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 government or even with a

commercial e-mail service such as gmail." director comey, my small iowa business doesn't even use gmail for our e-mail because it's not secure enough. i know some security experts in the industry, i checked with them. the going rate to hack into somebody's gmail account, $129. for corporate e-mail, $129 or less. if you want to hack into an ip address, $100. i'm sure the fbi can do it cheaper. this is the going rate. director comey, are you implying in that statement that the private e-mail servers of secretary clintons were perhaps less secure than a g. mail account that is used for free by a billion people around this planet? >> yes, and i'm not looking to pick on gmail. their security is pretty good. the weakness is in the individual users but, yes, gmail

has full time security staff and thinks about patching and logging and protecting their systems in a way that was not the case here. >> i'd like to ask you, what kind of judgment -- we talked about judgment today. does this decision to potentially expose to hackers classified information on e-mail service that's less secure than gmail, your words. what does that suggest to you? what type of judgment does that snugt. >> it suggests the kind of carelessness that i talked about. in. >> in august of last year secretary clinton was asked by ed henry of fox news whether she wiped her entire server, meaning she did delete all her e-mails. her response "you mean with a cloth?" march of 2015 during a press conference secretary clinton assured us her private e-mail server was secure saying "the server was on private property guarded by the secret service." now this would be laughable if it wasn't so serious. i know, you know, my constituents in eastern iowa know you don't need to be a cat

burglar to hack into an e-mail server and you don't need a cloth to wipe a server clean. one would think a former united states senator, a former secretary of state would know this as well, would you agree with that statement? >> you would think, although as i said before, one of the things i've learned in this case is the secretary may not have been as sophisticated as people assume. she didn't have a computer in her office at the state department, for example. so i don't think -- so i would assume the same thing about someone who had been a senator and high-ranking official. i'm not sure it's a fair assumption in this case. >> in your opinion, did secretary clinton know a server could in fact be wiped clean electronically and not with a cloth? >> well, i assume that -- i don't know. >> would you assume she knows that? >> i would assume it's a facetious comment about a cloth but i don't know particulars on that one. >> would you also assume, director, secretary clinton knew

a server could be wiped clean electronically, that detective be hacked electronically not physically, you don't need a klatt burglar to hack a server? would you assume? would it be reasonable to assume she knows that? >> to some level it would be reasonable. to some level of understanding. >> now, once again, for someone who knew these things or we assume to some level she knew them, what kind of judgment does a decision to expose classify material on personal servers suggest to you? what type of judgment? >> again, it's not my place to assess judgment. i talk in terms of state of mind, negligence in particular. i think there was carelessness here and in some circumstances extreme carelessness. >> was her server hacked? >> i don't know. >> so that -- >> i can't prove that it was hacked. >> so that answer says to me it could have been hacked? >> sure, yeah. >> and it was hacked potentially damaging material, damaging to american secrets, damaging to

american lives could have been hacked, could have been exposed, correct? lives could have been put at risk if that server was indeed hacked? >> i'm not prepared to say yes as to that last piece, that would require me going into in a way i can't here the nature of the classified information but there's no doubt it would have exposed information that was classified. informs that was classified because it could damage the united states of america. >> so it could have happened the fbi just schbt aware? >> correct. >> thank you very much, i yield back the time i do not have. >> i now recognize the gentlelady from new jersey ms. watson coleman for five minutes. >> thank you and thank you, director, i've got a number of questions so i'm going to zip through these. >> okay. >> this is a question i will ask you and you may not have had the answer to it because you may not have known this. this is about the classification marking issue.

according to the state department which addressed this issue yesterday a spokesman said the call sheets appear to bear classified markings but this was actually a mistake. to quote generally speaking there's a standard process for developing call sheets for the secretary of state, call sheets are often marked but it's not untypical at all for them to be marked at the confidential level prior to a decision by the secretary tear that he or she will make that call. often times once it's clear the secretary intends to make a call the department will consider the call sheet sbu, sensitive but unclassified or unclassified all together and then 345rked appropriately in prepare for the secretary's use in marking the call. the classifications of a call sheet is not necessarily fixed in time and staffers in the secretary's office who are involved in preparing and finalizing these call sheets, they understand that. given this context, it appears markings in the appropriate -- in the documents raised in the media reports were no longer

necessary or appropriate at the time. they were sent as an e-mail. those markings were human error. they didn't need to be there. did you know this. >> thank you mr. director. can you tell me based upon your information, has there been and is there any evidence that our national security has been breached or at risk as a result of the e-mails and there being on this server? is there any evidence. >> there's no direct evidence of an intrusion. >> thank you very much. i have to tell you that while i think this should conclude this discussion, i know we'll hear this issued a yaud yum. but i am concerned about another issue that i think really is resonating with the people in this country and that issue has too do with experiences that we had just the last two days. mr. director, i want to bring this up for your consideration

