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 committee and i wanted

to be on this committee because i wanted to tackle thechallenges of good government . i like working to eliminate improper payments and wasteful programs. before i joined congress, i had the privilege of serving in the army for 23 years and tackle those challenges and helping reduce veterans homelessness i witnessed firsthand the real world importance of improving and streamlining government operations, how even the best policies in the world will not work without proper implementation so when it comes to implementing true and lasting reforms that will make sure electronic records and other records and the history of our great nation are preserved for future generations i've done my best to approach this goal seriously. i focused on making sure our nation sustained a long-term commitment to modernizing our record-keeping system and improving the laws governing what needs to be collected , to ensuring our civil service

has necessary tools to achieve what should be nonpartisan and shared goal. with respect to examining the top lessons learned from numerous record-keeping incidents that our committee has dealt with which transcend anyone agency or any administration, our mission is clear. make sure we in congress move beyond partisan politics and engage in serious, hard work of ensuring the laws written in an era of pen and paper overhauled to meet the digital challenges of the 21st century. director comey, the office of management and budget and records administration, these memorandums known as the managing government records directed in 2012. this directive 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 its electronic format. email records must be maintained in an appropriate electronic system

as long as they are needed. director of a bureau who deals with sensitive information on a daily basis, do you believe this directive is necessary and attainable with agencies in the four yearm9ñ time frame from aut of 2012, to 2016? >> i don't know enough to say both. i say it is necessary. i don't know it is achievable. >> are you familiar with the capstone approach? that is the federal, approach that says federal agencies should save all emails for select senior level employees and that the emails of other employees would be archived for temporary period set by the agency so that senior employees emails are kept forever and those by lower level employees are archived for a short period, shorter period. >> i'm aware generally. i know what applies to me and when i was deputy attorney general in the bush administration. >> yes. in fact that i understand fbi is currently actively using this approach according to the agency's senior official for records, office for records

management, fy-15 annual report. my understanding is the capstone approach is aimed at streamlining record-keeping process for emails and reducing volume of records that an agency has to maintain. nearly all agencies will be required to comprehensively modernize their approach to managing federal records in the near future. as a head of a component agency, director comey, within the department of justice which appears to be leader adopting innovative capstone approach across the agency would you agree with respect to instituting foundational reforms that will strengthen records preservation, the capstone approach used by doj should be accelerated and rode out across the federal government? >> i think we're doing it in a pretty good way. i don't know, i'm not an expert enough to say whether everybody should do it the way we do it, honestly. >> are you satisfied with the way you're doing? >> i am. i don't want to sound overconfident. i think there is way to do it better but i think we're doing it in a pretty good way. >> do you have any one person within the, within the fbi that

continually reviews the, your records keeping and also, do they report directly to you as well as, is there a periodic review of how you're implementing this process? >> yes. we have an entire division devoted to records management. that assistant director reports up to the deputy director who reports to me. we have, it is an enormous operation as you might imagine requiring constant training. so, that is what i mean i think we're doing it in pretty good way. we have record marking tools. we prompt with dialogue boxes, requiring employees to make a decision what's the nature of this record you're creating now? where should it be stored. so i think we're doing it a pretty good way. that's why i say that. >> have you seen that in any other agencies you have interacted with or have you had a chance, an occasion to look at what some other agencies are doing with their sensitive and classified information? are they following this same technique as you're doing in the fbi? >> i don't know enough to say, i personally. >> okay.

