if it doesn't involve a classified document, to the appropriate forum. >> members of congress included? >> of course. >> we'll now recognize the gentleman from florida, mr. desantis, for five minutes. >> mr. director, the reason that is important if top secret information can be compromised that could damage american security, correct. >> correct. >> and american lives are at stake in some instances correct? >> yes. >> you mentioned that people are upset there are no consequences for secretary clinton but i said administrative consequence could be appropriate if someone demonstrated extreme quon sequence for classified information that could be include termination of federal employment? >> corrects. >> could include revocation of scatter clearance? >> yes. >> could include eligibility for future employment in national security positions, could it? >> it could. >> would you as fbi directtoring allow someone to work in a national security capacity if that person demonstrated extreme carelessness the handling top

secret info. determination. it's hard to answer in the abstract yes in all cases, no in all cases but would it be an important suitability scrub. >> there would be instances where someone could be extremely careless but still maintain confidence? we have a lot of people who are competent in this country who would love to work for your agency but yet it would be potentially you would allow somebody to be extremely careless and continue on? >> that's the trouble with answering the hypothetical. i can imagine if it was a long time ago and a small amount of conduct or something, that's why it's hard to say other than it would be an important part ... >> let's just put it that way this way. would being careless expose an employee of the fbi to a

potential determination? >> yes. >> watching us officials use mobile devices while traveling to foreign countries especially if they're discussing classified or sensitive information? >> because the mobile device will transmit its signal across networks that are likely controlled or at least accept by the hostile power and that's the guidance the fbi gives all officials when they are traveling overseas, that will good guidance. >> that's good guidance. >> top-secret information and up on the private server because your statement addressed secretary clinton, you did not address any of her aides in your statement, attorney general lynch exonerated everybody. that information didn't get there on its own so how did it get there? were you able to determine that yes, my people talking about a top-secret subject in email communications. >>. >> not about forwarding a top-secret documents, it's about having a conversation about a matter that is top-secret. >> those were things that were originated by secretary clinton's aid and center which was obviously her server but also included secretary clinton originating those emails, correct? >> that's correct. in most circumstances it

started with aids initiating a conversation. in the one involving top-secret information secretary clinton not only received but also sent emails that talked about the same suspect. >> that information about with somebody who was sophisticated in those matters, should it have been obvious to them that that was tentative information? >> yes. >> i guess my issue about knowledge of what you're doing is in order for secretary clinton to have access to top-secret fbi information didn't she have to sign a form with the state department acknowledging her duties and responsibilities under law to safeguard this information? >> yes . anybody who gets access to fbi's sensitive department information would sign what's called a read in form that laid this out, members of congress have seen the same thing. >> and it stresses in that document and other training people would get that there are certain requirements to handling certain levels of information, for example a top-secret document that can't even be on your secret

system at the fbi, correct? >> correct. >> so you have to follow certain guidelines and i guess my question is she's very sophisticated person. she did execute that document, correct? >> yes. >> and her aides who were getting the classified information, they executed similar documents to get a security cbelieve so. >> and she knowingly clearly set up a private server in order to, let me ask you that. was the reason she set up her private server because you wanted to shield medication from congress and the public? >> i can't say that. this information is she set it up as a matter of convenience, it was an already existing system her husband had and she decided to have a domain on that system the question is this is information that clearly anybody who had knowledge of security information would know that it would be classified but i'm having a little bit of trouble to see how would you not been no that that was something that was inappropriate to do?>> well, i want to take one of

your assumptions about sophistication. i don't think that our investigation established she was particularly sophisticated with respect to classified information and the levels and treatment. >> isn't she an original classification authority though? >> yes sir. >> agree. i appreciate you coming in an ideal back the balance of my time. >> i'd like to enter into the record two documents that mister desantis referred to. one is this tentative compartmented information nondisclosure agreement, the other is the classified information nondisclosure agreements, both signed by hillary rodham clinton area. >> without objection. >> so ordered. i reckon recognize the gentleman from missouri for five minutes. >> that you chairman and director comey for being here today and for the professionals whom you lead at the fbi. two years ago after my urgent request to then former

attorney general eric holder for an expedited justice department investigation into the tragic death of michael brown in ferguson missouri, i witnessed firsthand the diligence, professionalism and absolute integrity of your investigators. and i have no doubt that was the case in thismatter as well . i did not take it was possible for the majority to exceed their unprecedented arrogant abuse of official channels and federal funds that we have witnessed over the past two years as they have engaged in a partisan political witchhunt at taxpayer expense against secretary clinton but i was wrong. this proceeding is just a sequel to that very bad at and the taxpayers will get the bill. it's a new low and it

