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 then what punishment, discipline, is appropriate.

that could range from being terminated to being reprimanded, and a whole spectrum in between. suspension, loss of clearance, a bunch of different options. >> let's say one of your top two or three lieutenants, you find out they've had this separate server out there and they're keeping secret documents, you know, flipping them around. do you think they should be fired? not criminally charged, but fired? >> yeah, i don't think it's appropriate to say. i think it should go through -- we have a very robust process. there ought to be a very intense suitability review of that person. maybe there's something we're missing that would mitigate the punishment we would impose, but it would have to go through our system. >> okay. next question. just for the listening audience here. first, when i hear about erasing e-mails, i think it's like on my own phone where i might erase an auto insurance solicitation. the erasers here, however, were not just mrs. clinton pressing delete, were they? there was a much greater effort made to make sure that these e-mails would never be

recovered? do you want to comment on what was done to erase the e-mails? >> i think what you're referring to is after her lawyers -- her lawyers say, although i don't -- i'm not able to verify this, there were 60,000 or so left at the end of 2014. they went through them, in a way i described in my statement two days ago, and then they produced the ones that were work related and then they erased from their system the once that were not work related. that was done using technical tools, basically, to remove them from the lawyers -- from the servers, to wipe them away. >> so in other words, the effort was not just mrs. clinton or somebody went, delete, delete, delete. they went above and beyond that so your top technical experts could not get back these e-mails, correct? >> not fully. we were able to -- >> you recovered a few? >> we could go through the lawyers' laptops and see some traces, but not fully recover them. >> so now the information i have, you can correct me if i'm

wrong, implies that these erasers were done in december of 2014, after the benghazi scandal broke, after there were questions about the clinton foundation. did you ever come across why she allowed these e-mails to sit out there even for years after she stopped being secretary of state, but all of a sudden as these other scandals began to bubble up, she felt, or her lawyers felt that she had to erase them? >> yeah, i think the way the process worked is, she had e-mails that were just on her system. she actually had deleted some, i think, over time, as an ordinary user would. and then the state department contacted her and other former secretaries and said, we have a gap in our records. we need you to look and see if you have e-mails and give them back. she then tasked her lawyers to engage in this review process, of that 60-some thousand and make that cut. and was asked by her lawyers at the end, do you want us to keep the personal e-mails? she said, i have no use for them anymore. it's then that they issued the

direction that the technical people delete them. >> do you think mrs. clinton knew that the technical people were erasing these e-mails, so that even your top technical experts could recover them? >> based on my sense now of her technical sophistication, i don't think so. >> you don't think the lawyers told her that's what they were doing. erasing all these e-mails that everybody on this committee wanted to look at? >> and i'm sure we've asked this -- >> what type of lawyer wouldn't tell their client they were doing that? but -- >> i don't think they -- i think our evidence from our investigation is that they did not. that they asked her, do you want to keep them? and they said no. and they said, wipe them away. >> okay. now, as i understand it, the goal was just to erase personal e-mails, but you have recovered e-mails that wouldn't be considered personal e-mails at all. >> correct. >> i don't know if you didn't recover them, but based upon the e-mails that you recovered, presumably, her lawyers or somebody was going well beyond

personal e-mails, is it possible we'll never be able to recover e-mails that dealt with the clinton foundation or dealt with the benghazi scandal. is it possible, because of what her lawyers did, that they were erasing things that were incriminating? maybe involving items that you yourself were not particularly investigating, but that these have now been destroyed forever? >> it's possible, as i said in my statement tuesday, we did not find evidence to indicate that they did the eraseture to conceal things. >> i'm sorry, when you go to this length to make sure you can never recover the e-mails that are erased, wouldn't you think the intent was to make sure nobody can ever look at them again. >> i thank the gentleman. we'll give the director time, if he wants to respond. >> i mean, i guess it's a bit circular. you delete because you want to delete. what i mean is, we didn't find

any evidence of evil intent, an intent to obstruct justice there. >> you wouldn't have been able to, because you don't know what was deleted. >> thank the gentleman. >> we now recognize mr. russell of oklahoma for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> and director comey, thank you for your long service and your long suffering. i think we're toward the end of the line here. i want to state for the regard, with regard to national security, i sleep a little easier at night knowing that you're at the helm of the fbi and thank you for your dedicated service and your integrity. >> thank you. >> you have stated in your statement and also multiple times here that there should be consequences for the mishandling of state secrets. if i held a top-secret sci in the bureau, and i did hold one when i was in the united states army, in a career of service, i handled classified information here, but if i, if i held that

in the fbi and you discovered that i mishandled state secrets on a private server in my basement, would i be trusted by the bureau to further handle top-secret sci information? >> maybe not. you would go immediately through a security process to review whether you should continue working for us and if you do, what clearances you should retain. >> if i violated the handling of state secrets in the fbi, would you consider me the best suitable candidate for promotion and higher responsibility? >> it would be a serious concern, and we would stare at it very hard in a suitability review. >> although you have recommended to the department of justice that no criminal charges be brought to bear, are you recommending to the department of justice that there be no consequences for the mishandling of state secrets? >> no, my recommendation was solely with respect to criminal

