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, we would look very closely at

that in a suitability determination. it's hard to answer in the abstract yes in all cases, no in all cases. but it would be a very important suitability scrub. >> so there would be instances in which someone could be extremely careless but still maintain confidence? we have a lot of people very competent in this country who would love to work for your agency. potentially you would allow somebody to be extremely careless and continue on? >> i can imagine if it was a long time ago and it was a small amount of conductor something, that's why it's hard to say important part. other than it would be a very >> let's put it this way. would being extremely careless in handling top secret information expose an employee of the fbi to potential termination? >> yes. >> why shouldn't u.s. officials use mobile devices when traveling to foreign countries? >> because the mobile device will transmit its signal across networks that are likely controlled or at least accessed by that hostile power.

>> and that's the guidance that the fbi gives all officials when they're traveling overseas. that's still good guidance, correct? >> that's good guidance. >> how did top secret information end up on the private server? because your statement addressed secretary clinton, you did not address any of her aides. in your statement, attorney general lynch exonerated everybody. that information just didn't get there on its own. so how did it get there? were you able to determine that? >> yes. by team talking about a top secret subject in an e-mail communication. it's not about forwarding a top secret document. it's about having a conversation about a matter that is top secret. >> and those were things that were originated by secretary clinton's aides and then sent to her, which was obviously on her server, but also included secretary clinton originating those e-mails, correct? >> that's correct. in most circumstances, it initiated with aides starting a conversation. in the one involving top secret information, secretary clinton, though, also not only received, but also sent e-mails that

talked about the same subject. >> and of that top secret information you found, would somebody who is sophisticated in those matters, shouldn't it have been obvious to them it was very sensitive information? >> yes. >> so i guess my issue about knowledge of what you're doing is in order for secretary clinton to be -- have access to top secret sci information, didn't she have to sign a form with the state department acknowledging her duties and responsibilities under the law to safeguard this information? >> yes. anybody who gets access to sci, sensitive compartmented information, would sign what's called a read in form that lays that out. i'm sure members of congress have seen the same thing. >> and it stresses in that document and other training people would get, that there are certain requirements to handling certain levels of information. for example, a top secret document. that can't even be on your secret system at the fbi, correct? >> correct. >> so you have to follow certain guidelines. and i guess my question is,

she's very sophisticated person. she did execute that document, correct? >> yes. >> and her aides who were getting the classified information, they executed similar documents to get a security clearance, correct? >> i believe so. >> and she knowingly clearly set up her own private server in order to -- well, let me ask you that. was the reason she set up her own private server, in your judgment, because she wanted to shield communications from congress and the public? >> i can't say that. our best information is she set it up as a matter of convenience. it was an already existing system her husband had, and she decided to have a domain on that system. >> so the question is, very sophisticated, this is information that clearly anybody who had knowledge of security information would know that it would be classified. but i'm having a little bit of trouble to see how would you not then know that that was something that was inappropriate to do? >> well, i just want to take one of your assumptions about

sophistication. i don't think our investigation established she was actually particularly sophisticated with with respect to classified information in the levels and treatment. >> isn't she an original classification authority, though? >> yes, sir. yes, sir. >> good grief. well, i appreciate you coming. and i yield back the balance of my time. >> i thank the gentleman. i would like to enter into the record two documents that mr. de santos referred to. one is the sensitive compartmented information nondisclosure agreement. the other one is the classified information nondisclosure agreement, both signed by hillary rodham clinton. so ordered. now recognize the gentleman from missouri, mr. clay for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman, and thank you, director comey, for being here today and for the professionals whom you lead at the fbi. two years ago, after my urgent request to then former attorney general, eric holder, for an expedited justice department

investigation into the tragic death of michael brown in ferguson, missouri, i witnessed firsthand the diligence, professionalism and absolute integrity of your investigators. and i have no doubt that was the case in this matter, as well. i did not think it was possible for the majority to exceed their unprecedented, arrogant abuse of official channels in federal funds that we have witnessed over the past two years. as they have engaged in a partisan, political witch hunt at taxpayer expense against secretary clinton. but i was wrong. this proceeding isusto that ver taxpayers will get the bill. it's a new low, and it violates both house rules and the rules