violates both house rules and the rules of this committee. so with apologies to you and the fbi for this blatantly partisan proceeding, let me return to the facts of this case as you have clearly outlined them. first question: did secretary clinton or any member of her staff intentionally violate federal law? >> we did not develop clear evidence of that . >> did secretary clinton or any member of her staff attempt to obstruct your investigation? >> we did not develop evidence of that. >> in your opinion, do the mistakes secretary clinton has already apologized for and expressed regret for rise to a level that would be worthy of federal prosecution? >> as i said tuesday, our

judgment, not just mine but the teams judgment at the fbi is that the justice department would not bring such a case, no justice department under republican or democrat administration. >> thank you for that response. i know the fbi pays particular attention to groups by training agents and local law enforcement officers and participating in local hate crime ... some of these organizations seem relatively harmless but others appear to be very dangerous and growing. some even promote genocide in their postings and rhetoric online. in your experience, how dangerous are these groups and have a incited violence in the past? >> it's too hard to answer congressmen in the abstract. there are some groups who are dangerous, there are some groups who are exercising

important protected speech under the first amendment. >> let me ask about a more erect question. a gentleman named andrew england is the editor of a website called the daily storm that is dedicated to the supremacy of the white race as well as attacking jews, muslims and others . the website features numerous posts with the hashtag white genocide to protest what they contend is an effort to eliminate the white race. are you familiar with this movement? >> i'm not. >> well, this hashtag has beenpromoted all over social media by a growing number of white supremacist . one not see sympathizer tweeted repeatedly using the handle f white genocide tm. are you concerned that some groups are increasing their followers in this way, particularly if those followers could become violent? >> i don't know the

particulars enough to comment congressmen. we are always concerned when people go beyond protected speech which we do not investigate moving toward acts of violence and so our duty is to figure out when people have walked outside the first amendment protection and are looking to kill folks or hurtful but i don't know enough to comment on the particulars. >> one of my biggest concerns is that certain public figures are actually promoting these dangerous groups even further and as you may know, one of our most vocal candidates for president retreated at white genocide tm. three weeks later he did it again, two days after that you retweeted different user whose image also included the term white genocide and that's not even all of them. the rector comey, don't these actions make it easier for these racist groups to recruit even more supporters?

>> i don't think i'm in a position to answer that in an intelligent way . >> well, i appreciate you trying and that youmister director for your exceptional and risible service to our country, ideal back . >> we will now recognize the gentlewoman from wyoming, ms. loomis for five minutes. >> welcome director, thank you so much for being here. my phone has been ringing off the hook and my washington office and why wyoming office, my constituents who don't understand how this conclusion was reached so i appreciate your being here to help walk us through it. here's the issue the people that are calling me from wyoming are having. they have access to this statute, it's title 18, us code 1924 and i'm going to review this statute. it says whoever being an office or employed contractor or consultant to the united states and by virtue of his office employment position or contract becomes possessed of

documents or materials containing classified information to the united states knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year or both read armed with that information, there wondering how hillary clinton who is alsoan attorney and attorneys are frequently held to a higher standard of knowledge of the law , how this could not have come to her attention? she was the secretary of state. of course the secretary of state is going to become possessed of classified materials. of course she was attorney, she practiced with a prominent arkansas law firm,

the rose law firm. she knew from her white house days with her husband the president the classified materials can be very dangerous if they get into the wronghands . she had to have known about this statute because she had to have beenbriefed when she took over the job as the secretary of state . so how, given that body of knowledge and experience, could this have happened in a way that could have potentially provided access by hackers to confidential information? >> it's a good question, a reasonable question. the protection we have as americans is that the government in general and in

that statute in particular has to prove before they can prosecute any of us that we did this thing that's prohibited by both the law and that when we did it, we knew we were doing something that was unlawful, we don't have to know the code number but that we knew we were doing something that was unlawful. that's the protection we have and it's one i've worked for very hard in the private sector, i did a lot of work with the chamber of commerce to stop the criminalization of negligence in the united states. >> may i interrupt and suggest that this attitude says knowingly remove such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location. the intent here in the statute is to retain the documents and unauthorized location. it's not intent to pass them on to a terrorist .or to someone in internet land, it's just the intent to retain the documents or materials that are in an

unauthorized location. >> it's more than that. you have to show that improve criminal intent, both by law, that's the way the judge instructs the jury and practice at the department of justice. they have are served as statute even though it's a misdemeanor for people who clearly knew they were breaking the law and that's the challenge so should have known, must have known, had to know, does not get you there. you must prove beyonda reasonable doubt they knew were engaged in something that was unlawful, that's the challenge. >> then may i turned to her attorneys . did all of secretary clinton's attorneys have the reckless clearances at the time they received all of her emails, especially those that were classified at the time they were sent? >> no. >> they destroyed as has been noted, 30,000 emails? of secretary clinton's? do you have 100 percent confidence that none of the