charges. >> what would you recommend? >> i don't think it's for me to recommend. >> but you do -- you've been very open and even stated why you felt that these were unique sets of circumstances that called for greater transparency. you do make recommendations routinely, as you've stated here today. we're talking top-secret sci information that's been mishandled. you would take a dim view to that if i were an agent. what consequences -- this is what the american people feel exasperated about. there seems to be no consequence. so in a case like this, if it's not going to be criminal charges recommended, what are the american people to do to hold their officials accountable if maybe they shouldn't be trusted for further promotion and higher responsibility? >> what i meant earlier is that's not a question that the

american people should put to the fbi director. i can answer about the things within my remit, but i understand the question, but it's not one for me to answer in my role. >> well, i hope it's one that the american people answer in the future, because we do have a choice about those that would mishandle information. and while we're all fallible human beings and we all make mistakes, in a case like this, for decades of my service in the army infantry and handling top-secret sci information and then as a member of congress, we know those responsibilities. is it your view and others that have interviewed mrs. clinton that she would not have known what those responsibilities were? >> no, i think in a way, you would expect she understood the importance of protecting classified information. >> well, i would agree with that. and there's been a breach. and i think that the american people demand a consequence. that they demand an

accountability. and i think it's important to uphold the form of our republican government that we have a consequence. and with that, thank you for your appearance here today. and i would like to yield the remainder of my time to chairman chaffetz. >> thank you. i think if you yield back, through mutual agreement, mr. cummings and i have agreed that i do have about a dozen or so quick follow-up questions. you have been most generous with your time, but i would like to get through this last bit. and again, we'll do so with equal time. how did the department of justice or how did the fbi view the incident in which hillary clinton instructed jake sullivan to take the markings off of a document that was to be sent to her? >> we looked at that pretty closely. there was some problem with their secure fax machine, and there's an e-mail in which she says, in substance, take the headers off of it and send it as a non-paper. as we've dug into that more deeply, we've come to learn, at

least, there's one view of it, that is reasonable, that a "non-paper," in state department parlance, is a document that contains things we could pass to another document. so essentially, take out anything that's classified and send it to me. it turns out that didn't happened, because we actually found that the classified fax was then sent. but that's our best understanding of what that was about. >> so this was a classified fax. >> correct. >> so hillary clinton sends to jake sullivan -- let me go back if jake sullivan says, they say they have issues sending secure faxes. they're working on it. hillary clinton sends to jake sullivan, if they can't, turn into non-paper with no identifying heading and send non-secure. so you're telling me it's a classified piece of information she's taking off the header and she's instructing them to send it in a non-secure format. is that not intent? >> well, it actually caught my

attention when i first saw it. and what she explained to us during her interview was and other witnesses did as well, is what she meant by that is, make it into a non-classified document. that's what a non-paper is, in their world. and send it to us. because i just, i don't need the classified stuff, i just need -- >> then why take off the heading? if it's going to be turned into a non-classified document, why take off the heading? >> i assume, because it would be non-classified anymore. so you wouldn't have a classified header on it. i think is what she said -- >> she wanted to be technically correct. is that what you're saying that -- >> i think what she said during the interview is, i was telling him, in essence, send me an unclassified document. take the header off, turn it into a non-paper, which is a term i'd never heard before, but i'm told, by people i credit, that in diplomatic circles, that means something we can pass to another government. >> you are a very generous in your accepting of that. let me ask you, director, did any uncleared individuals receive any classified information over hillary

clinton's server? >> did any uncleared people receive classified information? i don't think any of the correspondents on the classified e-mails were uncleared people. these were all people with clearances working, doing state department business, on the unclass system. >> did mr. pagliano have the requisite security clearance? >> as i sit here today, i can't remember. he was not a participant on the classified e-mail exchanges, though. >> he was running the server. he set it up. >> that's a different question. i'm sorry, i misunderstood your question, then. there's no doubt that uncleared people had access to the server. even after pagliano, there were others who maintained the serve who were private sector folks. >> so there are hundreds of classified documents on these servers. how many people, without a security clearance, had access to that server?