i am out of time but thank you. >> okay. >> thank the gentlewoman. we'll now recognize the gentleman from michigan, mr. will pert, for five minutes. >> i think, mr. chairman, and director comey for being here. thank you, mr. chairman, for holding hearing and director comey making it very clear we've done this respectfully and food intention. i wish some of my colleagues ininstructed us on our intent were here. they have the great ability to understand intent i guess better than director of the fbi. but it is an intent that is important here that we understand we are oversight and government reform committee. and if indeed the tools aren't there to make sure our country is secure and that officials at the highest levels in our land don't have the understanding on what it takes to keep our country secure, that we do the necessary government reform to put laws in place that will be

effective and will meet the needs of distinguished agencies and important agencies like the fbi. so, thank you, mr. chairman, for doing this hearing. it's our responsibility to oversight and reform as necessary. in going back, director comey, to paraphrase the espionage act, the people in the 7th district of michigan understand it from this perspective and common sense what it says, whoever being entrusted with information related to national defense through gross negligence permits the information to be removed from its proper place in violation of their trust shall be fined or imprisoned under the statute. there doesn't seemy double-standard there. it doesn't express intent. you explained your understanding of why intent is needed. and we may agree or disagree on that but the general public looking at that statute says it is pretty clear. question i would ask, director

comey, what's your definition of extremely careless, if you could go through that? >> i intended it as a common sense term. you know it when you see it sort of things. somebody who is, should know better, someone who is demonstrating a lack of care that strikes me as, ordinary accidents and then there is just real sloppiness. i think of that as kind of real sloppiness. >> you stated you found 110 emails on secretary clinton's server have that were classified at the time they were sent or received yet secretary clinton as insisted over a year publicly, that she never sent or received any classified emails. the question i have with that, would it be difficult for any cabinet level official, specifically, any cabinet official, let alone one who is a former white house resident, or u.s. senator, to determine if information is classified?

>> would it be difficult? >> would it be difficult? >> that's hard to answer in the abstract. trying to find the context which they're hearing it or seeing it. obviously if it is marked, why we require markings it is easy. just too hard to answer because there are some other situations you might encounter it. >> but with the training we receive and certainly a second he tear of state would receive or someone who lives in the white house, it goes a little above and beyond just the common sense individual out there trying to determine, knowing that classified information will be brought and to remove to an unauthorized site, cause a bit of pause there, shouldn't it? >> yeah. if you're a government official you should be attentive to it. >> absolutely. >> you know the matters you deal with could involve sensitive information for sure. >> secretary clinton's revised statement she never knowingly sent or received class fight information is probably also untrue? >> i don't want to comment on

people's public statements. we did not find evidence sufficient to establish that she knew she was sending classified information beyond a reasonable doubt to meet the intent standard. like i said i understand why people are confused by the whole discussion. i get that. but you know what would be double-standard? if she were prosecuted for gross negligence. >> but your statement on tuesday said there is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in secretary clinton's position should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. >> i stand by that. >> that is very clear. >> that is the definition of carelessness or negligence. >> which happened? >> oh, yeah. >> as as a result of our secretary of state, former secretary of state's decisions? >> yes. >> is it your statement then before this committee that secretary clinton should have known not to send classified material and yet she did? >> certainly she should have known not to send classified information. as i said that is the definition of negligence.

i think she was extremely careless. i think she was negligent. that i could establish. what we can't establish that she acted with the necessary criminal intent. >> do you believe that the, that since the department of justice hasn't used statute congress passed it is invalid? >> no i think they're worried it is invalid and will be charged on constitutional grounds. why they used it extraordinarily sparingly in the decades. >> thank you. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. we'll now, i will recognize mr. lew of california. five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chair. as i read some of my republican colleagues press statements and as i sit here today i am reminded of that quote from macbeth, full of sound and fury signifying nothing. i've heard some sound and furry today from members of the committee and the reason they largely signify nothing because of two fundamental truths that are self-evident. members of committee can be

objective on this issue. i can't be objective. i endorsed hillary clinton for president as 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 non-partisan, career public servant, has 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. i think it is important for the american people to get a full appreciation of your public service. so let me ask you, before you were fbi director, how many years did you serve as a federal prosecutor? >> 15. >> for a period of time youñi we at columbia law school as a scholar and you specialized in national security law, 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 then the second highest ranking member of the department of justice, is that right?