30,000 emails destroyed by secretary clinton's attorneys was marked as classified? >> i don't have 100 percent confidence. i'm really confident some of them were classified. there were only three in the entire batch we found that were any markings indicated they were classified so that's less likely but surely it's a reasonable assumption that some of the ones they deleted contain classified information. >> thank you director, thank you mister chairman, i yield back area. >> i now recognize the gentleman from massachusetts, mister lynch for five minutes. >> that you mister chairman, thank you director comey or appearing to help the committee with this work. director comey, jerry clinton is certainly not the only secretary of state use of personal email account with information later identified as being classified. i just want to show you, this is a book written by then secretary of state colin powell and in his book he says to complement the

official state department computer in my office, i installed a laptop computer and on a private line. i my personal email account on a laptop allowed me to direct access to anyone online so i started shooting emails to my principal assistance, do individual ambassadors and increasingly to my foreign minister colleagues like me were trying to bring their ministries into a 186,000 miles per second world. were you aware of this that secretary colin powell actually had a private server as well? >> not a private server, i think he used a commercial email account for state department business. >> a private line, unprotected. >> correct. not a state department email system. >> right. he went rogue , so to speak. right? >> i don't know that i would say that. >> i'm not going to forward that ... you think it was

careless for him to do that? he got his own system, install a laptop computer or private line, personal email account was on a laptop and allowed me direct access to anyone online. that's his own statement. i'm just trying to compare secretaries of state because secretary powell has never been here. as a matter of fact, when we asked him for his emails, unlike the 65,000 that were received from secretary clinton he said i don't have any to turn over, this is a quote. it was on adc this week. he explained i don't have any to turn over, i didn't keep the cash of them, i didn't print them off, i don't have thousands of pages somewhere in my personal files but he was secretary of state and he did operate on a private system. were you aware of that? >> not at the time 15 years ago but i am now. >> okay. so recently, back in october

2015 the state department that jerry powell a letter requesting that he contact his email provider aol to determinewhether any of his emails are still on the unclassified systems . are you aware of that ongoing investigation? >> i don't know of an investigation. >> well, that request for information from secretary powell. >> yes i am aware of that. >> are you surprised he has never responded? >> i don't know enough to comment. i don't know exactly what conversation he had with the state department. >> i'm trying to look at where we have a lot of comparisons in other cases and it seems like all the cases where prosecutions have going forward, the subject of the investigation has demonstrated a clear intent to deliver classified information to a person or persons who were all authorized to receive that so if you look at the pfc.

bradley manning, that was a court-martial but she demonstrated a clear intent to publish that information as classified, juliana symes, the wikileaks editor i guess and publisher, again a wide and deliberate attempt to publish classified information, general betrays shared information with his biographer, jeffrey stirling at the staff of the new york times, the diplomacy officer carry out who was writing a book so he hung onto his information and even former director of the cia don deutsch retained classified information on a couple of servers, one in belmont massachusetts and one in bethesda maryland and that

was after he became a private citizen so in all those cases, there's a clear intent as you said before you look at what people did and what they were thinking when they did that. and i would just ask you, is there a clear distinction between what those people did and what secretary clinton did in her case? >> in my view, yes. deutsch case fill that perfectly. he took a huge amount of documents, almost all of the tss eye level, have been in a hard copy at his house, adamant on unclassified system attempted to the internet, attempted to destroy some when he got caught and said i knew i wasn't supposed to be doing this so you had huge amounts of documents, obstruction of justice. those are the kind of cases that have prosecuted. i meant it when i said, in my experience which is three decades, no reasonable prosecutor would bring this case. i know that frustrates people but that's the way the law is

and that's the way to practices at the department of justice. >> thank you for your testimony and service, i yield back. >> we will know now go to the gentleman from north carolina mister meadows for five minutes. >> that you mister chairman, director comey. there's been much said today about criticizing you and your service and i want to go on record that even though many of my constituents would love for me to criticize her service because of the conclusion you reached, never have i ignore will i criticize or service and we appreciate your service to this country and the integrity so i'm going to focus on the things that you said, not the conclusions you drew. and congressman trey doughty and i talked a little bit about this and on february 4, 2016, secretary clinton during a presidential debate said i never sent or received any classified material. they are retroactively classifying it.". so in your statement on july