>> i don't know the exact number as i sit here. it's probably more than two, less than ten. >> i appreciate your willingness to follow up with this. did secretary clinton's attorneys have the security clearances needed? >> they did not. >> does that concern you? >> oh, yeah. sure. >> is there any consequence to an attorney, rifling through secretary clinton's, hillary clinton's e-mails without a security clearance? >> well, not criminal consequences, but a great deal of concern about an uncleared person, not subject to the requirements we talked about in the read-in documents potentially having access. that's why it's very, very important for us to recover everything we can back from attorneys. >> so what's the consequence? i mean, here, hillary clinton gave direction to her attorneys, without a security clearance, to go through documents that were

classified. >> i think that's what happened in fact. whether that was the direction is a question i can't answer sitting here. >> so you -- i -- you're parsing that one a little bit. >> no, no, you were just asking me. >> what's the consequence? they don't work for the government. we can't fire them. so is there no criminal prosecution of those attorneys? should they lose their bar license? what's the consequence to them? >> well, if they acted with criminal intent or acted with some malintent -- >> what you're telling us is that it doesn't matter if you have a security clearance or not. because i may be innocent enough, hey, i'm just an attorney. i like the secretary, i'm trying to help hillary clinton, i'm not trying to give it to the chinese or the russians, i'm just trying to help her. so there's no intent? it doesn't matter if these people have security clearances? >> of course it matters. that's why i said -- >> but is there no consequence, director? there's no consequence. >> well, i don't know what consequence you would have in mind. >> prosecute them!

>> an attorney for receiving from his client information that ends up being classified? >> i asked you at the very beginning, does hillary clinton -- does -- is there a reasonable expectation that hillary clinton would send and receive, if not daily -- hourly, if not daily, classified information. that's reasonable to think that the secretary of state would get classified information at every moment. she's not the head of fish and wildlife. so, the idea that she would turn over her e-mails, her system, her server to what it sounds like, up to ten people, without security clearances, and there's no consequence. so why not do it again? >> that's a question i don't think you should put to me. you're asking -- i'm talking about my criminal investigation. >> but how can that -- there's no intent there? does she not understand that these people don't have security clearances? >> surely she understands, at

least some of them don't have security clearances. >> so she understands they don't have security clearances, and it's reasonable to think she's going to be getting classified information. is that not intent to provide a non-cleared person access to classified information? >> you're mixing it up, though. i don't think it's reasonable to assume -- mixing me up, sorry. it's not your fault that someone who is maintaining your server is reading your e-mails. in fact, i don't think that's the case here. there's a separate thing, which is, when she's engaging counsel to comply with the state department's request, are her lawyers then exposed to information that may be on there that's classified. so -- >> and did they see any classified information? did hillary clinton's attorneys, without security clearances, see classified information? >> i sit here, i don't know the answer to that. >> it has to be yes, director. you came across 110 and they said they went through all of them. >> well, they didn't read them all, they just looked at headers. >> their excuse is, we saw the

e-mails, but we didn't read them. >> i think i said this in my statement on tuesday, they sorted the e-mails by using headers and search terms to try to find work-related e-mails. we read them all. >> i know that you read them all. do you think it's reasonable or unreasonable to think that her attorneys, under her direction, did or did not read those e-mails? because there were -- let me go back to this, yes or no. were there or were there not classified e-mails that her attorney -- that hillary clinton's attorneys read? >> i don't know whether they read them at the time. >> they -- >> they've -- >> did hillary clinton give non-cleared people access to classified information? >> yes. yes. >> what do you think her intent was? >> i think then it was to get good legal representation and to

make the production to the state department. that could be a very tall order. in that circumstance, i don't see the evidence to make a case that she was acting with criminal intent in engaging with her lawyers. >> and i guess i read criminal intent as the idea that you allow somebody without a security clearance access to classified information. everybody knows that, director. everybody knows that. i've gone way past my time. let me recognize mr. cummings for an equal amount of time. >> director, thank you for your patience. i want to clear up some things. i want to make sure i understand exactly what you testified to on the issue of whether secretary clinton sent or received e-mails that were marked as classified. on tuesday, you stated, and i quote, only a very small number of the e-mails containing

classified information bore markings. and i emphasize, "bore markings," indicating the presence of classified information. end of quote. republicans have pounds on this statement as evidence that secretary clinton lied. but today we learned some significant new facts. and i hope the press listens to this. first, you clarified that you were talking about only three e-mails out of 35,000. your office reviewed. is that right? >> three, yes. >> three out of 30,000. is that right? >> yes. at least 30,000. >> at least 30,000. second, you confirmed that these three e-mails were not properly marked, as classified at the time, based on federal guidelines and manuals. they did not have a classification header, they did not list the original

classifier, the agency, office of origin, reason for classification, or date for declassification. instead, these e-mails included only a single, quote, c parenthesis end parenthesis, and then end of quotation mark for confidential on one paragraph lower down in the text. is that right? >> correct. third. you testified that based on these facts, it would have been a quote, reasonable inference, for secretary clinton to, quote, immediately, end of quote, conclude that these e-mails were not, in fact, classified. so that was also critical new information. but there is one more criminal fact that these e-mails were