because i want to ask you what can the fbi do? fbi do in this issue. this morning we woke up to another graphic and deeply disturbing video that actually brought know tears when my staff played it for me where a minnesota woman's boyfriend has been shot as her young child sat in the backseat after apparently telling the officer he was licensed to carry a weapon. he had it on him and was going to reach for his identification. just the other day there was a -- an incident in baton rouge involving a mr. alton sterling, an african-american man who was shot while pinned to the ground by police officers in baton rouge. an interaction taped by two bystanders with cell phones capture this. so i think we've gotten a issue here, an issue of real national

security and i want to ask you mr. director, do we have an opportunity to direct our time and resources in your department to those issues? is it not important that we say their names to remind people of the loss of a tamir rice, eric garland, alton sterling, john crawford, iii, michael brown, walter scott and even a sandra bland? deaths in the hands of police custody or by police happening -- are these not happening at an alarming rate and is this not a legitimate space for the fbi to be working in? >> yes is the emphatic answer. those are incredibly important matters. as you know, the fbi spends a lot of time on them because they're very, very important. we have an investigation open on

the baton rouge case. i was briefed this morning on the minnesota case. and i would expect we'll be involved in that as well. it's an important part of our work. >> do you feel that you have the sufficient resources from the legal imperative to the funding to address these cases and what seems to be a disturbing pattern in our country today? >> i'm a bad bureaucrat, but i believe i have sufficient resources and we are applying them against those situations because i believe the individual cases matter enormously but also the people's confidence in law enforcement is the bedrock of this great country of ours. i have the resources. >> in addition, we believe our law enforcement is by and large of high integrity and have the desire to keep us protected and safe. but when we find out that there are these occasions and when

there's an indication that there's a patter than is taking place in this country, we have a responsibility to ensure that everyone in this country is safe. and simply because you're a black man or a black woman does not make you a target. thank you, i yield back my time. >> i thank the gentlewoman. we'll now recognize the gentleman from north carolina, mr. walker. >> i'm reminded in the passage in james "swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath." i am disappointed in some of the things i've heard from my colleagues about some of the attacks on your character and integrity. i haven't heard those and i hope that you've not experienced that. i also struggle with the change of heart we're hearing today because i have a list of elected officials who have questioned your investigation, even attacked it. in fact, the former president

clinton said this is a game. in fact, just last friday congresswoman debbie wasserman schultz said secretary clinton is not the target of this investigation or whatever you want to call it. my question to you is do you feel like this has been a republican witch-hunt? >> this -- >> this hearing? >> no. i said at the beginning i understand people's questions and interests. i'm a huge fan of transparency. >> i think that's what makes our democracy great. >> and i think goes to one of the reasons as to why you are so respected. to me this hearing is about understanding and disseminating the facts and how you saw them and the american public sees them and specifically in the area of where there was wrongdoing admitted under your information -- investigation. did congress as ask you to pursue this? >> no, it was a referral of the inspector general.

>> so it wasn't republican, either, was it? >> no. >> how did you go about collecting the evidence? >> we use the tools we normally use in a criminal investigation? >> do you receive a congressional referral for all the information that you collected? >> not to my knowledge. >> what i would like to know specifically is under oath ms. clinton made three comments we know are untrue in the benghazi hearing. number one, she's turned over all her work related e-mails. number two telling the committee her attorneys went through every single e-mail and then finally and probably the one that continues to stick the most, there was, a and i quote, nothing marked classified on my e-mails. now when the chairman said something about this you said something about needing a congressional referral recommendation. my question is something of this

magnitude, can you help me understand why didn't it rise to your investigation or someone bringing that to your knowledge saying this is a problem, here she is, secretary clinton lying under oath about our investigation? >> we out of respect for the legislative branch being a separate branch, we don't commence investigations that focus on activities before congress without congress asking us to get involved. that's a long-standing practice of the department of justice and the fbi. so we don't watch on tv and say we ought to investigate that joe smith said this in front of the committee. it requires the committee to say we think we have an issue here, would you take a look at it. >> but with all due respect if you had the secretary clinton who is under oath speaking about your very investigation and you've talked about your wonderful staff and i have no reason to deny that, why wouldn't that rise to the level of suspicion that here she is saying this under oath. lying under oath is a crime, is it not? >> yes. >> what's the penalty on that?

that's considered perjury, right? >> it's a felony. i forget the exact -- it's potentially years in prison. >> but i don't understand would you help me understand why somebody wouldn't have tipped you off that she's talking about the very specific case under oath that you're investigating? >> well, there's a difference between us being aware of testimony and us opening a criminal investigation for potential perjury. not this case in particular but all cases. we don't do that without a committee saying we think there was an issue in testimony given in this separate branch of the government. >> you also mentioned earlier and it's been quoted several times that no reasonable prosecutor would move forward with some of the facts. is there a difference of opinion? i know general michael mukasey said with the illegal server it disqualifies her from ever holding any federal office. so there are sot people of high esteem that may differ. obviously not privy to the exact

