>> 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 the committee, wanted to be on

this committee because i wanted to tackle challenges of the government like eliminating improper payments and wasteful programs. before i joined congress i had the privilege of serving the army for 23 years and as i tackled those challenges and the challenges of reducing veteran homelessness i witnessed firsthand the real world importance of improving and streamlining government operations, even the best policies will not work without proper implementation and when it comes to implementing reforms that make sure electronic records and other records and the history of the great nation are preserved for future generations to approach this goal seriously. and a long-term commitment to modernizing our record-keeping system, what would be collected. >> and that should be

non-partisan shared goal. and numerous record-keeping incidents, transcending any agency and any single administration, make sure we are in congress moving beyond partisan politics and engage in a serious hard work that the law is written in pen and paper meet the digital challenges of the 21st century. the office of management and budget and national archives and records administration known as the managing record in 2012. and the states by december 31, 2016, federal agencies will manage both permanent and temporary email records in an accessible electronic format. federal agencies must manage all email records in an electronic format. email records must be retained in an appropriate electronic system that supports record management and litigation

requirements which mean preservation and place models including the capability to identify, retrieve and retain records as long as they are needed. director of the bureau who deals with sensitive information on a daily basis, do you believe this is necessary and attainable for agencies across the board within that four your time frame on december 2016. >> i don't know if it is achievable. >> are you familiar with the capstone approach, the federal approach that says federal agencies should save all emails from senior level employees and emails of other employees are archived for a temporary period by the agency so senior employees and those by lower-level employees are archived for a short period. >> i'm aware generally. i know what applies to me when i was deputy general in the bush administration. >> the fbi is currently actively using its approach according to

agencies. the office for records management, my understanding is the capstone is entering -- the volume of records and the agency is maintains. all agencies modernize their approach to better record in the future. as head of the component energy -- department of justice, which appears to be a leader in adopting the innovative capstone approach across agencies would you agree with respect instituting foundational reforms that threaten records preservation and the capstone approach should be accelerated and across the federal government. i am not expert enough, >> are you satisfied with the way you're doing it. >> that want to sell over confident. >> do you have any one person in

the fbi that continually reviews record-keeping and do they report directly to you? is there periodic review of this process? >> yes. we have a division devoted to records management that assistant director reports up to the deputy director who reports to me and it is an enormous operation as you might imagine regarding constant training. that is what i mean when i think we are doing it in a pretty good way and have record marking tools, we prompt with dialog boxes requiring employees to make a decision, what is the naked -- what is the record so we are doing it that way. >> and other agencies, have you had a chance on occasion to look at what other agencies are doing with sensitive and classified information. are they following the same

technique? >> i don't know enough to say. >> i am out of time. thank you. >> i think the gentlewoman. >> i think the chairman and director comey for being here. thank you for holding this hearing and director comey for making it clear that you believe we have done this respectfully with good intentions and i wish some of my colleagues that instructed us on our intends were here. they have great ability to understand intent better than the director of the fbi. it is an intent that is important that we understand we are oversight and government reform committee and if tools are not there to make sure our country is secure and officials at the highest levels in the land don't have the understanding of what it takes

to keep our country secure, we do necessary government reform to put laws in place that will be effective and meet the needs of distinguished agencies and important agencies like the fbi. thank you for doing this hearing. it is our responsibility to do oversight and reform as necessary. in going back, director comey, to paraphrase the espionage act, people in the seventh district of michigan understand from this perspective and common sense, whoever being entrusted with information related to national defense through gross negligence permits the information to be removed from its proper place in violation of their trust shall be fined or imprisoned under the statute. there doesn't seem to be a double standard there. it doesn't express intent. you explain your understanding of why intent is needed and we agree or disagree on that but the general public looking at the statute so that is pretty

clear. the question i would ask director comey, what is your definition of extremely careless if you could go through that. >> i attended have a commonsense term, you know it when you see a kind of thing, somebody who should know better, someone demonstrating lack of care, ordinary accidents and just sloppiness so that is real sloppiness. >> you stated you found 110 emails on secretary clinton's server classified at the time they were sent or received yet secretary clinton insisted over a year publicly that she never sent or received classified emails, but would it be difficult for any cabinet level official, any official let alone a former white house resident or

us senator to determine if information is classified? >> would it be difficult? that is hard to answer in the abstract. it depends on the context they are hearing it or seeing it. if it is marked we require markings, it is too hard to answer, so many other situations you might encounter. >> the training we receive and the secretary of state would receive or someone who lives in the white house, it goes above and beyond the commonsense individual out there trying to determine, knowing classified information will be brought and to remove to an unauthorized site, a bit of pause there. >> if you are government official you should be attentive to it. you know the matters involve sensitive information for sure. >> secretary clinton's statement that she never sent any classified information, is

probably untrue. >> you knew she was sending classified information beyond a reasonable doubt to meet the intent standard. i understand why people are confused by the discussion, you know what would be a double standard? if she were prosecuted for negligence. >> your statement said there is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in secretary clinton's position should have known and unclassified system is no place for that conversation and that is clear. >> that is carelessness and negligence. >> which happened to secretary of state's decisions. is it your statement before this committee that secretary clinton should have known not to send classified material and yet she

did. >> he should have known not to send classified information. that is the definition of negligent. extremely careless, that i could establish. what we can't establish is she acted with criminal intent. >> do you believe since the department of justice had to use the statute congress passed was valid? >> they were worried it was invalid and challenged on constitutional grounds which is why they used it extraordinarily sparingly. >> yield back. >> thank the gentleman. i recognize mister blue of california. >> thank you, mister chair. as i read my republican colleagues press statements, i am reminded of the quote from mcbeth, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. i have heard some sound and fury from the committee and the reason they signify nothing is because of two fundamental truths that are self-evident. first of which, none of them can

be objective on this issue. i can't be objective. i have endorsed hillary clinton for president and have democratic members of this committee. my republican colleagues can't be objective. they oppose hillary clinton for president which is why we have you. you are a nonpartisan career public servant who served our nation with distinction and honor and not only can you be objective, it is your job to be objective to apply the law fairly and equally regardless of politics. it is important for the american people to get a full appreciation of public service so let me ask you before you were fbi director how many years did you serve as federal prosecutor? >> 15. >> for period of time you are at columbia law school level scholar specializing in national security laws. is that correct? >> sometimes i fantasize i still am. >> thank you. when you served in the republican administration of

president george w. bush you were than the second-highest ranking member of the permit of justice. >> that is right, president bush appointed me to the us attorney in manhattan and number 2 in the department of justice. >> when you were confirmed for the fbi director position the vote was 93:1. correct? >> that is correct. >> it is not surprising senator grassley, republican, said during the confirmation, quote, director comey has a reputation for defining the law clearly and equally regardless of politics. in this case did you apply the law fairly and equally regardless of politics? >> yes. >> any political interference from the white house? >> none. >> any interference from the political campaign? >> none. >> one of the reasons you are appointed to a fixed term of 10 years very long-term is to help sway you from politics. and the fundamental truth about the hearing, none of the members of the committee have any idea what we are talking about because we have not reviewed the evidence personally in this

case. in the u.s. air force, in the 1990s one of my duties was a prosecutor, one of the first things i learned that the prosecutor was it is unprofessional and wrong to make allegations that one has not reviewed. let me ask you has any member of this committee to the best of your knowledge reviewed 30,000 emails at issue in this case? >> not to my knowledge. >> any member of the committee sat through witness interviews the fbi conducted in this case? >> that i know. >> has any member of this committee received special information about files you kept or fbi agents kept? >> not to my knowledge. >> let's do a little bit of math. 1% of 30,000 emails would be 300 emails, right? >> i think that is right. >> 30 emails would be 0.1% and

three emails would be 1/100 of 1% of 30,000. >> that is right. >> of the three emails, 1/100 of 1% of 30,000 bore these tiny little classified markings which as you describe is a c in parentheses. is it possible a busy person who received 30,000 emails just might miss this marking of a c, it is possible. >> correct. >> let me conclude by stating what some of my colleagues have. just the strongest with of hypocrisy going on here, american public might be interested in knowing all members of congress don't receive security clearances just for being a member of congress. we get to have private email servers, we get to have private email accounts.