not, in fact, and to the press, these e-mails were not, in fact classified. the state department explained to us yesterday, they reported that these e-mails are not classified and that -- including this, that the little "c" witon these e-mails was the result of a human error. the bottom line is that those little cs should not have been on those documents, because they were not, in fact, classified. when representative watsman coleman asked you a few minutes ago about this, you testified that you had not been informed. i understand that. i'm not beating up on you, i promise you. but can you tell us, why, director comey, because republicans are pouncing saying the secretary lied. and i want to make sure we're clear on this. can you tell us why, director comey, did you consult -- i'm just curious, did you consult with the state department about these three e-mails out of the

more than 30,000. did this just not come out. what happened there? >> yeah, i'm not remembering for sure while i'm here. i'm highly confident we consulted with them and got their view on it. i don't know about what happened yesterday. maybe that their view has change ordinary they found things out that we didn't know. but i'm highly confident we consulted with them about it. >> so this is totally different than what we understood yesterday. today we learned that these e-mails were not, in fact, classified. they should not have been included -- they should have not included those stray markings, they were not properly marked as classified, and director of the fbi believes it was reasonable for secretary clinton to assume that these documents were not classified. chairman, you raised a question about whether secretary clinton's attorneys had security clearances. this is my understanding that they did. we can double check that. but that is my understanding. and we'll double check that.

going on, let me move to the next topic. you explained on tuesday that you were providing, quote, an update on the fbi's investigation of secretary clinton's use of a personal e-mail system during her time as secretary of state. you explained that you received a referral on this matter from the inspector general of intelligence community on july 6th 2016. is that right? >> yes. >> today, tens of thousands of secretary clinton's e-mails are publicly available on the state department's website. and our staff have been reviewing the e-mails that were retroactively determined to include classified information. based on this review, it appears that these e-mails included more than 1,000 individuals who sent or received the information that is now redacted as classified. let me make that clear. about 1,000 people sent or

received the same information that was contained in secretary clinton's e-mails, and retroactively classified. were you aware of that? >> no. the number doesn't surprise me, though. >> why not? >> because this was, they were doing the business of the state department on this e-mail system, so i don't know how many thousands of people work at the state department, but it doesn't surprise me there would be lots of people on these chains. >> but you agree that we need -- something needs to be done with regard to this classification stuff. because, things are classified and then they're not classified, then they are retroactively classified. and i mean, does that go into your consideration when looking at a case like this. >> yeah, i don't pay much attention to the up-classified stuff, because we're focused on intent. so if someone classifies it later, it's impossible she formed intent around that, because it wasn't classified at the time. i know that's a process -- i wasn't familiar with it before this investigation, but i don't

spend a lot of time focused on it during the course of a criminal investigation. >> i understand. we also reviewed who these people are, and they include a host of very experienced career diplomats with many years of experience. so let me ask you this. when you received this referral from the inspector general about secretary clinton's e-mails, did you also receive any referrals for any of the other 1,000 people who sent and received those e-mails. did you? >> no. >> i understand -- >> well, i should stop there. within the scope of our investigation was a group of people closer to the secretary. we looked at their conduct. i forgot what the number is, four or five of them. but then the hundreds of others who may have been on the chain were not the subjects of the investigation. >> i think i have 30 more seconds. i understand that the secretary clinton is the only one running for president, but it does not make sense that she was singled out for a referral to the fbi. do you agree with that?

>> i don't think i agree with that. >> so you -- let's go back to colin powell. do you think you ought to look at his situation? condoleezza rice? >> well, there's been no referral on that. i know only at a superficial level their circumstances. this case strikes me as very different from those and not an inappropriate referral from the inspector general. >> very well. >> i thank the gentleman. who was hillary clinton e-mailing that was hacked? >> yeah, i don't want to say in open forum. we can get you that information, but i don't want -- again, i don't want to give any hostile adversaries into who -- into what we figured out. so i know the names -- >> fair enough. understood. understood. so was there evidence of hillary clinton attempting to avoid compliance with the freedom of information act? >> that was not the subject of

our criminal investigation, so i can't answer that sitting here. >> it's a violation of law, is it not? >> yes, my understanding is there are civil statutes that apply to that. i don't know of -- >> so let's put the boundaries on this a little bit, what you didn't look at. you didn't look at whether or not there is an intention or the reality of noncompliance with the freedom of information act. >> correct. >> you did not look at testimony hillary clinton gave in the united states congress, both the house and the senate? >> to see whether it was perjurious in some respect? >> yes. >> no, we did not. >> did you review and look at those transcripts as to the intent of your recommendation? >> i'm sure my folks did. i did not. >> okay so -- and this is an important point. because i think those of us in congress, knowing that you got a criminal referral from an inspector general thought that you were also looking at whether

or not hillary clinton had provided false testimony, which is a crime, to the congress. but you didn't look at that. >> correct. as i said, i'm confident my folks looked at the substance of the statements, to try to understand the circumstances around the entire situation -- >> can you confirm that? >> yeah, we'll confirm that. and also, again, maybe i'm missing this, but i don't think we got a referral from congressional committees, a perjury referral. >> no, it was the inspector general that initiated this. >> yeah. >> did the -- the fact that hillary clinton refused to be interviewed by the inspector general, what did that say to you about intent? >> not -- at least for our criminal investigation, not particularly germane. >> are you familiar -- you're familiar -- there's a website, i mean, lots of government agencies have websites. the state department has a