>> president bush appointed me to be u.s. attorney in manhattan and number two in the department of justice. >> when you were confirmed for the fbi director position, the vote was 93-1 is that correct? >> that's correct. >> with that strong bipartisan support not surprising that senator grassley, republican, during confirmation, and i quote, director comey has a reputation for applying the law fairly and equally regardless of politics. and in this case, did you apply the law fairly and equally regardless of politics? >> yes. >> did you get any political interference from the white house? >> none. >> did you get any political interference from the hillary clinton campaign? >> none. >> one of the reasons you're appointed to a fixed term of 10 years, a very long term, is to help insulate you from politics, isn't that right? >> that's correct. >> the second fundamental truth today about this hearing, is that none of the members of this committee have any idea what we're talking about because we have not reviewed the evidence personally in this case. when i served on active duty in the u.s. air force in the 1990s,

one of my duties was a prosecutor. one of the first things i learned as a prosecutor is it is unprofessional and wrong to make allegations based on evidence that one has not reviewed. so let me ask you, has any member of this committee to the best of your knowledge reviewed 30,000 emails at issue in this case? >> i don't know. not to my imagine. >> has any member of committee sat through multiple witness interviews the fbi conducted in this case? >> that i know, no. >> has any member of this committee received any special information about the files you kept or other fbi agents kept on this case? >> not to my knowledge. >> let's do a little bit math here. 1% of 30,000 emails would be 300 emails, is that right? >> i think that's right. >> 30 emails would be .1 of 1% and three emails would be 1/100 of 1% of 30,000, right? >> i think that's right.

>> of those three emails, 1/100 of 1% of 30,000, bore tiny little classified markings as you described a c with parentheses, correct? >> correct. >> is it possible a busy person who has sent or received over 30,000 emails just might miss this marking of a c with a parentheses, it is possible, correct? >> correct. >> let me now just conclude by stating what some of my colleagues have, which is, there is just the strongest whiff of hypocrisy going on here. the american public might be interested in knowing all members of congress 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 get to use multiple devices. we can take devices overseas. and really at the end of the day when the american people look at this hearing, they need to ask themselves this question: do

they trust biased partisan politicians on this committee making statements on evidence we have not reviewed or do they trust the distinguished fbi director? i would trust the fbi director. i yield back. >> thank you. we'll now recognize the gentleman from florida, mr. mica, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. director, how long did you investigate this matter? >> just about a year. >> a year. and do you believe you conducted a legitimate investigation? >> yes, sir. >> and it was a legitimate subject that was something that you should look into? you had that responsibility, is that correct? >> yes. >> we have a responsibility to hear from you on the action that you took. this weekend in -- we'll go back to our districts and we have to

explain to people, at a couple of cafes where i see folks and in meetings and they are going to ask a lot of questions about what took place. have you seen the production, "hamilton"? >> not yet. i'm hoping to. >> i haven't either, i understand, one the corying groove if i tony award. you and others know that? the problem i have explaining to my constituents, what has come down, it almost looks like a choreography. let me go over it with you. last tuesday, not one week ago, former president clinton meets with the attorney general in phoenix. the next friday, last friday,

mrs. lynch, the ag and sighs she is -- says she is going to defer to the fbi on whatever you came up with. on saturday morning i saw vans pull up. this is this past saturday and you questioned secretary clinton for three hours, is, i guess that's correct. >> 3 1/2. >> okay. then on tuesday morning the morning after july 4th, we watched in our office, i had my interns. come in. we have the fbi director. let's hear what he has to say. we're all kind of startled. and you basically said you were going to recommend not to prosecute, correct? >> yes, sir. >> and then tuesday, well, we had president obama, secretary clinton arrive in charlotte at 2:00 and, shortly there after we had the attorney general closing the case.

this is rapid fire. now, my folks, think that there is something first quarter think about this. i'm not a conspiracy theorist but, there are a lot of questions on how this came down. i have questions about how this came down. did you personally interview the secretary on saturday morning? >> i didn't personally, no. >> and how many agents did? >> i think we had five or six. >> did you talk to all of those agents after the interview? >> i did not speak to all of them, no. >> can, did she testify or talk to them under oath? >> no. >> she did not? that's a problem. >> no, it is still a crime to lie to us. >> i know it is. do you have a transcript of that -- >> we don't record our -- >> do you have a 302, i guess it is called, analysis? >> i do. i don't have it with me. >> did you read it?