acts but can you make any room? you said no reasonable person. do you understand why the american people or would you understand why other people may say she she has stepped across the line or broken enough law that you would come to a different conclusion? >> sure, i respect different opinions. my only point is, and i said earlier i smile because those folks are my friends, i worked with them for a long time. none of those guys in my position i believe knowing what i know would think about it differently but i respect they have a different view from the outside. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> i now recognize the gentleman from california. >> thank you, mr. chairman, director, i just want to thank you as others have. i know you don't need this but i think the american people clearly immediate to hear it. you've done a wonderful job today. there are moments in my political life as an american i despair for the future of this country. not often but in those moments comes an individual like yourself either by private good fortune or the framework of the u.s. constitution i believe you have served this country and all

americans well irrespective of their party affiliation. so two lines of questions, i should say. one is -- another colleague brought this up but you mentioned previous testimony about the bedrock and importance of public confidence and safe i. i just want to give you a little more opportunity because i think it's important for the american public to know the system isn't rigged. that there are people such as yourself and the 15 individuals who worked on this case and others that do their job and believe in the constitution of the united states. but do you think the system is rigged and americans should give up on the system? >> one of the reasons i welcome this opportunity to have this conversation is i was raised by great parents who taught me you can't care what other people think about you. i have to and deeply do that people have confidence that the

system isn't fixed against black people, for rich people, for powerful people. it's very important that the american people understand that there are people you pay for with your tax dollars who don't give a rip about democrats or republicans or this or that who care about finding out what is true and i am lucky to lead an thoorks is that way to its core i get a ten-year term to ensure i stay outside of politics but it's easy. i lead an organization that is resolutely apolitical. we are tough, aggressive people. if we can make a case, we'll make a case. we do not care what the person's stripes are or what their bank account looks like. and i worry very much when people doubt that. it's the reason i did the press conference i did two days ago. i care about the fbi's reputation, i care about the justice department, i care about the whole system deeply so i decided i'll do something no director has ever done before. i'm not going to tell the attorney general or anybody else

what i'm going to say or even that i'm going to say it. they didn't know nor did the media know until i walked out what i was going to talk about and i offered extraordinary transparnsy which i'm sure confused and bug add lot of people. it's essential in this democracy people see as much as they can so they can make their judgment. they macon collude i'm an idiot, i should reason differently but what i hope they will not conclude is i that i am a dishonest person. i am hear trying to do the right thing and i leave 36,000 people who have that as their spine. that's what i want them to know. i don't care that people agree or disagree. that's what's wonderful about our democracy but at its core you need to know there are good people trying to do the right thing all day long and you pay for them and we'll never forget that. >> appreciate that and within the context of these are human institutions, pretty clear to me as a non-lawyer that you had a bright line in terms of your decision about pursuing prosecution but you did spend an extended period of time talking about what i think i take from

you is being objective analysis of what was careless in terms of handling of it, either ascribed to the former secretary of state or to the department and you said and i quote during your comments, while not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that a security culture of the state department in general and with respect to the use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular was generally lacking in the kind of claire for classified information found elsewhere in the government. that's accurate isn't it? >> yes, sir. >> so struggling with this, and this is in the context of this hearing oversight and state department in this committee as to how do we go from here and be clear about how the state department will talk about this with the ig and some of the comments that former secretary powell has made included that the absurdity of the retroactive classification and that now we have a thousand of these e-mails from secretary clinton, it's out in the public and are being spread even further so there are other people involved sitting there, how does this committee

go forward to make sure the state department can still function in the way it does with human beings and have conversations that are both transparent but also national security. what are the things we need to do to make sure this doesn't happen again? >> well, i think the reason the chairman has the ig from the state department is to start that conversation. the ig knows deeply the culture of a department and is far better equipped than i to say you ought to focus here, you ought to focus there to make it better. that's the place to start. >> thank you, mr. director. i yield back. >> thank you. we'll now recognize the gentleman from tennessee for five minutes. >> director comey, thank you for appearing so quickly on short notice. i think it's really important you're hear because of the way you laid out the case on tuesday there is a perceptions but that you felt one way and came to another conclusion, i like my of my colleagues put up a post up in my district and let them know you were coming and in less than 24 hours i had 750 questions sent to ask you so, again, thank

you for being here. but a common theme just to summarize a lot of those concerns were that in this case clinton was above the law that there was a double standard and a lot of that was based on the way you presented your findings. you did not personally interview her on saturday but your team did for three and a half hours, correct? >> yes. >> do you know in reading the e review or summary, tdid they as hillary clinton about her comment that she never sent or received classified information about private e-mail? >> i think so but i can't remember specifically. it's a very long 302. i'd have to check. >> we'll get access for that. >> do you know if they ask her when she said there is nothing on my e-mail marked sent or received? >> same answer, not sure. >> so same answer when she said i do not e-mail any classified material to anyone on my e-mail, there is no classified material.