we take devices overseas. when the american people look at this hearing they ask themselves this question, do they trust the biased partisan politicians on this committee making statements based on evidence we have not reviewed, or do they trust the distinguished fbi director? i would trust the fbi director. i yield back. >> i recognize the gentleman from florida, mister micah, for 5 minutes. >> thank you, mister chairman. director, how long did you investigate this matter? >> just about a year. >> do you believe you conducted a legitimate investigation? >> yes, sir. >> it was a legitimate subject, something you should look into. you have that response ability? >> yes. >> we have a responsibility to hear from you on the action that

you took. and back to our districts and we have to explain to people in a couple cafés where i see folks and meetings and ask a lot of questions about what took place. have you seen the broadway production of hamilton? >> no. i am hoping to. >> i haven't either. i understand it won the choreography tony award. you and others know that. the problem i have in explaining to my constituents is what has come down, almost looks like choreography. let me go over it real quickly. last tuesday, not this week, one week ago, former president clinton meets with the attorney general and in phoenix, the next

friday, last friday, mrs. lynch, the ag, says she is going to defer the fbi on whatever you came up with. saturday morning i saw the bands pool up, this past saturday, you questioned secretary clinton for three hours. >> 3.5. >> on tuesday morning, the morning after july 4th, we watched -- my interns said come in, the fbi director, let's hear what he has to say, we were startled and you basically said you were going to recommend not to prosecute, coect? >> yes, sir. >> tuesday, we have president obama and secretary clinton in charlotte at 2:00, shortly

thereafter, we had the attorney general closing the case. this is rapidfire. my folks think there is something fishy about this. i am not a conspiracy theorist but there are a lot of questions on how this came down. i have questions how this came down. did you personally interview the secretary saturday morning? >> i didn't personally. >> how many agents did? >> i think we had 5 or 6. >> did you talk to all of those agents after the interview? >> i did not speak to all of them. >> did she testify or talk to them under oath? >> no. >> she did not. that is a problem. >> it is a crime to lie to us. >> i know it is. do you have a transcript of that? >> we don't record. >> do you have a 302 analysis?

>> i don't have it with me. >> that you read it? >> yes. >> can we get a copy since the case is close? >> i don't know the answer. >> i would like a copy provided to the committee. i would like also for the last 30 days any communications between you or any agent or person in the fbi or attorney general or those in authority in the department of justice can you provide us with that? >> we provide you what we can under the law and policy, it will be easy in my case. >> you see the problem i have, i have to report to people, did you write the statement you gave tuesday? >> yes. >> you said you didn't talk to all of the agents but all the agents, did they meet with you? is that the group that said we

all vote to not recommend prosecution? >> i did not meet with all the agents. i met with -- i met with all of them. >> we are getting the word it was unanimous out of the fbi that we don't prosecute. >> what is your question? >> i want to know who cancels you. you read their summary. she was not under oath. members have cited here where she lied or misled congress which will lead now to the next step of possibly giving you a referral on this matter, you are aware of that. >> was going to mention that. >> that probably will happen. thank you for shedding light on

what took place. >> may i respond briefly? tell folks in the café look me in the eye, listen to what i am about to say, i did not coordinate that with anyone. the white house, the department of justice, nobody outside the fbi family had any idea what i was about to say. i say that under oath and stand by it, no coordination, there was an insinuation, i don't mean to get strongly responding but make sure it was definitive. >> now recognize the gentlewoman from the virgin islands for 5 minutes. >> thank you, mister chairman and thank you for being here. director comey, i would rather be talking with you about the fbi investigation and their resources for those individuals who are acting under color of law that committed egregious violations in the killings we have seen in recent days but instead, mister chairman, i have listened patiently as a number

of individuals on national tv and made accusations against director comey directly and indirectly because he recommended against prosecution based on facts. i have listened recently here in this hearing as my colleague from florida tries condensation of an investigation into one week that occurred over a much longer period of time and using that condensation and conspiracy theory to say there is some orchestration and they have accused director comey of basing his decision on political considerations rather than the fact. i have heard chuckles and laughter in this hearing and i don't think there is anything to be smiling or laughing about because i want to say things to

individuals who are making attacks on director comey for doing his job. you have no idea who you are talking about. your accusations are completely off base, utterly offensive to us as american people. i know this because i had the honor of working for director comey in my own service in the department of justice from 2002 to 2004. i served as senior counsel to the deputy attorney general which i worked with both director deputy attorney general larry thompson and deputy attorney general jim comey when he became deputy as a staff attorney and from my own experiences director comey is a man of impeccable integrity. very few times when an attorney or individual can work with individuals or gentlemen who is completely that, someone who is above the fray. anyone who suggests or implies he made his recommendations on

anything but the facts does not know james comey. we used the term no reasonable prosecutor. i know that james comey doesn't act as what a reasonable prosecutor would do because he is the unyielding prosecutor. he is the prosecutor who does what is politically not expedient for himself, his staff, but for the law. i am not the only person in this hearing in this committee who has worked with director comey or for him. representative trey gowdy himself commended director comey and he said, quote, i used to work with him. i think comey is doing exactly what you want, doing a serious investigation behind closed doors away from the media's attention and i am going to trust him until i see a reason

not to. representative trey gowdy referred to director comey as honorable and apolitical, this is exactly what you want in law enforcement. exactly what you want in law enforcement until the decision is not the decision that you want. director comey, chairman chafe it's, as it was that from one of my colleagues went on television accuse me of making, quote, a political calculation, he said your recommendation was nothing more than, quote, a political determination in the end. i'm going to ask how you respond to that? were your actions in any way, shape or form governed by political consideration? >> not in any way. >> did anyone with secretary clinton's campaign or the administration influence your recommendation for political reasons? >> no. not in any way. >> i will take you at your word.

i know and those who go through the record of your long tenure as a career prosecutor and look at examples and see you take decisions that have not been that, supervisors and the president and others have wanted you to take. as a fellow prosecutor who believed the facts must come above politics i am thankful we have you. and i want to thank you for your service to our country, we would like to see as much documents and i'm grateful you want to keep the transparency, the american public can understand, the difference between what they hear in the media and the elements of a crime necessary for criminal prosecution. >> the gentleman from texas for 5 minutes. >> thank you.

i want to talk about cybersecurity, the inspector general report detailed instances of multiple attacks on secretary clinton's computer and replying to suspicious email from the personal account of the undersecretary of state. are selected gained access -- secretary clinton regularly communicated with. and during your investigation were there other people, what you can confirm or successfully act? >> yes. >> were these folks regularly communicated with the secretary? >> yes. >> did you conclude the attempted hacks referenced in the ig report were not successful? >> we were not able to conclude that they were successful.

that is the best way to say it. >> given the nature clinton's server you would see evidence one way or the other of whether it was successfully hacked. how many unsuccessful attempts did you uncover? did you find any there? >> i don't know the number of them. >> were they from foreign governments? where did they come from? >> i want to be careful what i say in an open setting, i don't want to give any foreign governments knowledge of what i know. >> would you be so far as to say they probably were not american high school students fooling around. >> correct. it was not limited to criminal activity. >> did anyone in the fbi identify the hacker lucifer? >> yes. >> he gained access to sidney blumenthal's account and traced

it back, can you confirm he never gained access to her server? >> he did not, he admitted that was a lie. >> that is good to hear. section 793 of title 18 of the united states code makes it a crime for information to be stolen through gross negligence. were you to discover hostile actors had gotten into secretary clinton's email. would that have changed your recommendation with respect to prosecuting her? >> unlikely but we did not have those facts. >> back to the question of intent. i am a recovering attorney, it has been decades since i practiced law. you kept referring to she had to know it was illegal to have requisite criminal intent. and ignorance of the law is no excuse, if i'm driving along at

