so now trey gowdy has spent two years with nothing to show for it.othing to show for it, except multiple followic el crimes that he calls haircuts. what the hell is this. what is look at this guy, he looks like a michael douglas movie that has been squeezed to fit on your screen, that is what that looks like. and look, that's not a-- thing, it is wildly understood that there is nothing that changes anything. no matter what he keeps saying about new information. >> i actually trust to you read the report. you read the report. >> i am asking you to read it. >> i'm actually proud of whate found and i think it's new. >> to the democrats claim there is no new information, i haven't heard much about this white house meeting. i will tell you there is new information. >> i is got information, man, new [bleep] has come to light. and [bleep] man. >> trevor: by the way, just by the way real quick, the report he is speaking about is 800 pages. you can't just tell people to read 800 pages. you know when you say that, no one is actually going to go out and read th

meghan: i love trey gowdy. >> i disagree. gowdy had great, great potential and expended a lot of his personal verve on this hatchet job. i think it was political hatchet job. putting aside that stupid meeting between potus and loretta lynch on tarmac. sandra: you say stupid, like we should brush it off? >> she did 11 hours. we had seven hearings. tens of millions of dollars. there is no email. it is scandal-ette. it searched its purpose. diminished her. trade gowdy i wanted him to be great but he has become partisan. harris: hillary clinton is in springfield, illinois today. we're told she is giving a speech about race relations. unity in america, amonÁzé the details that we've been given about this. we want to let you know this is started. we toggle back and forth between leading candidates of both parties and so we've done that. and we just want to let you know we're watching it. go ahead, make -- meghan. melissa: there is two tier system. >> i'm a lawyer. go down to criminal courts. this is two-tiered system. but for trey

gowdy said, you know, in your statement, mr. director, you mentioned that there was no precedent for this. but we believe that you have set a precedent. and it's a dangerous one. the precedent is, if you sloppily deal with classified information, if you're cavalier about it -- and it wasn't just an innocent mistake. this went on for years. that there is going to be no consequence. we -- we're a different nation in the united states of america. we are self-critical. most nations would never do this. but we do it in the spirit of making ourselves better. there will be all kinds of accusations about political this and political that. i have defended your integrity. every step of the way. you are the definitive voice. i stabbed by that. but i am mystified. and i am confused. because you listen to your fact pattern, and come to the conclusion that there is no consequence? i don't know how to explain that. we'll have constituents ask us, they'll get mad, they'll -- you know, they're frustrated. they have seen this happen time and time

>> that's the question gowdy couldn't answer. >> why couldn't he answer? >> he said he was stonewalled by the stand department and the department of defense. it is nullable. we know what's on duty. >> is it cartham? >> it would be part of it. it would start with the department of defense and the pentagon. they did not react. when the secretary of defense says, go, go get them, but if you remember, no one said, we slould saved stevens. they should have tried because it lasted so lochlkt it last 13d, 14 hours. >> you know what's -- >> nothing moved and gowdy with 800 pages could not get that answered and it's a shame because he wrote a good report. he just got these big questions that he could not answer. >> let me ask you this. you know, you and i -- or at least i remember that i was very critical of panetta when he said we couldn't get there in time. whether it's 13 hours or eight hours or six hours, we should have tried. you know, panetta and -- you know, to his credit, he never said, i gave the order. >> true. >> he just -- like a fool saying we couldn't

>> no. >> joining me now house oversight committee member congressman trey gowdy. good to see you and good for you because it takes work to actually go through the record and tick it off like that so that the american public has an understanding about what you're doing in there. and you went to the heart of it, which is what he -- what the fbi proved. maybe it was a crime, maybe it wasn't, but it was absolutely that she misled over and over and over again. your thoughts. >> well there's no question she made false statements to the public, but the reason i went through that exercise with director comey is let's assume he's right and there's an intent element in the statute. i think there was circumstantial evidence that she had the intent, and one way to prove circumstantial -- prove intent by circumstantial evidence is false exculpatory statements. innocent people don't lie. so if you have a series of false statements, then you need to ask yourself while do you feel the need to mislead. it might be consciousness of guilt. >> what do you think the response to that i