>> yes. >> you did? can we get a copy of it since the case is closed? >> i don't know the answer to that. >> i would like a copy of provided to the committee. i would like also for the last 30 days any communications between you or any agent or any person in the fbi with the attorney general or those in authority the department of justice on this matter. could you provide us with that? >> we'll provide you with whatever we can under the law and under our policy actually would be easy in my case. >> you see the problem that i have though? i have to go back and report to people what took place. >> sure. >> now, did you write the statement that you gave on tuesday? >> yes. >> you did? and did you write, and you said you didn't talk to all of the agents. but all of the agents, did they meet with you and then, is that the group that said that we all vote to not recommend

prosecution? >> well, yeah, i did not meet with all of the agents. i have met with, i guess, i met with all of them at various times. >> we're getting the word it was like you unanimous out of fbi that that we don't prosecute. >> what is your question, congressman? >> again, i want to know who counseled you, you read their summary, okay, you, she was not under oath. and it appears, i mean, members have cited here where she lied or misled to congress, which will lead now to the next step of our possibly giving awe referral on this matter. you're aware of that? >> yes. someone mentioned that earlier. >> and that probably will happen. thank you for shedding some light on what took place. >> can i, mr. chairman respond? >> go ahead. >> just very briefly. i hope what you will tell the folks in the cafe, look me in the eye and listen to what i'm

about to say. i did not coordinate that with anyone. the white house, the department of justice, nobody outside of the fbi family had any idea what ways about to say. i say that under oath. i stand by that. there was no coordination. there was an insinuation what you were saying that i don't mean to get strong in responding but i want to make sure i was definitive about that. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you. we'll now recognize the gentlewoman from the virgin islands, miss plaskett for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you all for being here. director comey, i would rather be here talking with you about the fbi's investigation and their resources to those individuals who are acting under color of law who apparently committed egregious violations in the killings we've seen in recent days. but instead, mr. chairman, i am sitting here and i have listened patiently, as a number of individuals have gone on national tv and made accusations against director comey, both

directly and indirectly because he recommended against prosecution based upon the facts. i have listened just very recently here in this hearing as my esteemed colleague from florida tries to insinuate the condensation of a investigation into one week, that actually occurred over a much, much longer period of time, using that condensation and conspiracy theory to say there is some orchestration. and that they have accused mr. director comey of basing his decision on political considerations rather than the facts. i have heard chuckles and laughter here in this hearing, and i don't think there is anything to be smiling or laughing about. because i want to say something to those individuals who are chuckling and laughing and making attacks on director comey for doing his job. you have no idea who you're talking about.

your accusations are completely off base, utterly offensive to us as american people. i know this because i have had the honor of working for director comey during my own service at the department of justice. from 2002 to 2004, i served as counsel to the deputy attorney general. i worked for deputy attorney general larry thompson and deputy attorney general jim comey when he became deputy as a staff attorney. and i know from my own experiences that director comey is a man of impeccable integrity. there are very few times when you as an attorney or as an individual can work with individuals or a gentleman who is completely that, someone who is above the fray. and anyone who suggests or implies he made his recommendations on anything but the facts, simply does not know james comey.

we have used term, no reasonable prosecutor. well 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. and i'm not the only person in this hearing, in this committee, who has worked with director comey or for him. representative gowdy himself also commended director comey and he said this, and i quote, i used to work with him. i think comey is doing exactly what you want. he is doing a serious investigation behind closed doors away from the media's attention, and i'm going to trust him until i see a reason not to. representative gowdy referred to director comey as honorable and apolitical.