45 miles an hour, i was still intentionally speeding even though i didn't know it. i might not have had the requisite criminal intent that made my accelerated jam or something like that but even though i didn't know the law was 35 i was driving 45, i am going to get a ticket and probably going to be prosecuted for that. is the law excuse of >> well, the comparison to petty offenses i don't think is useful but the question of ignorance of law is no excuse. but here's the distinction. you have to have general criminal intent. you don't need to know what particular statutes were violating, but you must be aware of the general lawful nature of your conduct >> now, congress when they enacted that statute they said gross negligence. that does not say intent. so what are we going to have to in fact to get you guys to prosecute something based on negligence or gross negligence? are we going to have to add -- oh, and, by the way, we really

do mean you don't have to have intent there? >> that's a conversation for you all to have with the department of justice. but it would have to be something more than the statute enacted in 1917 because for 99 years they've been very worried about its constitutional right >> all right. well, i think that's something this committee and congress the judiciary committee sit on to be looking at it. and i was on television this morning, and i want to relay a question that i received from a caller into that television commercial, and it's just real simple. why should any person follow the law if our leaders don't? we can argue about intent or not. but you laid out the fact that she basically broke the law, but you couldn't prove intent. maybe i'm putting words in your mouth, but i do want to know why any person should follow the law if our leaders don't have to. maybe that's rhetorical, but i'm giving you an opportunity to comment on that. >> that's a question i'm no

more quantified to answer than any american citizen. it's an important question. in terms of my work in my world, my folks would not be -- one of my employees would not be prosecuted for this. they would face consequences for this. so the notion that it's either prosecute or you walk around, you know, smiling all day long is just not true for those people who work for the government. the broader question is one for democracy to answer. it's not for me neil: and i guess the ultimate decision is to whether or not mrs. clinton works in government or not is in everybody's hands. >> i would say. thank you, gentlemen. we'll now recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania. for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you, director comey for appearing on special on such short notice. i want to share with you something a friend of mine was expressing when watching your press conference 48 hours ago and this is someone who's not in any way political. in fact, probably typical of

most american citizens today in being depressed about the remarkable level of cynicism we have in our government but specifically those of us who are in government make the decisions first and foremost because the party hat we wear and not necessarily based on the facts and the evidence. and he texted me after watching your 15-minute preservation, oh, it's nice to see a real pro. you could tell he would make the decision based on the facts and the evidence and not what party he wears. i think that's so because not if we're ever going to get to a place in this country where we restore some of the faith that we had in government. if you look at the poll numbers from 1940s and 1950s, and you look at faith in government among the american public, and you look at those numbers today, the numbers today are anemic. they're nowhere near the levels they were decades ago. so for that, i want to say

thank you, and i think that many citizens have the same impression. when i first met you a couple of years ago at a weekend session colonial williamsberg, you might remember that we had a discussion about my biggest concern frankly facing the security of the american people and that is the possibility of a lone wolf terrorist. someone becoming self radicalized and acting based on that. we had an exchange that i'll keep private, but i think i can characterize that you share my concern. i'm just thinking for the last two and a half hours that we've been here, we've had the fbi director asking questions on this matter when frankly i would have much rather your time spent dealing with the potential lone wolf terrorists and other coordinated attacks that we face. but since this is the oversight and government reform committee, trying to find something that we can now take and possibly use in a

systemic way, not just the celebrity of secretary clinton and the fact -- because it involves her let's face it, that's the reason why we're here. but i want to try to take something out of this very expensive and long investigation and try to use it in a productive way toward reforming government that possibly we can get something good out of it. so toward that end, i'm really concerned about this issue of up classification. because it seems as if -- and i was not aware of this until the investigation, there is quite a strong discrepancy between not just former secretary clinton but even former secretary powell what he's saying should be classified and then what is classified after the fact. and i think you -- if i'm right, there were some 2,000 e-mails that were up classified? i was wondering if you could speak to that. >> yeah. it actually was not a concept i was real familiar with before this. it's the notion that something might not have been classified

at the time but in hindsight as a government agency releases considering it, they raised the classification level to protect it because it would -- it's a candid assessment of a foreign leader or something like that. i think it is largely a state department thing. diplomats will often be conversing in a unclassified way and then when they look at releasing it, they think it ought to be protected in some fashion. but honestly i push those to the side. the important thing here was what was classified at the time. that's what matters. >> right. and that for a law enforcement official matters. but i'm just wondering if you could share with us any of your impressions about a system that exists where there is such gray area and discrepancy in what is classified and what's not. and if you or your agents had any suggestions for us, either in government reform or happen to be in the foreign affairs committee that is oversight of state department, do you believe that this is a matter that we should take up where there is such discrepancy on what's classified, what's not

classified? i think of one example, ambassador ross put something in a book that wasn't classified and then was up classified after the book came out. what good does that do with as a country in terms of trying to protect the intelligence of the united states? >> yeah. i'm not an expert in this up classification business, but i do suspect it will be a fertile ground for trying to figure out whether there are ways to do it no nah more predictable, reliable way. >> yeah. well, thank you, again, for your service and i yield back my time. >> thank you. now recognize the gentleman from georgia high school for five minutes. >> director comey, your statement on tuesday clearly showed that secretary clinton not only was extremely careless in handling classified information but that also any reasonable person should have known better and that also in doing so, she put our national security at risk with her

reckless behavior. so it seems to me the american people are only left based on your assessment with just a few options. either secretary clinton herself is not a reasonable person or she is someone who purposefully, willfully exhibited disregard for the law, or she is someone who sees herself above the law. and to muddy the water even further after listening to you lay out the facts of the investigation, much of what you said directly contradicted her in previous statements she made. i think all of this compiled, putting the -- connecting the dots that so many american people are irate that after all of this there was not a recommendation for secretary clinton to be prosecuted. now, i do greatly appreciate the fact that you came out

with much more information on this than you would have in other cases. and i think that was the right thing to do. undeniably, this is not a typical case. this is something of great public interest. obviously the subject of the investigation, former secretary of state, former senator, and all those things that we have talked about. former first lady and so forth. and in addition to this, her husband, who happens to be the former president of the united states is meeting privately with the attorney general right before all of this interview take place. obviously this is very suspicious. just the optics of it all. and at the same time that you're coming out or more or less the same time that you are announcing that you are announcing the decision, secretary clinton is flying around in air force one with the president doing a campaign

event. i mean there's nothing about this case that's ordinary. there's nothing about the subject that's ordinary. so let me ask you this, director. did secretary clinton, in fact, comply with the department's policies or the federal records act? >> i don't think so. i know you have the state inspector general here as more of an expert on all the department's policies. but at least in some respects, no,. neil: so keeping the servers at home and all of these types of things obviously is not in compliance with the department's policies? >> yes. and i've read the inspector general's report on that. that's part of the reason i can answer that part with some confidence. >> okay. and yet she said publically that she fully complied. so there again is another issue. if you had the same set of facts but a different subject, a different individual involved in, say, just an average, ordinary state

department employee or an anonymous contractor, what would have been the outcome? >> highly confident there would be no criminal prosecution no matter who it was. there would be some range of discipline. they might get fired, they might lose their cleans, get suspended for 30 days, there would be some insulin, maybe just a reprimand, i doubt it, but some sort of discipline. >> so is it your opinion that there should be some likewise discipline in this case? >> that's not for me to say. i can talk about what would happen if it was a government employee under my responsibility. >> well, then what you're laying out is that there is a double standard for someone else, a different subject, an anonymous contractor or someone at the statement department that would absolutely be disciplined. but because of who the subject is, you're not willing to say there should be discipline. so there's, again, this whole issue -- this is what the american people are so upset about. let me say when you stated that no reasonable prosecutor would pursue this case, is

that because the subject of this investigation was unique? >> no. huh-uh there's no double standard there. and there's no double standard either in the sense that if it was john doe former government employee you would be in the same boat. we wouldn't have any reach on the guy. he wouldn't be prosecuted. >> but he would have some discipline. >> well, not if he had left government service. >> had they lied about having servers -- had they lied about sending and receiving classified e-mails, had they lied about not deleting those e-mails to the public, had they lied about not having any marked classified. the statements are clearly documented and you're saying that this -- an average person would experience discipline by your own words. but secretary clinton does not deserve to be disciplined. >> the gentleman's time expired. >> the employee would be subject to service to a disciplinary process. now, if you left, they would be in the same boat.

