an msnbc political analyst and former white house communications director for president george w. bush. nicole, you are your new york self today, but let's harken back to your washington self. and you were there long enough, and paid attention close enough to know that different parties will bring members of the opposite party before a congressional committee, hoping to score points. today it happens to be the republicans bringing the fbi director before this committee. it doesn't always work that way. and this may be a trickier than average witness. >> yeah, i reached out to gop member of congress, very strong and well-versed in national security issues, and he said comey is the straightest arrow, one of the best fbi directors in american history. there have only been seven, and is he's someone who never bent to political pressure or will when he was deputy attorney

general under george w. bush. and he's someone for whom there is no reason to believe he's done that as the fbi director under democratic administration. republicans have to be exquisitely cautious in not pushing this beyond where the facts have left us. where the facts have left us is with an incriminating set of facts about hillary clinton's judgment. and that is the case that republicans can make today until november. at a political level. to a point where it looks like they're trying to squeeze more from him than what they handed us. this gop member of congress said. to cross a line with him, and to try to politicize something that had to be difficult, it's not normal what he did. he announced there would be no indictment. but he convicted her of severely terrible judgment. he made it perfectly reasonable

for republicans to say, don't listen to me. listen to what the fbi director said about hillary clinton's handling of classified information. trust him, because you can. and people do. so i think they have to be very careful today. the only other thing i would say is, there's a story in today's "new york times" about this potential for her blackberry to have been hacked while she traveled overseas. that might be a real opportunity in today's hearings to press him for some scenarios that he obviously believed are possible or he wouldn't have mentioned it in that extraordinary press conference. >> and nicole, you're so right. this is a guy who could be a character out of the untouchables. they say he's a registered republican, though it is next to impossible to discern that from his public remarks. he grew up a northern jersey bergen coun bergen county catholic, university of chicago law school. he really does emphasize servant and the phrase public servant

and enforcement. and the model and danger is the latter hours of that benghazi hearing. >> right. and you point out, it was a very different situation and a very different committee. i saw these committee members on tv this morning. i have no reason to believe that they're going to push this beyond what is -- what is reasonable. and what is to be expected, based on his statements. it was extraordinary that he took to the podium and had prepared remarks to speak to her lapse in judgment. it was obviously something that had -- there may have been some dissent among the folks investigating this. and he felt it important and vital to make those statements, which will stabbed stand as the most extraordinary developments so far. >> representatives chaffetz and elijah cummings are coming in to

welcome the fbi director. let's listen in the room. committee on oversight and

government reform will come to order. without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. i want to thank director comey for being here and doing so on short notice. my -- i have the greatest admiration for the fbi. my grandfather was a career fbi agent. i'm here because we're mystified and confused by the fact pattern that you laid out, and the conclusions that you reached. it seems that there are two standards. and there's no consequence for these types of activities and dealing in a careless way with classified information. it seems to a lot of us that the average joe, the average americ, that if they had done what you laid out in your statement, that they would be in

handcuffs. and they might be on their way to jail and they probably should. and i think there is a legitimate concern that is there a double standard. if your name isn't clinton or you're not part of the powerful elite, that lady justice will act differently. it's a concern that lady justice will take off that blindfold and come to a different conclusion. hillary clinton created this mess. it wasn't republicans, it wasn't anybody else. she made a very conscious decision. on the very day that she started her senate confirmation, she set up and got a domain name. and set up a system to avoid and bypass the safety, security and the protocol of the state department.

classified information is classified for a reason. it's classified because if it were to get out into the public, there are nefarious actors, nation stads, others, who want to do harm to this country. and there are people who put their lives on the line, protecting and serving our country. when those communications are not secure, it puts their lives in jeopardy. this classified information is entrusted to very few, but there is such a duty and obligation to protect that, to fall on your sword to protect that. and yet there doesn't seem to be any consequence. i was talking to trey gowdy, and he made a really good point with us yesterday. mr. gowdy said, you know, in your statement, mr. director, you mentioned that there was no precedent for this. but we believe that you have set a precedent. and it's a dangerous one.