5 you said there were indeed 110 emails, 52 email chains which there was classified information on it at the time that it was sent or received. so those two statements both of them cannot be true, is that correct? your statement and her statements. >> it's not accurate to say that she did not send or receive classified ... >> so she did not tell the truth during that presidential debate that she never sent or received classified information that was retroactively classified. >> i don't think that the question i should be answering area. >> either your statement is not true or hers is not true, both of them cannot be true so is your statement true? >> that i can. >> your statement is true so the american people have to judge with her statement not being true so let me go on to another one. on october 22 she said there

was nothing marked classified on emails either sent or received and in your statement you said a very small number of emails contained classified information, more markings indicatingthe presence of classified information at the time . so if she makes a statement that says there was no markings, you make a statement that there was, so her statement was not true. >> that one i actually have a little bit of insight into her statement because we asked her about that, there were three documents that bore portion markings where you are obligated when something is classified to the marking on this paragraph and there were three that bore see in parentheses which means that confidential classified information. >> soul reasonable person who has been a senator, secretary of state, first lady wouldn't a reasonable person know that was a classified marketing? as a secretary of state? a reasonable person, that's all i'm asking.

>> before this investigation i probably would have said yes, i'm not so sure. i don't find it incredible. >> director comey, come on. i've only been here a few years and i understand the importance of those markings so you're suggesting that along length of time that she had no idea what a classified marking would be? that's a swollen testimony today? >> not that she would have no idea what a marking would be but the interesting question is, there's a question about sophistication that came up earlier whether she was sophisticated enough to understand what see in parentheses means. >> your sameness former secretary of state is not sophisticated enough to understand classified marking? that's a huge statement. >> i'm saying, you asked me did i assume that someone would know. for this investigation i would have, i'm not so sure that answer any longer and it's possible that she didn't understand what ac meant when she saw it in the bodyof an email like that . >> after years in the senate and secretary of state?

that's hard for me and the american people to believe, director comey and i'm not questioning your analysis of it but wouldn't a reasonable person that someone who had the highest job of handling classified information understand that? >> that's a conclusion a reasonable person would draw, it may not be accurate. >> let me go little bit further.because that last quote actually came on october 22 2015 under sworn testimony before the men got the committee so if she gave sworn testimony that a reasonable person would suggest was not truthful, isn't it a logical assumption she may have misled congress and we need to look at further? >> the reasonable person testimony is not what you look at the perjury or false statements but like you said,

i can understand why people would ask that question asked so let me in the last little portion of this, in your 3 and a half hour interview on saturday, did she contradict some of these public statements in private because you said he didn't like to the fbi but it's apparent that she lied to the american people so did she change her statements and that sworn testimony with you last saturday? >> i haven't go through that parts that. >> can you do that and get back to this committee because it's important i think to the american people and to transparency. >> i'm sure and as the chairman i talked about, i'm sure the committee is going to want to see documents and whatnot and we will work to give you whatever we can give you under our law but i haven't done that analysis at this point. >> will you get back to us? >> the gentleman time has expired . i now recognize the gentleman from tennessee mister cooper for five minutes. >> thank you mister chairman

and thank you director comey . i hate to see one of america's most distant was public servants celebrated before this community. we are all highly partisan here. we're a good backseat driver. we're all today apparently armchair prosecutors. and you stated the truth when you said you didn't know of anyone who would bring a case like this and some of the prosecutors have had the case to do that.i hope this committee's efforts is not intended to intimidate you or the fbi or law enforcement in general or government employees. i'd i'm thankful at this moment that you have such a lifetime record of speaking truth to power. because that's very important, it's also important that apparently your lifelong republican area you're just here to do your job . i think the key issue here is whether in fact there was a double standard, whether some americans are being treated

differently than others. i think i can rely on my republican colleagues to make sure clinton is treated no better than anybody else area there should be some attention given to make sure she's not treated any worse anybody else area i think we all know we wouldn't be having this hearing especially on an emergency basis unless you were running for president . my colleagues from massachusetts just pointed out the previous secretaries of state are not being called on thecarpet . whether that be condoleezza rice or colin powell or others. i think the grossest double standard here today is the fact that all the members of this committee, every member of congress is not subject to the same law secretary clinton was subject to. and as lawmakers, that means we have exempted ourselves from the standard of other federal employees, my colleague from dc mister norton referred to this. why did we accept ourselves