he said this is exactly what you want in law enforcement. well, that is exactly what you want in law enforcement until the decision is not the decision that you want. director comey, chairman chaffetz, as it was said by one of my colleagues, went on television accused you of making a quote, political calculation. he said your recommendation was nothing more than a quote, a political determination in the end. i'm going to ask you, how do you respond to that? were your actions in any way, shape or form, governed by political considerations? >> no, not in any way. >> and did anyone with secretary clinton's campaign, or the administration influence your recommendation for political reasons? >> no. they didn't influence it in any way. >> i'm going to take you at your word. because i know, and those who will go through the record of

your long tenure as a career prosecutor, and they look at examples will see that you have taken decisions that have not been that, which your supervisors, which the president, which others have wanted you to take. as a fellow prosecutor who believed that the facts must come above politics, i'm thankful that we have you. and director comey, i want to thank you for your service to your v÷ó country, and you have r support. we would like to see as of docuements and i'm grateful that you want to keep the transparency so the american public can understand, the difference between, what they hear, in the media, and the elements of a crime necessary for criminal prosecution. thank you. >> thank you the gentlewoman. we'll recognize the gentleman from texas, mr. fair ren told for five minutes. >> thank you very much.

mr. comey, state department inspector general report detailed incidents of multiple attacks on secretary clinton's computer and her replying to suspicious email from the personal account from the undersecretary of state. director, you said that hostile actors successfully gained access to the commercial email accounts of people secretary clinton regularly communicated with. in the case of the romanian hack gears sypher, according to accessing sidney blumenthal's account, that has been public for some time. during the your investigation regularly communicated with secretary clinton you can confirm were successfully hacked? >> yes. >> were these folks regularly communicated with the secretary? >> yes. >> and were you able to conclude definitely the attempted hacks referenced in the i.g. report were not successful? >> we were not able to conclude they were successful. i think that is the best way to say it. >> all right. while you said given the nature of clinton's server you would be

unlikely to see evidence one way way or other whether or not it had been success sulphurly hacked, how many unsuccessful attempts did you recover? did you find any there? >> there were unsuccessful attempts. i don't know number off the top of my head. >> were they from foreign governments? where did they come from? >> i want to be careful what i say in opening setting, we can give you that information but i don't want to give any foreign governments knowledge of what i know. >> all right, would you be so far as to say they probably weren't american high school students fooling around? >> correct. it was not limited to a criminal activity. >> all right. during your investigation, did you or anyone in the fbi interview the hacker, "gucifer"? >> yes. >> and he claimed he gained access to sid blumenthal's email account and traced him back to clinton's private server. can you confirm "gucifer" never gained access to her server. >> he did not.

he admitted that was a lie. >> at least that is good to hear. section 793 of title 18 of the united states code makes it a crime to allow classified information to be stolen through gross negligence. were you to discover hostile actors actually had gotten into secretary clinton's email, would that have changed your recommendation with respect to prosecuting her? >> unlikely although we didn't consider that question because we didn't have those fact. >> all right. i want to go back to the question of intent real quick for just a second. i am a recovering attorney. it has been decades since i actually practiced law but you kept referring to, she had to know it was illegal to have the requisite criminal intent. i was always taught in law school, i don't know where this changed, that ignorance of the law was no excuse. if i'm driving along at 45 miles an hour and didn't see the 35 mile-an-hour speed limit i was still intentionally speeding even though i didn't know it.