you don't know whether they asked her that? >> i don't know whether they asked her that question. the entire interview was focused on what did you know, what did you see, what is this document, that kind of thing? >> do you know if they asked her whether she stands by the fact that she said she used one device and that was for her convenience? >> i don't know. i know they established when talking to her she use misdemeanor devices during her four years so i don't know if they asked her about that statement. that's easy to check, though. >> i guess my point is you're trying to get inside the head of hillary clinton in this investigation as to whether there was intent and we know what she told the people. that's been well documented. she said she didn't do those things, that she didn't send or receive classified e-mails, she ed device for her convenience and since then i think even in your statement you recognize that those were not correct, is that fair? >> i really don't want to get into the business of trying to parse and judge her public

statement statements. >>. >> why do you think that's important. >> what matters is what did she say to the fbi? that's first and foremost for us. >> honest people don't need to lie, is that right? >> honest people don't need to lie? i hope no not. >> okay, well in this case for system reason she felt the need to misrepresent what she had done with this server all throughout the investigation and you guys after a year brought her in on saturday and in three and a half hours came out with the conclusion that she shouldn't be prosecuted because there was no intent, is that right? >> no. >> okay. so i don't want to put words in your mouth but is it fair to say that your interpretation of hillary clinton's handling of top secret information, classified documents was extremely care sfles. >> yes. >> is it fair to say you said you went on to define extremely careless that hillary clinton's handling of top secret information was sloppy or represents sloppiness? >> that's another way of trying

to express the same concept. >> a few minutes ago you stated you believe hillary clinton is not as sophisticated as people thought, is that correct? >> yeah, i think that's fair. not as people thought but as people would assume. >> okay, so -- >> i should be clear. technically sophisticated. i'm not opining in other kinds of sophistication. >> in the last minute i want to talk about precedent because i think my colleague trey gowdy made a great point. are you familiar with brian nishimura's case? >> yes. >> he's a naval officer and he was prosecuted. what is the difference between his case and hillary clinton's case in terms of extreme carelessness and gross negligence? we're dealing with statute 793 section f where it does not require intent. is that correct? >> 793 f is gross negligence

standard. >> is that why he was punished? >> no, he was prosecuted under the misdemeanor statute 1924 on facts that are very different. if you want know go through them, i'll go through them but very different. >> i think there's been a resue of this case and they're very similar and that's why people feel there's a double standard. >> what they're read in the media is not a complete accounting of the facts in that case. >> would you agree, then, with representative gowdy that there still is no precedence for punishing someone like hillary clinton and she could go in -- potentially be elected president and do this again without fear of being punished? . i don't think i'm qualified to answer that question. >> my time has expired. >> i recognize the gentlewoman from new mexico, ms. grish am. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i've had the benefit of when

you're last to -- or nearly last to really have both the benefit and then to question the kinds of statements and the dialogue back and forth. and where i'm settled at this point in time is in a couple places but particularly -- i don't think any there's any member in this committee or any member in congress who doesn't want and expect that the fbi and department of justice to be -- to operate in a fair, unbiased, highly independent manner. otherwise you can't appropriately gyp hold or enforce federal law. while this has been stated a couple different way, i want to get direct answers so mr. comey is there any evidence give than's the standard we want, desire and expect to suggest

that hillary clinton was not charged by the department of justice due to inappropriate political influence or due to her current or previous public positions? >> zero and if there is such evidence i'd love folks to show it to me. >> and in that regard was there a double standard? >> no, in fact, i think my entire goal was to avoid a double standard. to avoid what sometimes prosecutors call celebrity hunting and doing something for a famous person that you would never do for an ordinary joe or jane. >> thank you, and i really appreciate that you're here today and explaining the process in great detail, frankly. this committee works at getting specific detail about a variety of reviews, investigations, policies, concepts throughout federal government and i think i can say that this committee

often finds that we don't get very much clarity or specific responses to the majority of questions that we ask so i really appreciate that. and in explaining that what led the fbi to conclude that hillary clinton should not be charged. saying that, however, i'm still concerned, frankly, that the use of this hearing and some of the public statements made by elected officials accusing the department of justice of using a double standard without any evidence at all to support that statement leaning on accusations of such in fact jeopardizes the very thing that we want the most which is an apolitical and independent department of justice. and we have every right to ask these tough questions. we are clear this process works

and there's a responsibility not to substitute your own political preferences for the outcome of an independent and apolitical department of justice investigation. on any level, whether it involves hillary clinton or anybody else. do you agree with that general statement? >> yes. >> for me, that's a really important ethical line that i believe should never be crossed. i worry that some of what we did today could be frankly interpreted as violating that very standard and far i certainly want the american people and my constituents who are watching to understand that very important line and to be sure that our responsibility is better served making sure that we do have in fact an independent body whose aim it is to bring about truth and justice and uphold the federal law and based upon everything you said today i don't see any reason to

disagree with your statements or the explanation of that process. with the little time i do have left. i want to say that some of the classified material that we've debated and talked about today can be classified later or upclassified or that other agencies have different determinations of what constitutes classified and not. i do think that's a process that warrants refining and if something can come out of this hearing about making sure we do something better in the future for everyone not just appointed or elected officials that that ought to be something that we do. i'm often confused by some of the things that are clearly told us to in a classified briefing that appear to be different or already out in the public in some way and i'm not sure who's making the decisions. i honor my responsibility to the