website. state.gov. and they have a youtube site. videos that are uploaded to a youtube side, would those be considered federal records? >> i don't know. >> so they're paid for by federal dollars, they're maintained by federal employees, would that not be a federal record? >> yeah, i just don't know. i'm sure there's an expert that could answer that in two seconds, but i'm not an expert. >> okay, we've kept you here a long time. i want to follow up on that. is the fbi still investigating hillary clinton's aides? >> no is the answer. the department of justice declined on all of those who were subjects communicating with her through that e-mail system. >> what recommendations did you make about her aides? >> same. same. we didn't recommend that anybody be prosecuted on those facts. >> and if you can help us understand who precisely had been ruled out for prosecution,

that would be -- >> sure. >> did you look at the clinton foundation? >> i'm not going to comment on the existence or nonexistence of any other investigations. >> was the clinton foundation tied into this investigation? >> i'm not going to answer that. >> the server that was set up in her home was originally set up by, you said, former president bill clinton. >> correct. >> do you know who paid for that? >> i don't sitting here. >> okay. i'll allow some equal now for my colleague and friend, mr. cummings. >> i yield three minutes to mr. lynch. >> thank you, mr. director. we're talking about hacking and

so on this committee, we're very much interested in cybersecurity and we review a lot of the major hacks that are going on. so just recently, and i would say in the last 18 months, we've had a major hack, february of 2016 at the department of homeland security and the fbi. we had a hacking group, the site intelligence group reported that a group called crackers with attitude had hacked 9,000 employees' data from the department of homeland security, including names, e-mail addresses, locations, telephone numbers. also, 20,000 fbi workers. we had another hack, direct evidence, obviously, of those. another hack at opm of 4.2 million current and former federal government employees. their information had been

stolen, including social security numbers, which are not redacted. we had irs in may 2015, millions -- no, i'm sorry, 200,000 attempted and 100,000 were successful. we had the state department announce a breach of their systems after it was forced to shut down its communications system. we had the united states postal service, 800,000 postal employees, 2.9 million customer s. the white house, "the washington post" reported back in 2014 that the white house computer was hacked. national oceanic atmospheric administrati administration.

i'm on another committee for financial services, verizon, usac health systems, thousands and thousands of employees, sony pictures, jpmorgan, gets into the millions, community health systems, target, tjx. all of these we have direct evidence, millions and millions and millions of people, their accounts being hacked. any direct evidence that hillary clinton's e-mails were hacked? >> no. >> okay. i have no further questions. i yield back. >> mr. director, we are about at the end. i'm going to do a concluding statement and then i think the chairman will. first of all, i want to go back to something that miss weitzman coleman said a little earlier. as an african-american man in

this country, 66 years old, moving towards the twilight of my life, we cannot allow black men to continue to be slaughtered. this morning, i woke up to my wife literally crying, watching the tape of this guy, anton sterling in baton rouge, then she looked at the one for filandro castillo near minneapolis. and i hope you watch them. there's something wrong with this picture. and don't get me wrong, i am all for, i've supported police, i am a lawyer, and i know how important police are. and i know there's so many great folks. but mr. director, if you do nothing else in your 2,000 plus days left, you have got to help us get ahold of this issue. it is so painful. i can't even begin to tell you.

so i don't want, i've been fortunate in my life, i'm very fortunate i have not been harmed by the police, but i've been stopped 50 million times. now, with regard to this hearing, i want to thank you again. as i listen to you, you said something that i will never forget. and for some reason, it gave me a chill. you said there are two things that are most important to me. two things. you said, my family and my reputation. my family and my reputation. and i -- i don't know whether your family is watching this, but i hope that they are as proud of you as i am.

because you are the epitome of what a public servant is all about. sacrificing over and over and over again, trying to do the right thing, sometimes coming under ridicule, but yet still doing the right thing. and so i hope that they are proud of you. the second thing i hope, is that no matter what has happened in this hearing, i hope that you know that your reputation is still in tact. and so i conclude by summarizing that i think some of our key findings today. first, the director testified that his entire team of 15 to 20 fbi investigators and analysts unanimously agreed on the recommendations not to prosecute

secretary clinton. seco second, director comey made crystal clear that republican claims, some of the talking heads' claims of bias are completely false. he testified that he would treat john doe the same way he would treat hillary clinton, that he was very forceful on that point. third, on the claim the secretary clinton sent or received e-mails that were marked as classified, that claim has now been significantly undercut. those documents were not classified and those marksings were not proper. finally, republicans have repeatedly cried foul about a double standard when it comes to secretary clinton's e-mails. but director comey testified that the real double standard would have been to prosecute her with this completely inadequate evidence. again, director, i thank you, but i thank somebody else.

