Transcripts For CSPAN FBI Director James Comey Testifies At Oversight Hearing 20161003

Conversations]. I want to recognize the Homeland Security and investigations, Caroline Lynch. After 15 years working on capitol hill, caroline has decided to move the back to her home state of arizona to be close to her family and to pursue the next steps of her career. We are very sad to see caroline go. During her time in washington, dc, caroline works for john ofdegg in this chief counsel House Republican policy committee. She came to work for the House Judiciary Committee and in 2008, she became chief counsel of the judiciarys crime subcommittee. She has had an enormous impact on criminal and National Security laws. Few people in washington have done as much to promote the safety of our community. Caroline has overseen the drafting safety. Caroline has overseen the drafting negotiation and passage of critical legislation regarding the foreign Intelligence Surveillance act, the Electronic Communications privacy act and the most sweeping set of reforms the government practice in 40 years the usa freedom mac among many other priority of legislative initiatives. Anyone who has met caroline knows she is immensely intelligent, hardworking, loyal and a discerning chief counsel and of course those people she has negotiated would hav with hd her to be a skillful and formidable but fair advocate. Her team at the subcommittee know her to be a determined leader and a steadfast friend. Id appreciate if carolines deep knowledge of criminal laws, strength of her convictions and courage to speak the truth. We wish her well in her new endeavors and thank her for her dedicated service to the committees u. S. House of representatives and the American People. [applause] this is indeed a unique moment on behalf of the democratic staff and the democratic members of the committee i want to recognize Caroline Lynch for her hard work and dedication the past ten years the chief crying council she worked with her democratic colleagues on a broad range of criminal justice issu issues. The crime subcommittee is legislatively the busiest of all of congress and every crime related though that has been enacted during her time here has had the benefit of her expertise. There are many examples of this, but i would cite her role in helping the members find Common Ground on section 215 of the patriot act so we can enact important reforms in the freedom act. This important law will safeguard the National Security and our civil liberties. And it set a precedent for how we can proceed on such issues in the future work on this legislation was essential to the ultimate success. We will miss her insight on these issues as well as her friendship and friendliness as she meets the committee for other endeavors in her home state of arizona. We wish you all the best. [applause] i think you would agree with me in saying while the work isnt quite done, shes also been very critical to the bipartisan work we have been doing here the past few years culminating in 11 bills so far dealing with criminal Justice Reform and we thank you for the contribution that you have made for that and that work has been very bipartisan, so we thank you all. We now welcome director comey to the fourth appearance before the House Judiciary Committee since your confirmation as the director of the fbi. Needless to say, the past year since the last oversight hearing has been challenging on a number of fronts and we hope to review with you today. I want to begin by commending the men and women of the fbi and the nypd new Jersey Police departments for their action in apprehending the cold cowardly acts of terrorism last week injured 29 american citizens. This was the latest in a string of attacks stretching back to the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing continuing through the attacks in San Bernardino, orlando and minneapolis. They share a Common Thread mainly radical islam. The administration including the fbi has claimed this with the euphemism of countering violent extremism. The fbi and the rest of the National Security apparatus continues about focusing on the issues of extremism on the mission to protect the American People will always be one of following up on th the trigger r some aftermath. I look forward to hearing from you about how we are working to combat the terrorism and put an end to this string of violence while it is a malignancy that must be purged, other events have called into question the confidence americans have historically held in a blind and impartial justice system. Secretary of state Hillary Clinton and the investigation into the criminal conduct is a case in point. It seems clear the former secretary of state committed multiple felonies involving the passing of the classified information through her private email server however declined to refer the case for prosecution on some very questionable pieces. This past friday afternoon, the fbi released additional investigative documents from the investigation which demonstrate among other things that more than 100 of the emails on secretary clintons private server contained classified information and emails preserved under federal law were destroyed. Even more weve recently learned president obama used a pseudonym to converse with her on the email server. Why is this relevant . As the top aide when informed by the fbi between her boss and the president president , how is thatt classified . Armed with knowledge of the president s now known to be false claims that he only learned of clintons private email account, quote, the same time everybody else learned it through the news reports did the fbi review why the