you were sure to be criticized. there is no question that you were extremely or. in fact, some may say you went too far in your investigation. but of course, that was your job. that is your job. secretary clinton has acknowledged that she made a mess date in using a personal e-mail account. you explained on tuesday that she and her colleagues at the state department were extremely careless with their e-mails. but after conducting this exhaust and review, you determine that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case based on this evidence.

and you and the career staff recommended against prosecution. based on the previous cases you haven't, as as prosecutors have gone forward, they would have been holding the secretary to a different vendor from everyone else. amazingly -- amazingly, some republicans who are praising you just days ago for your independence, for your integrity and your honesty, instantly turned against you because your recommendation can did with the predetermined outcome they wanted. in their eyes, you had one job and one job only to prosecute hillary clinton. but you refuse to do so. so now you are being summoned

here to answer for this alleged transgressions and msn, mr. director, you are involved. contrary to the claims of your critics, there is absolutely no evidence that you made your recommendation for political reasons, no evidence that you are arrived or influence, no evidence that you came to your conclusion based on anything but the facts and the law. i firmly believe that your decision was not a son convenient but non-convenient. today, house republicans are doing what they always do. using tax ayers money with claims that have been debunked, just to keep them in the headlines one more day. when we hear a political siren, over and over again, even if the

evidence is not there. exhibita. majority leader kevin mccarthy who admitted on national television that republicans established the benghazi select committee to bring down secretary clinton's own numbers. i didn't say that. mccarthy said it. the fact was confirmed by a republican staffer on that committee who reported that he was hired in part for not going along with the hyper focus on a per carry clinton. i give house republicans credit. they have turned political investigation into an art form. if our concerns yet today with the proper treatment of classified information and wishes start with a review of our previous hearing on general david trey is who played guilty

last year to intentionally and knowingly compromising highly died in permission. the problem is, mr. director, we never had that hearing. this committee ignored that breach of national security because they did not match the political goals of house republicans. involving concerns today, finally addressing a broken classification system in which security levels are arbitrarily changed up and down would have been a legitimate goal. that would have been a valuable addition to reforming and improving our government. after all, we are the government reform committee. we could have held hearings with this eco-virus, preventing massacres like the one in

orlando for a host of other topics that could actually save people's lives. that is not why we are here. that is not why our chairman called this emergency hearing 48 hours after you made your recommendation. everyone knows what this committee is doing. honestly, i would not be surprised and i say this with all seriousness. i would not be surprised if tomorrow republicans set up a new committee to spend $7 million plus on why the fbi failed to prosecute hillary clinton. director comey, let me conclude with this request. even with all that i have said, i believe that there is a critical role for you today. i have listened carefully to the coverage on this issue and i've

heard people say recently as this morning, three hours ago that they were mystified by your decision. as a matter of fact, a minute ago. so there is gap things you said on tuesday and your recommendation. there is a gap, mr. director. so in this moment, this is a critical moment, i beg you to fill the gap. when the gap is not filled by you, it will be filled by others. share with us, the american people, your process. explain how you examine the evidence, the law and the precedent. describe in clear terms how career professionals arrived at this decision.

if you can do that today, if you can do that, that could go a long way towards people understanding your decision. i want to make it clear that i condemn he's completely unwarranted attacks against you. they have attacked you personally. they have attacked your integrity. they have impugned your professionalism and even suggested that viewers on how bought and paid for because he made your recommendation based upon the law and the facts. i know you are used to working in a world of politics, that these attacks have been beyond the pale. so, you'd do not deserve this. your family does not deserve it and a highly skilled and dedicated agents of the f. e. i do not deserve it. i honor your professionalism and

your service to our country. again, it even if it takes until freezes over, and i beg you to close the gap. tell us what happened between what you found in your decision or that not only the members of this panel and this congress will wonders dan, but though that americans will wonders and. if you do that, if you do that, it will be all worth. with that, i yield back. >> hold on one second. with your indulgence, the ranking member, which i have the greatest respect, you asked for a hearing on general petraeus and how that was dealt with. you got it. we will have one and this oversight committee and the record will reflect in the judiciary committee i repeatedly questioned attorney general holder. i repeatedly questioned the fbi director about the disposition of that case, probably more than any member of the house or senate.

if you want a hearing, we will do that. number two, you complain that we haven't done a hearing on saturday. the oversight and government reform committee i believe is the very first committee to do a hearing on the date it was chaired by mr. mica and i'm proud of the fact we did a hearing and we did it first. >> will the chairman yield? can we have another one because the problem is still there. >> absolutely. absolutely. >> unanimous in can send at this time that i chair. >> and the ranking member knows that we have held multiple hearings on the criminal justice and criminal justice reform. you have asked for it. you are passionate about it and we did do that as well. to suggest we have an address some of those issues is inaccurate. >> i don't think i did that, mr. chairman. again, as late as yesterday with the problem in minnesota with

the african american men being killed, i would like to have some hearings still in the criminal justice system. >> without objection. i am going to work with you on that every step of the way. the chair is authorized to declare recessss at any te. we will hold the record open for five legislative days for any members who would like to submit a written statement. it would not recognize their distinguished witness for the first panel. please welcome honorable james comey of the federal bureau of investigations. we welcome your thank you for being here. you pursuant to committee rules, all of these sworn before they testify. please rise and raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? thank you. let the record reflect that the witness answered in the affirmative. mr. comey, the floor is yours. you can take as long or as short

as you would like. if you have any written statement would like to submit afterwards, we are happy to do that as well. it will be made part of the record. the time is now yours. director comey come you are recognized. thank you, mr. chairman. members of the committee, i am proud to be here representing the people of the fbi who did this investigation as they do all their work in a competition, honest and independent way. i believe this investigation was conducted consistent with the highest traditions of the fbi. our folks did it in an apolitical -- an apolitical and professional way as to the resolution of this case. as i said to my statement, i expected there it the significant public debate about this recommendation and i'm a big fan of transparency so i welcome the conversation we will have here today and i think a lot of folks have questions about why did we reach the conclusion we did and what was our thing and i hope very much