the precedent is, if you sloppily deal with classified information, if you're cavalier about it -- and it wasn't just an innocent mistake. this went on for years. that there is going to be no consequence. we -- we're a different nation in the united states of america. we are self-critical. most nations would never do this. but we do it in the spirit of making ourselves better. there will be all kinds of accusations about political this and political that. i have defended your integrity. every step of the way. you are the definitive voice. i stabbed by that. but i am mystified. and i am confused. because you listen to your fact pattern, and come to the conclusion that there is no

consequence? i don't know how to explain that. we'll have constituents ask us, they'll get mad, they'll -- you know, they're frustrated. they have seen this happen time and time again. i don't know how to explain it. and i hope that it, through this hearing, we can stick to the facts. and understand this. because there does seem to be two standards. there does seem to be no consequence. and i want to understand that. and i want to be able to explain it to this -- the person sitting at home. and that's why we're here. and so i yield back. i now recognize the ranking member, mr. cummings. >> director comey, thank you for being here today. i want to begin by commending you and the public servants. at the fbi for the independent investigation you conducted.

you had a thankless task. no matter what recommendation you made, you were sure to be criticized. there's no question that you were extremely thorough. in fact, some may even say you went too far in your investigation. but, of course, that was your job. that is your job. secretary clinton has acknowledged that she made a mistake. in using a personal e-mail account. and you explained on tuesday that she and is her colleagues at the state department were extremely careless with that you are e-mails. but after conducting this exhaustive review, you determined that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case based on this evidence. and you and the career staff

recommended against prosecution. based on the previous cases you examined, if prosecutors had gone forward, they would have been holding the secretary to a different standard from everyone else. amazingly, amazingly, some republicans who were praising you just days ago for your independence, for your integrity, and your honesty, instantly turned against you, because your recommendation conflicted with the predetermined outcome they wanted. in their eyes, you had one job. and one job only. to prosecute hillary clinton. but you refused to do so. so now you are being summoned here to answer for your alleged transgressions. and in a sense, mr. director,

you are on trial. contrary to the claims of your critics, there is absolutely no evidence that you made your recommendation for political reasons, no evidence that you were bribed or coerced or influenced. no evidence that you came to your conclusion based upon anything but the facts. and the law. i firmly believe that your decision was not based on convenience, but on conviction. today house republicans are doing what they always do. using taxpayers' money to continue investigating claims that have already been debunked, just to keep them in the headlines one more day. but they rush towards it over and over again. even if the evidence is not there. exhibit a. majority leader kevin mccarthy.

who admitted on national television that republicans established the benghazi select committee to bring down secretary clinton's phone numbers. i didn't say that. mccarthy said it. the fact was confirmed by republican staffer on that committee who reported that he was fired in part for not going along with the hyper focus on secretary clinton. i give house republicans credit. they are not shy about what they are doing. they have turned political investigations into an art form. if our concerns here today are with the proper treatment of classified information, then we should start with a review of our previous hearing on general david petraeus. who pled guilty last year to intentionally and knowingly

compromising highly classified information. the problem is, mr. director, we never had that hearing. this committee ignored that breach of national security because it did not match the political goals of house republicans. if our concerns today were with finally addressing a broken classification system in which security levels are arbitrarily changed up and down, that would have been a legitimate goal. that would have been a valuable addition to reforming and improving our government. after all, we are the government reform committee. we could have held hearings here on zika, the zika virus. preventing gun massacres like the one in orlando. or a host of other topics that could actually save people's lives.

but that's not why we're here. that is not why our chairman called this emergency hearing 48 hours after you made your recommendation. everyone knows what this committee is doing. honestly, i would not be surprised, and i say this with all seriousness. i would not be surprised if tomorrow republicans set up a new committee to spend $7 million-plus on why the fbi failed to prosecute hillary clinton. director comey, let me conclude with this request. even with all that i have said, i believe that there is a critical role for you today. i've listened carefully to the coverage on this issue. and i've heard people say recently as this morning, three hours ago, they were mystified

by your decision. as a matter of fact, the chairman repeated it a minute ago. and so there is a perceived gap between the things you said on tuesday and you recommendation. there's a gap, mr. director. so in this moment, and this is a critical moment, i beg you to fill the gap. because when a gap is not filled by you, it will be filled by others. share with us, the american people, your process and your thinking. explain how you examined the evidence, the law and the precedent. describe in clear terms how you and your team career professionals arrived at this decision. if you can do that today, if you can do that, that could go a

long way towards people understanding your decision. finally, i want to make it clear that i condemn these completely unwarranted political attacks against you. they have attacked you personally, they have attacked your integrity, they have impugned your professionalism, and they have even suggested you were somehow bought and paid for, because you made your recommendation based upon the law and the facts. i know you are used to working in a world of politics, but these attacks have been beyond the pale. so you do not deserve this. your family does not deserve it. and the highly skilled and dedicated agents of the fbi do not deserve it. i honor your professionalism and your service to our country. and, again, even if it takes until hell freezes over, i beg