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

that the justice department would not bring such a case. no justice department under any -- whether republican or democrat administration. >> thank you for that response. i know the fbi pays particular attention to groups by training agents and local law enforcement officers, and participating in local hate crime working groups. is that right? >> yes, sir. >> some of these organizations seem relatively harmless, but others appeared to be very dangerous and growing. some even promote genocide in their postings and rhetoric online. in your experience, how dangerous are these groups and have they incited violence in the past? >> i think too hard to answer, congressman. there are some groups that are dangerous, some groups that are exercising important protectioned speech under the first amendment. >> let me ask a more direct

question. a gentleman named andrew an lynn is a editor of a website called the daily stormer that is dedicated to the supremacy of the white race, as well as attacking jews, muslims and others. it has the hash tag, white genocide, to protest what they contend is an effort to eliminate the white race. are you familiar with this movement? >> i'm not. >> okay. well, this hash tag has been promoted all over social media by a growing number of white supremacists. for example, one nazi sympathizer tweeted repeatedly, using the handle at white genocide tm. are you concerned that some groups are increasing their followers in this way, particularly if some of the followers could become violent? >> i don't know the particular enough to comment, congressman.

we are always concerned when people go beyond protected speech, which we do not investigate moving towards acts of violence, and so our duty is to figure out when have people walked outside the first amendment protection and are looking to kill folks or hurt folks. i don't know enough to comment on the particular. >> i see. one of my biggest concerns is that certain public figures are actually promoting these dangerous groups, even further. and as you may know, one of our most vocal candidates for president retweete retweeted @whitegenocidetm. three weeks later did it again. two days after, he retweeted a different user whose image also included the term white genocide, and that's not even our level. director comey, don't these actions make it easier for these racist groups to recruit even more supporters? >> i don't think i'm in a position to answer that in an intelligent way, sitting here. >> well, i appreciate you trying.

and thank you, mr. director for your essentialal and principle service to our country. i yield back. >> thank you. we'll now recognize the gentlewoman from wyoming. >> welcome, director. thank you so much for being here. my phone has been ringing off the hook in my washington office and my wyoming office, from constituents who don't understand how this conclusion was reached. so i appreciate your being here to help walk us through it. and here's the issue the people that are calling me from wyoming are having. they have access to this statute. it's title 18, u.s. code 1924. and i'm going to read you this statute. it says, whoever being an officer employed contract or consultant to the united states and by virtue of his office employment position or contract becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information to the

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

days with her husband, the president, the classified materials can be very dangerous if they get into the wrong hands. she had to have known about this statute, because she had to have been briefed when she took over the job as the secretary of state. so how, given that body of knowledge and experience, could this have happened in a way that could have potentially provided access by hackers to confidential information? >> it's a good question, a reasonable question. the protection we have as americans is that the government in general s and in that statute in particular, has to prove before they can prosecute any of us, that we did this thing for bidden by the law, and when we did it, we knew we were doing something that was unlawful. we don't have to know the code

number. but we knew we were doing something that was unlawful. that's the protection we have. and it's one i've worked for very hard. when i was in the private sector, i did a lot of work with the chamber of commerce to stop the criminalization of negligence in the united states. >> you know -- may i interrupt and suggest that this statute says knowingly remove such documents or materials without authority, and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location. the intent here in the statute is to retain the documents at an unauthorized location. it's not intent to pass them on to a terrorist or to someone out in -- in internet land. it's just the intent to retain the documents or materials at an unauthorized location. >> it's more than that, though. you would have to show that and prove criminal intent. both by law -- that's the way

the judge instructed the jury and practice in the department of justice. they have reserved that statute, even though it's just a misdemeanor, for people who clearly knew they were breaking the law so that's the challenge. should have known, must have known, had to know, does not get you there. you must prove beyond a reasonable doubt they knew they were doing something unlawful. that's the challenge. >> may i turn to her attorneys. did all of secretary clinton's attorneys have the rec which sent clearances at the time they received all of her e-mails, especially those classified at the time they were sent. >> no. >> they destroyed, as has been noted, 30,000 e-mails? of secretary clinton's? do you have 100% confidence that none of the 30,000 e-mails destroyed by secretary clinton's attorneys was marked as classified? >> i don't have 100% confidence.

i'm reasonably confident some of them were classified. there were only three in the entire batch we found that bore any markings that indicated they were classified. so that's less likely. but surely, it's a reasonable assumption that some of the ones they deleted contained classified information. >> thank you, director. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> now recognize the gentleman from massachusetts, m lynch, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, director comey, for appearing here to help the committee with this work. director comey, secretary clinton is certainly not the only secretary of state to use a personal e-mail account with information later identified as being classified. i just want to show you. this was a book that was written by former secretary of state, colin powell. in his book, he says, to complement the official state department computer in my office, i installed a laptop computer.