first, trey gowdy pilloried hillary on her lies. >> secretary clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her e-mails either sent or received. was that sflu >> that's not true. there were a small number of portion markings on three of the documents. >> secretary clinton said i did not e-mail any classified material to anyone on my e-mail. there is no classified material. was this true? >> no, there was classified material e-mailed. >> secretary clinton said she used just one device. was that true? >> she used multiple devices during the four years of her term as secretary of state. >> secretary clinton said all work-related e-mails were returned to the state department. was that truesome >> no, we found work related e-mails, thousands, that were not returned. >> sharp, brutal, factual, pointed, like his hair. the democrat response? how dare you demand facts. >> today, house republicans are doing what they always do, using taxpayer money to continue investigating claims that have already been debunked just to keep them in the headlines one more day. so with apologies to you and the fbi

we'll see what the chairman gowdy and chairman chaftz wants to do. the fbi says aneed a referral. maybe they've they'll get that. >> it was interesting to me he didn't look at the earlier testimony as -- as well that's fact his interview with sac clinton was not recorded, it was not under oath. was that odd? >> awful this plays into this perception that is out there very real perception there are now two standards in this great country, one for we the people and an entirely different one for the connected political class. and that's unfortunate, that is wrong, shouldn't be the case. and i always come back to, remember what took place here. the underlying situation. she decides to set up a unique e-mail situation, server situation, as mr. comey testified today, an unauthorized server that she set up. she controlled it. puts her personal work related clinton foundation information and we now know classified information on that server, and then she is discovered. then it's found out. then she is caught in this situation. and what does she do? her legal team decided on the front end w

gowdy said, you know, in your statement, mr.ector, you mentioned that there was no precedent for this. but we believe that you have set a precedent, and it's a dangerous one. the precedent is if you sloppily deal with classified information, if you're cavalier about it -- and it wasn't just an innocent mistake. this went on for years. that there's going to be no consequence. we, we're a different nation in the united states of america. we are self-critical. most nations would never do this. but we do it in the spirit of making ourselves better. there'll be all kinds of accusations about political this and political that. i have defended our integrity every step of the way. you are thedefinitive voice. i stand by that. but i am mystified, and i am confused because you listen to your fact pattern and come to the conclusion that there is no consequence? i don't know how to explain that. we'll have constituents ask us, they'll get mad, they'll, you know, they're frustrated. they've seen this happen time and time again. i don't know

gowdy. representative gowdy: we can disagree on whether or not, but let us assume that you are right and i am wrong, and that it is a valid defense. secretary clinton said that 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 does that impact your analysis of her intent? because i heard you this morning describe her as being less than sophisticated. she disagrees with that. director comey: i was talking about technical sophistication. the question is i would hope everybody the works in the government is aware of classification requirements. the question then is, if you mishandle classified information when you did that thing, did you know you were doing something that was unlawful? that is the intent question? representative gowdy: we will have to discuss all the people we prosecuted who were unaware that they were breaking the law. there are lots of really dumb defendants out there who do

gowdy thousands of e-mails fell into those categories. now, that seems to me to provide some context to what took place here. did secretary clinton's legal team -- excuse me, let me ask it this way. did secretary clinton know her legal team deleted those e-mails that they kept from us? >> i don't believe so. >> did secretary clinton approve those e-mails being deleted? >> i don't think there was any specific instruction or conversation between the secretary and her lawyers about that. >> did you ask that question? >> yes. >> did secretary clinton know that her lawyers cleaned devices in such a way to preclude forensic recovery? >> i don't believe she did. >> did you ask that question? >> yes. >> do you see how someone could view the context of what she did, set up a private system, she alone controlled it. she kept everything on it. we now know from ms. abedin's deposition they did it for that reason, so no one could see what was there. based on the deposition ms. abedin gave, and then when they got caught, they deleted what they had and