you to close the gap. tell us what happened between what you found and your decision so that not only the members of this panel and this congress will understand, but so that americans will understand. and if you do that, if you do that, then it will be all worth it today. with that, i yield back. >> mr. chairman? >> hold on one second. with your indulgence, to the ranking member of which i have the greatest respect, you asked for a hearing on general petraeus and how that was dealt with. you got it. we will have one in this oversight committee, and the record will reflect that in the judiciary committee, i repeatedly questioned attorney general holder. i repeatedly questioned the fbi director about the disposition of that case, probably more than any member of the house or senate. and if you want a hearing, we'll do that. >> does the gentlemen yield? >> yes. >> thank you. >> number two, you complained

that we haven't done a hearing on zika. the oversight and government reform committee, i believe, was the very first committee to actually do a hearing on zika that was chaired by mr. micah. and i'm proud of the fact we did a zika hearing and we did it first. >> does the gentleman yield? >> sure. >> can we have another one, because the problem is still there. >> absolutely. >> mr. chairman, unanimous consent request we put the date of the hearing and the record at this time that i chaired. thank you. >> absolutely. and the ranking member knows that we have held multiple hearings on the criminal justice and criminal justice reform. you've asked for it, you're passionate about it, and we did do that, as well. so to suggest we haven't addressed some of those issues, i don't think is accurate. >> i don't think i did that, mr. chairman. but, again, as late as yesterday, with the problem in minnesota with an african-american man being killed, i'd like to have some hearings still on the criminal justice system.

thank you. >> without objection -- i'm going to work with you on that. >> thank you. >> as i have every step of the way. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. we'll hold the record open for five legislative days for any members who would like to submit a written statement. we'll now recognize our distinguished witness for our first panel. the honorable james comey, the director of the federal bureau of investigations. thank you for being here. pursuant to rules, all witnesses sworn before they testify. you'll please rise and raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? thank you. let the record reflect the witness answered in the affirmative. mr. comey, the floor is yours. you can take as long or as short as you like. if you have any written statement you would like to submit afterwards, we're happy

to do that, as well. and it will be made part of the record. the time is now yours. director comey, you're now recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman, members of the committee. i'm proud to be here today representing the people of the fbi who did this investigation as they do all their work. in a competent, honest and independent way. i believe this investigation was conducted consistent with the highest traditions of the fbi. our folks did it in an apolitical and professional way, including our recommendation as to the appropriate resolution of this case. as i said in my statement on tuesday, i expected there would be significant public debate about this recommendation. and i'm a big fan of transparency, so i welcome the conversation we're going to have here today. and i to think a whole lot of folks have questions about why did we reach the conclusion we did and what was our thinking. and i hope very much to get an opportunity to address that and to explain it. and i hope at the end of the day, people can disagree, can

agree, but they will at least understand that the decision was made and the recommendation was made the way you would want it to be. by people who didn't give a hoot about politics, but who cared about what are the facts, what is the law, and how have similar people, all people, been treated in the past. maybe i could just say a few words at the beginning that would help frame how we think about this. there are two things that matter in a criminal investigation. of a subject. what did the person do, and when they did that thing, what were they thinking? when you look at the hundred years-plus of the justice department's investigation and prosecution of the mishandling of classified information, those two questions are obviously present. what did the person do, did they mishandle classified information, and when they did it, did they know they were doing something that was unlawful? that has been the characteristics of every charge criminal case involving the mishandling of classified information. i'm happy to go through the cases in particular. in our system of law, there is a

thing called mensrea, what were you thinking. we don't want to put people in jail unless they prove they knew they were doing something they shouldn't do. that is the characteristic of all the prosecutions involving mishandling of classified information. there is a statute that was passed in 1917 that on its face makes it a crime, a felony, for someone to engage in gross negligence. so that would appear to say, well, i may be in that circumstance, you don't need to prove they knew they were doing something that was unlawful. maybe it's enough to prove they were just really, really careless, beyond a reasonable doubt. at the time congress passed that statute in 1917, there was a lot of concern in the house and senate about whether that was going to violate the american tradition of requiring that before you lock somebody up, you prove they knew they were doing something wrong. so there is a lot of concern about it. the statute was passed. as best i can tell, department of justice has used it once in the 99 years since, reflecting