on the same rules? apparently our chairman lists his private email account on his business card.we all have access toclassified information . so i would like to challenge my republican colleagues here today, let's work together and introduce legislation to make the same walls apply to us as applies to the executive branch and secretary clinton. i would be happy to join the legislation to make sure we are not being critical on this panel, that we are holding ourselves to the same standard as secretary clinton and not trying to accuse her of things that we may be guilty of ourselves. i bet now colleagues would be the first to complain if for example emails were retroactively classified. that's the situation most people in public service would object to pretty strongly, how did you know at the time if you had no idea? so i think it's very

important if we want as congress to have the trust of the american people to not be hypocrites, to uphold the same standards we want to see upheld by others and i'm just an let this moment in our history we have someone like you who is in charge of the fbi. because too many things are highly politicized, the last thing we should do is criminalize our political system. i didn't see any of my republican colleagues complain when bob mcdonald was exonerated by an eight zero vote at the supreme court for having done certain things i think most americans would find highly objectionable what our court on a bipartisan unanimous basis exonerated him a week or two ago so i think this is the moment for committee members to reflect , take a deep breath, calm down and realize exactly what you said, that no reasonable prosecutor would have brought this case.and thank you for

stating that so clearly and publicly.i yelled back in balance. that cute ranking member. >> mister director, let me ask you this. first, i associate myself with everything the gentleman just said. you were talking about some markings a little bit earlier, is that right? you describe what those markings on documents, you dealt with three documents with certain markings on them. they indicated classified. there were three emails that down in the body of the email in the three different emails, there were paragraphs and at the beginning of the paragraph) , c and that a parenthesis and that is a portion marking to indicate that paragraph is classified as a confidential level which is the lowest level of classification . >> so out of the 30,000 documents, you found these three markings? >> three emails for these

markings in the body, none of the emails had headers which is at the top of the document that says it's classified. rehab within the body the portion marking 4c. >> thank you. i think this gentleman and recognize the gentleman from tennessee mister douglas for five minutes. >> thank you mister chairman. mister meadows made some instances where secretary clinton said that she had, that she did not mail any classified material to anyone, actually she said that several other times but it is accurate director comey that you found release 110 instances of when she had mailed you or email classified material. >> 110 that she either received or sent. >> and it also is accurate that quote, clinton's lawyers claimed their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery. >> correct. >> and also, when she said,

when secretary clinton said nothing she sent was marked classified and you said in your press conference but even if information is not marked classified in an email, particularly participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it, do you feel that secretary clinton knew or should have known she was obligated to protect classified information? >> yes. >> with her legal background and her longexperience in the government . also she said at one point that she directed all work-related emails to be forwarded to thestate department . is it also accurate you discovered thousands of other emails that were work-related other than the 30,000 that she submitted? >> correct. >> before i changed the congress i spent several years as a criminal court judge , i tried and presided over several hundred criminal

cases. and i can assure you that i saw many cases where the evidence of criminal intent was flimsy or then the evidence in this case but do you realize or do you realize that great numbers of people across this country felt that you presented such a strong, such an incriminating case against secretary clinton in your press conference that they were very surprised or even shocked when you reach the conclusion to let her off. you doubt that great numbers feel that way? >> i think so and i understand the question and i wanted to be as transparent as possible. he went at this very hard to see if we could make a case and i wanted the american people to see but i honestly believe about the whole thing. >> you understand as the

chairman said earlier that great numbers of people feel now that there's one standard of justice for the clintons and another for regular people? >> i heard that a lot. it's not true but i've heard it a lot. >> even the ranking member who was of course as we understand had to defend secretary equipment as strongly aspossible , he almost begged you to explain the gap between the incriminating case you presented and the conclusion that was reached area did that surprise you that he felt so strongly that there was this big gap? >> no, not at all. it's accommodated matter. it involves understanding how the department of justice works across decades, how prosecutorial discretion is exercised. i get that folks see disconnections especially when they see a statute that says gross negligence. the director said she was extremely careless so how is

that not prosecutable? ittakes an understanding of what's gone on over the last 99 years, how do we treat this case . i get people's questions and i think they're in good faith . >> when we talk about gross negligence here you said that secretary clinton was extremely careless with this classified material and how dangerous it could be, how threatening to even people's lives that could be to disclose classified material. do you agree that there's a very thin line between gross negligence and extreme carelessness and would you explain to me what you consider to be that difference? >> sure judge. as a former judge you know there isn't actually a great definition in the law gross negligence area some courts interpreted as close to willful which means you will know you are doing something wrong, others drop it lower. my term extremely careless is kind of being an ordinary person, that's a common sense