gowdy thousands of e-mails fell into those categories. now, that seems to me to provide some context to what took place here. did secretary clinton's legal team -- excuse me, let me ask it this way. did secretary clinton know her legal team deleted those e-mails that they kept from us? >> i don't believe so. >> did secretary clinton approve those e-mails being deleted? >> i don't think there was any specific instruction or conversation between the secretary and her lawyers about that. >> did you ask that question? >> yes. >> did secretary clinton know that her lawyers cleaned devices in such a way to preclude forensic recovery? >> i don't believe she did. >> did you ask that question? >> yes. >> do you see how someone could view the context of what she did, set up a private system, she alone controlled it. she kept everything on it. we now know from ms. abedin's deposition they did it for that reason, so no one could see what was there. based on the deposition ms. abedin gave, and then when they got caught, they deleted what they had and

gowdy. >> through, dr. gosar. director comey i want to go back to the issue of intent. we can disagree whether or not it's an element of the offense. let's assume for the sake of argument you're right and i'm wrong and it is an element of the offense. secretary clinton said she was, quote, well aware of classification requirements. those are her words, not mine and not yours. if she were, quote, well aware of classification requirements, how did that impact your analysis of her intent? because i've heard you this morning describe her as being less than sophisticated. she disagrees with that. >> i was talking about technical sophisticati sophistication. the question is, i would hope everybody who works in the government is aware of classification requirements. the question then 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 are going to have to get together some other time and discuss all the people we prosecuted who were unaware that they were breaking

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

i thought trey gowdy was more than capable of handling this.what i'm trying to figure out, is why was it allowed to happen? why wasn't it done? perhaps jim jordan is somebody that a lot of leadership is always nervous about. he straddles the fence between the establishment and the freedom caucus, and those folks. i don't know what it was, but it strikes me as undermining their own report. when you are not speaking with one voice, then, you might as well not be selling anything at all. john: chuck, we had this incident in turkey, in istanbul. at this hour, we don't know that much. do you have any sense of the politics of that at this early stage? chuck: i wouldn't. there is just no more important and challenging country for the president, for any president to deal with, then turkey. the challenges turkey faces. their own domestic terrorism issues. plus isis. plus syria. it is sometimes no wonder that this is not a weekly occurrence that we are in turkey wondering about a terrorist attack. mark: terror somewhere almost every day around the world.

trey gowdy said this was no precedent in terms of punishment. are you familiar with brian imish mirra. >> yes. >> he was prosecuted. what is the difference between his case and hillary clinton's case in carelessness and gross negligence. we are dealing with statute 793 section f that does not require. >> gross negligence standard. >> is that why brian was punished? >> no. he was prosecuted in the misde19or 1924 on facts that are very different. i can go through it. >> they are very similar and people feel there is a double standard. >> what they are read nothing the media is not a complete accounting of the facts in the case. >> would you agree with representative trey gowdy that she could be elected president and do it gaep without fear of being punished? >> i don't think i am qualified to answer that question. >> my time has expired. >> now recognizing the gentle woman from new mexico. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have had the benefit when you're last or nearly last to really have both the benefit and then question the kinds of statements and

obviously that line of logic didn't fit well with trey gowdy it was like watching two cobras mate. >> secretary clinton said i did not mail any classified email, was that true? >> there was classified email. >> secretary clinton said she used just one device, was that true? >> she used multiple devised during the four years of her term as secretary of state. >> secretary clinton said all work-related emails were returned to the 8 department. is that true. >> no, we found thousands that were not returned. kennedy: ranking democrats were there to stroke comey's forehead and rub sweet partisan salve into his self-inflicted wounds. >> i want to make it clear that i condemn these completely unwarranted political attacks against you. they have attacked you personally, they have attacked your integrity. they have impugned your professionalism. you do not deserve this. your family does not deserve it, and the highly skilled and dedicated agents of the f.b.i. don't deserve it. kennedy: where does the matter go from here. the former secretary of state clearly per injured herself when she said t