to get an opportunity to address that and to explain it. at the end of the day, people can disagree, can agree, but at least understand the decision was made in the recommendation was made the was made doubly wanted to be by people who didn't give a hoot about politics but what are the facts, what is the lot and how have similar people, all people been treated in the past. maybe i could say a few words at the beginning that would help frame how we think about this. there are two things that matter in a criminal investigation of a subject. what did the person do and when they did that thing, what were they thinking? when you look at the 100 years plus of the justice department prosecution of the mishandling of classified information, those two questions are obviously present. what are the person do? and when they did it, did they know they were doing something that was unlawful. that has been a characteristic of every charged criminal case

involving the mishandling of classified information. i'm happy to go through the cases in particular. in our system of law, there is a thing called israel. when you did it, this latin phrase mens rea means what were you thinking. we don't want to put people in jail unless they proved they knew they were doing something they shouldn't do. that is the characteristic of the prosecutions involving his handling of classified information. there is a statute that was passed in 1917 that on its face makes it a crime, a felony for someone to engage in gross negligence. they be in that circumstance you don't need to prove they knew they were doing something that was unlawful. they be enough to prove that they were just really careless yonder reasonable doubt. at the time congress passed the statute in 1917, there's a lot of concern about whether that will violate the american tradition of requiring before sa lot of concern about the statute

passed. they are reflecting that same concern. i know from 30 years of the department of justice had grave concerns about whether it's appropriate to prosecute somebody for gross negligence, which is why they've done a one that i know of any case involving espionage. when i look at the facts together here, i see evidence of great carelessness, but i do not see evidence that is sufficient to establish the secretary clinton or those with whom she was corresponding both talk about classified information on e-mail and knew when they get it they were doing something against the law. so given that assessment of the facts, my understanding of the fall, my conclusion was and remains no reasonable prosecutor would bring this case. the reasonable prosecutor would bring the second case in 100 years focused on gross negligence. so i know that has been a source of some confusion for folks.

that's the way it is. i know the department of justice. i know nobody for prosecutor would bring a case. i wonder where they were the last 40 years because i would like to see the cases they brought. nobody would come and nobody did. my judgment was the appropriate resolution of this case is not what they criminal prosecution. folks can disagree about that, but i hope they know that view, not just my view, that of 19 was honestly help cometh really investigated and communicated because we know folks care about it. i look forward to answering as many questions as they possibly can. it matters tremendously and i thank you for the opportunity. >> i recognize myself where were eloquent and servers? the operational servers of her home in new york. the reason i'm answering it

after they were decommissioned, they were moved to other storage facilities, but the light device is always in the basement. >> was an authorized or on authorized 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 cannot reasonable the secretary of state would have information the course of the secretary's work. >> via e-mail? >> sure, depending upon the nature of the system. communicating classified information would have to be a classified rated e-mail system. >> you did find more than 100 e-mails that were classified that had gone through that server, correct? >> correct. through an unclassified server, correct. >> so bill clinton did come to possess documents and materials

containing classified information via e-mail on his unsecured servers, 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 hillary clinton lied under oath? >> not to the fbi on the case we are working. >> dishy review the comments for 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. >> fbi investigators statements under oath on this topic? >> not to my knowledge. i don't think there's been a referral to congress. >> you need a referral to investigate 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 in connection with use of the ml server, she did not. >> wishing not able to prosecute or did hillary clinton break the law? >> i do want to give an overly lawyer answer. is there evidence that would establish beyond a reasonable doubt that somebody engaged in conduct of a criminal statute. my judgment is not. >> the fbi does background checks. if hillary clinton applied for the job at the fbi, with the fbi give hillary clinton a security clearance? >> i don't want to answer the hypothetical. the fbi has a robust process in

which we adjudicate the suitability of people for employment in the bureau. >> given the fact pattern he laid out less than 48 hours ago, what a person do it doubt what classified information like that, with that person be granted security clearance at the fbi? >> it would be a very important consideration in the suitability of determination. >> you are kind of making my point, director, the point dean that because i injected the word hillary clinton, you gave me a different answer. if i came up to you and said this person was extremely careless with classified information, exposure to hostile actors and use despite warnings created unnecessary 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 for somebody like jake sullivan asking for classification changes, are you telling me that the fbi would grant a security clearance to that person?

>> i am not saying what the answer would be. i am saying that would be an important consideration in a suitability determination for anybody. >> personally, i think that sounds like a bit of a political and other because i can't imagine the fbi would grant a security clearance to somebody with that fact pattern. do you agree or disagree with that? >> i will say what i said before. it's very hard to answer a hypothetical. would be a very important consideration the suitability determination. you might did hillary clinton do anything wrong? >> what do you mean wrong? >> i think it is self-evident. >> i'm a lawyer, investigator and an open normal human being. >> do you believe there should be no consequence for hillary clinton how she dealt with it? >> i hope folks member what i said on tuesday. i didn't say there's no consequence for someone who violates the rules. they are often very severe consequences in the fbi have

bought into employment, involving pay, involving clearances. that is what i said on tuesday. i hope folks walk away understanding just because someone is not prosecuted for mishandling classified information, there are consequences for it. >> so if hillary clinton or if anybody had worked at the fbi under this fact pattern, would you do to that person? >> it would be a security review in an adjudication of their suitability and a range of disciplines imposed from termination to reprimand and in between suspensions, lots of clearance so you could be walked out or you could depending on the nature of the facts he could be reprimanded. there is a robust process to handle that. >> have gone past my time. i yield back. i recognize the ranking member, mr. cummings. >> thank you or image for being here today, especially at such a short notice. you and your staff should be commended for the thorough and dedicated review you conduct it.

