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 government like working to eliminate

improper payments or prevent wasteful programs and duplication. before i joined congress i had the privilege of serving in the army for 23 years and i -- you know, as i tackle those challenges and in the challenges of helping reduce veterans homelessness i witnessed firsthand the real-world importance of improving and streamlining government operations. how even the best policies in the world will not work without proper implementation. and so when it comes to implementing true and lasting reforms that will make sure the electronic records and other records and the history of our great nation are preserved for future generations, i've done my best to approach this goal seriously. i'm focused on making sure our nation sustained a long-term commitment to modernizing our federal records keeping system, from improving the laws governing what needs to be collected to ensuring our civil servants across government have the necessary tools to achieve what should be non-partisan and a shared goal. with respect to examining the tough lessons learned from numerous record-keeping incident

our committee has dwelt which transcend any one agency or any single administration, my mission is clear -- make sure we here in congress move beyond partisan politics and engage in the serious hard work of ensuring the laws written in an era of pen and paper are overhauled to meet the digital challenges of the 21st century. director comey, the office of management and budget and the national archives and records administration released a memorandum known as the managing government records directive in 2012. and this direct i states "by december 31, 2016, federal agencies will manage both permanent and temporary e-mail records in accessible electronic format. federal agencies must manage all e-mail records in an electronic format. e-mail records must be retained in an appropriate electronic system that supports records management and litigation requirements which may include preservation in place models, including the capability to identify, retrieve, and retain the records as long as they are

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the first is none can be objective on this issue. i can't be objective. i've endorsed hillary clinton for president, as have the democratic members of this committee. my republican colleagues can't be objective. they oppose hillary clinton for president. which is why we have you. you're a non-partisan career public servant that has served our nation with distinctive and honor. not only can you be objective, it is your job to be objective to apply the law fairly regardless of politics. i think it would be important for the american people to get a fuller appreciation of your public service so let me ask you. before you were fbi director, how many years did you serve as a federal prosecutor? >> i think 15. >> for a period of time you were at columbia law school as a scholar and you specialized in national security law, is that correct? >> sometimes i fantasize i still am. [ laughter ] >> thank you. when you served in the republican administration of president george w. bush you were then the second-highest ranking member of the department of justice, is that right? >> yes, president bush appointed

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

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

>> of those three e-mails, one one hundredth of one percent of 30,000, they bore these tiny little classified markings which is, as you described, a c with parenthesis, correct? >> correct. >> is it possible that a busy person who has send and received over 30,000 e-mails just might this this marking of a c with parenthesis. it's possible, is that correct? >> correct. >> so let me now just come collude by stating what some of my colleagues have is which is just there's the strongest whiff of hypocrisy going on here. the american public might be interested in knowing that all members of congress receive security clearances just for being a member of congress. we get to have private e-mail servers, we get to have private e-mail accounts, we can use multiple devices, we can take devices overseas. and really at the end of the day when the american people look at this hearing they need to ask themselves this question. do they trust the biased

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

districts and we have to explain to people, albe -- i'll be at ae of caves where i whether see folks and they'll ask questions about what took place. have you seen the broadway production "hamilton"? >> not yet, i'm hoping to. >> i haven't, either. but i understand it won the choreography tony award. you and others know that. the problem i have in explaining to my constituents is what's come down, it almost looks like a choreography. let me go over it real quickly with you. last tuesday, not this week, one week ago former president clinton meets with the attorney general in phoenix. the next friday, last friday,

miss -- mrs. lynch, the a.g., says she's going to defer to the fbi on whatever you came up with. on saturday morning i saw the vans pull up. this is this past saturday and you questioned secretary clinton for three hours, is that -- i guess that's correct? >> three and a half it went. >> okay. and then on tuesday morning, the morning after july 4 we watched in our office, i had my interns, i said come in, we've got the fbi director, let's hear what he has to say. we're all startled and you basically said you were going to recommend not to prosecute, correct? >> uh-huh. yes, sir. a then tuesday, well, we had president obama and secretary clinton arrive in charlotte at 2:00 and -- shortly thereafter we had the attorney general was closing the case. this is rapid-fire.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

prosecutor and they look at examples will see that you have taken decisions that have not ban that which your supervisors, which the president, which others have wanted you to take. as a fellow prosecutor who believed that the facts must come above politics, i'm thankful that we have you. and director comey i want to thank you for your service to our country and you have our support, we would like to see as much documents and i'm grateful that you want to keep the transparency so that the american public can understand the difference between what they hear in the media and the elements of a crime necessary for criminal prosecution. thank you. >> thank the gentlewoman. we'll recognize the gentleman from texas, mr. farrnt hold for

five minutes. >> there were detailed attacks on secretary clinton's computer as well as her replaying to the personal account of the undersecretary of state. in the case of the romanian hacker, that's been public for some time. during your investigation, were there other people in the state department or the regularly communicated with secretary clinton that you can confirm were successfully hacked? >> yes. >> and were these folks regularly communicating with the secretary? >> yes. >> were you able to conclude definitively the attempted hacks referenced in the ig report were not successful. >> we were not able to conclude that they were successful, i think that's the best way to say it. >> all right, so while you said given the nationer of clinton's

server you would be unlikely to see evidence one way or the other, how many unsuccessful attempts to did you uncover? did you find any there? >> there were unsuccessful attempts. i don't know the number off the top of my head. >> do you have an idea -- were they foreign governments? where did they come from? >> i want to be careful what i say in an open setting and so i -- we can give you that information but i want to give any foreign governments knowledge of what i know. >> but would you be so far as to say they probably weren't american high school students fooling around? >> correct, it was not limited to criminal activity. >> during your investigation, did you or anyone in the fbi interview the hacker gucifer? >> yes. >> and he claimed he gained access to sid blumenthal's e-mail account. can you confirm he didn't get