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

listen to what congressman gowdy had to say during the hearing. i want to get your reaction on the other side. >> secretary clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her private email. was that true? >> our investigation found there was classified information. >> so it was not tr i said. >> secretary clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her emails, either sent or received. was that true? >> that's not true. there were a small number of portion markings i think on three of the documents. >> secretarily clinton said i did not email any classified material to anyone on my e-mail. there is no classified material. is that true. >> there was classified material in email. cheryl: brian, you see where they're going. she lied to congress. what do you think? >> come on, cheryl, he just admitted. she clearly misled the investigators during this investigation. and i have another question for you, and him and comey. why do they wait until the end of the investigation to question the person hillary clinton, who is at

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

gowdy for five minutes. >> good morning director comey. secretary clinton said she never sent or received classified information over her private e-mail. was that true? >> our investigation found -- >> so it was not true? >> that's what i said. >> okay. well, i'm looking for a shorter answer so you and i are not here quite as long. secretary clinton said there was not anything marked -- >> that's not true. there were a small number of portion markings on i think three of the documents. >> secretary clinton said i did not e-mail any classified material to anyone on my e-mail, there is no classified material. that was true? >> there was classified e-mail. >> secretary clinton said she used just one device. was that true? >> she used multiple devices during the four years of her term as secretary of state. >> secretary clinton said all work-related e-mails were returned to the state department. was that try? >> no. we found thousands that were not returned. >> secretary clinton said neither she nor anyone else deleted work related e-mails fro

gowdy thousands of e-mails fell into those categories. to provide some context to what took place here. did secretary clinton's legal team -- excuse me, let me ask this way. did secretary clinton know her legal team deleted those e-mails they kept from us? >> i don't believe so. >> did secretary clinton approve those e-mails being deleted? >> i don't think there was any specific instruction or conversation between the secretary and her lawyers about that. >> did you ask that question? >> yes. >> did secretary clinton know her lawyers cleaned devices in such a way as to preclude forensic discovery? >> i don't think she did. >> did you ask that question? >> yes. >> do you see how someone could view the context of what she did, set up the system, she alone controlled it, she kept everything on it. we now from mr. abidean's deposition that day. based on the deposition, miss abidean gave, and then when they got caught, they deleted what they had and they scrubbed their devices. is that part of the context in evaluating this decision? >> sure.

i thought trey gowdy was more than capable of handling this.g to figure out is why did this option, why was it allowed to have done, maybe jim jordan is someone that a lot of leadership is always nervous about. he sort of straddles the fence between the establishment and the freedom caucus. i don't know what it was, but it strikes me, they undermined their own report. when you are not speaking with one voice, then you might as well not be saying anything at all. john: chuck, we had this incident in turkey. we don't know that much at this hour, but do you have any sense of the politics of that at this early stage? chuck: i wouldn't. there is no more important and challenging country for the president, for any president to deal with, then turkey. the challenges that turkey faces, their own domestic terrorism issues, plus isis, plus syria, it is no wonder this is not a weekly occurrence in turkey with terrorist attempts. mark: terror every day almost around the world. thank you very much. coming up, we hear from the former chairman of the republic

gowdy laid out and we all asked were not true, according to the testimony. now, director comey said they did not look at a referral from congress on that testimony. i think we'll see some of that as the next step, a comparison. whether it was willful or gross negligence or extreme carelessness, everyone grease there should be consequence. my question to the american people and to director comey today, what is it? deirdre: congressman, thank you very much. congressman russell there with me. he was in the room and had that exchange as you saw with the fbi director comey. >>> well, speaking of comparison, there are those who say hillary clinton said one thing to the fbi and another to the american public. we did a fact check. here it is. >> nothing that i sent or received was marked classified, and nothing has been demonstrated to contradict concern matters that were classified at the top secret special access program at the time they were sent and received. >> i thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal e-mails instead

how many democrats stood with gowdy? nobody. that should have been fact cited. if you go back in 1983, there shyite that e, killed 63 during the reagan administration there was no investigation by the democrats. all they had toe do was come together and find a solution to all these problems. that should have been what should have been in the benghazi select committee. the republicans are there for a witch-hunt. i'm not in favor of hillary. i'm thinking of voting towards her. the republicans are in there -- she stood firm for 11 hours. everybody applauded her for telling the whole truth. she asked for money to protect people over there. nobody did that. they should go back and come out with a good information for her to protect the american embassies and consulate everywhere around the world. thank you. host: suicide bombings in saudi arabia the subject of the story in "wall street journal" this morning. the recent ones saying that looking at some of the attacks, one attack that took place as worshipers gathered to break their fast in the mosque opened courtyards