and on a private line. my personal e-mail account on a laptop allowed me to direct access to anyone online. so i started shooting e-mails to my principle assistants, to individual ambassadors, and increasingly to my foreign minister colleagues who, like me, were trying to bring their ministries into the 196,000 miles per second world. were you aware of this, that secretary colin powell, actually had a private server as well? >> not a private server. i think he used a commercial e-mail account for state department business. >> private line. unprotected. >> correct. not a state department e-mail system. >> right. right. he went rogue, so to speak. right? >> i don't know whether i would say that. >> yeah, all right. i'm not going to put words in your mouth. >> that's extremely reckless. >> you think this was careless for him to do that? to get his own -- he got his own system, he installed a laptop

computer on a private line. my personal e-mail account was on a laptop and allowed me direct access to anyone. anyone online. that's his own statement. i'm just -- i'm just trying to compare secretaries of state. because secretary powell has never been here. as a matter of fact, when we asked him for his e-mails, unlike the 55,000 that we received from secretary clinton, he said, i don't have any to turn over. this is a quote. this was on abc's "this week." he explained, i don't keep a cache of them. i did not print them off. i do not have thousands of pages somewhere in my personal files. but he was secretary of state, and he operated, you know, on a private system. were you aware of that? >> not at the time. 15 years ago. but i am now. >> yeah. okay. so recently -- well, back in october 2015, the state

department sent secretary powell a letter requesting that he contact his e-mail provider, aol, to determine whether any of his e-mails are still on the unclassified systems. were you aware of that ongoing investigation? >> i don't know of an investigation. >> well, that request for information from secretary powell. >> yes. yes, i am. >> you're aware of that. are you surprised that he has never responded? >> i don't know enough to comment. i don't know exactly what conversation he had with the state department. >> all right. trying to look at where we have a lot of comparisons in other cases, and it seems like all the cases where prosecutions have gone forward, the subject of the investigation has demonstrated a clear intent to deliver classified information to a person or persons who were unauthorized to receive that. so if you look at the -- you know, pfc bradley manning, now

chelsea manning, that was a court martial, but he demonstrated a clear intent to publish that information, which was classified. julian assange, the wikileaks editor, i guess, and publisher, again, a wide and deliberate attempt to publish classified information. general petraeus, which we talked about earlier today, shared information with his biography. jeffly sterling, sending stuff to the "new york times." former cia officer, kiriaku, hung on to information. and even former correct director to the cia, john deutsche, who retained classified information, one in belmont, massachusetts, and one in bethesda, maryland. that was after he became a private citizen.

so in all those cases, a clear intent. as you said, you look at what people did and what they were thinking when they did that. and i would just ask you, is there a clear distinction between what those people did and what secretary clinton did in her case? >> in my view, yes. the deutsche case illustrates it perfectly. he took huge amount of documents, almost all at the tssci level, had them in hard copy at his house, had them on an unclass system, connected to the internet, attempted to destroy some. admitted, i knew i wasn't supposed to be doing this. huge amounts of documents, obstruction of justice, those are the cases that get prosecuted. that's what i said -- i meantime it when i said it. in my experience, three decades, no reasonable prosecutor would bring this case. i know that frustrates people. but that's the way the law is, and that's the way the practice is in the department of justice. >> all right. thank you for your testimony and for your service. i yield back. >> i thank gentleman.

now to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. meadows, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, director comey. thank you. there has been much said today about criticizing you and your service. i want to go on record that even though many of my constituents would love for me to criticize your service because of the conclusion you reached, never have i, nor will i, criticize your service. and we appreciate your service to this country and the integrity. so i'm going to focus on the things that you said, not the conclusion that you drew. and congressman trey gowdy and i talked a little bit about this. but on february 4, 2016, secretary clinton, during a presidential debate, said, "i never sent or received any classified material. they are retro actively classifying it,". so in your statement on july 5th, you said there were indeed 110 e-mails, 52 e-mail chains,

which there was classified information on it at the time it was sent or received. so those two statements, both of them cannot be true. is that correct? your statement and her statement. >> yeah, it's -- it's not accurate to say that she did not send or receive -- >> so she did not tell the truth during that presidential debate that she never sent or received class filed information and it was retroactively classified. >> i don't think that's a question i should be answering. >> well, either your statement is not true or hers is not true. both of them cannot be true. so is your statement true? >> that i can speak to. >> okay. your statement is true. so the american people will have to judge with her statement, not being true. so let me go on to another one. on october 22nd, she said, "there was nothing marked classified on e-mails either sent or received." and in your statement, you said,