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

though i didn't know it. now i might not have had the requisite criminal intent if maybe my accelerator were jammed or something like that but even though i didn't know the law was 35, i was driving 45, i'm going to get a ticket and i'm probably going to be prosecuted for that. so how can you say ignorance of the law is the execute in mrs. clinton's case? >> well, the comparison to petty offenses i don't think is useful but the question of ignorance of the law is no excuse but here's the distinction. you have to have general criminal intent. you don't need to know what particular statute you're violating but you must be aware of the generally wrongful nature of your conduct. >> so congress when they enacted that statute said gross negligence. that doesn't say intent. what do we have to enact to get you guys to prosecute something based on negligence or gross negligence? and oh by the way we really do mean you don't have to have

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

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

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

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

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

hindsight as a government agency considers releasing it they raise the classification level to protect it because it would -- it's a tan did assessment of a foreign leader or something like that. i think it's largely a state department thing because their diplomats will often be conversing in an unclassified way and when they look at releasing it in response to a foia request they think it ought to be classified. but the important thing here was what was classified at the time. that's what matters. >> and that for a law enforcement official matters. but i'm wondering if you could share with us your impression about a system that exists where there is such gray area and discrepancy and what's classified and what's not and if you or your agents had any suggestions for us either in government reform or i happen to be in the foreign affairs committee that is oversight of state department. do you believe this is a matter that we should take up where there is such discrepancy on what's classified and not?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i yield whatever additional time i have to mr. cummings. >> i think the gentleman is going to yield back. i spoke with mr. cummings. ful we'll now recognize the gentleman from kentucky, mr. massie, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, director comey, for showing up and your willingness to be transparent and a lot of unanswered questions. few a few hours before this trial i went on social media and i asked people to ask questions and i'm sure you'll will being to answer them. one of the common themes that i came in here to ask but i realize it's not the right question now is what's the difference between extremely careless and gross negligence. but in the process of this hearing, what i'm hearing you say is that's not what we -- that's not what your reluctance is based on. it's not based on a reluctance to prosecute. your reluctance is not based on parsing those words, it's based on your concern for this statute

with this statute, is that correct from your opening statement. >> it's broader than that, actually. the statute -- it fits within a framework of fairness and my understanding of what the department of justice has prosecuted over the last 50 years. >> so when you say a reasonable prosecutor wouldn't take this case, it's not because you don't think she made -- that she lied in public or maybe she was negligent, it's because you have concern with the prosecutorial history of the statute? >>. >> not just that statute but also 1924 which is the misdemeanor. i also don't see cases that were prosecuted on facts like these. both 793 and -- >> but you did find one prosecution. has it been overturned by the supreme court? >> no, there was one time it was charged in an espionage case and the guy ended up pleading guilty to a different offense, it was never adjudicated. >> so your concern is with the negligence threshold that you

think it requires mens rea or knowing the crime. but all n all 50 states isn't there a negligent homicide statute and aren't people prosecuted for that all the time and doesn't the supreme court and all the courts below that below those prosecutions just on the basis of negligence. >> i don't know whether all 50 states. i think negligent homicide and manslaughter statutes are relatively common. >> so don't all 50 states have something like that and aren't those sustained in the upper courts? those convictions? >> i don't know whether all 50 states have something like that but i think it's very common and i think those are sustained. >> don't we have a history of -- you implied the american judicial system doesn't have a history of convicting somebody for negligence. but don't we in other domains of justice? >> we do, i know the federal system best, there are very few in the federal system mostly after we talked about earlier in the environmental and food and drug administration area.

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

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

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

at this point. >> so how many cases have you investigated approximately that you had to rend err decision? >> the bureau investigates tens of thousands of cases. the director only gets involved in a very small number. >> so how about how many? >> i think've been deeply involved in probably 10 to 20. >> have you ever been called before congress on any of those other decisions? >> no, this is the first time. >> thank you. there are some republicans who support you. not surprisingly they're the ones who actually know you and i have a letter here and i would like to enter into the record from richard payner, mr. chairman. he was president obama's chief ethics lawyer. may it be entered into the record. >> she's asking unanimous consent. without objection, so ordered. >> mr. payner referred to mr.

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

warranted. i cannot think of someone better suited to handle such a politically sensitive investigation. finally and i quote i urge all members of the united states congress to stop from inferring in specific decisions, particularly those involving political allies or opponent s during my tenure in the white house there were very unfortunate allegations that powerful senator sought politically motivating firing of united states attorneys whether or not such allegations were true, it is imperative -- and i'm still quoting -- that members of the senate or the house never again conduct themselves in a matter with such interference could be suspected. and i want to be on the record,

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

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

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