. >> trey gowdy had 11 hours with hillary clinton over the benghazi investigation. that material was released just a week before this material of the fbi investigation was released. what do you think that fbi director comey didn't do properly if he has come forward with his investigative findings and his recommendation. why do you think that's not enough? >> so two points. trey gowdy, as an investigator, knows only benghazi. they were stone walled from the white house. they didn't get access to all the information. they only got a slice of the pie. it's clear director comey indicated a crime was committed. but that he wasn't going to refer to the department of justice for criminal charges. and i think the media has misrepresented because charges weren't being referred that a crime wasn't committed. that's not the case. it's clear by his statement there was a crime but he chose not to refer it. >> it does go on to the department of justice now. we'll see how loretta lynch handle it is it. she said prior she would go by the advice of the fbi and career prosecutors and

bill: that's trey gowdy grilling loretta lynch. congressman gowdy with me from the hill.ind of how it went yesterday for several hours. listen. >> i as attorney general are not able to provide any further comment on the facts or substance of the investigation. >> do you agree with director comey's conclusion about that? >> i would have to refer to you director comey's conclusion. again i would refer you to director comey for the basis of his recommendation. bill: what did you learn? >> nothing. it was a total waste of time and a total disservice to our fellow citizens. it's not asking too much to ask prosecutors about their charging decisions or their decision not to charge. she could have answered every one of those questions. she chose not to. there is no rule that doesn't allow her to answer the questions. she just chose not to. bill: why? >> what we asked her to do was apply the facts to the law. and it's not that complicated. you take the facts, you apply the law and everybody knows what it is. but the facts are embarrassing for her presidential candidate. so discuss

representative gowdy himself also said, i used to work with him. he's doing a serious investigation behind closed doors away from the media's attention, and i'm going to trust him until i see a reason not to. representative gowdy referred to director comey as honorable and apolitical. he said this is exactly what you want in law enforcement. well, it's exactly what you want in law enforcement until the decision is not the decision that you want. director comey, chairman chaffetz went on television an accused you of making, quote, a political calculation. he said your recommendation was nothing more thanks quote, a political determination in the end. i'm going to ask you, how do you respond to that? were your actions in any way, shape or form governed by political consideration? >> no, not in any way. >> did anyone with secretary clinton's campaign or the administration influence your recommendation for political reasons? >> no. they didn't influence it in any way. >> i'm going to take you at your word because i know and those who will go through th

gowdy,hat's trey republican. i want to know, carrie, i want you to parse what he said and me why it didn't work with comey? f.b.i. director said there just wasn't enough evidence to demonstrate that hillary clinton or her close at the state department acted with malicious or bad up thishen they set private email server and did government business on it for years. said hei. director discovered seven or eight classified email chains, top not just classified -- email chains on that server and 110 classified emails but when he dug down, he didn't see the kind of bad behavior they've to chargee past people with a crime. hillary clinton, in her 3 1/2 hour interrogation at f.b.i. headquarters last weekend, did not lie to investigators as far as the f.b.i. could tell. no destruction of dawments -- or emails maliciously and there was no evidence she intended to be disloyal to the engage innment or espionage in any way. thing republicans have cited, the f.b.i.'s suspicion that hillary clinton may have been hacked. he didn'

trey gowdy got him to acknowledge that hillary clinton's statements for the last year that she has been making to the public have been false in almost every particular. she said there was no classified that was false. she said there were no markings, there was no markings. she said lawyers turned over all the emails to the state department. that was false he also acknowledged when i was speaking to him. probably lose their job, probably lose their security clearance and may not be able to work for the government security position again. i think the american people see a double standard to say okay not only did you not prosecute her but there are no consequences at all, certainly a mid level official would have faced some consequences. i think what happens next is they did not look and review her sworn testimony in front of the benghazi committee. he said he hadn't had it referred. i would think if you are investigating someone, you want to find all the statements. but, there is an open question whether she told the truth to the benghazi committee under oath and a lot of the factual find

