. >> ms. walsh? >> no, sir. >> mr. higgins? >> i can think of one occasion of which i have accidentally removed material from the skiff and immediately put it back to the skiff. >> you didn't take it home? >> no, sir. >> mr. samuel? >> no, sir. >> mr. seoul? microphone please. >> sir, i took one home and the document was destroyed. >> so in two instances where you accidentally did something and you showed due diligence, took care of the situation. you did what you should have done and you reported it to your superior. that's not what happened here. so my problem with this is that, again, that i think this committee has a responsibility. i think the chairman's articulated that quite well. so exercise the oversight the constitution invests us with. and that we need to look into the possibilities of how a secretary of state acting, handling classified information, with extreme carelessness may have compromised agents in the field, possibly national security. there is a number of issues here and it begs the question, if that's not

is that not right, ms. walsh or all this community would agree on that? >> about her use of a private server, sir? >> the secretary used a private server and on it -- in going through the server was classified information. everybody, unless you're on anotherplanet, knows that, including these -- they're all shaking their head affirmatively. the director when he was here said he didn't know if there was a possibility that it could have been hacked, that information could have been made public. that is really a national security issue here too that congress in its responsibility to investigate is now being denied the information about what really took place. you're participating in keeping that information from us, mr. herring. >> if i could just say a couple things? one, on the personal identifiable information, obviously i have a subpoena here for that now. i engaged chairman's staff about the compromise. >> we're going to get the 302's one way or another, but you have not given us all of the 302's. >> no. they've been prioritized. >> we want the informat

ms. walsh? >> not to my knowledge. >> mr. samuel? >> no, mr. chairman. not to my knowledge. >> no, not to my knowledge. >> can you release these e-mails into the public and if so, what would happen? mr. higgins, what happens if we release these e-mails that are -- on hillary clinton's unsecured server? what happens? >> mr. chairman, i can confirm that cia participated in a classification review process, and i would be happy to talk about that process in closed session. some of the materials contain classified materials that is not appropriate for public release. >> do some of these materials include sources and methods? >> mr. chairman, i'd prefer to discuss any further matters relating to classification in closed session. >> gentlewoman's time is expired, but thank you so much for yielding to me. >> i get to close in my time. you took all my time. i think the chairman can have all the time he wants. i just ask for a second, just a second. what our committee is engaged in is something but a partisan attack on secretary clinton with an effort to harm or u

. >> ms. walsh? >> no, sir. >> mr. higgins? >> i can think of one occasion of which i have accidentally removed material from the skiff and immediately put it back to the skiff. >> you didn't take it home? >> no, sir. >> mr. samuel? >> no, sir. >> mr. seoul? microphone please. >> sir, i took one home and the document was destroyed. >> so in two instances where you accidentally did something and you showed due diligence, took care of the situation. you did what you should have done and you reported it to your superior. that's not what happened here. so my problem with this is that, again, that i think this committee has a responsibility. i think the chairman's articulated that quite well. so exercise the oversight the constitution invests us with. and that we need to look into the possibilities of how a secretary of state acting, handling classified information, with extreme carelessness may have compromised agents in the field, possibly national security. there is a number of issues here and it begs the question, if that's not

ms. walsh's statements reflect -- ok. recognize myself for set of questions. mr. herring, what information do you believe that congress does not have the right to see? >> so we believe it is important for oversight committees to understand how the fbi reached our conclusion. >> no, no, no, no, no. wait. i'm asking you a philosophical question. what does congress not have the right to see? >> so i don't know that i can answer that in a way that -- there is more to it than a simple answer. i think each case is sort of specific to its own set of facts. i think we tried to be, i think director comey tried to be as transparent as he could with this committee and other committees as he can be. so i think when he spoke and answered questions. >> what as i as a member of congress, what is it that you believe we don't have the right to see?see, this is the way our government works. we get to do oversight. that's why since 1814, this committee has been doing that. there is executive -- let me help you. there is executive privilege. has the president invoked executive privil