"a very small number of e-mails contained classified information, bore markings, indicating the presence of classified information at the time." so she makes a statement that says there was no markings. you make a statement that there was. so her statement was not true. >> well, that one actually i have a little bit of insight into her statement, because we asked her about that. there were three documents that bore portion markings, where you're obligated when something is classified to put a marking on that paragraph. >> right. >> and there were three that bore "c" in parens. which means that is confidential. >> so a reasonable person who has been a senator, a secretary of state, a first lady, wouldn't a reasonable person know that that was a classified marking? as a secretary of state. >> yeah. >> a reasonable person. that's all i'm asking. >> yeah, before this investigation, i probably would have said yes. i'm not so sure. i don't find it incredible. >> director comey, come on. i mean, i've only been here a

few years. and i understand the importance of those markings. so you're suggesting that a long length of time that she had no idea what a classified marking would be? that's your sworn testimony today? >> no, no. not that she would have no idea what a classified marking would be. but it's an interesting question as to whether -- this question about sfax came up earlier. whether she was actually sophisticated enough to understand. >> so you're saying this former secretary of state is not sophisticated enough to understand a classified marking? >> that's not what i said. >> that's a huge statement. >> not what i'm saying. you asked me did i assume that someone would know. probably before this investigation, i would have. i'm not so sure of that answer any longer. i think it's possible -- possible that she didn't understand what a "c" meant when she saw it in the body of an e-mail like that. it's possible. >> after years in the senate and as secretary of state? i mean, that's hard for me and the american people to believe, director comey.

and i'm not questioning your analysis of it, but wouldn't a reasonable person think that someone who has the highest job of handling classified information understand that? >> i think that's a conclusion a reasonable person would draw. it may not be accurate. >> so in that, let me go a little bit further. because that last quote actually came on october 22nd, 2015, under sworn testimony before the benghazi committee. so if she gave sworn testimony that a reasonable person would suggest was not true in a logical assumption that she may have misled congress and we need to look at that further? >> well, the reasonable person test is not what you look at for perjury or false statements. but, like i said, i can understand why people would ask that question. >> all right. so let me in the last little portion of this.

in your three-and-a-half-hour interview on saturday, did she contradict some of these public statements in private? because you said she didn't lie to the fbi, but it's apparent that she lied to the american people. so did she change her statements in that sworn testimony with you last saturday? >> i haven't gone through that to parse that. i -- >> can you do that and get back to this committee? because it's important i think to the american people and to transparency? >> i'm sure. and as the chairman and i have talked about, i am sure the committee is going to want to see documents in our investigation and what not. and we'll work to give you whatever we can possibly give you you said our law. but i haven't done that analysis at this point. >> will you get that back to us? >> the gentleman's time has expired. and we'll now recognize the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cooper, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, director comey. i hate to see one of america's most distinguished public servants.

pillarade before this committee. we're good back seat drivers. we're all today apparently armchair prosecutors. and you have stated the truth when you said you didn't know of anyone who would bring a case like this. and some of the prosecutors have had decades to do that. i hope this committee's effort is not intended to intimidate you or the fbi or law enforcement in general. or government employees. and i am thankful at this moment that you have such a lifetime record of speaking truth to power. because that's very important. it's also very important that apparently you're a life-long republican. you're just here to do your job, state the facts. i think the key issue here is whether, in fact, there is a double standard. whether some americans are being treated differently than others. and i think i can rely on my republican colleagues to make

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

the same rules. apparently an e-mail account on his business card. we all have access to classified information. so i would like to challenge my republican colleagues here today. let's work together and introduce legislation to make the same laws apply to us as applies to the executive branch and to secretary clinton. i would be happy to join in it such legislation to make sure that we're not being hypocritical on this panel, that we're holding ourselves to the same standards as secretary clinton, and not trying to accuse her of things that we may be guilty of ourselves. i bet my colleagues would be the first to complain if, for example, e-mails were retroactively classified. that's a situation that most people in public service would object to pretty strongly. how did you know at the time if you had no idea. so i think it's very important. if we want as congress to have the trust of the american

people, to not be hypocritical, to uphold the same standards we want to see by others. and i'm thankful we have someone like you who is in charge of the fbi. because too many things are highly politicized. the last thing we should do is criminalize our political system. i didn't see any of my republican colleagues complain when former governor bob mcdonnell was -- i think most americans would find highly objectionable. our court on a bipartisan, unanimous basis, exonerated him a week or two ago. so i think this is a moment for committee members to reflect, take a deep breath, to calm down, and realize exactly what you said. that no reasonable prosecutor would have brought this case. and thank you for stating that so clearly and publicly. i yield back the balance. i yield to the ranking member.