i thank -- and having practiced law for many years and having dealt with the fbi on many cases, i want to thank the people who work with you, because it's not just -- this is not just about you. this is not just about secretary clinton, when we are addressing you, there are a whole cadre of people who give their blood, their sweat, and their tears to prekt us as americans. and i want to thank them. because sometimes i think they are forgotten. unseen, unnoticed, unappreciated, and unapplauded, but today i thank them. >> i thank the gentleman and i concur with the idea that every fbi agent i have ever met has just been above reproach. and they make us proud and they work hard, they put their lives

on the line, they serve overseas, they serve domestically. i can't thank them enough for what they do. and i hope that is part of the message that we carry back. i cannot thank you, personally, enough, you on a personal level, for your accessibility, your ability to get on the phone with me the same day that you make your announcement, and then in rapid fire, when i said to you, what day is best -- we're going to have to do this, so which day is best for you, and you said thursday, and here we are and doing it. i can't thank you enough. i wish all of the government employees would have that attitude and approach. and i really do. and i can't thank you enough. i look forward to working with you and your staff as we move forward in getting this documentation, things that you can't share publicly, and others. it is the intention of the committee to -- i had told mr. cummings here that we would come back after votes. votes have been pushed back now a bit. so what i would like to do is to go into recess for five minutes

and then we will start with our second panel. committee stands in recess until five minutes from now. thank you again, director comey. >> for over 4 1/2 hours, we have witnessed the nonstop questions and answers in front of the house committee on oversight and government reform by the director of the fbi. and in a way, fbi director comey saw his job today this way, to convince members of the committee, and by extension, people watching at home, that there are people in public service like james comey, the director of the fbi. and further on many occasions, he made the point that he took all that he is and all that he has become and all that he had at his disposal, examined the case before him of hillary clinton, and came up with the result he did.

as you saw many of the republicans on the panel, in praising him, in praising his integrity, begged to differ. they believe that he has made a grievous mistake here in finding extreme carelessness, but not criminality, lacking that intent we heard talked about all day. we have a number of guests and experts who have been very patient, watching and listening with us. ari melber is our legal analyst around here and ari, i'm curi s curious, what are the highlights to you? >> brian, we live in a world full of superlatives. we're told often something is the greatest or worst or unprecedented. i will tell you, in my view, this was a truly unprecedented presentation by an fbi director about a high-profile case or any case. as you say, he sought to address

the criticisms forthrightly and with detail, and we rarely see this kind of expo sigs about a decision to charge or not charge in this capacity. this was unusual. voters and viewers will decide whether they think this was unusual in a good or bad way. to your question, having watched this entire unusual hearing, i see eight big points that substantively jump out. and i will attempt to run through them. number one, director comey saying in his view, hillary clinton didn't violate the law. that was more emphatic than the way he said it earlier this week, because he referred so much to evidence, evidence of what happened. here he said, he didn't think she violated the law. she said that to prosecute her itself would have been a double standard. that is a complete, basically, reversal of the republican critique. he is saying that it would have been a double standard to have prosecuted in this instance. number three, with regard to the question about whether negligence, the idea of nonintent, but carelessness that could justify a charge, he said,

in 99 years, only one time has that ever been a standard used. indeed, he said it was in charges that were not ultimately what was adjudicated. that is to say, there was a plea. number four, he said he didn't review the accuracy of other statements she made in other forums, in the campaign trail or to congress. that -- watch for that, because that may come up more. number five, he said he could take a criminal referral from the congress, with regard to inaccurate statements or potential perjury that she made to congress. i want to be clear if folks are getting deja vu. what that means, in statements by the chairman and another member of his committee is, director comey said, yes, if you, congress, makes a criminal referral about potential false statements or perjury, we the fbi could look at that. i have no idea at this juncture whether that is something that congress or the fbi has an appetite for, but it was certainly a newsworthy exchange. number six, director comey said he had never heard of up-classifying before this investigation. the notion that many of us have now become familiar with,that

something won't be classified today, but a year later, will be up-classified. that is confusing to folks who don't have a big intelligence background. here you have a fbi director saying he never heard of it until this investigation began over the past year. number seven, he made it very clear in response to republican questioning, brian, that clinton should have known how to better handle classified info. he was clear on that point on her carelessness. and number eight, in comparisons to other people, he would say, i would note, that what petraeus did was far worse. but he also said repeatedly that people who did what she did should be reprimanded or potentially fired. those are the points that jumped o out to me. >> ari melber, thanks. more discussion on points four and five, by my reading, as our coverage goes on, i'm sure. we want to welcome paul butler to the air. he's been watching and listening with us. he's a georgetown university law