unfortunately, some of my colleagues are now attacking you personally because your final recommendation conflicted with their preconceived political outcome in this case. some have tried to argue that this case is far worse than the case said general david petraeus to excavate it in 20 tenets knowingly and intentionally compromised in highly classified information. in fact, one local politician we all know said this, and i quote, if he is indicted, the reason is because the democrats are protecting her. she's been protected 100%. you look at general petraeus. you look at all the other people that get a fraction of what he >> general petraeus kept

classified information in eight personal notes at his residents is that correct? >> that's correct. >> included identities covert officers he also included war strategy, intelligence capabilities, diplomatic discussions, quotes and delivered discussions from high, level national security counsel meetings, and discussions with the president. general petraeus shared his information with his lover, and then biographer. he was caught on audio tape telling her and i quote, i mean they are highly classified opinion some of them. they don't have it. but, i mean, there's code word stuff in there end of quote. director comey what did general petraeus when he said he shared, quote, code word information with her? what does that mean? >> petraeus case to my mind illustrates the case that

department of justice is willing to prosecute even there for a misdemeanor. in this case you have vast qualities of highly classified information including special sensitive compartment and information that's the reference to code words. vast quantity of it shared with someone without authority to have it. but we found it in a search warrant hidden under the insulation in his attic and vast quantity of information and admitted he knew that was the wrong thing to do. that is a perfect illustration of the kind of kaitions that get prosecuted in my mind it illustrates the distinction to this case and general petraeus did not admit to fact when is the fbi investigators first interviewed him did he? >> no, he lied it be. >> but he did admit to facts in a plea agreement is that correct? >> yes. >> here's what had they said about general is petraeus acts

by petraeus were in all respects knowing and deliberate and not committed by mistake, accident, or other innocent reason end of quote. is that an accurate summary in your view director comey? >> yes it actually leaves out important part of the case which is obstruction of justice. >> was he charged obstruction of justice? >> no. >> why not? >> decision made bit leadership of the department of justice not to insist upon a plea to that felony. >> so 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 ?aiment >> no it's the reverse. >> what do you mean by that? >> his conduct to me illustrates the karlgts of behavior that mark the prosecution it is that are actually brought. and clearly intentional conduct, knew what he was doing was a violation of the law.

huge amount was information that even if you koct prove he knew it raises inference that he did to obstruct justice. that combination of things make it is worthy of a prosecution . a misdemeanor prosecution but a prosecution thunls. >> sitting here today do you stand by the fbi recommendation to prosecute general petraeus? >> yes. >> do you stand bit fbi recommendation to not prosecute hillary clinton? >> yes. >> director comey how many times have is 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 asked you a question about it at the time. >> that's why i was a judiciary committee hearing that i was asked it be. now recognize gentleman from south carolina.

>> good morning director combmy it was that true over the private e-mail? >> our investigation found there was classified information sent -- >> so television not true. >> right. that's what had i said. okay. >> looking for a little shorter answer so we're not here quite as lock. secretary clinton said there was marked classified on e-mails sent or received was that true? >> that's not true. there were small number of portion markings on three of the documents. >>secretary clinton said i did t e-mail and no classified material, was that true? >> there was classified material e-mailed. >>secretary clinton said she usd 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 true? >> no, we found work related e-mails 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 deleted or whether when a server change haded out something happened to them. there's no doubt that work related e-mails remostmost of 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 e-mail content individually? >> no. >> and in 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'm going to ask you to put on your old hat. fault statementers this used for what? >> either for the prosecution or

evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution. >> exactly. >> intent and conscienceness of guilt, right? is that right? conscienceness 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 wases designed for the very purpose of concealing public record and arguing the destruction that you and i just talked about or certainly failure to preserve. you would argue all of that under the heading of content. you would also intent also be arguing the pervasiveness scheme when it started and 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 replan,

argue the burn bags of daily calendar entries or the missing daily calendar entries as a common scheme or plan to conceal two dayses ago, director you said a reasonable person or her position should have known a private e-mail it was no place to send and receive classified information. you're right are average person does know not to do that this is no average person. this has a former first lady. a former united united states sr and former secretary of the state that the president now contends is motion qualified person to be president since jefferson. he didn't say that in '08 but he say it is now. she affirmatively rejected efforts to get the state.gov account and turn two years and

turned them to congress because weapon found out she had a private e-mail account. so you have a rogue e-mail system set up before she took into account oath of office. thousands of what we know now to be classified e-mails some of which classified at the time. one of her more frequent e-mail comrades packed and you "don't ask, don't don't know whether or not she was and this scheme took place over a long period of time and resulted in public records and yet you say there's u sufficient evidence of intents and you say she was careless but not intentionally so. we know intent is really difficult to prove. very rarely do defendants announce on this date i intend to break this criminal code section. just to put everyone on notice. i'm going to break the law on this day. it never happens that way. you have to do it with circumstantial evidence or if you're congress and you realize how difficult it it is to prove

special intent you will formulate a statute that allows for gross negligence. my time is is really important. you mention there's no president 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 chairman touched upon, this double track 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. but if you are hillary clinton and you seek a promotion to commander in chief, you will not be. what i hope you can do today is help the average, reasonable person you made reference to 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 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 northern and eastern district of virginia. that's why you are 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 recomndation noto 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, quote. was your investigation seeped in political bias? i don't know? >> 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 quote,s are living above the law.quote,s they birr 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. dhowld them to a different standard or the same ?arnd >> it's not ac. we try hard to apply same standard rich or poor, white or black, old or young famous or not known at all. i hope folks will take time to understand the other cases because a lot of confusion out there about what the facts were of

other cases but i understand good people, reasonable people have questions. >> senator cruz also criticized you. he said there are i quote with serious concerns about the integrity of director comey's decision. he stated that you quote, you had rewritten a clearly worded, federal criminal statute. did you rewrite the law in any way or rewrite a statute? >> no. >> now i truly hesitate to mention the next one. but 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 knew if i was going to do it including the press. i'm very proud of the way the gi nobody leaked it 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 extension 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 surprisedded as i am by the intensity of the attacks from the gop on you after having made a decision a thoughtful decision and 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 just continue to have the conversation. >> i believe that what we're seeing today is that if the gop does not like the resultings of an investigation, or how it turns out, and we saw they originally were lotting you the minute you made your announcement, they're now attacking you, the same people. and 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 law, child care, affordable ledge education and economy that works and helps all people. i thank you for performing your

job with distinctioning and the long history of your whole profession of integrity and independence and thank you very much. my time is expired. >> thanks the gentlewoman and now jordan. >> director thank you for being with us on tuesday you said any reasonable fern in secretary clinton's position should have known unclassified system was no place for these conversations. you said on tuesday some of her e-mails bore classified markings and you also said on tuesday there were potential violations of the appropriate statutes. now, i know a bunch of prosecutors back home look at that fact pattern, that evidence even reference it in openses some of your prosecution business having on tv saying they overlook that same evidence and would have taken it to a grand jury. but on tuesday, you said and today in your opening statement you said no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case, and then inier statement tuesday you cite factors that helped you make that decision. that make that statement.