president was also sending classified information in fact this president and former secretary of state and properly transmit communications were nonsecure channels placing the nations secrets in harms way. The decision to play fast and loose with our National Security concern not only her daughters Wedding Planning work and yoga routine but according to you, send an email chains concerned matters that were classified in the topsecret special Access Program level when they were sent and received. The topsecret special Access Programs contained some of the most sensitive secret information maintained by the government. This is a truly remarkable fact for anyone of lesser notoriety guilty of doing this that person would already be in jail. For americans unsure of what the special Access Program is, it is the kind of information a war planner would use to defeat an enemy or clandestine intelligence operation. The wall street journal explained that the sap usually refers to the highly Covert Technology programs involving weaponry. Knowledge of the programs are usually distracted to small groups of people on the need to know basis. For those wondering whether this kind of information on the unsecured server is a problem, read no further than the Huffington Post which reported february clintons private email server containing tens of thousands of messages from the tenure as the secretary of state with the attempts from china, south korea and germany after she stepped down in 2013. To conclude, let me ask everyone to engage in a thought experiment. One of the signature accomplishments in the war on terror was the raid of pakistan in may of 2011 that resulted in the killing of osama bin laden. That operation was conducted by a team of the special operators and was of course highly classified. Now imagine if you will that classified information was passed through the nonsecure email server with access by nations or individuals, hostile to the United States. Rather than a highly successful covert operation, we might have had a team of dead u. S. Servicemen. Hillary clinton chose to send and receive topsecret information over a unsecured server house in her home and placed in a bathroom closet. These actions without a doubt handpiece communications to thee interception fight the enemies interceptions by the enemies and those who wish america harm. Use facts and not the imagined history ive asked you to contemplate the basis of the investigation by the fbi, and these are the fact that chose to hold on the recommendation to prosecute saying that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. We as congress and the American People are troubled on how such gross negligence are not published and why there seem to be a different standard for the politically wellconnected. I look forward to your testimony today and at this time im pleased to recognize the Ranking Member from michigan for his opening statement. Thank you mr. Chairman. While both an ican in again dirr your appearance here today. The fbi mission is a complex undertaking to protect the United States from terrorism and to enforce our criminal law and to lead the nations Law Enforcement community. That ought to mirror our own priorities in this committee. In the past few days, for example, we have written this attack in minnesota, new york and new jersey. These attacks underscored the growing fear that individuals can be moved to violence at home and at the propaganda of other terrorist groups abroad even though they have no direct connection to those organizations. To me, this threat is dire. We should be doing all he can in the communities within the constitutional framework to mitigate the danger that while the majority here in the house used hehouseused her time todays these attacks, i suspect they will not be in their focus in this campaign season. In charlotte and pulls out and dallas, right here in washington and other cities across the country, our citizens demand answers to questions about race and policing and the use of lethal force by Law Enforcement. Our police are under siege, often under resourced and in some cases hard pressed to build trust with the communities they serve. Director, your work to foster the lines of communication between Police Officers and the general public is commendable and necessary if we are to keep our citizens safe from harm. But will my colleagues discuss this issue with the director of the fbi for its leadershi his ld Law Enforcement community as paramount . I hope so. I am also afraid the focus may be elsewhere. The fbi is the lead agency in the investigation of th of thise or paste terrorism, online Sexual Exploitation and fraud. We have known for some years about the persistent cyber threat to our critical infrastructure. Now we hear reports of the new threat to the very basis of our democratic process. Twice this summer i wrote to you with my fellow Ranking Members to ask you to look into reports that the state actors are working to undermine in the process. Without objection i ask that both of these be placed in the record. It is now a consensus of the Intelligence Community that the russian government was behind the hack of the Democratic National committee and is not as some suggested somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds. On friday we learned from one report that the United States intelligence officials over to determine whether an american businessman identified by donald trump as one of his former policy advisor is opened up private communications with senior russian officials including talks about the possible lifting of economic sanctions if the republican nominee becomes president. The report cites an