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

saying they would. i wonder where they were the last 40 years, because i would like to see the cases they brought on gross negligence. nobody would, nobody did. so my judgment was, the appropriate resolution of this case was, not with a criminal prosecution. as i said, folks can disagree about that. but i hope they know, that view, not just my view, but of my team, was held, fairly investigated and with unusual transparency, because we know folks care about it. i look forward to this conversation and answering as many questions as i possibly can. i'll stay as long as you need me to stay because i believe transparency matters tremendously and i thank you for the opportunity. >> thank you, director. i'm going to recognize myself here. physically, where were hillary clinton's servers? >> the operational server was in the basement of her home in new york. the reason i'm answering it that way, sometimes after they were de commissioned, they were moved to other facilities, storage facilities, but the live device was always in the basement.

>> was that an authorized or unauthorized location? >> it was an unauthorized location for the transmitting of classified information. >> is it reasonable or unreasonable to expect hillary clinton would receive and send classified information? >> as secretary of state, reasonable the secretary of state would encounter classified information in the course of the secretary's work. >> via e-mail? >> sure, depending upon the nature of the system. communicating classified information would have to be a classified-rated e-mail system. >> but you did find more than 100 e-mails that were classified that had gone through that server, correct? >> right. to an unclassified server, correct. >> yes. so hillary clinton it come to possess documents and materials containing classified information via e-mail on these unsecured servers, correct? >> that is correct.

>> did hillary clinton lie? >> to the fbi? we have no basis to conclude she lied to the fbi. >> did she lie to the public? >> that's a question i'm not qualified to answer. i can speak about what she said to the fbi. >> did she -- did hillary clinton lie under oath? >> to -- not to the fbi. not in a case we were working. >> did you review the documents where congressman jim jordan asked her specifically and she said, quote, there was nothing marked classified on my e-mails, either sent or received, end quote? >> i don't remember reviewing that particular testimony. i'm aware of that being said, though. >> did the fbi investigate her statements under oath on this topic? >> not to my knowledge. i don't think there has been a referral from congress. >> do you need a referral from congress to investigate her statements under oath? >> sure do. >> you'll have one. you'll have one in the next few

hours. did hillary clinton break the law? ? >> in connection with her use of the e-mail server? my judgment is she did not. >> you're just not able to prosecute it, or did hillary clinton break the law? >> well, i don't want to give an overly lawyerly answer. the question i look at is there evidence that would establish beyond a reasonable doubt that somebody violated a criminal statute. and my judgment here is there is not. >> the fbi does background checks. if hillary clinton applied for the job at the fbi, would the fbi give hillary clinton a security clearance? >> i don't want to answer a hypothetical. the fbi has a robust process in which we adjudicate the suitability of people from employment in the bureau. >> given the fact pattern you laid out less than 48 hours ago, would a person who had dealt with classified information like

that, would that person be granted a security clearance at the fbi? >> it would be a very important consideration in a suitability determination. >> you're kind of making my point, director. the point being -- because i injected the word hillary clinton, you gave me a different answer. if i came up to you and said this person was extremely careless with classified information, the exposure to hostile actors, and used, despite a warning, created unnecessary burdens and exposure, if they said they had had one device and you found out they had multiple devices. if they had been e-mail chains with somebody like jake sullivan asking for classification changes, you're telling me that the fbi would grant a security clearance to that person? >> i'm not -- i hope i'm giving a consistent answer. i'm not saying what the answer would be. i'm saying that would be an important determination for

anybody. >> and personally, i think that sounds like a bit of a political answer. because i can't imagine that the fbi would grant a security clearance to somebody with that fact pattern. do you agree or disagree with that? >> i'll say what i said before. very hard to answer a hypothetical. i'll repeat it. it would be a very important determination to suitability information. >> did hillary clinton do anything wrong? >> what do you mean by wrong? >> i think it's self-evident. >> i'm a lawyer, investigator and i hope a normal human being. >> do you really believe there should be no consequence for hillary clinton in how she dealt with this? >> i didn't say -- i hope folks remember what i said on tuesday. i didn't say there is no consequence for someone who violates the rules regarding handling classified information. there are offer very severe consequences in the fbi involving their employment, involving their pay, involving their clearances. that's what i -- that's what i said on tuesday. and i hope folks walk away