now i might not have the requisite criminal intent, if maybe my accelerator were jammed or something like that but even though i didn't know the law was 35, i was driving, i was driving 45, i'm going to get a ticket and i'm probably going to be prosecuted for that! so how can you say ignorance of the law is excuse in mrs. clinton's case? >> well the comparison to petty offenses i don't think is, useful but the question of ignorance of the law is no excuse but here's the distinction. you have to have general criminal intent. you don't need to know what particular statute you're violating but you must be aware of generally wrongful nature of your conduct. >> so congress, when they enacted that statute said gross negligence. that doesn't say intent. so what are we going to have to enact to get you guys to prosecute something based on negligence or gross negligence? oh 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 have been very worried about it is constitutionality. >> all right. i think that is something this committee and congress as a whole, judiciary committee, mr. chaffetz and i also sit on will be looking at it. i was on television this morning. i want to relay a question that i received from caller into that television commercial. it is just real simple. why should any person follow the law if our leaders don't? and, 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, why any person should follow the law if our leaders don't have to? maybe that is rhetorical but i will give you an opportunity to comment on that. >> that is question i'm no more qualified to answer than any

american citizen. it is an important question. in terms of my work, in my world, my folks would not, one of my employees would not be prosecuted for this. they would face consequences for this. so the notion that it is either prosecute or you walk around smiling all day long is just not true that for people that work for the government. broader question is one for democracy to answer. it is not for me. >> the ultimate decision whether or not mrs. clinton works in government or not is not, is in everybody's hands. >> i thank the gentleman. >> yield back. >> we'll now recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. doyle for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, director comey for appearing especially on such short notice. i want to share with you something a friend of mind was expressing when watching your press conference 48 hours ago, this is someone in 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, specifically those of us who are in government make 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 presentation, nice to see a real pro. you can tell he would make the decision based on the facts and the evidence and not what party he wears. i think that is so important 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 look at faith in government among the american public, and you look at those numbers today, the numbers today are a peoplic. they're nowhere near the levels that they were decades ago. so for that i want to say thank you. and i think that many citizens

have the same, the same impression. when i first met you a couple years ago at a weekend session, colonial williamsburg you might remember 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 i will keep private but i think i can characterize that you share myc. i'm just thinking for the last 2 1/2 hours that we have been here, we have had the fbi director asking questions on this matter, frankly i 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, i was not aware of this until the investigation, there is quite a strong discrepancy not just between former secretary clinton and former secretary powell what he thinks should be classified and what is classified after the fact. i think, if i'm right, there were some 2,000 emails that were up-classified. i was wondering if you could speak to that? >> it was actually 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 that in hindsight, as a government

agency considers releasing it, they raise the classification level to protect it because it would -- candid assessment after foreign leader or something like that. i think it is largely a state department thing because their diplomats will often be conversing in unclassified way, when they look at releasing it in response to a foia request they think it ought to be protected in some fashion. i push those to the side. >> right. >> it was what was classified at time. that is what matters. >> that for a law enforcement official matters but i'm just wondering if you could share with us 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. i happen to be in foreign affairs committee in oversight for the state department, do you believe there is a manner we should take up and there is such

discrepancy and what is classified and what is not? i think of one example. ambassador ross put something in a book that wasn't classified but was up-classified after the book came out. what good does that do us as a country in terms of trying to protect the intelligence of the united states? >> i'm not an expert in the up-classification business but i suspect there is fertile ground there are ways to do it in more predictable and reliable way. >> thank you again for your service and i yield back my time. >> thank the gentleman. we recognize the gentleman from georgia for five minutes. >> your statement on tuesday clearly showed secretary clinton was not only extremely careless in handling classified information but also any reasonable perp should have known better, and -- person should have known better and in doing so she put our national security at risk with her reckless behavior.

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 as 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 that she had made. i think it is all 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 takes 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 the decision, secretary clinton is flying around in air force one with the president doing a campaign

event. i mean there is nothing about this case that is ordinary. there is 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. >> so keeping servers ad at home, all these types of things, obviously is not in compliance with the department's policies? >> yes. i have read the inspector general's report on that. that is part of the reason i can answer that part with some confidence. >> okay. yet she said publicly 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, say, just an average, ordinary state department employee or

