mr. 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

mr. 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

and you just told mr. 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

and you just told mr. 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

. >> we'll now recognize the gentleman from south carolina mr. 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 sh

we'll wreck need mr. gowdysecretary clinton said she never sent or received classified information over her private e-mail, was that true? >> our investigation found there was classified information sent -- >> so it was not true. >> right, that's what i said. >> well, i'm looking for little shorter answer so you and i are not here quite as long. secretary clinton said there was nothing marked classified either sent or received. was that true. >> 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. was that true? >> 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 true? >> no, we found work related e-mails,

mr. gowdy said 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 kacavali about it -- it wasn't an innocent mistake, this went on for years, that there's going to be no consequence. we are 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 accusations about political this and political that. i have defended your integrity every step of the way. you are the definitive 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, get mad, they're frustrated, they've seen this happen time and time again. i don't know how to explain it. and i hope that it -- through

i will yield the rest of my time to the general and from south carolina, mr. 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

director comey determined in their exchange and investigation, that several points mr. 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

i was talking to mr. gowdy, he made a good point. he said, in your statement, mr. director, you mentioned there was no precedent for this. but we believe you have set a precedent. it is a dangerous one. the precedent is, if you sloppily deal with classified information, if you are cavalier about it -- and it wasn't just an innocent mistake. this went on for years. that there will be no consequences. we are 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 stand by that. but i am mystified. and i am confused. because you listened to your fact pattern, and come to the conclusion that there is no consequence? i don't know how to explain that. we will have constituents ask us, they will get mad, they are frustrated. they've seen this happen time and time again. i don't know how to explain it, a

with that i'll yield the rest of my time to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. 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

with that i'll yield the rest of my time to the gentleman from south carolina mr. gowdy. >> thank you, dr. gosar. director comey, i want to go back to the issue of intent for just a second. we can disagree whether or not it's an element of the offense. let's assume you're right and i'm wrong and it is an element of the offense. secretary clinton said she was "well aware of classification requirements." those are her words, not mine or yours. so if she were "well aware" of classification requirements, how did that impact your analysis of her intent? i've heard you this morning describe her as being less than sophisticated. she disagree requests w that. >> i was talking about technical sophistication. i would hope everyone in the government is aware of classification requirements. the question is if you mishandle classified information, when you did that thing, did you know you were doing something that was unlawful? that's the intent question. >> you and i will have to get together some other time and discuss all the people we prosecuted who were unaware they were breakin

i now recognize the gentleman from south carolina, mr. gowdy, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. inspector general linick, did you desire to interview secretary clinton as part of your investigation? >> yes, we did. >> and were you able to do so? >> no, we were not. >> and how was it communicated to you that you were not going to be able to do so? >> through her counsel, david kendall had sent a letter to one of the team leaders on the report. >> is that letter available for congress to inspect? >> you know, i'll go back and check, but i'll have to get back to you on that. i mean, it certainly exists. whether it's legal to provide it to you, sure, but -- >> well, let's do this, then. let's fast forward, and let's assume that you were able to interview her. why did you seek to interview her and what questions specifically would you have asked? >> well, we were -- the focus of our report was not about classified information. the focus of our report was how the department over the past 20 years addressed records preservation and cyber security. and you know, we were lookin

with that, i'm going to yield the rest of my time to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. 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

mr. gowdy. >> director comey, i want to go back to the issue of up tent for just a second. we can disagree on whether or not it's an element of the defense. let's assume that you're right, i'm wrong and that it is an element of the offense. secretary clinton said she was quote well aware of classification requirements. those are her words. if she were quote well aware of classification requirements, how did that impact our amps of her intent. i've heard you this morning describe her as being less sophisticated. she disagrees with that. >> i was talking about technical sophistication. i would hope everybody 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 and discuss some other time and discuss all the people we prosecuted that are unaware that they were breaking the law. there are lots of really dumb defendants out there who don't know what th

mr. gowdy. >> director comey, i want to go back to the issue of up tent for just a second. we can disagree on whether or not it's an element of the defense. let's assume that you're right, i'm wrong and that it is an element of the offense. secretary clinton said she was quote well aware of classification requirements. those are her words. if she were quote well aware of classification requirements, how did that impact our amps of her intent. i've heard you this morning describe her as being less sophisticated. she disagrees with that. >> i was talking about technical sophistication. i would hope everybody 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 and discuss some other time and discuss all the people we prosecuted that are unaware that they were breaking the law. there are lots of really dumb defendants out there who don't know what th

mrs. clinton's behavior and congressman trey gowdy will explain the legal strategy behind his fierce exchange with director comey. as we've made clear on that broadcast, the fbi director does not think mrs. clinton committed a crime but he does believe that she showed, quote extreme carelessness in her handling of the nation's most sensitive secrets. it is a criticism hitting directly at the heart of mrs. clinton's pitch to american voters. that she is the knowledgeable, steady hand the country needs. today director comey's testimony appeared to challenge some of those very claims. watch. >> as a candidate for president there's nothing i take more seriously than our national security. >> i don't think that our investigation established that she was actually particularly sophisticated with respect to classified information. >> i have some experience with the tough calls and the hard work of statecraft. >> in the one involving top-secret information, secretary clinton also not only received but also sent e-mails that talked about the same subject. >> but i have a lot more experience as a senato

mr. comey conducted relative to her testimony under oath to us last october. >> so are you now investigating perjury? >> well, that may -- i think that appropriate. 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.

mrs. clinton from the highest tree. that's exactly what they did. have a nice day. host: republican who led the committee on this effort was tray gowdy, when the press release of the report came out, press conference came out, he was asked directly by a reporter about the benghazi investigation if it was about hillary clinton the here's what tray gowdy had to say. >> look at the resolution. the resolution doesn't mention secretary clinton. speaker boehner nor speaker ryan have ever asked me to do anything about 2016 presidential politics. speaker boehner asked me to find out what happened to four of our fellow citizens. i believe that is what i have done. you are welcomed to read the report. i hope you will. i know you will. if you at the end of reading that report can conclude that it is about one person instead of about four people, i will be shocked. >> i'm asking the opposite question. do you believe after doing this for two years, spending all of your time and millions of dollars, do you believe that based on this that the american people should look at this and see the woman who wants to be president -- >> i was with you until