>> from vermont. mr. welch. >> thank you very much, chairman, thank you, director comey. the prosecutor has really awesome power. the power to prosecute is the prosecute to destroy, and it has views with restraint. you obviously know that. you're being asked to -- you have had to exercise that responsibility in the context of a very contested presidential campaign, enormous political pressure. you've had to do it once before. and i go back to that evening of march 10, 2004 when the question was whether a surveillance program authorized after 9/11 by president bush was going to continue, despite the fact that the justice department had come to an independent legal conclusion that it actually violated our constitutional rights.

that's a tough call because america was insecure, the president was asserting his authority as commander-in-chief to take an action that was intended to protect the american people. but you and others in the justice department felt that whatever that justification was, the constitution came first, and you were going to defend it. as i understand it, you were on your way home and had to divert your drivers to go back to the hospital to be at the bedside of a very sick at that time attorney general. and you had to stand in the way of the white house chief of staff and the white house counsel. i'm not sure that was a popular decision or one that could have confidential thought would have been a career booster, but i want to thank you for that. fast-forward, we've got this situation of a highly

contested political campaign. and there is substantive concern that's legitimate by democrats and republicans for independent political reasons that you had to make the call that was based upon your view of the law, not your view of how it would affect the outcome of who would be the next commander-in-chief. others have asked for you, but i think i'm close to the end. i want to give you a chance just to answer i think the bottom line questions here. had you after your thorough investigation found evidence that suggested that criminal conduct occurred, is there anything, anything or anyone that could have held you back from deciding to prosecute? >> no. i mean i don't have the power to decide prosecution. but i worked very hard to make sure a righteous case was

prosecuted. >> and you would have made that recommendation to the attorney general? >> yes. >> was there any interference implicit or explicit from the president of the united states or anyone acting on his behalf to influence the outcome of your investigation in the recommendation that you made? >> no. >> was there anyone in the hillary clinton campaign or hillary clinton herself who did anything directly or indirectly to attempt to influence the conclusion that you made to recommend no prosecution? >> no. >> at this moment after having been through several hours of questioning, is there anything in the questions you've heard that would cause you to change the decision that you made? >> no, i don't -- i don't love this, but it's very important to do, and i understand the

questions and concerns. i just want the american people to know we really did this the right way. you can disagree with us, but you cannot fairly say we did it in any kind of political way. we don't carry water for anybody. we're trying to do what the right thing is. >> i very much appreciate that. and i very much appreciate that it takes strong people of independent judgment to make certain that we continue to be a nation of laws. mr. chairman, just one final thing, and i'll yield to mr. cummings. we've got a political debate where a lot of these issues that are going to be -- have been raised are going to be in the campaign. and we have secretary clinton going to defend what she did. she's acknowledged it's a mistake. we've got that great constitutional scholar mr. trump who is going to make his case about why this is wrong. but that's politics. that's not really having anything to do with the politics prosecutorial

discretion. thank you, director comey. and i yield any additional time. >> i think the gentleman's going to yield back. we'll now recognize the gentleman from kentucky mr. matthews. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you, mr. comey for showing up and your willingness to be transparent in answered a lot of unanswered questions. a few hours i went onto social media and asked people to and questions, and i've gotten over 500 questions. i'm sure you'll be able to answer a couple of them. one of the things i came in here to ask thaize is not the right difference, is what's the difference between extremely careless and gross negligence? in the process of the hearing what i'm hearing you say is that's not what your reluctance to based on. your reluctance is not based

on parsing those words, it's based on the concerning of this statute; is that correct? >> it's broaderrer of the statute, and it fits within the framework of frames and of what the department has prosecuted over the last 50 years. >> so you say a reasonable prosecutor wouldn't take this case, you don't think she lied in public or maybe she was negligent but because you have concern with the prosecutorial history of this statute? >> and not just that statute but also 1924, which is the misdemeanor. i also don't see cases that were prosecuted on facts like these. >> but you did find one prosecution and has it been overturned by the supreme court? >> no. there was one time it was charged in an espionage case. >> uh-huh. >> and the guy ended up pleading guilty to a different case, it was never adjudicated. >> so your concern is with the

negligence threshold that you think it requires mens re: or knowing the crime, but also aren't people prosecuted for that all the time and doesn't the supreme court and all the courts below that uphold the prosecution just on the bases of negligence? >> i don't know all 50 states. i think negligent homicide and manslaughter statutes are relatively common. >> okay. so but don't all 50 states have something like that and aren't those sustained in the upper courts? those convictions? >> i don't know whether all 50 states have something like that. but, again, i think it's very common, and i think those are sustained. >> so don't we have a history of, you know, you implied that the american judicial system doesn't have a history of convicting somebody for negligence. but don't we in other domains of justice? >> we do. i know the federal system best. there were very few in the federal system, most we talked about earlier in the environmental and food and

drug administration area. >> okay. thank you. now, i want to ask another question that's come up here. you've basically relayed it to us that this information is top secret or classified information got into these e-mail chains because of conversations people were having. they were relating what they heard before in other settings; is that correct? >> no. maybe in some cases, but it was people having an e-mail conversation about a classified subject. >> okay. so they're having an e-mail conversation, but how in this e-mail conversation diagnosed bore marking show up? if they're not sophisticated enough, as you said before, even hillary clinton wasn't sophisticated enough to recognize a bore marking to see with the parentheses for confidential or classified, how -- if they weren't that sophisticated, how did they recreate that bore marking in their e-mails when they're having these discussions? >> somebody -- a lot of what ended up on secretary clinton's server were stuff that had been forward up the

chain gets to her from her staff, a lot of that forwarding. and then she comments sometimes on it. someone down in the chain in typing a paragraph that summarized something put a portion marking cpap ren, c paren on that paragraph. >> doesn't it take a lot of intent top of the key a classified document from that document that's authorized and secure to one that's not. wouldn't it require intent for someone to recreate that classification marking in an unsecure setting? >> i don't know. it's possible, but also i could -- >> accidentally type open parentheses closed parentheses and intend the paragraph? >> no. you wouldn't accidentally type. >> right. so someone down the chain is someone down the chain being investigated? because they had the intent clearly if they had the

sophistication, because you say hillary clinton lacked, if they had the sophistication to know what this bore marking was, they had to have the intent to recreate it or copy and paste from a secure system to unsecure system. wouldn't that be correct? >> potentially but there's not an open investigation -- >> shouldn't there be? >> a criminal investigation? >> an investigation of if there's intent, which is what you -- and i think you may be reasonable in requiring that threshold that don't we treat everybody the same? whether they're the top of the chain or the bottom of the chain? >> sure you want to if the conduct is the same. but we did not criminally investigate whoever started that chain and put the c on that paragraphs. we didn't. >> okay. i would suggest maybe you might want to do that, and i will yield back to the chairman. >> thank you. we'll now recognize the general woman from michigan ms. lawrence for five minutes. >> director comey, how many years have you been a director? >> two -- well, three years.

i know the exact day count i think at this point. >> so how many cases have you approximately have you had to render a decision? >> the bureau investigates tens of thousands of cases. the director only gets involved in in a very small number of them. >> about how many? >> i think i've been deeply involved in probably 10 to 20. >> have you ever been called before congress on any of those other decisions? >> this is the first time. >> thank you. >> there are some republicans who support you. not surprisingly they're the ones that actually know you, and i have a letter here, and i would like to enter into the record from richard payneer, mr. chair, he was president bush chief ethics lawyer and may it be entered into the record? >> without objection, so

ordered. >> mr. payneer refers to mr. coming as a man of -- and i quote, the man of the up most integrity who calls the shot as he saw them without regard to political affiliation or friendship. he states, and i quote throughout the fbi investigation of secretary clinton's e-mail server, i have been convinced that the director would supervise the investigation being impartial and strict adherence to the law as well as prosecutorial precedence. he also adds although i'm aware of very few prosecutions for carelessness and handling classified information as opposed to intentional disclosure, i knew that the director would recommend prosecution in any and all circumstances where it was

wandered. i cannot think of someone better suited to handle such a politically sensitive investigation. finally, and i quote, i urge all members of the united states congress to stop from inferring in pacific decisions, particularly those involving allies or opponents. during my teen you're in the white house, there were very unfortunate allegation that powerful senators sought politically motivating firing of the united states attorney. whether or not such allegations were true, it is imperative, and i'm still quoting, that members of the senate or the house never again conduct themselves in a matter with such interference could be suspected.