>> mr. director, let me ask you this. first, i associate myself with everything the gentleman just said. you were talking about some markings a little bit earlier, is that right? can you describe what those markings are like? markings on documents. you said there were three documents with certain markings on them. >> yeah. >> that indicated classified. go ahead. >> there were three e-mails that down in the body in the e-mail, in the three different e-mails, there were paragraphs that at the beginning of the paragraph had a parentheses, a capital "c" and then a parentheses. that is a portion marking to indicate -- >> that paragraph? >> that paragraph is classified at the confidential level, which is the lowest level of classification. >> and so out of the 30,000 documents, this is -- you found these three markings? is that what you're saying? >> three e-mails bore "c" markings down in the body. none of the e-mails had headers, which is at the top of a document that says it's classified.

three had -- within the body, the portion marking for "c." >> thank you. >> i thank the gentleman. i now recognize the gentleman from tennessee, mr. duncan, for five minutes. >> thank you. mr. meadows mentioned one instance in which secretary clinton said that she had -- she did not mail any classified material to anyone. actually, she said that several other times. but it is accurate to director comey to -- that you found at least 110 instances of when she had mailed, e-mailed, classified material. >> 110 she either received or sent. >> right. and it also is accurate that, quote, clinton's lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery. >> correct. >> and also, when she said -- when secretary clinton said that nothing she sent was marked

"classified," and you said in your press conference, but even if information is not marked classified in an e-mail, participants know or should know that the subject matter is classified or still obligated to protect it. do you feel that secretary clinton knew or should have known that she was obligated to protect classified information? >> yes. >> with her legal background and her long experience in government. also, she said at one point that she has directed all e-mails, work-related e-mails, to be forwarded to the state department. is it also accurate that you discovered thousands of other e-mails that were work-related other than the 30,000 she submitted? >> correct. >> before i came to congress, i spent several years as a criminal court judge, i tried several -- over several hundred felony criminal cases. and i can assure you that i saw many cases where the evidence of

criminal intent was flimsier than the evidence in this case. but do you realize, or do you realize the great numbers of people across this country felt that you presented such a strong -- such an incriminating case against secretary clinton in your press conference that they were very surprised or even shocked when you reached the conclusion to let her off? do you doubt that great numbers feel that way? >> no, i don'think so. and i understand the questions. and i wanted to be as transparent as possible. we went at this very hard to see if we could make a case. and i wanted the american people to see what i honestly believed about the whole thing. >> well, do you understand as the chairman said earlier that great numbers of people feel now that there's a -- one standard of justice for the clintons and another for regular people? >> yeah, i've heard that a lot. it's not true, but i've heard it

a lot. >> well, even the ranking member who was here who, of course, as we understand had to defend secretary clinton as strongly as possible, he almost begged you to explain the gap between the incriminating case that you presented and the conclusion that was reached. did that surprise you that he felt so strongly that there was this big gap? >> no, not at all. these -- this is a complicated matter. it involves understanding how department of justice works across decades. how prosecutorial discretion is exercised. especially when they see a statute that says gross negligence. well, the director just said she was extremely careless. somehow that not prosecutable? it takes an understanding of what's gone on the last 99 years, how do we treat these cases. i totally get people's questions and i think they're in good faith. >> do you -- we talk about gross

negligence here, and you said that secretary clinton was extremely careless with this classified material, and how dangerous it could be, how threatening to -- even to people's lives that it could be to disclose classified material. do you agree that there is a very thin line between gross negligence and extreme carelessness? and would you explain to me what you consider to be that -- that difference? >> sure, judge. congressman. as a former judge, you know there isn't actually a great definition in the law of gross negligence. some courts interpret it as close to willful, which means you know you're doing something wrong. others drop it lower. my term extremely careless is -- trying to be kind of an ordinary person. that's a common sense way of describing, it sure looks real careless to me. the question of whether that amounts to gross negligence, frankly, is really not at the center of this. because when i look at the history of the prosecutions and

see -- it's been one case brought on a gross negligence theory. i know there is no way department of justice is bringing a case against john doe or hillary clinton for the second time in 100 years, based on those facts. >> you ended your statement to congressman cooper a while ago saying once again "that no reasonable prosecutor could have brought this case," yet you also mentioned earlier today you have seen several of your friends and other prosecutors who said publicly, many across this country, that they would have been glad to prosecute this case. >> i smiled, because they're friends. and i haven't talked to them. i want to say, guys, so were where you over the last 40 years? where were these cases? they just have not been brought. for reasons i hope earlier, it's a good thing department of justice worries about prosecuting people for being careless. i don't like it. as a citizen, i want people to show they knew they were breaking the law and they would be put in jail. >> of course you know people