and one of the factors you you d was kier the context of a person's actions. typically when i hear context in the course of a criminal investigation, it's -- it's from the defense side not the prosecution side. it's at the end of the case after there's been a trial in the guilty verdict during the mid-gaiting circumstances that's the context we think about. but you consider the context of the person's actions and so i'm curious, what does consider the context mean? because a lot of americans are thinking just what the chairman talked about why n his homes standard there are two one for we the people and connected and i get a privilege of representing in ohio think back when you said considerate context, they think that's what mr. gadi talked about former or first lady, former senator. major party nominee for highest

office in the land, and oh, by the way her husband just met with the individual you look with at the airport in arizona five days ago. so you said none of that influenced your decisions but tell us what consider the context means. >> thank you mr. jordan. what had i was try aring to capture is the fact that the prosecutor is a judgment call it is in every single case and among thing use consider are what was this person's background? what was the circumstances of the offense? were they trunk? were they inflamed by passion? was it somebody who had a sufficient level of educations and training and experience that we can infer certain things from that to consider the entire circumstances of the person's offense conduct and background. i did not mean to consider political -- context or things -- >> entire circumstances and mr. gadi talked about this scheme. remember what she said. she sets up this unique server arrangement she alone control it

is. on that server on that e-mail server or e-mail, work related e-mails clinton foundation information and now we know classified information this gets discovered. we found 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. and then we finds out the ones that 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 but i'll take what you said on tuesday they deleted e-mails they did not return to the state department, and the lawyers cleaned their device in such a way as to preclude forensic recovery. now that sounds like a fan ski way of saying hid the evidence. right? and you just told mr. gadi 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 or conversation between secretary and lawyers about that. >> did you ask that question? >> yes. >> did secretary complin ton know that her lawyers clean devices in such a way to preclude e forensic recovery? >> i don't believe that she did. >> did you ask that question? >> yes. >> do you see how someone could view the context of what had she did, set up a private system, she alone controlled it. she kept everything on it. we now now from abidin deposition that they can it for that very reason so no one could

see what was had there. based on the deposition ms. abidin 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 inferences can be train from that collection of facts of course. >> all right. mr. chairman i yield back. >> thank the gentleman now recognize gentlewoman ms. norman. >> comey i appreciate your conduct of this investigation and a nonpartisan way. and keeping with the sterling reputation which is presidents both parties to appoint you to highly placed law enforcement positions and a federal government. i want to say for the record that this hearing where you call the prosecutor mr. comey in the

place of the prosecutor because -- the attorney general has accepted entirely the fbi's recommendations. where you call the prosecutor to give account about for the decision to prosecute or o not a particular individual -- serious questions of separation of powers and particularly when you're questioning the prosecutors decision with respect to the decision to prosecute or not a particular individual, it raises serious constitutional questions. these hearings so often accusatory that they yield no guidance as to how to conduct

business in the future and that's the way it look it is -- it looks as though that is how this hearing is going. now 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 account -- private e-mail. if security matters are involved. that's a very broad, wide -- [laughter] proposition. now, there are no rules so far as i know requiring members of congress to use -- as to how they use their official e-mail accounts whether involving security or not. the chairman of this committee list his personal accounts for example on his business card. i don't --

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 sensitive information that should be made public. some of our members on the intelligence committee or the fence committee or even this committee may have such matters. some of these matters may concern national security issues. and i don't know, if something is sensitive, as the itinerary as if u you're going on a co dell route and where you will be can be all on personal e-mails.

of course, this is legislative branch and i spoke of power so i'm not indicating that there should be a -- government wide sense that ordained but there ought to be rule it is that everybody understands about especially after the clinton episode about the use of personal e-mail. so i'd like your insight for guidance as far as the federal employees are concerned or even members of congress and their staff. because i think we could learn from this, this episode. so strictly from a security standpoint, do you believe that -- 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 i'm sure there will be questions about how there was even confusion, for example, in the state department. but what should we learn what it comes to our own -- our own use of e-mail with the use of federal employees on this question? >> answer mr. chairman. most important thing to learn is that unclassified e-mail system is no case for an e-mail conversation about classified matters. and by that i mean either sending a document as an attachment over o unclassified e-mail that is classified, or

having conversation about something that is a classified subject and unclassified e-mail system. that's the focus of the concern thatst the focus of this investigation. that it was also a personal e-mail adds to the concern about the case because of the security vol nucialts vulnerability associated with the system but the root of the problem is people using unclassified system to conduct business. that is classified so all of us should have access to if we have access to classified information classified communication systems. and the fbi has three levels. unclassified system, a secret system and top secret system. you can e-mail on all three but not e-mail unclassed system even if that's a government classified system, about matters that are classified. that's the important lessons learn everybody ought to be aware of it and trained on it. we spend a lot of time training on it in gi to make sure folks are sensitive to need to move a classified discussion even if it

doesn't involve document -- >> member was of congress included. >> director, the reason that's so important because if top secret information compromised american lives are are at stake incorrect? >> correct are. >> you mentioned a lot of people are upset there are no consequences for secretary clinton but you did point out consequences would be appropriate if someone demonstrated carelessness for classified information so those consequences that would include potentially termination of federal employment? >> correct. >> it could include revocation of security clearance? >> yes and future employment in national security positions, correct? >> it could. >> now would you as fbi director allow someone in employee of your agency to work in a national security capacity if that person had demonstrated carelessness in handling top secret info? >> answer to that is we would