professor, but more importantly, for the purposes of this conversation, a former federal prosecutor for public corruption among other things and same question to you, what are the highlights through your eyes? >> this was an extraordinary moment. when i was a prosecutor and we described to bring charges, we would do a one-sentence press release. there's been a thorough investigation and the department of justice has elected not to proceed. this was very different. we heard 4 1/2 hours from the nation's chief law enforcement officer about how he exercises his extraordinary prosecutorial discretion. look, if the fbi is investigating somebody for three years, the director said that it's been the man-hour equivalent of three years of investigation, they could find a charge for anybody. so the question is, how he

exercised this discretion. some people will say that it's political. other people will say that, no, he just followed precedent. so the thing is, when you talk, you open yourself up to questions about your judgment. so the standard, as ari said, is negligence. it's gross negligence, that what the secretary did reach that standard? again, he said she acted with extreme carelessness. another time he said she acted unreasonably. he also allowed that there's no dictionary legal definition of gross negligence. so if he really wanted to, could he have brought a case? i think so. again, that opens up to the critique that is political. at the end of the day, he acquitted himself well, he explained that prosecuting her would have been inconsistent with the prosecute. there's never been a prosecution like this. >> and do you agree, professor,

that part of his presentation, whether by design or practical effect, was an education in the kinds of people attracted to public service in his line of work? >> i think so. you know, the director is a straight shooter. i don't agree with everything he says. he's gone up against the obama administration on the so-called ferguson effect. so he thinks that there is something going on with all this attention on the police. which is causing some citizens to not be law-abiding. i don't agree with that. but the point is, he calls it as he sees. he's a straight shooter in the sense that we hope that when there's a clearly charged political investigation like this, that whoever is going to do it is objective. and again, calls the shots as he sees it. look, if there have been charges brought that would obviously have been a huge deal for the presidential election. so when prosecutors are

investigating someone with that kind of profile, they're aware there's a convention coming up in a few weeks, are they aware that there's an election in a few months? yes, they're aware of that. but we have to trust that they make their decisions dispassionately. and i think that director comey made that case today. >> professor, thank you. also with us is james melendres, a former special prosecutor, specializing in some of the justice department's highest profile cases through the years, including, notably, the case against david petraeus for mishandling classified information and lying to the fbi. and counselor, were you surprised at the amount of talk that the petraeus case received? i know you're probably relieved that there was that correction in the point of fact about where the evidence was found. >> brian, i wasn't surprised by it. there had been discussion about that case in comparison to the

recommendations in the investigation of secretary clinton and her e-mail practices. and so i expected it. and the director, in my view, was exactly right in drawing the distinction between the two cases, namely that in the prosecution of david petraeus, there was significant and powerful evidence of intent or mens rea, which is something the director spoke about at length. in particular, the recorded conversations in which the cia director, former cia director petraeus, referred to the very high classification of the information he shared with his biographer, the director also pointed out that in that case, petraeus had lied to the fbi when they sked him about whether or not he had shared information with liz biographer. and those two features distinguished it from the facts that the fbi determined in this particular investigation. taking a step back, you know, when the hearing started over

4 1/2 hours ago, congressman cummings, you know, put it to director comey to, in his words, close the gap between what the director had said on tuesday and some of the public reaction. and i thought that he did an effective job of closing that gab today. namely, in offering a primer to the committee, and by extension, to the american people, about both the fact that prosecutors are required to prove physical acts and mental intent, and that that mental intent is very frequently the most difficult proof to amass. he also, i thought, did an effective job of tackling the issue of gross negligence head-on, as the former panelists have mentioned, director comey referenced the fact that there's been a singular, singular gross negligence prosecution in 99 years. he also alluded to, that is the director, alluded to potential questions about the

constitutionality of a gross negligence prosecution. and that question, that constitutional question pertains to a 1941 decision, goring versus the united states, in which the supreme court found that the statute itself, the espionage act, was not overbrought, because in their reading, it required bad faith and intent to injure the united states, which would run counter, potentially, to a gross negligence standard. so i thought that in offering those comments on the gross negligence issue, he tackled some of the questions and concerns that had been in the public. and finally, you know, he was almost inviting the committee members to ask him more questions about comparative cases. and, you know, it is certainly the case that over the past several years and stretching back even further than that, 793 felony prosecutions have had a common denominator. that is that they have involved

the transmission of classified information to individuals not authorized to receive it. that was certainly true in the petraeus case, although it was a misdemeanor, it was true in the prosecution of john kiryaku and stephen kim, both government employees who shared information with the press when they were not authorized to receive it and later lied to the fbi when they were questioned about it. so given that frame, i think the director did a good job of explaining the legal framework. >> counselor, thank you. and thanks for your patience, as well. and from the legal side to to the inevitable political side of all of this, because after all, this was a national audience watching across the board on the cable news networks, let's go to nicole wallace who's been here with us in new york, watching and look as well. former communications director in the bush white house, former senior adviser to the mccain/palin campaign.