that have been brought by the federal government and by the fbi. >> we now recognize the gentleman from virginia. >> thank you. although our politics are different, i gary you're a republican. is that correct? >> i have been a registered republican for most of my adult life. i'm not registered any longer. >> we don't register by party in virginia. but many have suspected my politics as being democratic. and i thank you for your integrity. as my colleague said, and i said in my opening statement, your career has been characterized as speaking truth to power. and you are doing it again today. just to set the context, director comey, not that you're unaware of this. today's hearing is political theatre. there's not even the pretense of trying to get at the truth. this is a desperate attempt under a -- an extraordinary set of circumstances, an emergency hearing. i don't know what the emergency

is, other than one side is about to nominate somebody who is a pathological narcissist, who, you know, is talking about banning muslims and mexicans crossing the border who are all rapists and women who are pigs, and terrified at the prospect of the consequences of that in the election. so let's grab on to whatever we can to discredit or try to discredit the other nominee, punitive nominee. and you took away their only hope. and so the theatre today is actually trying to discredit you. subtly, in some cases. my friend from south carolina uses big words, like exculpatory. and kind of goes through what a prosecutor would do. the insinuation being, you didn't do your job. my friend from wyoming is

apparently flooded with citizens in her home state who are reading the statute that governs classification. a lot of time on the hands back there, i guess. but yeah. this is all designed to discredit your finding. now, the fbi interviewed secretary clinton, is that correct? >> yes. >> did she lie to the fbi in that interview? >> i have no basis for concluding that she was untruthful with us. >> and is it a crime to lie to the fbi? >> yes, it is. >> david petraeus did lie to the fbi. >> yes. >> and he was prosecuted -- well, could have been. >> could have been. was not. >> right. that's always a judgment call. >> correct. >> was she evasive? >> i don't think the agents assessed she was evasive. >> hmmm. how many e-mails are we talking about? total? universe? that were examined?

by your team? >> tens of thousands. >> tens of thousands. and how many are in a questionable category that maybe could have, should have been looked at more carefully, because there could be some element of classification? apparently my friend from north carolina assumes we're all intimately familiar with the fact that a "c" means a classification, though there seems to be some dispute, because the state department, as i understand it, has actually said some of those were improperly marked and shouldn't have had the "c." are you aware of that? >> yes. >> yes. so could it be that in her hundred-trip four years -- hundred overseas trips to 100 countries, as secretary of state, trying to restore u.s. credibility that had been destroyed in the previous eight years overseas, and tens of thousands of e-mail communications, not including phone calls and classified

conversations and skiffs and the like, maybe the small percentage of e-mails shouldn't pay as much attention as maybe in retrospect one would hope she would have. is that a fair conclusion? could that be a fair conclusion? >> i don't usually deal in maybes. it's possible. >> well, you do deal in distinguishing between willful and inadvertent. >> sure. >> and in this case, you concluded it has to be in the latter category. it wasn't willful. >> we concluded there was not adequate evidence of willful conduct. >> right. so there's no obfuscation here, unlike the petraeus case. and there's no evasion, there's no lying. there's no willful intent to compromise classified material, despite the insinuations of my friends on the other side of the aisle. and the only hope left in this political theatre is to

discredit and you your team in the hopes that therefore you won't have credibility and we can revisit this monstrous crime of using a private server, that server being the server of the former president of the united states that maybe mrs. clinton thought would be more secure than the leaky system at the state department. i yield back. >> i'll recognize the gentleman from texas, mr. herd, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i'm offended. i'm offended by my friends on the other side of the political aisle saying this is political theatre. this is not political theatre. for me, this is serious. i spent nine and a half years as an undercover officer in the cia. i was in the guy in the back alleys, checking intelligence, passing to lawmakers. i've seen my friends killed, i've seen assets put themselves in harm's way. and this is about protecting

information, the most sensitive information, the american government has. and i wish my colleagues would take this a little bit more seriously. mr. comey, director comey, excuse me. s.a.p., special access program. you alluded to pearler, that includes sci information, does that include human intelligence information collected. >> yes. >> from people putting themselves in harm's way to give us information to drive foreign policy. signals intelligence. some of the most sensitive things to understand what al qaeda is doing, what isis is doing. so the former secretary of state had an unauthorized server. and those are your words. in her basement, correct? >> correct. >> who was protecting that information? who was protecting that server? >> well, not much. there was -- a number of different people who were assigned as administrators of the server. >> and at least seven e-mails chains, or eight, that was