look very closely in that insuitability dernlings and hard to answer yes and no in all cases but a important suit pbility scrub. >> so there would be instances where someone could be extremely careless but still maintain confidence. we have a lot of people who are very confident in this country who would allow to work for the country but be able l to continue on? >> trouble answering a hypothetical. i can understand a long time ago with a small amount of conduct or something. that's why it's hard to say other than it would be a very important part -- >> put it this way would being extremelily careless and handling top secret information expose employee of fbi to potential termination. >> yes. >> why shouldn't u.s. officials use mobile device when is traveling to foreign countries especially discussing classified or sensitive information? >> because the mobile device will transmit its signal across network it is that are likely controlled or at least accessed

by that hostile power. >> that's the guidance fbi gives that's good guidance. >> good guidance. >> how did top secret information end up on the private server because your statement address secretary clinton you did not address her aildz in your statement attorney general lynch exonerated everybody. that information just didn't get there on its own. so how did it get there? were you able to determine that? but people talking ab top secret subject in an e-mail communication not about forward ing a top secret document and having a conversation about a matter that is top secret.

in order for secretary clinton to have information with the fbi didn't she have a form she had to sign acknowledging her responsibilities and duties to safeguard this information? >> yes, anybody who gets access to sci, sensitive compartment information would have a read and form and i'm sure that members of congress have seen the same things. >> and it stresses in that document and other training that people would get that there are certain requirements to handling certain levels of information, for example, an information, that can't be on

your secret server at the fbi. >> yes. >> you have to follow guidelines-- my question, she's a very fist sophisticated person and her aides had exdifficultied similar documents. >> i believe so. >> she knowingly set up her own private server to-- let me ask you that, was the reason she set up the private server in your judgment because she wanted to shield communications from congress and the public. >> i can't say that. our best information is she set it up as a matter of convenience. it was an already existing system that 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, you're-- i just want to take one of your

assumptions about sophistication. i don't think our investigation determined that she was sophisticated as to the levels and treatment, so far-- isn't she an original classification authority though? >> yes, sir. >> good grief. i appreciate you coming and i yield back the balance of my time. >> i ask the gentleman to enter two of the documents mr. desantis referred to, one is sensitive compartmented nondisclosure agreement and the other noncliche -- nondisclosure both signed by hillary clinton. >> thank you mr. 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 firsthand 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 who gets 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 express 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 appeared to be very dangerous and growing. some even promote genside in their postings and rhetoric on-line. in your experience, how dangerous are these groups and have they incited violence in the past? >> too hard to answer, congressman in the abstract. there are some groups that are dangerous and some are exercising important protected

speech under the first amendment. >> let me ask about a more direct question. a gentleman named andrew anglen is the editor of a website the daily stormy dedicated to the supremacy of the white race as well as attacking jews, muslims and others. the website features numerous posts with the #whitegenocide to protest what they contend is an effort to eliminate the white race. are you familiar with that movement? >> i'm not. >> okay. well, the hash tag has been generated all over the social media. one nazi sympathizer tweeted repeatedly using the handle handle @white genocide tm. are you concerned that some 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. we do not investigate moving towards acts of violence, we figure out when they've walked outside the first amendment and i don't know the particulars. >> one of my biggest concerns is that certain public figures are actually promoting these dangerous groups even further and as you know, one of our most vocal candidates for president retweeted @white genocide tm. 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 easy 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.

>> well, i appreciate you trying and thank you, mr. director for your exceptionexception al principled service to our question. >> and. >> for five minutes. >> welcome, director, thank you 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 it was reached. so i appreciate your being here to help walk us through it. and here is the issue that the people that are calling me from wyoming are having. they have access to this statute, it's title 18, u.s. code 1924, and i'm going to read you this statute. it says, whoever being an officer, employee, contractor or consultant to the united states and by virtue of its 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 law, how this could not have come to her attention. she's the secretary-- she was the secretary of state. of course, the secretary of state is going to become possessed of classified materials. of course she was 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? >> it's a good question and 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 written by the law, and that 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 unlawful. that's the protection, i've worked for very hard, when i was in the private sector i was in the chamber of commerce to stop criminal negligence-- >> may i interrupt and statute said knowingly removed such documents or materials without authority and with the intent 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 have to show that and prove

criminal intent, both by law, that's the way the judge would instruct the jury and practice, 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 must prove beyond a reasonable doubt they knew they were engaged in something 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 time that 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 clinton's. 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 confidence some of them were classified. there were only three in the entire batch we found that bore any markings indicated they were classified, so that's less likely, but surely it's a reasonable assumption that some of the ones they deleted contained classified information. >> thank you, director. thank you, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> nowecognize the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you mr. comey appearing here to help the committee with its 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 just want to show you, this is a book that was written by former secretary of state colin powell. in his book he said to compliment the official state

department computer in my office, i installed a laptop computer and on a private line. my personal e-mail account on the laptop allowed me direct access to anyone on-line. so i started shooting e-mails to my principal assistants to individual ambassadors and increasingly to my foreign minister colleagues who like me, were trying to bring their min cities into the 186,000 miles per second world. were you aware of this, that secretary colin powell actually go the a private server as well? >> not a private 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. he went rogue, so to speak, right? >> i don't know whether i'd say that. >> yeah, all right. >> i'm not going to put words in your mouth, you'd think this is 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 on-line. that's his own statement. i'm 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 a quote. o he explained i didn't have any to turn them over, i didn't keep a cache of them. i don't have thousands of pages in my personal files. but he was secretary of state and 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 of 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, former secretary. >> yes, yes, i am. >> you're aware of that. are you surprise he has never responded? >> i don't know enough to comment. i don't know exactly what conversation he had with the state department. >> all right. i'm trying to look at the, you know, where we have a lot of comparisons of in 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 demonstrated a clear intent to publish that information, which was classified. julian asang, wicky leaks editor, publisher, i guess, a wide attempt to publish information. and general petraeus which we talked about earlier today shared information with his biographer and jeffrey sterling, the new york times. former cia officer who was interested in writing a book so he hung onto his information and former director of the cia, john deutsche, who retained classified information on a couple of servers, with un-- one in belmont, massachusetts and one in bethesda, maryland,