understanding that just because someone is not prosecuted for mishandling classified information, that doesn't mean if you work in the fbi, there aren't consequences for it. >> so if hillary clinton or if anybody had worked at the fbi under this fact pattern, what would you do to that person? >> there would be a security review and an adjudication of their suitability and a range of discipline could be imposed from termination to reprimand and in between suspensions, loss of clearance, so you could be walked out, or you could, depending upon the nature of the fact, you could be reprimanded. but there is a robust process to handle that. >> i've gone past my time. i yield back. i recognize the ranking member, mr. cummings. >> thank you very much. director comey, i thank you very much for being here today. of especially on such short notice. you and your staff should be commended for the thorough and dedicated review you conducted. unfortunately, some of my colleagues are now attacking you

personally, because your final recommendation conflicted with their preconceived political outcome in this case. some have tried to argue that this case is far worse than the case of general david petraeus. who was conduct convicted in 2015 for knowingly and intentionally compromising highly classified information. in fact, one very vocal politician we all know said this, and i quote. if he isn't decided, the only reason is the democrats are protecting her. she is being protected 100%, because you look at general petraeus, you look at all the other people that did a fraction of what she did, but she has much worse judgment than he had, and she's getting away with it, and it's unfair to him, end of quote. director comey, you were the director of the fbi when general petraeus pled guilty, is that right. >> yes. >> if i understand that case correctly, general petraeus kept highly classified information in eight personal notebooks at his

private residence, is that correct. >> that is correct. of. >> according to the filings in that case, his notebook included the identities of covert officers, they also included war strategy, intelligence capabilities, diplomatic discussions, quotes and discussions from high-level national security council meetings, and discussions with the president. general petraeus shared his information with his lover and then biography. he was caught on audiotape telling her, and i quote, i mean they are highly classified. some of them. they don't have it on it, but i mean, there is code word stuff in there, end of quote. director comey, what did general petraeus mean when he said he intentionally shared, quote, code word information with her? what does that mean? >> the petraeus case, to my mind, illustrates perfectly the kind of cases department of justice is willing to prosecute. even there, they prosecuted him

for a misdemeanor. in that case, you had had vast quantities of highly classified information, including special sensitive compartmented information. that's the reference to code words. vast quantity, not only shared with someone without authority to have it, but hidden in the insulation in his attic and then he lied about it during the investigation. so you have obstruction of justice, intentional misconduct and a vast quantity of information. he admitted he knew that was the wrong thing to do. that is a perfect illustration of the kind of cases that get prosecuted. in my mind, it illustrates importantly the distinction to this case. >> and general petraeus did not admit to these facts when the fbi investigators first interviewed him, did he? >> no, he lied about it. >> but he did admit to these facts in a plea agreement, is that correct? >> yes. >> here's what the department filing said about general petraeus, and i quote. the acts taken by defendant

david howell petraeus were in all respects knowing and deliberate. and were not committed by mistake, accident or other innocent reason, end of quote. is that an accurate summary, in your view, director comey? >> yes, it actually leaves out an important part of the case, which is the obstruction of justice. >> was he charged with obstruction of justice? >> no. >> and why not? >> a decision made by the leadership of the department of justice, not to insist upon a plea to that felony. >> so the question is, do you agree with the claim that general petraeus, and i quote, got in trouble for far less, end of quote? do you agree with that statement? >> no, it's the reverse. >> and what do you mean by that? >> his conduct to me illustrates the categories of behavior that mark the prosecutions that are actually brought. clearly, intentional conduct. knew what he was doing was a violation of the law. huge amounts of information that even if you couldn't prove he

knew it, raises the inference he did it. an effort to obstruct justice. that combination of things makes it worthy of a prosecution. a misdemeanor prosecution, but a prosecution, nonetheless. >> sitting here today, do you stand by the fbi's recommendation to prosecute general petraeus? >> oh, yeah. >> do you stand by the fbi's recommendation not to prosecute hillary clinton? >> yes. >> director comey, how many times have you testified before congress about the general petraeus case? do you know? >> i don't think i've ever testified -- i don't think i've testified about it at all. i don't think so. >> with that, i'll yield back. >> i have to check the record. i believe i asked you about it. >> you could have. that's why i was squinching my conveys face. >> we'll now recognize the gentleman from south carolina, mr. gowdy, for five minutes. >> good morning, director comey. secretary clinton said she never