classified as tssci. >> correct. >> so the former secretary of state, one of the president's most important advisers on foreign policy and national security, had a server in her basement that had information that was collected from our most sensitive assets, and it was not protected by anyone. and that's not a crime? that's outrageous. people are concerned. what does it take for someone to misuse classified information and get in trouble for it? >> it takes mishandling it and criminal intent. >> and so an unauthorized server in the basement is not mishandling? >> well, no. there is evidence of mishandling here. this whole investigation focused on is there sufficient evidence of intent. >> was this unanimous opinion

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

>> i don't know. not to my knowledge. >> do you think it's likely? >> i would think it's unlikely? >> i would think so too. i was proud to serve alongside the men and women that you represent. so there was no dissenting opinion when you made this decision. it's your job to be involved in counter intelligence as well. right? >> yes. >> so that means protecting our secrets from foreign adversaries collecting them. >> correct. >> does this make america's secrets vulnerable to hostile elements? >> yes. >> do you think that pattern of behavior would continue? >> i'm sorry? >> do you think that pattern of behavior would continue? >> would continue -- >> by our former secretary of state. >> i'm not following. you mean if we hadn't -- if this did not come to light, you mean? >> right now. based on what we see. do you think there's going to be

other elements within the federal government that think it's okay to have an unauthorized server in their basement? >> it better not. that's one of the reasons i'm talking about this. >> so what is the ramifications of them doing that? what is -- how is there going to be any consequences levered if it's not being levered here? because, indeed, you're setting a precedent. >> yeah. the precedent -- i want people to understand. again, i only am responsible for the fbi. there will be discipline from termination to reprimand and everything in between for people who mishandle classified information. >> director comey, i'm not a lawyer and so i may misstate this. is there such a thing as the case of first impression? and why was this not possibly one of those? >> there is such a thing. which just means the first time you do something. the reason this isn't one of those is, that's just not fair. that would be treating somebody differently, because of their celebrity status or because of some other factor doesn't matter. we have to treat people -- it's the bedrock of our system of

justice. we treat people fairly, we treat them the same. >> and that person mishandling the most sensitive information that this government can collect is not government can collect is not fair? it's not fair to punish someone who did that? >> not on these facts. if that person worked for me it would be fair to have a robust disciplinary proceeding. it's not fair to prosecute the person on these facts. >> mr. chairman i yield back the time i do not have. >> i'll now recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania mr. cartwright for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to open by acknowledging my colleague from north carolina, mr. meadows. here he comes back in the room, for acknowledging your integrity, director comey. i think bipartisan sentiments are few and far between around here and appreciate congressman meadows' remark. you are a man of integrity,

director comey. it's troubling to me that that remark from congressman meadows is not unanimous at this point. it used to be. senator chay fis said "republicans believe in james comey." he said that "i do think that in all of the government he is a man of integrity and honesty, his finger is on the pulse of this, nothing happens without him and i think he is going to be the definitive person to make a determination or a recommendation." but just hours after your actual recommendation came out, chairman chaffetz went on tv and accused you of making a "political calculation." and our speaker of the house a few weeks ago referring to you, director comey, said "i do believe his integrity is

unequalled." so your integrity -- it was unanimous about your integrity before you came to your conclusion, but after not so much. that's troubling. and i want to give you a chance director comey. how do you respond to that? how important to you is maintaining your integrity before the nation? >> the only things i have in life that matter are the love of family and friends and my integrity so i care deeply about bot both. >> all right. now director comey, you discussed your team a little bit and they deserve a lot of credit for all of the hard work and effort that went into this investigation. and i think you said they were unanimous? that everyone who looked at this agreed that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case. am i dplekt thcorrect in that? >> yes. >> how many people were on this team? >> it changed at various times but somewhere between 15 and 20 and then we used a lot of other

fbi folks to help from time to time. >> how many hours were spent on this investigation? >> we haven't counted yet. i said to them they moved -- they put three years of work into 12 calendar months. >> and how many pages of documents did the fbi review in this investigation? >> thousands and thousands and thousands. >> and the agents doing the document review, were they qualified or were they unqualified? >> they were an all-star team. they're a great group of folks. >> how about secretary clinton, did she agree to be interviewed? >> yes. >> come in voluntarily without the need of a subpoena. >> yes. >> was she interviewed? >> yes. >> was she interviewed by experienced veterans and law enforcement officers or by some kind of credulous gullible newbies doing their on-the-job training, director? >> she was interviewed by the