highest degree. thank you for being here today. >> thank you. >> i thank the gentlewoman. we'll recognize the gentleman from georgia mr. carter for five minutes. >> drejtor comey, thank you for being here today, appreciate it. i'm over here. >> sorry. >> i'm going to be real quick and try to be succinct. i want to clarify things you said and i don't want to go over everything that everybody has been through today we've had great questions that have asked you about you said this, we said that. representative gowdy made a great case of, you know, this is what she said under oath and publicly and yet you dispute that and say no, this is the case. but, look, i've just got a couple questions 0, okay? first of all, did i understand you correctly that this decision was made within three and a half hours of an interview and that

was all? >> no, we investigated for a year. >> but you interviewed her for three and a half hours last week and then came to the conclusion? >> correct. we interviewed her on saturday for three and a half hours. the step in a year-long investigation. >> okay. now i understand that hillary clinton suggested the servers were safe and security yet you say that is not the case at all. were they ever secure? were the servers she was using ever secure in. >> well security is not binary, it's degrees of security. it's less secure than one at the state department or, as i said even one at a private commercial provider like a gmail. >> well, let me ask you this. she's got staff and people around her. did they know she was doing this? did they know she was using these other devices? did anybody bring it to her attention and say, hey, you're

not supposed to be doing that? >> i think a lot of people around the secretary understood she was using a private personal e-mail. >> then why didn't they say something? don't they have a responsibility as well? >> that's an important question that goes to the culture of the state department that's worth askin asking. >> we surround ourselves with good people. should those people be responsible for not bringing that to someone's attention? if i see someone not following protocol, is it my responsibility to report them? >> yes. is especially when it comes to security matters you have an obligation to report a security violation whether it's you or one of your co-workers but this is about -- >> what about brian pagliano? did he ever know? do you know if he knew she was not following proper protocol here?

>> he helped set it up. >> he helped set it up. so obviously he knew. >> obviously he knew that -- >> is anything going to be done to him? any prosecution or discipline? >> i don't know about discipline but there's not going to be prosecution of him. >> will the gentleman yield? >> i yield. >> my understanding, director, is you offered him immunity. why did you offer him immunity and what did you get for it? >> that i have to -- i'm not sure what i can talk about in open setting about that. >> well, he won't be prosecuted so -- >> right, but i want to be careful. i'm doing this 24 hours after an investigation closed. i want to be thoughtful because we're big about the law that i'm following the law about what i disclose about that i don't want to answer that off the cuff. director comey, i'm not a lawyer, i'm a pharmacist but i'm a citizen and citizens are upset. i watched with great interest last -- earlier this week when

you laid out your case. and you laid it out bam, bam, bam, here's what she did wrong, wrong, wrong wrong. and then suddenly you used the word "however." and it was like you could hear a gasp throughout the country of people saying "oh, here we go again." do you regret presenting in the a way like that? >> no. i'm highly -- i think i didn't use the word however, i try never to use that in speaking but i did late lay it out. i naught the way that made sense and that i hoped was maximum transparency for people and -- >> i'm sorry, but that's the point. it didn't make sense. the way you were laying it out it would have made sense and the way the questions have been asked here and we've made all these points of where she was obviously told lies under oath that it would have been okay, we finally got one here. >> i think it made sense i just

hope folks go back with a cup of tea and open their minds and read my statement again carefully. but if you disagree, that's okay. >> look, i've only been here 18 months and i'm going to tell you this inside-the-beltway mentality, no wonder people don't trust us. >> i have no kind of inside-the-beltway mentality. >> but this is an example of what i'm talking about here. just as a non-lawyer, as a non-investigator it would appear to me you have got a hell of a case. >> and i'm telling you we don't and i hope people take the time to understand why. >> mr. chairman, i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. i will now recognize the gentleman from arizona -- oh, let's go ahead and go to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. mulvaney first.

>> i thank the gentleman. director comey, earlier today you heard a long list of statements that mrs. clinton has made previously both to the public and to congress that were not factually accurate. i think you went down the whole long list. when she met with you on saturday i take it she didn't say the same things at that interview. >> i'm not equipped sitting here without the 302 in front of me to nantz that broad brush -- >> but it's your testimony -- >> i have no basis -- we don't have a basis for concluding she lied to the fbi. >> gotcha. did anybody ask her on saturday why she told y'all one thing and told us another? >> i don't know as i sit here. i'll fill your that out. >> would that have been interest to you in helping establish intent? >> it could have been, sure. >> more importantly, did anybody ask her why she said up the e-mail system as she did in the first place? >> yes. >> and the answer was convenience? >> it was already there, it was a system her husband had and so she just jumped on to it. >> were you aware that just