sent or received any classified information over her private e-mail. was that true? >> our investigation found that there was classified information sent. >> so it was not true. >> right. that's what i said. >> okay. well, i'm looking for shorter answers so we're not here quite as long. secretary clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her e-mails, either sent or received. was that true? >> that's not true. there were a small number of portion markings on i think three of the documents. >> secretary clinton said i did not e-mail any classified material to anyone on my e-mail. there is no classified material. was that true? >> there was classified material e-mailed. >> secretary clinton said she used just one device. was that true? >> she used multiple devices during the four years in her term as secretary of state. >> secretary clinton said all work-related e-mails were returned to the state department. was that true? >> no. we found work-related e-mails, thousands, that were not returned. >> secretary clinton said

neither she or anyone else deleted work-related e-mails from her personal account. was that true? >> that's a harder one to answer. we found traces of work-related e-mails. in -- on devices or in slack space. whether they were deleted or whether a server changed out. there is no doubt that the work-remitted e-mails removed electronically from the e-mail system. >> secretary clinton said her lawyers read every one of the e-mails and were overly inclusive. did her lawyers read the e-mail content individually? >> no. >> in the interest of time and because i have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon, i'm not going to go through any more of the false statements. but i am going to ask you to put on your old hat. faults exculpatory statements are used for what? >> well, either for the substantive prosecution or for evidence of intent in a criminal

prosecution. >> exactly. intent and consciousness of guilt, right? is that right? >> right. >> consciousness of guilt and intent. in your old job, you would prove intent, as you just reference, by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record. and you would be arguing in addition to concealment the destruction that you and i just talked about, or certainly the failure to preserve. you would argue all of that under the heading of content. you would also intent -- you would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme. when it started, when it ended and the number of e-mails, whether they were originally classified or up-classified. you would argue all of that under the heading of intent. you would also probably, under common scheme or plan, argue the

burnbacks of daily calendar entries or the missing daily calendar entries as a common scheme or plan to conceal. two days ago, director, you said a reasonable person in her position should have known a private e-mail was no place to send and receive classified information. you're right. an average person does know not to do that. this is no average person. this is a former first lady, a former united states senator, and a former secretary of state that the president now contends is the most competent, qualified person to be president since jefferson. he didn't say that in '08, but he says it now. she affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account, kept these private e-mails for almost two years and only turned them over to congress, because we found out

she had a private e-mail account. so you have a rogue e-mail system set up before she took the oath of office, thousands of what we now know are classified e-mails. her more frequent e-mail comrades was, in fact, packed and you don't know whether or not she was, and this seem took place over a long period of time and resulted in the destruction of public records. and yet you say there is insufficient evidence of intent. you say she was extremely careless, but not intentionally sew. you and i both know intent is really difficult to prove. very rarely to defendants announce on this date, i intend to break this criminal code section, just to put everyone on notice, i am going to break the law on this date. it never happens that way. you have to do it with circumstantial evidence. or if your congress and you realize how difficult it is to prove specific intent, you will formulate a statute that allows

for gross negligence. my time is out. but this is really important. you mentioned there is no precedent for criminal prosecution. my fear is, there still isn't. there's nothing to keep a future secretary of state or president from this exact same e-mail scheme, or their staff. and my real fear is this. it's what the chairman touched upon. this double-track justice system that is rightly or wrongly perceived in this country. that if you are a private in the army and you e-mail yourself classified information, you will be kicked out. but if you are hillary clinton, and you seek a promotion to commander in chief, you will not be. so what i hope you can do today is help the average person -- the reasonable person you made reference to, the reasonable person understand why she appears to be treated differently than the rest of us would be. with that, i would yield back.

>> i will now recognize the gentleman from new york, ms. maloney. >> director, thank you for your years of public service. you have distinguished yourself as the assistant u.s. attorney for both the southern district of new york and the eastern district of virginia. that's why you were appointed by president bush to be the deputy attorney general at the department of justice and why president obama appointed you as the director of the fbi in 2013. despite your impeccable reputation for independence and integrity, republicans have turned on you with a vengeance immediately after you announced your recommendation not to pursue criminal charges against secretary clinton. let me give you some examples. representative turner said, and i quote, the investigation by the fbi is steeped in political

by bias, end quote. was your investigation seeped in political bias, yes or no? >> no, it was steeped in no kind of bias. >> thank you. the speaker of the house, paul ryan, was even more critical. he accused you of not applying the law equally. he said your recommendation shows, and i quote, the clintons are living above the law. they're being held to a different set of standards that is clearly what this looks like, end quote. how do you respond to his accusations that you held the clintons to a different set of standards than anyone else? did you hold them to a different standard? or the same standard? >> it's just not -- it's just not accurate. we try very hard to apply the same standard, whether you're rich or poor, white or black, old or young, famous or not known at all. i just hope folks will take the time to understand the other cases, because a lot of confusion out there of what the facts were. i understand good people,