nicole, i know we have political news going on at the same time, which we will get to but who were the heros and villains today, especially in how you think this will be viewed from the beltway on west through what we like to call america? >> well, you know, i started keeping three lists. one was the good moments for the democrats. the other was the good moments for the republicans, and the third was the list of good moments for james comey and the fbi. and by far, the one that took up the most pages was the list of good moments for james comey and the fbi. anybody who thinks that the fbi is rigged or that the entire government is rigged was proven wrong today. there was a moment that gave me chills. james comey said, there are two things i care about, the love of my family and my integrity. the second moment that made my cheesy i love the good guys in government heart just swell was when he said, look me in the eye. look me in the eye. he said it twice under questioning from republican, and

he said, there was no influence. so if you're a democrat or a republican, a sanders supporter or a trump supporter who thinks everyone in the government is rigged, i think james comey made a pretty good case that the fbi is not and was not. i think what the republicans got out of today was wall-to-wall coverage of a hearing where it was not in dispute whether or not hillary clinton lied to the public every time she's been asked over the last year about her e-mail practices. the fbi director comey made perfectly clear she did. but what democrats got was that in no uncertain terms, james comey is standing by his decision that there was no intent to commit a crime. there was something for partners on both side of the aisle, but the fbi director stood out to me as the only hero in what was only otherwise a sad state of affairs. >> and we're forced to pivot and bring our viewers in on the other drama that's been taking place today. and that is concurrent can that hearing, drump has been on

capitol hill today. he met with republicans in the house and he met with republicans in the senate. we have a member of the house standing by to tell us about the first meeting. in the second meeting, nicole, things did not go well, as trump called out some members of the senate on their loyalty or lack of it to him. >> that's right. with the senator jeff flake, is the confrontation you're talking about. i talked to someone who was in that first meting and i understand it went much better than the second. but to jeff flake, he's, i guess, gave him a hard time about being tough on him, and jeff flake, if you're to believe reports, he said, yes, i'm the other senator from arizona, the one who wasn't captured and i would like to talk to you about those kinds of statements. so he was confronted face to face with some of his critics. got to give trump credit on the

one hand for staring them down. and you've got to give jeff flake credit for taking his beef with trump straight to trump. but i don't think anything was resolved. i think this republican angst will go on and trump's desire and glee in saying that which is politically incorrect and uncomfortable for his fellow republicans shows no signs of abating. >> nicole, thanks. stand by. peter king is with us, a republican from the state of new york. congressman, i'm going to continue with you down these twin tracks. first things first, what we just witnessed for, by my count, four hours and 36 minutes, how did you think, especially the members of your party came off in that committee hearing and how did you think the witness came off in proving the point he went there to prove? >> first, i have great regard for jim comey. i think he handled himself very well today. i think it's a mistake for

republicans to think that comey was somehow in on a fix or he was rigging something. he is of unimpeachable integrity. i'm on the intelligence committee and i've seen him being very critical of president obama when he's had to be. certainly, he was critical of president bush during the bush administration. he's a total straight shooter. he could have indicted hillary clinton if he wanted to. there was enough evidence there, but i thought he made a very good case as to why he didn't. but i don't think for the most part republicans handled themselves well. i think we're going to make a mistake if we attack comey. what he laid out against hillary clinton, basically, he said she did not tell the truth, she has, she was reckless and negligent, and left herself open to have secrets revealed to the enemy. he made the most damning accusations in his statement the other day against a presidential candidate that has ever been made in history, i think, by any law enforcement officer. so i think republicans should be embracing comey right now. and even though they can honestly disagree with his decision not to indict her, they should be really praising his

judgment as far as his analysis of her conduct. the democrats are really forced -- they were reduced to the position of saying, okay, she's not a criminal. but they could not contest the fact that her conduct is undefensible. and that's what republicans should be running on right now. >> let me use your final point to round the corner into politics. a lot of political writers have said in the past 24 hours, comey gave you the campaign spot against hillary clinton, but there was no coalescing around that theme in the republican party. a lot of that blame goes to the structure of the trump campaign. you were in the meeting on the house side of the hill, among republicans, where donald trump appeared. i know you can't speak about the senate meeting. tell us about trump's appearance in front of republicans in the house? >> yeah, i have been been critical of donald trump in the past, on a number of occasions. having said that, i thought today's meeting in the house

went very well. he was in there to show that he could work with republicans. he was donald trump, he was on stage. he was humorous, sarcastic, and showed certain knowledge of the issues. but more than that, again, he showed that he was willing to and wanted to work with paul ryan, with the house republicans. he spoke for about 45 minutes, then i would say he answered questions for at least another half hour or so, maybe longer. and again, there was no antagonism in the room, there was no intention. i understand that it did not go as well in the senate. but certainly in the house, i would say that that meeting was far above what i expected it to be, as far as the good feeling, as far as the commonality and as far as uniting behind the fact that it's important that we defeat hillary clinton and the supreme court. the supreme court was the issue he's stretching the most in the issue of his presentation, how the next president could appoint three or four judges, which