earlier this week her assistant said it was for an entirely different reason. it was to keep e-mails from being accessible and that it was for a concealment purpose, houma abedin was asked in her deposition why it was set up and it was said to keep her personal e-mails from being accessible, questioning from whom to anybody, were you aware of that testimony? >> generally, yes. >> here's the summary of what i take from what we've done today which is that over the course of the entire system, she intentionally set up a system according to your testimony, your findings, she was careless regarding its technical security. i think you said even a basic free account, a gmail account had better security than she had. and she did that according to her own staffers' sworn deposition for the purpose of preventing access to these e-mails as a result of this, she exposed top secret information to potential hack by foreign actors. you've seen the e-mail, we're not. i think you said earlier the e-mails could be of the sort that we put national security at

risk that got you to acknowledge that it might put our agents at risk. >> i don't think i agree with that but it's important. >> she kept all of that secret until after she left the state department. she lied about it or made untrue statements about it after it came to light. she destroyed evidence, destroyed so thoroughly that you folks could not do an adequate recovery. yet she receives no criminal penalty is are we assume as we sit here need if the next president of the united states does the exact same thing on the day he or she is sworn into office, sets up a private e-mail service for the purpose of concealing information from the public or from anybody that as a result of that potentially exposes national security level information to our enemies, lies about it and then destroys the

evidence during an investigation that there will be no criminal charges if you're the fbi director against that person. >> that's not a question the fbi should answer. >> i'm asking you -- if she does the exact same thing as president as she's done today, your result would be the same as it was 48 hours ago. there there would be no criminal findings, right? >> if the facts were exactly the same? >> right. >> and the law was exactly the same? >> right. >> yeah, the result would be the same. >> i guess under the theory that if there's -- the law is to be equally applied to everybody that if a white house staffer does the exact same thing for the exact same purpose and exposes the exact same risks that there will be no criminal action against that person. there could be administrative penalties. there are no administrative penalties, as i understand it, against the president, correct? >> i don't think so but i'm not a constitutional scholar. >> i don't think you can take away the president's top security clearance and i'm pretty sure you can't fire the

president because we've tried. [ audience reacts ] not only would a staffer not have any criminal charges brought against them but i suppose a summer intern could do the same thing under the theory that we're going to apply the law equally regardless of who the people are. my question to you this. and it's not a legal question. i guess it's a common sense ordinary question that folks are asking me. from a national security standpoint, somebody who used to lecture on that, does that bother you. >> the mishandling of classified information bothers me no matter what circumstance occurs in. does it bother you the precedent you are setting today may well lead to a circumstance where our top secret information continues to be exposed to our potential enemies. >> no in this sense, the precedent that i'm setting today is my absolute best effort to

treat people fairly without regard to who they are. if that continues to be the record of the fbi and the justice department, that's what it should be, the rest of the implications in your question are beyond that. but they're not for the fbi to answer. we should aspire to be apolitical, facts in the law, treat joe the same as sally as secretary so and so. that's my goal. >> if you had come to a different decision -- by the way, i end to agree with everything you just said. if you came to a different decision, do you think it would have a different precedential value that would keep our information more safe? >> if we decided to recommend criminal charges here? >> yes, sir. >> i don't know, i could argue it both ways. i'm a lawyer, i can argue everything both ways but i could argue that both ways. >> thank you, director comey, thank you, mr. chairman. >> i thank the gentleman. i now recognize the chairman mr. go czar for five minutes.

>> my colleague eluded to brian pagliano the it advisor. were you made aware of the immunity with him? >> i am aware. >> now that attorney general lynch state there had would be no charges, there's many that suspect that in his -- that he failed to answer questions in his congressional deposition, that he had something to hide. why did investigators at the doj decide to offer mr. pagliano immunity. >> as i said in response to your earlier question, i need to be more thoughtful about what i say about an immunity deal in public. it may be fine but i don't want to screw up because we're doing this so quickly. in general i can answer because i've done it many times as a prosecutor. we'll make a grant of immunity in order to get information that you don't think you could get otherwise, but you know there may be something there in hindsight, right? you're looking ahead because of the pertinent information this person possesses.

>> you believe they have relevant investigation information to the investigation. >> did they draft a 302 report with mr. pagliano. >> yes. >> will you commit to voluntarily disclosing the 302s for review of brian pagliano and other witnesses as part of your investigation? >> i'll commit to giving you everything i can possibly give you under the law and doing it as quickly as possible. that means i have to go back and sort it out. for example, the 302 of secretary clinton is classified at the tssci level. but we'll do it quickly. >> i know you've done this because you've done this for lois learner and other cases so we would expect that. now director comey, hillary clinton testified before congress and told the american people mumt multiple times she never e-mailed classified information. your investigation revealed 52 e-mail chains classified information. clinton told the american people and i quote the laws and regulations when i was secretary of state allowed me to use my