way of describing that sure looks careless to me but the question of whether that amounts to gross negligence frankly is really not at the center of this because when i look at the history of the prosecutions and see if then one case bought on a gross negligence theory i know from 30 years there's no way anybody at the department of justice is bringing a case against john doe or hillary clinton for the second time in 100 years aced on those facts . >> you ended your statement to congressman cooper a while ago saying once again that no reasonable prosecutor could have brought this case yet you also mentioned earlier today that you'd seen several of your friends and other prosecutors who said publicly , many across this country that they would have been glad to prosecute this case. >> their friends and i have talked to them and i want to say guys, where were you over the last four years? where were these cases? they have not been brought for reasons that i said earlier.

it's a good thing the department of justice worries about prosecuting people for being careless. i don't like it. as a citizen, i want people to show they knew they were breaking the law and then we will put you in jail.>> many people ask you for those negligence the federal government, by the fbi. >> gentlemen's time has expired.we recognize the gentleman from virginia mister comey for five minutes. >> even though our politics are different i gather you are a republican. is that correct? >> i have been a registered republican for most of my adult life, not registered any longer. >> we don't register my party in virginia but many have suspected my politics as being democratic. i thank you for your integrity as my colleague said as i said in my opening statement, your career is characterized as speaking truth to power and you're doing it again today. give us some context director comey, not that you'reunaware of this. today's hearing is political theater.it's not even the pretense of trying to get the truth . this is a desperate attempt under an extraordinary set of circumstances, and an

emergency hearing. i don't know what the emergency is other than one side is about to nominate somebody who is a pathological narcissist who is talking about banning muslims and mexicans crossing the border who are all rapists and women who are case and terrified at the prospect of the consequences of that in the election so let's grab on to whatever we can to discredit or try to discredit the other nominee, putative nominee and you took away their onlyhope . so the theater today is actually trying to discredit you. my friend from south carolina uses big words like exculpatory and goes through what a prosecutor would do.

the insinuation being you didn't do your job. my friend from wyoming is apparently flooded with citizens in her home state or reading the statute that governs classification. a lot of time on their hands back there i guess but this is all designed todiscredit your findings . now, the fbi interviewed secretary clinton, is that correct? >> yes. >> did she live to the fbi in the interview? >> there's no basis for concluding she was untruthful to us. >> is it a crime to the line to the fbi?david petraeus did lie to the fbi and he was prosecuted. >> could have been, was not for that. >> that's always a judgment call. >> correct >> was she evasive? >> i don't think the agents assessed she was it evasive . >> how many emails are we

talking about? total universe? that were examined? by your team? >> tens of thousands. >> tens of thousands and how many are in a questionable category that maybe could have, should have been looked at more carefully because there could be some element of classification, apparently my friend from north carolina assumes we are all intimately familiar with the fact that this theater means there's a classification although there seems to be dispute about that because the state department as i understand it has actually said some of those were improperly marked and shouldn't have had to see . are you aware of that? >> yes. >> so be that in her hundred trip for years, 100 overseas trips to 100 countries as secretary of state trying to restore us credibility that had been destroyed in the previous eight years and tens of thousands of email

communications not including phone calls and classified conversations and the like that maybe the small percentage of emails she didn't pay as much attention to them as one would hope she would have. is that fair conclusion? could that be a fair conclusion? >> i don't usually deal in maybes, it's possible. >> you do deal in distinguishing between willful and inadvertent. >> sure. >> and in this case you concluded there has to be in the latter category, it wasn't willful. >> we concluded there was not adequate evidence of willful conduct . >> right so there's no obfuscation here unlike the petraeus case and there's no evasion, there's no lying. there's no willful attempt to compromise classified material despitethe continuations of my friends on the other side of the aisle .