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

tray gowdy is interviewing james comey. did she tell the truth here? no. no. lie. lie. lie.t some point this has to resonate with the american people about -- >> what about lying to the victims of benghazi and their families. what about going before congress and saying what does it matter? what difference does it make if american lives were lost? we want a president who doesn't care what difference it makes? if american lives were lost. if you were in the military, would you trust that person as your commander in chief? >> i wouldn't. at the end of the day, we always view elections through the prizm of peace and prosperity. is the issue of safety and security the borders, for example, people coming from countries that practice sharia, the antithesis of american values. >> it's all part of the same thing. if you want to talk about the problem, beginning race, we have to take our solutions which i believe move people out of poverty. >> you did it. you did it in the biggest city of the country. >> i moved 500,000 -- >> 600,000. >> sorry. 100,000 went to new jersey. 500,000 had

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

i'm glad to see the colleagues in my house, including my good friend congressman trey gowdy, starting a bipartisan working at theo take a hard look relationship between the black community and the law enforcement community. i am hopeful a similar group will start in the senate. i have had the pleasure of working with colleagues with john cornyn, many others, working on this notion of criminal justice reform, and i am very hope all that work will continue to move forward and produce real fruit. much of this work will be done by local government and state governments. many in the law enforcement community who talk about the need for more training, specifically de-escalation- training, diversity training and getting police officers out of their cars and it to communities , so that when they are walking down the street, that the folks know them. we talked about the notion of getting officers embedded in the that officers know the people they are talking to. this seems like common sense and the right direction. street.two way i think the dallas police chief made the point that her than i c

gowdy. >> thank you. director comey, i want to go back to the issue of intent for just a second. we can disagree on whether or not it's an element of the defense. let's assume for the sake of argument that you're right and i'm wrong and that it is an element of the defense. secretary clinton said she was quote well aware of classification requirements. those are her words. not mine and not yours. so if she were, quote, well aware of classification requirements, how did that impact your analysis of her intent? because i've heard you this morning describe you as being less than sophisticated. she disagrees with that. >> i was talking about technical sophistication. the question is i would hope everybody that works in the government is aware of classification requirements. the question then 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 are going to have to together some time and discuss all the people we prosecuted who were unaware that we were breaking the law. t

. >> reporter: he pulled no punches, like in this exchange with south carolina republican trey gowdy. >> secretary clinton said, "i did not e-mail any classified material to anyone on my e-mail, there is no classified material." was that true? >> there was classified material. >> secretary clinton said she used just one device. was that true? >> she used multiple devices during the four years of her term as secretary of state. >> secretary clinton said, "all work-related e-mails were returned to the state department." was that true? >> no. we found work-related e-mail, thousands, that were not returned. >> reporter: so what comey didn't find, compelling evidence clinton intended to mishandle classified information, which made her case different from those prosecuted in the past. >> we don't want to put people in jail unless we prove that they knew they were doing something they shouldn't do. >> reporter: this may not be the end of it. comey revealed that he did not investigate whether clinton made any false statements while she was testifying under oath about her e-mail. maurice, repu

gowdy talked about. fact that she's former first lady, former secretary of state, former senator. major party's nominee for the highest office in the land. and oh, by the way her husband just met with the individual you work with at an airport in arizona five days ago. so, you >> but tell us what consider the context means. >> thank you. what i was trying to capture is the fact that the exercise of prosecutorial discretion is a judgment call in every single case and among the things you consider is what was this person's background, what was the circumstances of the defense. were they drunk? were they inflamed by passion? was it somebody that had a sufficient level of education and training and experience that we can infer things from that to consider the entire circumstances of the person's offense conduct and background. i did not mean to consider political context. >> the entire circumstances, remember what she did. she sets up this unique server arrangement. she along controls it. on that e-mail syst