e-mail for work. your investigation revealed that that also wasn't true. clinton said she turned over all work relate e-mail. this wasn't true. clinton said her servers had safeguards. your investigation revealed eight e-mail chains containing top secret information and that it was pos tile "hostile actors" gained access to sensitive information. further multiple people she hacked were hacked by hostile actors and her private servers were less secure than a gmail account. director comey, it's a federal crime to mishandle classified information a negligent way and you stated clinton and her colleagues were extremely kaerless. clinton has stated she was well aware of the classification requirements yet she broke the law any way. multiple people have been prosecuted for less and there's a growing trend of abuses in senior level employees. the only difference between her and others is the existence to

acknowledge her irresponsible behavior that jeopardized national security and the american people. i think you should have recommend clinton be prosecuted under section 793 or section 1024 of title 18. if not who, if not now when? your recommendation deprived the american people of the opportunity for justice in this matter. there shouldn't be a double standards for the clintons and they shouldn't be above the law. with that i'll yield the rest of my time to the gentleman from south carolina mr. gowdy. >> thank you, dr. gosar. director comey, i want to go back to the issue of intent for just a second. we can disagree whether or not it's an element of the offense. let's assume you're right and i'm wrong and it is an element of the offense. secretary clinton said she was "well aware of classification requirements." those are her words, not mine or yours. so if she were "well aware" of classification requirements, how did that impact your analysis of her intent? i've heard you this morning

describe her as being less than sophisticated. she disagree requests w that. >> i was talking about technical sophistication. i would hope everyone in the government is aware of classification requirements. the question is if you mishandle classified information, when you did that thing, did you know you were doing something that was unlawful? that's the intent question. >> you and i will have to get together some other time and discuss all the people we prosecuted who were unaware they were breaking the law. there were lots of really dumb defendants out there who don't know that what they're doing is against the law but let's go with what you said -- >> i disagree. you may have prosecuted a lot of those folks, i do not prosecute those folks. >> well, i was a gutter prosecutor and you were a white collar prosecutor. trust me, there are lots of people who don't know you can't kill other people. let me ask you this. on the issue of intent, you say it was convenience. you're a really smart lawyer. l if it were convenience,

director, she would haven't waited two years to return the documents and she would haven't deleted them four years after they were created so you can't really believe that her intent was convenience when she never turned them over until congress started asking for them, could you? >> my focus, and i hope i made this clear, is on what was the thinking around the classified information. it's relevant why the system was set up and the thinking there but she didn't -- i don't understand her to be saying -- well, i think i've said it already. that's my focus. >> so i know i'm out of time but it strikes me you are reading a specific intent element into a gross negligence statute. not even general intent. >> gentleman's time has expired? >> a specific intent element. >> i'm sorry. >> the director can answer. >> i enjoy talking with him. the question you have to ask is so why is it that the department of justice since 1917 has not used that gross negligence

statute but charging it once in an espionage case and whether their decision was smart or not that is the record of fairness and so you have to decide do i treat this person against that record? and if i do, is that a fair thing to do? even if you're not worried about the constitutionality of it. and my reason is, no reasonable prosecutor would do that. that would be celebrity hunting. that would be treating this person differently than john doe. >> director, i want to follow up on that. why did you do what you did? you know, my interpretation of what the fbi is supposed to be doing is come to a determination in the facts and then turn it over to a prosecutor. you were a prosecutor, but you're not a prosecutor now. >> right. >> it is unprecedented that an fbi director gave the type of press conference that he did and took a position that an unreasonable prosecutor would only take this case forward. why did you do that? >> yeah. it's a great question. the -- everything i did would

have been done privately in a normal course. we have great conversation between the fbi and prosecutors. we make recommendations, we argue back and forth. what i decided to do was offer transparency to the american people about the whys of that. what i was going to do, because i thought that was very, very important for their confidence in the system of justice. and within that, their confidence in the fbi. and i was very concerned if i didn't show that transparency, that in that lack of transparency, people would say, geez, what's going on here? you know, something seems squirrely here. so i said, i will do something unprecedented, because i think this is an unprecedented situation. now, the next director who is criminally investigating one of the two candidates for president may find him or herself bound by my precedent. okay, if that happens in the next hundred years, they'll have to deal with what i did. so i decided it was worth doing. >> mr. cummings? >> director, i have just one question. >> i've been sitting here and listening to this and i really -- this is something that

bothered me in the lois lerner case and it bothers me in this case. and i'm just wondering your opinion. miss lawrence had talked about this, the chilling effect of your having to come here and justify your decisions. and i know that you've been really nice and you've just explained why you did what you did and i'm glad you're doing it. but, you know, do you at all -- and i know -- i mean, taking off -- i'm just talking about, here you've got people making decisions and then being pulled here in the congress to then say, okay, to be questioned about the decisions. at what point -- or do you even think about, it becoming a chilling effect? because most people, you know, when their decisions are made, don't get this kind of opportunity. as you well know.