and the only hope left in this political theater is to discredit you and your team in hopes that therefore you won't have credibility and we can revisit this monstrous crime of using a private server, that server being the server of a former president of the united states that maybe mrs. clinton fought would be more secure than the leaky system at thestate department, i yield back . >> i now recognize the gentleman from texas, mister hurd for five minutes. >> thank you mister chairman. after chairman, i'm offended. i'm offended by my friend from the other side of the political aisle to frame this as political theater. this is not political theater. for me, this is serious. i spent 9 and a half years as

an undercover officer in the cia. i was a guy in the back alleys collecting intelligence,passing it to lawmakers. i see my friends killed, seen assets themselves in harms way and this is about protecting information , the most sensitive information the american government has and i wish my colleagues would take this a little more seriously.director comey, sat, special access program you will to earlier that includes fbi information, this information includes humus and incidents. >> yes.>> human intelligence information collected from people putting themselves in harm's way to give us information to drive foreign policy, signals intelligence, some of the most sensitive things to understand what al qaeda is doing, what isis is doing so the former secretary of state had an unauthorized server. those are your words, correct? >> correct. >> who was protecting that information, who was protecting that server? >> not much. there was a number of different people who were

assigned as administrators of the server. >> and at least seven emails or eight that were classified as ps fbi. >> correct. >> so the former secretary of state, one of the president's most important advisors on foreign policy and national security had a server in her basement that had information that would collected from our most sensitive assets and it was not protected by anyone and that's not a crime? that's outrageous. people are concerned. what does it take for someone to misuse classified information and get in trouble for it? >> it takes mishandling it and criminal intent. >> so and all authorized server in the basement is not mishandling. >> know, there is evidence of mishandling here. this whole investigation focused on is there sufficient evidence.

>> was this unanimous opinion within the fbi on your decision? >> the whole fbi wasn't involved but the team of agents, investigators, analysts, technologists, yes. >> you take into any consideration the impact that this president can set on our ability to collect intelligence overseas? >> yes, my primary concern is the impact on what other employees might think in the federal government . >> and you don't think this sends a message to other employees that if a former secretary of state can have an unauthorized server in their basement that transmits top-secret information that that's not a problem? >> i've worry very much about that, i talked about that in my statement because fbi employees might face severe discipline and i wanted to understand those consequences are still going to be there . >> director comey do you have a server in your basement?

>> i do not. >> does anybody in the fbi have a server intheir basement or in their house? >> i don't know . >> you think it's likely? >> i think it somewhat likely. >> i would think so too area i have been proud to serve alongside the men and women that you represent so there was no dissenting opinion when you made this decision? it's your job to be involved in counterintelligence as well. >> yes. >> so that means protecting our secrets from foreign adversaries, is that correct? >> correct. >> did this activity you investigated make america's egrets vulnerable to hostile elements? >> yes. >> you think that pattern of behavior would continue? >> would continue to 22. >> by a former secretary of state. >> you mean if that had not

come to light you mean? >> right now, based on what we see do you think there would be other elements in the federal government that think it's okay to have an unauthorized server in their basement? >> a better not, that's one of the reasons i'm talking aboutit. >> what is the ramifications of them doing that? how is there going to be any consequences leopard if it's not being leveraged here because this is setting a precedent . >> i want people understand again, i only am responsible for the fbi but there will be discipline from termination to reprimands and everything in between for people who mishandle classified information. >> director comey, i'm not a lawyer so may i misstate this but is a case of first impression and why was this not possibly one of those? >> there is such a thing which just means the first time you do something, the reason this is one of those is that's just not fair. that would be treating somebody differently because

of their celebrity status or because of some other fact , it doesn't matter. you have to treat people, the bedrock of a system of justice, we treat people fairly. we treat them the same based on their ... >> and the person handling the most sensitive information this government can collect is not fair to punish someone who did that question mark. >> not only stats. >> it would be fair to have a robust disciplinary proceeding. it's not fair to prosecute those persons on these facts. >> i feel the backgrounds of my time. >> i think the gentleman. i recognize the gentleman from mister pennsylvania, mister cartwright for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman.and i'd like to open by acknowledging my colleague from north carolina, mister meadows . here he comes back in the room. for acknowledging your integrity director comey, i think that bipartisan sentiments like that are few and far between around here and i appreciate congressman meadows remark.

you are a man of integrity director comey, it's troubling to me that that remark from congressman meadows is not unanimous at this point. it used to be. this week ago, our chairman representative changes stated on national tv that republicans quote, believe in james comey area and he said this and i quote, i do think that in all of the government, he is a man of integrity and honesty, his fingers on the pulse of this. nothing happens without him and i think he is going to be the definitive person to make a determination or a recommendation but just hours after your actual recommendation came out, german changes went on tv and accuse you of making a quote, political calculation. and then our speaker of the house weeks ago referring to you director connie said i do believe that his integrity is unequaled so your integrity

was unanimous about your integrity before you became your conclusion but after, not so much. that's probably and i want to give you a chance director comey. how do you respond to that? how important to you is maintaining your integrity for the nation? >> the only two things i have in life that matter are the love of my family and friends andmy integrity i care deeply about both . >> director comey, you discussed your team a little bit and they deserve a lot of credit for all the hard work and effort that went into this investigation. and i think you just said that they were unanimous, that everyone who looked at this agreed that no reasonable prosecutor would bring the case, am i correct in that? >> yes. >> how many people were on the scene?