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. might lose clearance. suspended for 30 days. some discipline. maybe just a reprimand. i doubt it. i think it would be higher on the discipline spectrum but some sort of discipline. >> is your opinion there should be likewise some discipline in this case? >> that is not for me to say. i could talk about what would happen if a government employee under my responsibility. >> what you're laying out are is a double-standard for someone else, a different subject, anonymous contractor, or someone at the state department, there would absolutely be disciplined but because of who the subject is, you're not willing to say there should be discipline. so there is 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. there is no double-standard there. and there is 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 heçó would have some discipline? >> not if he had left government service. >> had they lied about having servers, had they lied about sending and receiving classified emails, had they lied about not deleting those emails to the pub, had they lied about not having any marked classified -- the statements are clearly documented and you're saying this, an average person would experience discipline by your own words but, secretary clinton does not deserve to be disciplined? >> gentleman's time is expired but the director may answer if he wants to. >> the average e employee still in government service would be subject to disciplinary process. if they left, you would be in the same boat. >> gentleman from georgia yields

back. recognizes the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you, director comey. the prosecutor has really awesome power, the power to prosecute is the power to destroy and it has to be used 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 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 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 have confidentially thought would be a career booster. but i want to thank you for that. fast forward we have 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 a call based on yourol 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 this for you but i think i'm close to the end, i want to give you a chance to just 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 would have 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 and 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 have heard that would cues you to change the decision that you made? >> no. i don't love this but it is really 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 can not fairly say we did it in any political way. we don't carry water for anybody. we're trying to do what the right thing is. >> i very much appreciate that. i very much appreciate that it takes strong people of independent judgment to make certain we continue to be a nation of laws. mr. chairman, just one final thing and i will yield to mr. cummings. we have a political debate. a lot of these issues are going to be raised will be in the campaign. secretary clinton will have to defend what she did. she acknowledgedded it was mistake. we have that great constitutional scholar, mr. trump will be making his case about why this was wrong. but that is politics. that is not really having anything to do with the independence of prosecutorial discretion. thank you, director, comey.

i yield whatever additional time i have to mr. cummings. >> i think gentleman will yield back. i spoke with mr. cummings. we'll now recognize the gentleman from kentucky, mr. matthew, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, director comey, for showing up and your willingness to be transparent and answer a lot of unanswered questions. a few hours before this hearing started i went on to social media and asked people to submit questions. i have got over 500 questions. i don't think i will get to ask them all in five minutes but i'm sure you would be willing to answer them. one of the common things i came in here to ask which i think is not the right question, what is the difference between extremely careless and gross negligence. in the process of this hearing what i'm hearing you say it is that's not what your reluctance is based on. it is not based on the reluctance to profits cute by the way. reluctance to recommend prosecution or indictment is not based on parsing those words, it is based on your concern for

this statute. with this, this statute, is that correct, from your opening statement? >> it's, it is broader than that actually. the statute, fits within a framework of fairness and also my understanding what the department of justice has ][3ç the last 50 years. >> so when you say a reasonable prosecutor wouldn't take this case, it is not because you don't think, that she lied in public or that maybe she was negligent, it is because up 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. 793 and 1924. >> but you did find one prosecution. has it been overturned by the supreme court? >> no there was one time it was charged in a espionage case and guy ended up pleading guilty to different offense. it was never ajudicated. >> so, your concern is with the negligence threshold, that you

think it requires mens rea or knowing the crime. but in all 50 states, isn't there negligent homicide statute and aren't people prosecuted for that all the time and doesn't the supreme court in all the courts below that uphold those prosecutions? just on the basis of negligence? >> i don't know whether all 50 states. i think negligent homicide and manslaughter statutes are relatively common. >> okay. but don't all 50 states have something like and earned those sustained in upper courts, those convictions? >> i don't know whether all 50 states have something like that but again i think it is very common and i think those are established. >> 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 he dome mains of justice? >> we do. i know the federal system best. there are very few in the federal system. most of you talked about environmental and food and drug administration area. >> okay. thank you.