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

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

thank you, and i yield back my time. >> this thank the general woman. now recognize the from iowa. >> thank you, mr. chairman, thank you, director comey and thanks for hanging in there until every last question is over. i'm not a lawyer, that's a good news. i'm a businessman, i've spent most of my career in the high-tech industry. today i have heard words such a common sense, reasonable person, carelessness, judgment, or lack thereof, i like these words. i understand these words. i think the average american does. so i would like to focus on that. last tuesday you said none of these e-mails should have been on any unclassified system but their presence is especially concerning because all these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers, not even supported by full-time security staff like those found at agencies of the

united states government or even with a commercial e-mail service such as gmail. director comey, my small iowa business doesn't even use gmail for our e-mail because it's not secure enough. i know some security experts in the industry. i check with them. the going rate to hack into somebody's gmail account, $129. for corporate e-mails? they can be hacked for $500 or less. if you want to hack into an ip address, it's around $100. i'm sure the fbi could do it cheaper. this is the going rate. director comey, are you implying in that statement that the private e-mail servers of secretary clintons were perhaps less secure than a gmail account that is used for free by a billion people around this planet? >> yes. and i'm not looking to pick on gmail. their security is actually pretty good. the weakness is in the individual users. but, yes.

gmail has full-time security staff and thinks about patching and logging and protecting their systems in a way that was not the case here. >> i would like to ask you what type of judgment -- we're talking a lot about judgment today. the decision to potentially expose to hackers to classified information on a e-mail service that's less secure than gmail, your words. what does that suggest to you? what type of judgment does that suggest? >> it suggests the kind of carelessness that i talked about. >> august of last year, secretary of clinton was asked by ed henry on fox news whether she had wiped her entire server, meaning did she delete all the e-mails on the server. her response? you mean with a cloth? march of 2015 during a press conference secretary clinton assured us her private e-mail was secure. saying the server was on private property guarded by the secret service. now, this would be laughable if it wasn't so serious. i know, you know my

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

director, that secretary clinton knew that i aserver would be wiped clean electrically that it hacked electrically not physically. you don't need a cat burglar to hack a server. would you assume -- would it be reasonable to assume she knows that? >> to some level it would be reasonable. to some level of understanding. >> once again for someone who knew these things, or assume the level she knew these things, what type of judgment to expose classified material on personal servers suggest to you? what type of judgment? >> again, it's not my place to assess judgment. i talk in terms of state of mind, negligence in particular. i think there was careless here, in some circumstances extremely carelessness. >> was her server hacked? >> i don't know. i can't -- >> so that -- >> i can't prove that it was hacked. >> so that answer is it could have been hacked. >> sure. yeah. >> and if it was hacked, potentially damaging material,

damaging to american secrets, damaging to american lives could have been hacked, could have been exposed. >> correct. >> lives could have been put at risk if that server was indeed hacked. >> i'i'm not prepared to say "yes" as to that last piece. that would require me going in a way that i can't hear the classified information but there's no doubt it would expose information that's classified. because it could damage the united states of america. >> so it could have happened, the fbi just isn't aware. >> correct. >> thank you very much. i yield back the time i do not have. >> thank you, gentleman. now, recognize the general lady from new jersey ms. watson for five minutes. >> thank you and thank you, director. i've got a number of questions, so i'm going to zip through these. >> okay. >> this is the question i'm going to ask you, and you may not even have the answer to it because you may not know this. this is about the classification marking issue that you were asked about

earlier. according to the state department, which addresses yesterday a spokesman said that the seats appear to bear classified markings but this was actually a mistake. to quote generally speaking there's a standard process for developing call sheets for the secretary of state, call sheets are often marked but it's not untypical at all for them to be marked at the can feel level prior to a decision by the secretary that he or she will make that call. oftentimes once it is cleared, the secretary intends to make a call. the department will then consider the call sbu, sensitive but unclassified or unclassified all together and then mark it promote and prepared for the secretaries used in actually marking the call. the classifications of a call she therefore is not necessarily fixed in time and staffers in the secretary's office and involved in and preparing and finalizing these call sheets, they understand that. given this context, it appears that markings in the appropriate -- in the documents raised in the media reports were no longer

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

consideration because i want to ask you what can the fbi do in this issue? this morning we woke up to another graphic and deeply disturbing video that actually brought me to tears when my staff played it for me where a minnesota woman's boyfriend had been shot as her young child sat in the backseat after apparently telling the officer he was licensed to carry a weapon. he had it on him and was going to reach for his identification. just the other day, there was a -- an incident in baton rouge involving a mr. alton sterling, an african-american men who was shot while pinned down by police officers in baton rouge. an interaction taped by two bystanders with cell phones captured this. so i think that we've got an issue here. an issue of real national

security. and i want to ask you, mr. director, do we have an opportunity to direct our time and resources in your department to those issues? is it not important that we save their names to remind people of the loss to an eric garland, to a alton sterling, to a michael brown, what walter scott and even a sandra bland? deaths in the hands of police custody or by police happening -- are these not happening at an alarming rate? and is it not a legitimate space for the fbi to be working in? >> yes, those are incredibly important matters. as you know the fbi spends a lot of on them because they're very, very important.

we have an investigation open on the baton rouge case. i was briefed this morning on the minnesota case. and i would expect we'll be involved in in that as well. it's an important part of our work. >> do you feel that you have the sufficient resources to address these cases and what seems to be a disturbing pattern in our country today? >> i'm a bad bureaucrat, but i have -- i believe i have sufficient resources, and we are applying them against those situations. because i believe the individual cases matter enormously. but also the people's confidence in law enforcement is one of the bedrocks of this great country of ours. so i have the resources, and we're applying them too. >> and in addition, we believe that our law enforcement is by in large of high integrity and has the desire to keep us protected and safe. but when we find out that

there are these occasions and when there's an indication that there's a pattern that is taking place in this country, we have a responsibility to ensure that everyone in this country is safe. and simply because you're a black man or black woman does not make you a target. thank you. i yield back my time. >> thank the general woman. we'll now recognize the gentleman from north carolina, mr. walker. >> thank you, chairman. thank you, director comey for being here. i agree on both sides of the aisle one is your reputation, remind the passage in james, slip to hear slow to wrath. i am disappointed in some of the things i heard from my colleagues about some of the attacks on your character and integrity. i haven't heard those, and i hope that we have -- you've not experienced that. i also struggle with the change of heart that we're hearing today because i have a list of elected officials who have questioned your investigation, even attacked

it. in fact, the former president clinton said this is a game. just last friday mr. schultz congresswoman said secretary clinton is not the target of this investigation or whatever you want to call it. my question to you today is do you feel like this has been a republican witch hunt. this hearing. >> no. again, i understand people's questions and interest, and i'm a huge fan of transparency, and i think that's what makes our democracy great. >> and i think that's one of the reasons why you're so respect., to me, this hearing is about understanding and disseminating the facts and how you saw them and how the american public sees them and specifically in the areas of where there was wrongdoing admitted under your investigation where there was breaking the law but also some cover-ups. did congress ask you to pursue this investigation? >> no. it was a referral from the inspector general, the intelligence community.