after he became a private citizen. in all of 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 amounts of documents, almost all of the tsi level, in an unclassified internet, and attempt today destroy them once he got caught, and admitted i knew i wasn't supposed to do that, and those are the cases that got prosecuted. in my experience, no reasonable prosecutor would bring this case, i know that frustrates people, but that's the way the law it and the department of

justice. >> i yield back. >> we'll now go to the gentleman of north carolina mr. meadows for five minutes. thank you, there has been much said today about criticizing you and your service. i want to go on record that even though a million 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, we appreciate your service to this country and the integrity so i'm going to focus on the things that you said, not the conclusion that you draw. and congressman tray gowdy and i talked a little about this, but on february 4th, 2016 secretary clinton, during a presidential debate said i never sent or received any classified material, they are retroactively classifying it, closed quote. 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 assified-- so s 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 answering, what was in-- . well, either your statement is not true or hers is not true, both of them cannot be true. so 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, or markings indicating the presence of classified information at the time. so, she makes the statement that says there was no markings. you make a statement that there was. so her statement was not true? >> that one actually i have a little bit of insight into her statement because we asked her about that. there was three documents that were portion markings, you're obligated when it's classified to mark it and it's classified information. >> so 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 marki 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-- >> director comey, come on, i've 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? >> no, no, not that she would have no idea what a classified marking would be, it's an interesting question, it's a question about sophistication came up earlier, whether she was sophisticated enough to understand what a c in parens means? >> you're saying this former secretary of state is not sophisticated enough to understand a classified marking? >> that's not what i'm saying. >> that's a huge statement. >> not what i'm saying, you're asking me did i assume that someone would know. >> probably before this investigation i would have, i'm not so sure of this 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 an 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 understands that? >> i think that's a reasonable conclusion that a person would drew, but-- >> let me go further because that last quote actually came on october 22nd, 2015 under sworn testimony before the benghazi committee. so if she gave sworn testimony that a reasonable person would suggest was not trueful, isn't there a logical assumption that she may have misled congress and we need to look at that further? >> the reasonable person test is not what you look at for perjury or false statements. like i said, i 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? you said she didn't lie to the fbi, but it's apparent that she lied to the american people. so did she change her statement 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, as the chairman and i have talked about, i'm sure the committee is going to want to see documents of our investigation and what not and we'll work to give what you we can possibly give you under our law, but i haven't done that analysis. >> will you do that. >> the gentleman's time has expired and now recognize the gentleman from tennessee mr. cooper for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, director comey. i hate to see one of america's

most distinguished public servants pilloried before this committee. we're all back seat drivers and all apparently today armchair prosecutors. you stated the truth you didn't know anyone who would bring a case like this and some of the prosecutors have had decades 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 am thankful at this moment that you have such lifetime record of speaking truth to power. because that's very important. it's also very important, 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's a double standard, whether some americans are being treated differently than others.

and 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 just pointed out the previous secretaries of state are not being called on the carpet, whether that be condoleeza rice or colin powell or others. i think the grossest double standard here today is the fact that all the members of this committee, every member of congress, is not subject to the same law that secretary clinton was subject to. exempted ourselves from the standard of other federal employees, my colleague from dc

referred to this. why did we exempt ourselves from the same rules? a private email account on a business card, we all have access to classified information. i would like to challenge my republican colleagues, let's work together and introduce legislation to make the same laws apply to us as the executive branch. i would be happy to join such legislation to make sure we are not being hypocritical on this panel but holding ourselves to the same standards as secretary clinton and not trying to accuse her of things we may be guilty of ourselves. my colleagues would be the first to complain if for example emails were retroactively classified. that is the situation most people in public service would object to pretty strongly. how do you know at the time if

you had no idea? it is very important if we want congress to have the trust of the american people to not be hypocritical, to uphold the same standards we want to see upheld by others and i am thankful this moment in history that we have someone like you who is in charge of the fbi. too many things are too politicized, next thing we should do is politicize the criminal system. i didn't see my cup colleagues complain when bob mcdonald was exonerated by an 8-3 vote for doing certain things i think most americans would find highly objectionable but our court on a bipartisan unanimous basis exonerated him a week or two ago. this is a moment for committee members to reflect, take a deep breath, calm down and realize what you said, no reasonable prosecutor would have brought

this case. thank you for stating that so clearly and publicly. i yield back to the ranking member. >> let me ask you this. i associate myself with everything you said. you were talking about markings a little earlier. can you describe the markings on documents. and certain markings on them. >> three emails in the body of the email, in three different emails there were paragraphs and the beginning had parentheses, capital-c and parentheses, there is a portion marking that paragraph, that paragraph is classified at the confidential level, the lowest level of classification. >> of 30,000 documents you found these markings? >> three emails for c markings in the body, none had headers

which is at the top of the document, three within the body had the portion marking received. >> i think the gentleman and recognized the gentleman from tennessee for five minutes. >> one instance in which secretary clinton said she did not mail any classified material to anyone. she said that several other times but it is accurate to -- you found at least 110 instances of when she had emailed classified material. >> 110 that she either received or sent. >> it is accurate the clinton's lawyers claimed in such a way to preclude complete forensic

recovery. and also when she said when secretary clinton said nothing she sent was marked classified and you said in your press conference even if information is not marked classified in an email, participants who know or should know the subject matter is classified authorized to protect it. do you feel secretary clinton knew or should have known about classified information. >> with her legal background and long experience in government, she said she has directed all work related emails to be forwarded to the state department. is it also accurate that she discovered thousands of other emails that were work related other than those she submitted? >> correct. >> i spent time as a -- presided

over several hundred criminal cases, i can assure you i saw many cases where criminal intent was flimsy oror than the eviden in this case, do you realize great numbers across this country felt you presented such an incriminating case against secretary clinton, surprised and even shocked when you reach the conclusion to letter off. >> and we went at this hard, the american people see what we believed about the wrong thing.