reasonable people, have questions. >> senator cruz also criticized you. he said, i quote, serious concerns about the integrity of director comey's decision. he stated that you, quote, had rewritten a clearly worded criminal statute. did you rewrite the law in any way or rewrite any statute? >> no. now, i hesitate, i truly hesitate, to mention the next one. but donald trump took these conspiracy theories to a totally new level. he said, and i quote, it was no accident that charges were recommended against hillary, the exact same day as president obama campaigned with her for the first time. so did you plan the timing of your announcement to help secretary clinton's campaign event on tuesday? >> no. timing was entirely my own. nobody knew i was going to do

it, including the press. i'm very proud of the way the fbi -- nobody leaked that. we didn't coordinate it, didn't tell. just not a consideration. >> thank you. mr. trump also claimed that secretary clinton bribed the attorney general with an extension of her job. and i guess this somehow affected your decision. i know it's a rid chus question, but i have to ask it. did you make your decision because of some kind of bribe to the attorney general? >> no. i tell you, are you surprised as i am by the intensity of the attacks from the gop on you after having made a decision, a thoughtful decision, an independent decision, with a professional staff of the fbi? >> i'm not surprised by the intense interest and debate. i predicted it, i think it's important that we talk about these things. they inevitably become focused

on individual people. that's okay. we'll just continue to have the conversation. >> i believe that what we're seeing today is that if the gop does not like the results of an investigation or how it turns out, and we saw they originally were lauding you, the minute you made your announcement, they're attacking you. the same people. and now i predict they'll be calling for more hearings, more investigations, all at the expense of the taxpayer, and they do this instead of working on what the american people really care about. they want congress to focus on jobs, the environment, homeland security. the security of our nation. affordable child care, affordable college educations. and an economy that works and helps all people. i thank you for performing your job with distinction and the

long history of your whole profession of integrity and independence and thank you very much. my time is expired. >> i thank the gentlewoman. i recognize mr. jordan. >> thank you for being with us. on tuesday, you said any reasonable person in secretary clinton's position should have known that an unclassified system was no place for these conversations. you said on tuesday, some of her e-mails bore classified markings, and you also said on tuesday, there were potential violations of the appropriate statutes. now i know a bunch of prosecutors would look that evidence, reference in your opening statements. some of your friends in the prosecution business say they would have taken to a grand jury. tuesday you said, no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. and then in your statement tuesday, you cite factors that helped you make that decision. and make that statement. and one of the factors you said

was, consider the context of a person's actions. typically when i hear context in the course of a criminal investigation, it's from the defense side, not the prosecution side. it's at the end of the case, after there's been a trial and a guilty verdict, and it's during the sentencing phase. mitigating circumstances. that's the context we typically think about. but you said it on the front end. you said, consider the context of the person's actions. so i'm curious. what does consider the context mean? because a lot of americans are thinking just what the chairman talked about in his opening statements. there are two standards, one for we the people, one for the politically connected. a lot of folks i get the privilege of representing back in ohio think that when you said consider the context, they think that's what mr. gowdy just talked about. the fact that she's former first lady. former secretary of state. former senator. major party's nominee for the highest office in the land. and, oh, by the way, her husband

just met with the individual you work with of an airport in arizona, five days ago. so you said none of that influenced your decision. but tell us what consider the context means. >> thank you, mr. jordan. what i was trying to capture is the fact that the excisive pros curiel discussion is always a judgment call. it is in every case. and mock among the things you consider, what was this person's background, what was the circumstances of the offense? were they drunk, were they inflamed by position, was it somebody who had a sufficient level of education and training and experience that we can infer certain things to consider the entire circumstances of the person's offense, conduct and background. >> i did not mean to consider political context or things like that. the entire circumstances, mr. gowdy just talked about this scheme. remember what she said did, right? she sets up this unique server arrangement. she alone controls it. on that server, on that e-mail

system are her personal e-mails, work e-mails and now we know classified information. this gets discovered. we find out this arrangement exists. then what happens? her lawyers, her legal team, decides which ones we get and which ones they get to keep. they made the sort on the front end. and then we find out the ones that they kept and didn't give to us, didn't give to the american people, didn't give to congress, the ones they kept, they destroyed them. you don't have to take my word. they deleted all e-mails they did not return to the state department, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery. now that sounds like a fancy way of saying they hid the evidence. right? and you just told mr. gowdy thousands of e-mails fell into those categories. now, that seems to me to provide some context to what took place