>> so it wasn't republicans either, was it? >> no. how did you go about collecting the evidence? >> we used tools that we normally use in a criminal investigation. >> do you -- did or do you receive a congressional referral for all the information that you collected? >> not to my knowledge. >> one of the things that i'm struggling with or that i would like to know specifically is under oath, ms. clinton made these three comments that we now know are untrue in the benghazi hearing. number one, she's turned over all of her work relied e-mails. number two, telling the committee that her attorneys went through eve single e-mail. and then finally and probably the one that is -- continues to stick the most there was, and i quote nothing marked classified on my e-mails end quote. now, earlier the chairman questioned you about this, you said something about needing a congressional referral recommendation. my question is something of this magnitude, why -- or can

you help me understand why didn't it rise to your investigation or someone bringing that to your knowledge as far as saying this is a problem, here she is. again, secretary clinton lying under oath specifically about our investigation. >> well, we out of respect for the legislative branch being a separate branch, we do not commence investigations that focus on activities before congress without congress asking us to get involved in. that's a long-standing practice of the department of justice and the fbi. so we don't watch on tv and say we ought to investigate that joe smith said this in front of the committee. it requires the committee to say we think we have an issue here, would you all take a look at it? but with all due respect if you have secretary clinton talking about your ver very investigation, why wouldn't that rise the level of investigation of here she is saying under oath -- lying under oath is a crime, is it not?

>> yes. >> and what's the penalty on that. that's considered perjury; right? >> it's a felony. i forget the exact. it's potentially years in prison. >> but i don't understand -- would you help me understand why somebody wouldn't have tipped you off that she's talking about the very specific case under oath that you're investigating? >> well, there's a difference between us being aware of testimony and us opening a criminal investigation for potential perjury. again, not this case in particular but all cases. we don't do that without committee saying we think there was an issue in testimony given in this separate branch of the government. >> you also mentioned earlier, and it's been quoted several times that no reasonable prosecutor would move forward with some of the facts. is there any room at all that someone would differ a little bit on the opinion? i know former united states attorney general michael casey said with a illegal server disquantifies her from ever holding any federal office. so there are people of highest e-mail that may differ,

obviously not privy to the exact facts, but can you make any room, you said no reasonable person, do you understand the american people or understand other people may say she has stepped across the line of a broken law here that you would come to a different conclusion. >> i respect different opinions. my only point is, and i said earlier i smile because those folks are my friends because i i've worked with my for a long time. no one in my position would have thought about it different but also respect that they have a view from the outside. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> now recognize the gentleman from california. >> thank you, mr. chairman. director, i just want to thank you as others have, and i know you don't need this. but i think the american people clearly need to hear it. you've done a wonderful job today. but there are moments in my political life and as american to spare for the future of this country. not often but in those moments comes an individual like yourself be it by province or

the framework of your constitution, i think you've served this country well. so two questions. one is another colleague has brought this up. but you mentioned previous testimony about the bedrock and the importance of public confidence and public safety institutions yours and all. so i just want to give you an opportunity, i think you have responded to this multiple times but give you a little bit more opportunity because i think it's important for the american public to know that the system isn't rigged. that there are people such as yourself and the 15 individuals who worked on this case and others that do their job and believe in the constitution of the united states. and if you have any further comments that would say the system's rigged and americans should give up on this system. >> no. i -- one of the reasons i welcome this student to have this conversation is i was raised by great parents who taught me you can't care what other people think about you. actually in my business i have to and deeply do.

that people have confidence, that the system's not fixed against black people for rich people, for powerful people, it's very, very important that the american people understand that there really are people that you pay for for your tax dollars who don't give a rip about democrats or republicans or this or that, who care about what is true, and i am lucky to lead an organization that is that way to its core. i get a tenure term to make sure i stay out of politics. but i lead an organization that is resolutely apolitical. we are tough, aggressive people if we can make a case, we'll make a case. we do not care what the person's stripes are or what their bank account looks like. and i worry very much when people doubt that. it's the reason i did the press conference i did two days ago. i care about the fbi's reputation. i care about the justice department, i care about the whole system deeply. so i decided i'm going to do something no director's ever done before. i'm not going to tell the attorney general or anybody

else what i'm going to say or even that i i'm going to say it. they didn't the president nor did the media know what i was going to talk about until i walked out. and confused and bugged a lot of people. it's essential in this democracy that people see as much as they can so that they can make their judgment. again, they may conclude i'm an idiot, i should reason differently but i hope what they will not conclude is i am a dishonest person i am here trying to do the right thing. and i lead 36,000 people who have their spine. that's what's wonderful about our democracy. but you need to know that there are good people trying to do the right thing all day long. and you pay for them, and we'll never forget that. >> i appreciate that. and i'm within the context of these are human institutions pretty clear to me as a nonlawyer that you had a bright line in terms of your decision about pursuing prosecution. but you did spend an extended

period of time talking about what i think i take from you as being fairly objective analysis of what was careless in terms of handling of it. either described to the former -- and you said quote during your comments why not the focus of your investigation, also evidence of security culture and the state department of general with respect to the use of unclassified systems and in particular generally lacking in the kind of care classified information elsewhere in the government. that's accurate, isn't it? >> yes, sir. >> so struggling with this and this is the context of the hearing and the i don't even have sight of the state department and this committee, as to how do we go from here and be here about how the state department will talk about this from the ig and some of the comments that former secretary powell has made including that the absurdity of the retroactive classification. and now we have 1,000 of these e-mails from secretary clinton that's out in the public and are being spread even further. so there are other people involved in sitting there --

how does this committee go forward to make sure that the state department can still function in the way it does with human beings that have conversations that are both transparent but also national security. what are the things we need to do to make sure that this doesn't happen again? >> well, i think a good start, i think the reason the chairman has the ig from the state department hear is to start that conversation. the ig knows deeply the culture of a department and is far better equipped than i toss you ought to focus here or there to make it better. so i think that's the place to start. >> thank you, mr. director. >> thank you we'll now recognize the gentleman from tennessee for five minutes. >> director comey, thank you for appearing so quickly on short notice. i think it's really important that you're hear because of the way you laid out the case on tuesday. there is a perception that you felt one way and then came to another conclusion. i like many of my colleagues put a post up back in my district and let them know you were coming and in less than 24 hours, i had 750 questions

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

to anyone on my e-mail, there is no classified material, you don't know whether they asked her that? >> i don't know whether they asked her that question. the entire interview was focused on. what did you know, what did you see? charles: no charges but republicans keep charging. this is charles payne i'm in for neil cavuto. fbi director laying out his case and republicans aren't taking any charges for an answer. take a listen. >> if i came up to you and said that this person was extremely careless with classified information, the exposure to hostile actors and used to despite warnings created unnecessary device and d out they had multiple devices if there had been e-mail chains someone like jake sullivan asking for classification changes, you're telling me the fbi would grant a security clearance to that

person? >> i'm not saying that's what the answer would be, i'm saying that would be a -- >> personally i think that sounds like a bit of a political answer because i can't imagine that the fbi would grant the security clearance to somebody with that fact pattern. do you really believe there should be no consequence for hillary clinton and how she dealt with this? >> i hope folks remember what i said on tuesday. i didn't say there was no consequence for someone who violates the rules regarding the handling classified information. there are often very severe consequences in the fbi involving their employment, involving their pay, involving their clearances. that's what i said on tuesday. and i hope folks walk away understanding that just because someone's not prosecuted for miss handling classified information, that doesn't mean if you work in the fbi, there aren't consequences for it. charles: so maybe no prosecution but if there are consequences, it would probably have to come from the american public in november. now, let's get reaction from deirdre bolton and liz claman. really grueling stuff, guys. i'll go first, liz, what's

your overall take away from this? liz: all of us were listening pretty intently and a lot of this from all over the map and not just democrats who try to move it away from other issues. there was a moment, and i believe it came from representative tim wahlberg of michigan focused on a very clear-cut statute and that is gross negligence. if you show gross negligence in the handling of super-secret or secret e-mails, how is that any different from extreme carelessness? and that is the term that director comey had used. extreme carelessness. what is the real difference there? because the statute 793, that section is very clear, charles. if you show that gross negligence, then you have to either pay a fine or serve a prison term. and the rest is just conversation. charles: now, of course james comey's response to that because it was alluded by several members of the committee was that going back to 1917 the statute concerning