kind of folks the american people would want doing the interview. real pros. >> you were asked about markings on a few documents. i have the manual here. marking national classified security information. i don't think you were give an chance to talk about them. were they properly documented and marked according to the manual? >> no. >> according to the manual -- and i ask unanimous consent to enter this into the record, mr. chairman. >> without objection. >> according to the manual, if you're going to classify something, there has to be a header on the document, right? >> correct. >> was there a header on the three documents that we've discussed today that had the little "c" in the text someplace? >> no, there were three e-mails. the "c" was in the body or text but there was no header in the text. >> so if secretary clinton really were an expert at what's classified and not classified and we're following the manual, the absense of a header would

tell tell her immediately that those three documents were not class paid to. am i correct in that? >> that would be a reasonable inference. >> i thank you for your testimony, director, i yield bac back. >> we now recognize the gentleman from colorado mr. buck for five minutes. >> morning, director comey. >> good morning, zblir thank you for being here. i also respect your commitment to law and justice and your care career. and first question i want to ask you is this hearing unfair? has it been unfair to you? >> no. >> thank you. one purpose of security procedures for classified information is to prevent hostile information -- hostile nations from obtaining classified information. is that fair? >> yes. >> and did hostile nations obtain classified information from secretary clinton's servers? >> i don't know. it's possible but we don't have direct evidence of that. we couldn't find direct

evidenc evidence. >> i want to -- without making this a law school class i want to get into intent. there are various levels of intent in the criminal law. everything from knowingly and willfully doing something down to strict liability. would you agree with me on that? >> yes. >> and in title 18, most of the criminal laws in title 18 have the words knowingly and willfully in them and that is the standard typically that the united states attorneys prosecute under. >> most do. unlawfully, knowingly and willfully is our standard formulation for charging a case. >> and there are also a variety of others between the knowingly and willfully standard and the strict liability standard and many, like environmental crimes, have a much lower standard is because of the toxic materials that are at risk of harming individuals, is that fair? >> that's correct.

>> okay. let's talk about this particular statute, 18 usc 1924. i take it you and i can agree on a couple of the elements. she -- secretary clinton was an employee of the united states. >> correct. >> and as a result of that employment she received classified information. >> correct. >> and there's no doubt about those two elements. now i don't know whether the next element is one element or two but it talks about knowingly removes such materials without authority and with the intent to retain such material at unauthorized locations. so i'm going to treat those as two separate parts of the intent element. first of all, do you see the word "willfully" anywhere in the statute. >> i dent. >> and that would indicate there is a lower threshold for intent? >> no, it wouldn't. >> why? >> because as i understand the justice department's practice and judicial practice will impute to any criminal statute

with the knowingly also requirement that you know you're involved in criminal activity of some sort. a general mens rae requirement. >> you would apply that to environmental crimes. >> no, if it says it's a negligence-based crimes i don't think a judge would impute that. >> but congress specifically omitted the world willfully from the statute and yet you are implying the word willfully in the statute, is that fair? >> that's fair. me >> so what the statute does say knowingly removes such materials without authority. is it fair she knew she didn't have authority to have this server in her basement? >> yes, that's true. >> and she knew that she was receiving materials, classified information, in the e-mails that she received on the -- on her blackberry and other devices. >> i can't answer -- i'm hesitating as a prosecutor because it's always to what level of proof. i do not believe there's

evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that she knew she was receiving classified information in violation of the requirements. >> but that's not my question. my question in fairness is did she know that she was receiving information on the servers at her location? >> oh, i'm sorry, of course, yes. she knew she was using her e-mail system. >> and as secretary of state she also knew that she would be receiving classified information. >> yes, in general. >> okay. and did she have the intent to retain such material at an unauthorized location? she retained the material she received as secretary of state at her server in her basement and that was unauthorized. >> you're asking me did she have the -- i'm going ask you the burden of proof question in a second but did she have the intent to retain classified information on the server or to retain any information on the server? >> well, we already established she knew as secretary of state

she was going to receive classified information in her e-mails. 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 certainly 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 could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt those two elements. >> thank you very much. >> i thank the gentleman. now we'll go to the gentlewoman from illinois, ms. duckworth, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. when i first entered congress three years ago, like many freshman members -- i'm like many freshman members, i actually sought out this committee. i wanted to be on this committee because i wanted to tackle the challenges of good goveren