now i want to ask another question that has come up here. you have, basically related to us that this information, is top secret or classified information got into these email 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 a an email conversation about a classified subject. >> they were having a email conversation but how in this email conversation did this bore markings show up? they're not sophisticated enough as you said before, even hillary clinton wasn't sophisticated enough to recognize a bore marking to see the parentheses or confidential or classified, if they weren't that sophisticated, how did they recreate that bore marking in the emails when they were having these discussions. >> somebody, a lot of what ended up on secretary clinton's server were stuff that had been forwarded up a chain, gets to

her from her staff. a lot of that forwarding. she comments sometimes on it. someone down in the chain in typing a paragraph that summarized something put a portion marking, (c), paren, on that paragraph. >> doesn't it take a lot of intent to take a classified document from a setting authorized and secure to one that's not? wouldn't it require intent for somebody to recreate that classification marking in an unsecure setting? >> i don't know. it is possible but -- >> do you accidentally type parentheses c parentheses and paragraph? >> no, you don't accidentally type. someone down the chain -- >> my question is someone down the chain being investigated? because they had the intent clearly, if they had the sophistication -- which hillary clinton, you insinuate may have lacked, if they had the

sophistication to know what this bore marking was, they had to have the intent to recreate it or cut, copy, paste from secure system to unsecure system, wouldn't that be correct? >> potentially but we're not, there is not an open criminal investigation of that person way down the chain. >> shouldn't there be? >> a criminal investigation? >> an investigation if there is intent which is what you, i mean, and i think you may be reasonable in requiring that threshold but don't we treat everybody the same whether it is a 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, in those paragraphs. >> okay. i would suggest maybe you might want to do that, i will yield back to the chairman. >> thank the gentleman. we'll now recognize the gentlewoman from michigan, miss lawrence, for five minutes. >> director comey, how many years have you been the director? >> two, well, three years. i know the exact day county

point. >> how many cases have you investigated approximately that you had to render a decision? >> bureau investigates tens of thousands of cases. the director only gets involved in very small number of them. >> 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? >> no. this is the first time. >> thank you. there are some republicans who support you, not surprisingly, they are the ones who actually know you. and i have a letter here and i would like to enter into the record from richard painter, mr. chair. he was president bush chief ethics, lawyer. may it be entered into the record. >> asking unanimous consent. without objection, so ordered. >> mr. painter refers to

mr. comey as a man of, and i quote, the, a man of the utmost integrity who calls the shots as he saw them without regard to political affiliation or friendship. he states, and i quote, throughout the fbi investigation of secretary clinton's email server, i have been convinced that the director would supervise the investigation with being impartial, and strict adherence to the law, as well as prosecutorial precedent. he also adds, although i'm aware of very few prosecutions for carelessness in handling classified information as opposed to intention disclosure, i knew that the director would recommend prosecution in any and all circumstances where it was warranted. i can not 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 specific decisions particularly those involving political allies or opponents. during my tenure in the white house, there were very unfortunate allegations that powerful senators sought politically motivating of firing of a 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 manner with such interference could be suspected. and i want to be on the record,

i wholeheartedly agree with mr. painter. director, you have demonstrated yourself. you sat here and asked the question and i would never opposed to finding the answers to any situation that is directly related to federal agencies which we, on 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 type of attacks are not only inappropriate, but they're dangerous. they're dangerous because they could have a chilling effect on the future investigation. and i asked that question, how long have you been in this position, how many times have you made decisions, and were not pulled in 24 hours before this committee.

how many times? and then we say it is 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 honorable man. and until this day i have not heard any complaint of your judgment. so i sit here today, as a member of congress, on the record, that the slippery slope we're seeing today in this hearing, i want every member to be cautious of what we're saying, that 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 is in their agenda. this goes for democrats and republicans. we are not here to do that. thank you and i yield back.

my time. >> thank the gentlewoman. now recognize the gentleman from iowa, mr. blum. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, director comey, for being here today, and thanks for hanging in there till every last question is answered.