here. did secretary clinton's legal team -- excuse me. let me ask it this way. did secretary clinton know her legal team deleted those e-mails that they kept from us? is this. >> i don't believe so. >> did secretary clinton's approve those e-mails being delet deleteded? >> i don't think there was any specific instruction or conversation between the secretary and her lawyers about that. >> did you ask that question? >> yes. >> did secretary clinton know her lawyers cleaned devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery? >> i don't believe she did. >> did you ask that question? >> yes. >> do you see how someone could view the context of what she did, set up a private system, she alone controlled it, she kept everything on it, we now know from ms. abedin's

deposition, then when they got caught, they deleted what they had, and they scrubbed their devices. is that part of the context in evaluating this decision? >> sure. sure. and understand what inferences can be drawn from that collection of facts. of course. >> all right. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. i will now recognize the gentlewoman from the district of columbia,s in norton, five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. director comey, i appreciate your conduct of this investigation. and in a nonpartisan way. in keeping with the sterling reputation, which has led presidents of both parties to appoint you to highly placed law enforcement positions in our february. i want to say for the record of this hearing where you call mr.

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

and that's the way it looks -- it looks as though that is how this hearing is going. now, of course, now everyone understands in the abstract why it is important for security reasons to use official government mail or e-mail, rather than private e-mail. if security matters are involved. that's a very broad, wide proposition. now, there are no rules as far as i know, requiring members of congress to use their -- as to how they use their official e-mail accounts, whether involving security or not. the chairman of this committee lists his personal account, for example, on his business card. no one says that's wrong.

i don't know if it's wrong or right. because there's no guidance. federal agency employees, members of congress, often have secure information or at least sensitive information, that shouldn't be made public. some of our members on the intelligence committee, or the defense committee, or even this committee may have such matters. some of these matters may concern national security issues. and i don't know if something as sensitive as the itinerary -- if you're going on the route you were taking, all of that, could be on people's personal e-mailses. of course, this is legislative branch, and i spoke of

separation of powers. i'm not indicating that there should be a government-wide sense that is your ordained, but there ought to be rules that everybody understands about -- especially after the clinton episode, about the use of personal e-mail. so i would like your insight for guidance as far as other federal employees are concerned or even members of congress and their staff. because i think we could learn from this episode. so strictly from a security standpoint, do you believe that federal employees, staff, even members of congress, should attempt guidance on the issue of

the use of personal e-mails versus some official form of communication? what should we learn from the process the secretary has gone through? i am sure there will be questions about how there was even confusion, for example, in the state department. but what should we learn when it comes to our own -- our own use of e-mail, the use of federal employees on this question? >> may i answer, mr. chairman? the most important thing to learn is that an unclassified e-mail system is no case for an e-mail conversation about classified matters. and by that i mean, either sending a document as an attachment over unclassified e-mail that is classified, or having conversation about something that is a classified

subject in an unclassified e-mail system. that's the focus of the concern, that's the focus of this investigation. that it was also a personal e-mail adds to the concern about the case, because of the security vulnerabilities of the system. the root of the problem is even using unclassified systems to conduct classified business. so all of us should have access to classified communication systems. the fbi has three levels. unclassified system, secret system and a top secret system. you can e-mail on all three, but you need to make sure you don't e-mail in an unclassified system about matters that are classified. that's the important lesson to learn. everybody ought to be aware of it, everybody ought to be trained on it. we spent a lot of time training in the fbi to make sure folks are sensitive, even if it doesn't involve sending a document, to the appropriate

forum. >> members of congress included. >> of course. we'll now recognize the gentleman from florida, mr. de santos. >> the reason that's so important, because of top secret information is compromised, that could damage our national security. >> by definition. >> and american lives are at stake in some instances, correct? >> yes. >> you mentioned a lot of people are upset there are no consequences for secretary clinton. in your statement, you did point out that administrative and security consequences would be appropriate if someone demonstrated extreme carelessness for classified information. so those consequences, that would include potentially termination of federal employment? >> correct. >> it could revocation of security clearance? >> yes. >> and it could include you ineligibility for future positions. >> it could. >> would you as fbi director allow someone in the employ of your agency to work if that person had demonstrated extreme carelessness? >> the best answer to that is,