>> >> there was one standard of justice for the clintons and others for regular people. >> i heard that a lot. it is not true but i heard a lot. >> even the ranking member who as we understand, secretary clinton as strongly as possible, almost begged you to explain the gap between incriminating case you presented and the conclusion that was reached. that surprised you he felt so strongly that there was this big gap? >> not at all. it is a comp located matter that involves understanding how the department of justice works across decades, see the statute that says gross negligence, the director just said she was careless or how that is not prosecutable? what is the precedent, i totally

get people's questions? >> do you talk about gross negligence, secretary clinton was extremely careless, and disclose capitalized material. do you agree there is a very thin line between gross negligence, what is the difference? >> others drop at lower. and tried to be an ordinary person, a commonsense way of describing it, looks careless to me, the question of whether that

amounts to gross negligence is not at the center of this, when i look at the history of prosecutions, one case on gross negligence, and bringing a case against john doe or hillary clinton for the second time in 100 years based on those facts. >> you ended your statement a while ago saying once again that no reasonable prosecutor could have brought the case and mentioned earlier today that you had seen several of your friends and other prosecutors who said many across this country would have been glad to prosecute this case. >> i haven't talked to them. where were you over the last 40 years? where were these cases? they have not been brought for reasons i said earlier. it is a good thing the department of justice worries about prosecuting people for

being careless. i don't like it. as a citizen i want people to show they knew they were breaking the law and then we will put you in jail. >> many people prosecute for gross negligence by the federal government. >> gentleman's time is expired. we recognize the gentleman from virginia. >> welcome, director comey. although our politics is different i gather you are a republican. is that correct? >> i have been a registered republican for most of my adult life, not registered any longer. >> we don't register by party in virginia but many suspected my politics of being democratic. i thank you for your integrity as my colleagues said and i said in my opening statement. your career characterized as speaking -- you are doing it again today. just to set the context, director comey, not that you are aware of this, today's hearing is political theater. not even the pretense of trying to get at truth. this is a desperate attempt

anunde extraordinary set of circumstances, an emergency hearing. i n't know what the emergency is other than one side is about to nominate somebody who is a pathological narcissist who is talking about banning muslims and mexicans crossing the border are all 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. you took away their only hope. the theater today is trying to discredit you. my friends from south carolina uses big words like exculpatory and goes through what a prosecutor would do. the insinuation being you didn't

do your job. my friend from wyoming is apparently flooded with citizens in her home state who are reading the statute that governs classification. a lot of time on the hands. this is all designed to discredit your findings. the fbi interviewed secretary clinton. is that correct? >> yes. >> did she lie? >> no basis for concluding she was untruthful with us. >> is it a crime to lie to the fbi? >> yes. >> general david petraeus did and was prosecuted. could have been. >> was not for that. >> that is always a judgment call. >> was she evasive? >> i don't think she was

evasive. >> how many emails are we talking about total that were examined? by your team? >> tends of thousands. >> tens of thousands was how many are in a questionable category that could have, should have been looked at? there could be some element of classification? my friend from north carolina assumes we are intimately familiar with the fact that if ac appears, classification, though there seems to be some dispute about that because the state department as i understand it has said some of those were improperly marked and shouldn't have had the sea. were you aware of that? >> yes. >> could it be that in her 100 trip, four years, overseas trips, to other countries, as secretary of state restore us credibility destroyed in the

previous eight years, tens of thousands of email communications not including phone calls and classified skips and the like, a small percentage of emails can pay as much attention as one would hope she would have. is that a fair conclusion? could that be a fair conclusion? >> i don't deal in maybes. it is possible. >> you deal in distinguishing between willful and inadvertent. in this case you concluded the latter category. >> there is not adequate conduct. >> there is no obfuscation here unlike the general david petraeus case and there is no evasion, no lying, no willful intent to compromise classified material despite the insinuation of my friends on the other side

of the aisle. 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 would be more secure than the leaky system at the state department. i yield back. >> i recognize the gentleman from texas for five minutes. >> thank you, mister chairman. i am offended. i'm offended by my friends on the other side of the political aisle playing this political theater. this is not political theater. for me this is serious. i spent 9 years as undercover officer in the cia. i was in back ally collecting

intelligence and passing it to lawmakers. i have seen my friends killed. i have seen assets in harm's way. this is about protecting information to the most sensitive information the american government has, director comey, special access program you alluded to either, sci information, it includes humans -- human intelligence, information collected from people that are putting themselves in harm's way to give us information to drive foreign-policy. the most sensitive things to understand what al qaeda is doing, what isis is doing. and unauthorized server. who was protecting that information?

>> a number of people signed as administrators of the server. >> 7 emails or eight were classified as ts fbi. 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 not protected by anyone and that is not a crime? that is outrageous. people are concerned. what is at stake for someone to misuse classified information and get in trouble for it. >> it takes mishandling it and criminal intent. >> and unauthorized server in the basement is not mishandling?

>> there is evidence of mishandling. the whole investigation at the end focus 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 agents, investigators, analysts. >> did you take into consideration the impact this precedent can set on our ability to collect the intelligence overseas? >> yes. my primary concern is the impact on what other employees might think in the federal government? >> you don't think this send a message to other employees that is the former secretary of state can have an unauthorized server in their basement that transmits top-secret information, but that is not a problem? >> that is why i talked about it in my statement, and fbi employee might face severe discipline and i want them to understand those consequences are still going to be there.