gross negligence only once, once in the entire history since then has it been usedas ae case, and he actually took some of his critics, some who appeared on our network including inca alluding to rudy saying -- >> yeah. hey, they had a chance, they didn't use it, this is monday morning quarterbacking but to your point, he pointed to 100 years of precedent if you like and said that he still believes, at least according to the statements today, that hillary clinton did not intend to break the law, which is that fine line between intent and gross negligence. what stood out to me, though, was saying that the fbi -- and i'm going to quote him here, will get a preferential congress in the next few hours asking the fbi to investigate comments that clinton made under oath during the testimony. charles: right that was followed up by several other members of the gop committee saying there were three

instances where it looks like she perjured herrings including turning over all the e-mails. the comments from her attorney and of course that nothing was marked classified. >>: but could you also argue that comey did himself some favors when he got extremely passionate during one point he pushed whack when i believe it was congressman saying, you know, it felt like it was choreographed between the fbi and attorney general loretta lynch. he pushed back and said i did not coordinate with anyone, and i will say that and am saying that under oath. charles: there's no doubt about it. that was his moment they were getting under his skin, there were a lot of traps set for him. of a times he almost i think slipped into those cracks, and that one earlier stood after. after he said everything he wanted to clarify for the record, i think that sound byte will get a lot of play. >> i think it will too. because he said when you see me in the cafeteria when any one of the tens of thousands of employees see me and you look me in the eye please know do not misunderstand the statement.

so he couldn't have been clearer. but the what happens next i think is in the next few hours. charles: and something will happen from this, guys. in the meantime the stunning comments from james comey got peter barns attention. i want to go out to peter barns. peter. >> well, that's right, charles, one of the other new wrinkles that came out of comey's testimony is about this hacker known as goosefer and all of this controversy was based on a claim that he was the one who hacked into a friend of her's account, an adviser of her's account and then traced that e-mail to her private syria. well, comey had a different story for the committee today. listen. >> during your investigation, did you or anyone in the fbi interview the hacker buccifer? >> yes. neil: and he claimed to gain access to sid blumenthal's e-mail account. can you confirm that guccifer never gained access to the

server? >> he didn't. he admitted that was a lie. >> so all of this was built on that one claim, and it turns out it was not true. now, we want to point out that we are now going to had aer from two inspectors general on the second panel before the house oversight committee. they will also be weighing in on comey's recommendations not to prosecute secretary clinton and her e-mail practices. charles. charles: peter barns, thank you very much. and we're going to continue talking about this fiery hearing also in the meantime donald trump also trying to put out more of his fires. there's a lot going on today. we've got a lot more coming up. we'll be right back i accept i'm not 22 i accept i do a shorter set these days. i even accept i have a higher risk of stroke due to afib, a type of irregular heartbeat not caused by a heart valve problem. but i won't play anything less than my best. so if there's something better than warfarin, i'm going for it. eliquis. eliquis reduced the risk of stroke better than warfarin, plus it had significantly

less major bleeding than warfarin... eliquis had both... that's what i wanted to hear. don't stop taking eliquis unless your doctor tells you to, as stopping increases your risk of having a stroke. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily... ...and it may take longer than usual for any bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. i accept i don't play quite like i used to. but i'm still bringing my best. and going for eliquis. reduced risk of stroke plus less major bleeding. ask your doctor if switching to eliquis is right for you.

charles: vince on these kind of attacks from republicans will recent with the public. vince a lot of outrage, news cycle changeses from day-to-day. >> absolutely. tell you what. hillary and honesty and trustworthy numbers are in the basement. james comey going out in public saying these things will do her no favors. amazing circumstance. james comey comes out roundly praised by every democrat professionalism, every sentence he utters is evisceration of hillary clinton. he says we can't indict her via

the traditional justice system. this is the american people's job to indict her through the electoral process, saying this by inference. king unprecedented step this week, in 15 minute statement and in today's testimony. james comey is sending a clear signal that american people will have to take justice in their own hands in this case. charles: to your point, recklessness, comes with sort of carelessness he talked about. i was struck by how often he had to interject and say, we have made certain assumptions about hillary clinton's intelligence with respect to her job that maybe we shouldn't have? >> right. it is time to reevaluate. this whole thing of sophistication, we'll see a lot of in the next 24 hours. james comey said he believes hillary clinton might lack the sophistication to perceive that some. emails she was sending and receiving were classified. basically saying this isn't about gross negligence, this is endurable negligence, this is the grandmother theory. she didn't know how to use email very well. this is very bizarre and not

helpful at all to clinton campaign trying to make the case, she is in the words of president obama, most qualified person to run for president. this is far from it. this is question of both trustworthiness, again, point by point, by point she has been destroyed on. now core competency. she is not even sophisticated to be in control of this information. charles: listen, comey said she wasn't going to be prosecuted but she would be punished. he did a lot of it today. vince, thank you very much i appreciate it. >> my pleasure. charles: former clinton special counsel lanny davis fighting back. >> i think she behave you the answer because she used one device and mixed personal and official the way colin powell did. she wanted privacy. >> didn't put everybody on one. >> she did the same thing colin powell did and terrible mistake. >> colin powell didn't do everything on it. >> no. he did some. >> he didn't use a private server. >> right. >> aol which is easily hackable.

>> he sent some emails on aol. hillary clinton used everything. charles: well he is back. charlie gasparino. charlie, you're not letting that one go. did that, did you think about that all night long? >> i want to say i really like lanny davis because he is fierce -- charles: no doubt about it. one of the best democrats out there with respect to laying out argument. >> he is a good guy. you know what i'm saying. i agree on the washington redskins, they should keep their name. absolutely wrong about colin powell. put it in context. what year was colin powell the secretary of state? it was back in 2000s, right? 2004. charles: right. >> 2004 and 2005. when was george bush elected? >> 2001. >> 2001. excuse me i'm getting old, losing my memory. email was not used to transfer secretive documents as it is now. it was barely used in the government. you had an email account. it was barely used to converse. people didn't go overseas with email. we didn't use devices like this. charles: sure, sure.

>> the context, it wasn't use the way it is used now. post that we saw a bunch laws come in, everybody started using email in government about what to send and what not to send on your private email account. and on top of that, he did not have a private server in his basement. okay? that was hidden from the state department and the cia and anybody who would monitor it. colin powell had on his desk a computer. on that computer he had an aol address. that computer was monitored by the appropriate people that monitor things, because they knew exactly what he was doing from his desk. it is apples and oranges to compare that and what hillary clinton did was obviously a private email server, outside of the purview of all law enforcement, including the state department inspector general, in her basement. is where the server is, where the actually data is being mon ford and kept. it is kind of a joke and here -- charles: did you see one of the

members of house actually, brought up the colin powell autobiography, make the same, to allude to the same thing, hey, always been done. it was no big deal. why is hillary clinton being made the example of? >> other members brought up colin powell again. charles: that's what i mean. >> pointed out it was apples and oranges and colin powell differences is in size, scope and where that email was. where that server was. and monitored it. remember the problem with hillary clinton is not necessarily she had a private email server. charles: right. >> she had a private email server not monitored by government snoops which you want. i will say this james comey i like him personally. charles: charlie, we got to wrap it up. >> i tell you, he didn't do himself any favors. charles: no he doesn't. congressman jim jordan just finished grilling fbi director james comey and he is here next. i have asthma...