>> it changed at various times but somewhere between 18 and 20 and we use a lot of fbi folks to help from time to time. >> how many hours were spent on this investigation? >> we had accounted yet. i said they moved, they put three years of work into 12 calendar months . >> how many pages of documents to the fbi review in this investigation? >> thousands and thousands. >> and the agents doing the document review, were they qualified or unqualified? >> they were an all-star team, there is a great group. >> how about secretary clinton, did she agree to be interviewed? yes . >> come involuntarily without the need of a subpoena. >> yes. >> was the interview? >> yes. >> was he interviewed by experienced, critical veteran agents in law enforcement officers or by some kind of credulous, global newbies doing their on-the-job training?

>> he was interviewed by the kind of the american people would want doing the interview, real pros. >> you are asked about markings on afew documents . i have the manual here. marking classified national security information and i don't think you were given a full chance to talk about those three documents with the little see on them. were they probably documented, properly marked according to the manual? >> know. >> according to the manual and i asked unanimous dissent to enter this is the record. >> without objection. >> according to the manual, if you're going to classify something there has to be a header on the document, right? correct. >> was there a header on the three documents we've discussed today that had the little see in the text someplace smart. >> there were three emails, the sea was in the body of the text but no see on the body or the header. >> if clinton really were an expert at what is classified and what's not classified,

and we are following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified, am i correct in that? >> that would be a reasonable inference . >> i thank you for your testimony director and i yield back. >> i think the gentleman, i will not recognize the gentleman from colorado mister bosch for five minutes. >> good morning director comey. thank you for being here. i also respect your commitment to law and justice and your career and i first question i want to ask is is this hearing unfair, has been unfair to you? >> know.>> you. one purpose of security procedures for classified information is to prevent hostile information, hostile nations from obtaining classified information, is that fair? >> yes. >> it hostile nations obtain classified information from

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

harming individuals, is that fair? >> that's correct. >> okay. let's talk about this particular statute, 18 us the 1924. i take it we could all agree or you and i could agree on a couple of the elements area secretary clinton was an employee of the united states, correct? and as a result of an employment she received classified information area. >> correct. >> there's nodoubt about those two adult elements . i don't know whether the next element is one element or two but it talks about knowingly removing such materials without authority and with the intent to retain such material and unauthorized locations on going to treat those as two separate parts of the intent element. first of all, you see the word willfully anywhere in this statute? and that would indicate to you there is a lower threshold for intent question mark. >> no. >> fly? >> because as i understand

the justice department's practice and judicial practice, a criminal statute at that level would require that you know you are involved in criminal activity of some sort, the general requirements. >> you would apply that same standard to environmental crisis is? >> it specifically says his negligence based cry no judge would dispute that. >> but congress specifically omitted the word willfully from this that you yet you are implying word willfully in the statute, is that fair? >> that's fair. >> so what the statute does say is knowingly removed materials without authority. is it fair that she knew she didn't have authority to have this server in her basement? >> yes, that is true. >> she knew she was receiving materials, classified information in the emails that she received on her blackberry and other devices. >> i can't ... i'm hesitating

as a prosecutor because to of proof? i don't believe there's evidence beyond a reasonable doubt heknew she was receiving classified information in violation of the requirements . >> but that's my question, my question in fairness is did she know she was receiving information on the servers at her location? >> i'msorry, of course, yes . he was using her email system area as secretary of state she also knew she would be receiving classified information. >> yes, in general. >> okay. and did she then have the intent to retain such material and unauthorized location? she retain the material as secretary of state for server in her basement and that was unauthorized . >> harassing me did she have ... did she have the intent to retain classified information on the server or just to retain any information on the server? we've already established she

knew as secretary of state she was going to receive classified information in her emails and so did she retain such information that she received as secretary of state on her servers in her basement? >> she did in fact. there is in my view not evidence beyond probable cause, there's not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that she knew she was receiving classified information or that she intended to retain it on her server. there's evidence of that but when i said there's not clear evidence of intent , that's what i meant i could not even if the department of justice would bring that case i cannot prove beyond a reasonabledoubt those two adult elements . >> thank you. >> we will now go to the gentleman from illinois missed duckworth for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. when i first entered congress three years ago like any freshman members, unlike many freshman members i sought out this commit