there are no statements. you know they either get indicted or they're not. so i know that you see this as a special case. and i'm wondering whether you agree with miss lawrence that we may be just going down a slippery slope. that's all i want to ask. >> my honest answer is, i don't think so. when i talked to the chairman, i agreed to come, because i think the american people care deeply about this. there are all kinds of folks watching this at home or are being told, there are lots of other cases like hers that were prosecuted and she wasn't. that's not true. look, it's a pain. i've had to go to the bathroom for about an hour. >> we're halfway done. >> it is really important to do. because this is an unprecedented situation. transparency is the absolute best thing for me and for democracy. and i realize, mr. chairman, my folks tell me i screwed up one fact that i should fix. in the petraeus case, we didn't

find the notebooks in the attic, we found it in his desk. but i don't think it has a chilling effect. if there's another presidential candidate being investigated by the fbi, maybe they'll be bound by this. lord willing, it's not going to happen again it. certainly, i have 2,619 days left in this job. it won't happen on my job, but if it does, i won't be chilled. >> if we need a humanitarian break, just give me the queucue. >> i feel like we're almost done. >> we're on the right trajectory. >> thank you, mr. chairman. director comey, your statement on tuesday indicated that secretary clinton and her colleague s sent and received e-mails marked classified on an unsecured e-mail server that may or may not have been hacked by a foreign power. are you aware that teenage hackers hack the personal e-mail accounts of cia director john brenn brennan, the director of james clapper, and fbi deputy director

martin juliano. >> i am intensely aware. they didn't hack in the way we normally think of it, but they by trickery got access to their account. >> the point i want to make is these were commercially protected personal e-mail accounts that contained no classified information, yet mrs. clinton used her personal e-mail, not a commercial account, on a server in her basement without even this basic protection and transmitted classified information through that account. if teenagers in england were able to hack the personal e-mail accounts of of the director of the cia, the director of the u.s. national intelligence, and the deputy director of the fbi, does it concern you that sophisticated hackers or hackers working for foreign interests never attempted -- i mean, does it seem reasonable that they never attempted or were never successful in hacking mrs. clinton's personal e-mail accounts? or one of her devices. >> it concerns me a great deal. that's why we spent so much time to see if we can figure out, see fingerprints of that.

>> well, you said in your statement, regarding your recommendation, not to prosecute, to be clear, this is not suggesting in similar circumstances a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. to the contrary, these individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions, but that is not what we are deciding here. do you stand by that? >> yes, yes. >> okay. i thought you would. you also say you cannot prove intent. what i want to -- i want to touch on a couple things here. one, a reasonable person would not have compromised classified information by keeping that information in adequately secure private devices. in other words, such a person would be viewed as unreasonable and unsuitable for any position in our government that included any responsibility for handling and protecting classified information. would you agree? >> i would agree it would be negligent. i can't pre-judge a suitability

determination, but it would definitely be stared at very hard. >> let me tell you why i bring this up. i sat here next to mr. hurd, who served our country valiantly, put his life on the line, and i don't know if you could sense the passion and intensity of his questions, because he knows people whose lives are on the line right now. and in regard to his questions, if someone, a u.s. intelligence agent, had their mission compromised or worse had been killed or injured or captured because of the carelessness of someone responsible for protecting classified information, would intent matter at that point? >> in deciding whether to prosecute the person? of course. but, yeah -- that's the answer. of course, it would. it would -- the matter would be deadly serious, but the legal standards would be the same. >> well, what we're dealing with in this hearing is not the lack of due diligence in handling routine government data or

information, but the lack of due diligence by secretary clinton and her carelessness in handling classified information that could have compromised american national security and as mr. hurd pointed out, the missions and personal safety of our intelligence agents. that troubling me greatly. and i think the issue here, and i do respect you. i have spoken in your defense many times. at this point, to my detriment. but i do believe that your answers are honest and factual. but based on your answers regarding mrs. clinton's use of e-mail, and based on what we know, it seems to me that she is stunningly incompetent in her understanding of the basic technology of e-mail and stunningly incompetent in handling classified information. i mean, you should never

associate the secretary of state and classified information with the word "careless." it doesn't matter. i mean, we have to exercise the utmost due diligence. all of us in this committee do. in handling this. you do in prosecuting these cases. and i see that in what you're trying to do. i just think we need to leave here with this understanding. that there's more to this story than we know. if a foreign hacker got into this, i can assure you that they know what was in those e-mails that were deleted. they read them all. they know what is in the e-mails that we never received. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> all right. thank the gentleman. we'll now go to the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. golfman, for five minutes. >> thank you. thanks for coming on over to the

raeburn building. as i understand it, your testimony today is that you have not brought criminal charges against hillary clinton, in part because you feel you can't prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and in part because she didn't understand the laws regard to e-mails and servers and that sort of thing. question for you, when she erased these e-mails -- oh, no, i digress for a second. you, however, did say if somebody did this under you, there would be consequences. if someone did exactly what mrs. clinton did, was one of your lieutenants, or you think one of the lauieutenants under the ciar some other agency that deals with top-secret documents, what you would you do to those underlings? >> i would make sure that they were adjudicated through a security disciplinary proceeding to figure out, what are all the circumstances, and