>> do you have a server in your basement? >> i do not. >> does anybody in the fbi have a server in their basement or their house? >> i don't know. >> do you think it is likely? >> i think it is unlikely. >> i was proud to serve alongside the men and women you represent. there was no dissenting opinion when you made this. it is your job to be involved in counterintelligence. that means protecting our secrets from foreign adversaries collecting them. >> correct. >> that is activity you investigated make america's secrets vulnerable to hostile elements? >> do you think that pattern of behavior would continue? do you think that pattern of behavior would continue? >> would continue? >> by our former secretary of

state? >> i'm not following your meaning? >> if this had not come to light you mean? >> right now based on what we see do you think there would be other elements in the federal government that think it is okay to have an unauthorized server in their basement? >> they better not. >> what is the ramification of them doing that? how will there be consequences if it is not being levered here because this is setting a precedent? >> i want people to understand i am responsible for the fbi, there will be discipline from termination to reprimand and everything in between for anyone handling classified -- >> i am not a lawyer. i may mistake this. is there such a thing as a case of first impression and why would this not one of those? >> there is such a thing. it means the first time you do something, the reason this isn't one of those is it is not fair. that would be treating somebody differently because of their

celebrity status or some other factor doesn't matter. we have to treat -- the bedrock of our system of justice we treat people fairly, treat them the same. >> that person mishandling the most sensitive information the government can collect is not fair? not fair to punish someone who did that? >> not on these facts. >> it would be fair to have a robust proceeding? >> not fair to prosecute the person on these facts. >> i yield back the time i do not have. >> the gentleman from pennsylvania, mister cartwright for five minutes. >> i would like to open by acknowledging my colleagues from north carolina, mister meadows, here he comes back in the room, for acknowledging your integrity, director comey. bipartisan sentiments like that are few and far between around here.

i appreciate congressman meadows's remarks. you are a man of integrity. it is troubling to me that remark from congressman meadows is not unanimous. just weeks ago our chairman stated on national tv that republicans, quote, believe in james comey. of all the government he is a man of integrity and honesty, fingers on the pulse of this, nothing happens without him and i think he will be the definitive person to make a determination a recommendation just hours after actual recommendation. chairman chafe at accused you of making a political calculation. the speaker of the house, weeks ago, referring to you director

comey, i believe his integrity is unequal. your integrity was unanimous about your integrity before you came to the conclusion but after, not so much. i want to give you a chance, how do you respond to that? how important he was maintaining your integrity before the nation? >> the only thing that i have in life that matter are the love of my family and friends and my integrity. i care deeply about both. >> director comey, you discussed your team a little bit and they deserve a lot of credit for all the hard work and effort that went into this investigation. i think you just said they were unanimous. everyone who looked at disagreed no reasonable prosecutor could bring the case.

how many are on this team? >> it changed various times but between 15 and 20, and other fbi folks help from time to time. >> how many hours were spent? >> we haven't -- put three years into 12 calendar marks. >> how many pages of documents did the fbi review in this investigation? >> thousands and thousands and thousands. >> are they qualified are unqualified? >> they were an all-star team, group of folks. >> the secretary could the clinton agree to be interviewed? >> yes. >> come involuntarily without the need of a subpoena? was she interviewed? >> yes. >> was she interviewed with agents and law enforcement officers or by some kind of credulous, gullible newbies doing their on-the-job training?

>> the folks american people would want, real pros. >> markings, the manual here, marking classified national security information, you were not given a full chance, were they properly documented. according to the manual, i ask unanimous consent to enter this into the record. >> if you classify something there has to be a header on the document. was there a header on the three documents we discussed today that had the little see in the text someplace? >> there were three emails, the sea was in the bottom but no header on the email or the text. >> of secretary clinton, and what is classified or not

classified and following the manual, the absence of a header would tell you immediately those documents were not classified. am i correct in that? >> that is a reasonable inference. i thank you for your testimony, i yield back. >> i recognize the gentleman from colorado, mister buck for five minutes. >> i respect your commitment to law, justice and your career. first question i want to ask, has this hearing been unfair to you? >> no. >> one purpose of security procedures for classified information is to prevent hostile information, hostile nations from obtaining classified information. did hostile nations obtain

classified information from secretary clinton's servers. >> don't know. it is possible but we don't have direct evidence of that. couldn't find direct evidence. >> without making this a law school class i want to get into intent. there were various levels of intent, anyone from knowingly and willfully doing something all the way to strict liability. would you agree with me on that? >> yes. >> entitling most of the criminal laws in title 18 have the words knowingly and willfully in them and that is a standard typically the united states attorneys prosecute under. >> most do, unlawfully and willfully is the standard formulation for charging a case. >> there are a variety of others between knowingly and willfully standard and strict liability standard and many environmental crimes have a much lower

standards from toxic materials that are at risk of harming individuals. is that fair? >> correct. >> let's talk about this statute, 1924, i take it we could all agree on a couple things, secretary clinton was an employee of the united states and as a result of that, she received classified information. and there is no doubt about those two items. i don't know whether the next element is one or two but it talks about knowingly removing such materials with the intent to retain such material in a prized location so i will treat those as two parts of the intends element. do you see the word willfully anywhere in the statute? >> i don't. >> that would indicate there is a lower threshold for intent? >> no. we often as i understand the justice department practice and

judicial practice will impute to any statute at that level whether knowingly or requirement that you know you are involved in criminal activity of some sort. >> you would apply the same standard to environmental? >> if it specifically says it is negligent a judge would not impute that. >> congress specifically omitted the word willfully from the statute and you are implying the word willfully in the statute. and what the statute does say is is it fair she knew she didn't have authority to server in the basement? >> that is true. >> she knew she was receiving materials, classified information in emails she received on her blackberry and

other devices? >> i am hesitating as a prosecutor. to what level of proof? i do not believe there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that she knew she was receiving classified information in violation of the requirements. my question in fairness is did she know she was receiving information on the servers in her location? and as secretary of state she knew she would be receiving classified information. >> yes, in general. >> did she then attempt to retain such material at an unauthorized location? >> he retained the material she received as secretary of state at her server in her basement and that was unauthorized. >> you are asking me did she have -- the burden of proof question did she have the intent to retain classified information on the server or just to retain any information on the server?

>> we established she knew she was going to receive classified information on her emails so did she retain such information that she received as secretary of state on her servers and her basement? >> he did in fact there is in my view not evidence beyond probable cause, there is not evidence beyond reasonable doubt that she was using classified information or intended to retain it on her server as evidence of that but when i said there is not clear evidence of intent, i cannot even if the department of justice brought that case i could not approve those elements. >> thanks very much. now to the gentlewoman from illinois for 5 minutes. >> three years ago, like many freshman members, unlike many freshman members i sought out