...one of many pieces in my life. so when my asthma symptoms kept coming back on my long-term control medicine. i talked to my doctor and found a missing piece in my asthma treatment with breo. once-daily breo prevents asthma symptoms. breo is for adults with asthma not well controlled on a long-term asthma control medicine, like an inhaled corticosteroid. breo won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. breo opens up airways to help improve breathing for a full 24 hours.

breo contains a type of medicine that increases the risk of death from asthma problems and may increase the risk of hospitalization in children and adolescents. breo is not for people whose asthma is well controlled on a long-term asthma control medicine, like an inhaled corticosteroid. once your asthma is well controlled, your doctor will decide if you can stop breo and prescribe a different asthma control medicine, like an inhaled corticosteroid. do not take breo more than prescribed. see your doctor if your asthma does not improve or gets worse. ask your doctor if 24-hour breo could be a missing piece for you. see if you're eligible for 12 months free at mybreo.com. >> hi, everyone. good afternoon, from the floor of the new york stock exchange. i'm lori rothman with your fox business brief. food stocks bucking downward trend. look at white wave foods, shares up 18 1/2%. this is natural food maker around being purchased by danone for 12 1/2 billion dollars.

pepsi up 1.6% on pretty good earnings news and a boost in the outlook. smuckers largely unchanged. amazon, day two, of another lifetime high. amazon shares though, have faded a little bit, but still trading real close to those best levels ever. let's have a check of crude oil, getting crushed on smaller than expected draw in inventories. that report released by government this morning, taking the life out crude oil, down taking some. steam out of the market rally. back with more "cavuto: coast to coast."

charles: big area of contention semantics if you will between carelessness and gross negligence and those sort of things. i came away from this, thinking that james comey, thought it was his job to interpret the constitutionality of a 1917 statute. is that the fbi director's job, or is his job just to

investigate these things and then pass along the recommendation up the chain? >> he spent a lot of time talking about intent. was there intention to do harm, knowingly do harm, willfully do wrong and talked about what they were thinking. here is what we know. they said about this scheme of setting up a email situation, server situation, to hide information from the public. they set up the server, unprecedented. unauthorized. she controls it herself. personal, work-related clinton foundation information and classified information on the device. she gets caught. it is discovered she has this arrangement, when she gets caught, her legal team decides which ones we get and which ones they keep. the ones they kept, then they deleted, thousands of them. tens of thousands of them. they deleted maybe most telling her lawyers, i will read from it, lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way to preclude complete forensic

recovery. that sounds to me like a fancy way of ,aying they wiped it clean and hid the evidence. when you have that kind of scheme to hide things, that seems to me to point to an intention to do this. and that is one of the themes we tried to develop in this hearings, well, the probably the biggest theme, charles, a lot of americans think there is two standards now. one for we the people and entirely different one for politically connected. in a country great as ours that should not be the case. charles: no doubt about that that point was hammered home on more than one occasion, he almost caught himself up, tried to rescue himself, applied to his own job at fbi, certainly people would pay serious punishment, whether a reprimand or actual termination, so, the notion that she is getting off scott-free, even he admits if this was in the fbi that would not happen. >> yeah.

what he said tuesday, until he got to the conclusion, until he got to the part said we're not taking it to a grand jury. what he said up until that point i think is pretty he telling, in talking about just the fact pattern that happened here, what took place here, how it looks like it was orchestrated, right from the get-go. she set this private server up when she was being confirmed. i think that, i think that says a lot. charles: representative jim jordan, thank you very much. it has been a long, grueling day. i appreciate you coming out to talk to us. >> you bet. thank you. charles: thanks. oil tumbling after u.s., it was drawdown, less than expected. meantime the market we know will be a huge day. are we set up for a major move one way or the other? i say the answer is yes. i will explain more when we come back. you both have a

perfect driving record. >>perfect. no tickets. no accidents... >>that is until one of you clips a food truck, ruining your perfect record. >>yup... now, you would think your insurance company would cut you some slack, right? >>no. your insurance rates go through the roof. your perfect record doesn't get you anything. >>anything. perfect! for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. and if you do have an accident, our claim centers are available to assist you 24/7. for a free quote, call liberty mutual at switch to liberty mutual and you could save up to $509 call today at see car insurance in a whole new light. liberty mutual insurance.

>> what i hope you can do today is help the average, the reasonable person you made reference to, the reasonable person understand why she appears to be treated differently than the rest of us would be. >> do you really believe there should be no consequence for hillary clinton and how she dealt with this. >> i didn't say, i hope folks remember what i said on tuesday. i didn't say there was no consequence for someone who violates the rules regarding handling of classified information. there are often very severe consequences in fbi. >> isn't shy original classification authority though? >> yes, sir, yes, sir. >> good grief. >> do you have 100% confidence that none of the 30,000 emails destroyed by secretary clinton's attorneys was marked classified? >> i don't have 100% confidence. i have reasonable confidence some were classified. only three in the entire batch we found that bore any markings that indicated they were classified. so that is less likely but

surely, it is reasonable assumption some. ones they deleted contained classified information. charles: from backlash against state department emails to stunning new report from the office of the inspector general, thousands of state department emails reportedly still at risk being hacked. this is raising major concerns about a private server that put private information at risk in the first place. trump supporter, lieutenant colonel darrell glen joins us now. colonel glenn, the new report about the risk levels, we listened to this hearing today, and it is astonishing the lack of information or wherewithal within the administration to take the sort of safeguards, regardless of the hillary clinton situation, feels like systemic, and still we're at risk? >> absolutely and i hope we understand, we're watching the evolution of a new lower standard. we're calling it the clinton standard. and i hope we also remain focused on the fact that the secrets, and the potential impact to our national security

and men and women that protect us. charles: so, i'm still, i'm still grappling with this, of course, what we heard from james comey, on tuesday, is that hillary clinton traveled, traveled to foreign countries where there were quote, bad actors, who, we have to reasonably assume that they had access to her information, which means, they also have access to agents in the field, sensitive information that keeps our country, safe or supposed to keep us safe. yet it persists? >> absolutely. and that's why i think it is extremely important to really continue this hearing and ask those tough questions, but i want to make sure that the american people realize that we have a new lower clinton standard, and how does that translate into your national security, and men and women are potentially at risk. charles: how does it translate? what is the difference now say in a prior administration? does it mean it makes us, what degree of, how much does this mitigate our efforts to keep

americans safe and keep our personnel safe? >> well it all goes back to our rules of engagement. we already have an administration failed to identify the enemy, failed to identify radical islamic terrorism. now the fact that they potentially have actionable intelligence about our agents out there in the field. our men and women are there to protect our freedoms. that extremely troubling. i hope we don't lose sight of that. charles: colonel glenn, i want to ask you, in the last 24 hours a lot of scuttlebutt about donald trump and vp pick, there was perhaps he chooses someone from military ranks, someone with that experience. what are your thoughts, issue of terrorism, foreign policy and the fact that we're losing a war against radical islam and people are becoming unnerved by it? >> well it is true, national security links to so many different areas. again we need to make sure we identify the enemy but if we're not safe, if people are not feeling safe at home, it does have a devastating impact on the economy and when you're looking

at our debt, that is extremely troubling, because that is also national security issue. $19 trillion and growing, a growing military threat, yet we're reducing size of our military, our ability to be able to respond to that. so i can see there is linkage between national security and our overall policy when it comes to economic prosperity. charles: colonel glenn, thank you very much, really appreciate it. >> thank you very much. charles: news from across the pond that could help the market, weapon with this market uncertainty, believe it or not. we have more for you off this.

charles: we know one thing. the next uk prime minister will be a woman. uk conservative party narrowed down its replacement for david cameron. home secretary theresa may and energy minister are final two candidates. both will campaign across-country. winner will be unveiled on september 9th. another woman in the news,

christine lagarde could be 1914 all over again. i will explain. here is cheryl casone. she will take you through the next hour. >> don't tell me i'm not sophisticated. sophisticated word of the day. house republicans grilling fbi director james comey about his decision not to recommend charges against hillary clinton. hello, everybody, i'm cheryl casone, i'm in for trish regan today. welcome to "the intelligence report." on tuesday comey outline ad laundry list what sounded like crimes of the former secretary of state in handling classified emails. he took a right turn, letting her off the hook, calling her careless, not criminal. today comey was forced to explain the difference. >> i see evidence of great carelessness, but i do not see evidence sufficient to establish secretary clinton or for those who they were corresponding, both talked about classified information on email and knew when they were did