unnamed senior u. S. Law enforcement official, which i presume means someone in your order to mr. Director. Without objection i ask for this article be placed into the record. Let me be clear if true, this represents a danger to National Security and a violation of federal law which prohibits this type of negotiation. And i am not alone in describing the nature of the threat. The speaker himself said russia is led by a devious thug and putin should stay out of this. Well the Majority Press you on this problem today instead i believe the focus of the hearing will be more of the same come and attack on you and your team at the department of justice for declining to recommend criminal charges against secretary Hillary Clinton. In recent weeks, this line of attack has been remarkable only for its lack of substance. The character assassination and procedural minutia like the scope in the agreement in your decision to protect the identities of individuals unrelated to the investigation. I consider that an unfortunate waste of time with so many problems confronting the nation and so many of the challenges in your jurisdiction and powers you would think my colleagues would set their priorities different differently. I hope they do and they listen to our conversation today. I thank the chair man and yield back. Without objection all other members Opening Statements will be made a part of the record. We welcome the distinguished witness and if you please rise i will begin by swearing un. Do you swear the testimony you are about to give will be the truth and nothing but the truth so help you god . Like the record reflect the witness answered in the affirmative. Fbi director james comey at the college of william and mary and university of chicago law school. Served as the United States attorney for both the Southern District of new york and Eastern District of virginia hed returned to become the u. S. Attorney for the southern attorney for the Southern District of new york and in 2003 served as the Deputy Attorney general and the department of justice. We look forward to your testimony, the written statement will be entered in its entirety and we ask that you summarized your testimony in five minutes. You may begin. Welcome. Thank you mr. Chairman. Members of the committee is good to be back before you as the chairman said for the fourth time, i have six more to go and i look forward to the conversations each time i know this morning there will be questions about the email investigation and im happy to answer those at the best of my ability. In july when we closed the case i promised the transparency and i think we delivered on that and frankly in an unprecedented way i will do my best to be transparent in every way possible. What i thought i would do because i know we will talk about that quite a bit, i want to focus on some of the other things the fbi has been doing and my objective is to make it clear to you the quality of the people that have chosen to do this with their lives that isnt about money or living but its about the life they make and i just picked for different examples of things that we have been working on that illustrate the quality of the focus of the scope of the work that is extraordinary and the importance of partnerships because it is true that the fbi does nothing allowed to just to pick off for different parts of the organization as the chair and mr. Conyers both mentioned in the last couple of weeks, our folks have been working with their partners of federal, state and local organizations of all kinds to bring to justice very quickly the bomber in the new jersey attacks and that was done in a way that would have been hard to imagine 15 years ago in a time of battles and worry about my jurisdiction coming your jurisdiction. They showed you how it should be and must be done and we should all be proud of them. Second, within the last week, a hacker from kos about that worked for the socalled state on taking the information from American Military employees and then giving it to the islamic states so they could target these people was sentenced to 20 years in jail. Our folks together with lots of partners around the world found him in malaysia and they arrested him and brought him back to virginia where he was sentenced to 20 years. A terrific work by the cyber investigators and as you know through the intelligence investigators to understand just what mistress is russia up to and that his work that goes on all day every day about which i implemented in terms of answering questions but i want you to know that as a part of our work we dont talk about an awful lot that the core of the fbi and last i want to mention two weeks ago, a sixyearold girl was kidnapped on her front lawn in eastern North Carolina and a stranger kidnapping. All of Law Enforcement searched on that case. When he rolled up a team that is a capability we have built around the country to help in these situations they are agents and analysts that are expert at doing what has to be done in the gold in 24 hours you have two try to save a child so we worked with our partners at state and local levels and overnight we found that little girl chained by her neck to a tree of life than goalive togod and she was. The picture they showed me that morning with her wide eyes and hair with a thick chain around her neck is one i will never be able to get out of my head because it is both terrible and wonderful, terrible because of what happened but wonderful because together we found her and saved her. I called the sheriffs and the team to thank them and they said they were relieved and they all stood in the command center and cried together because it almost never ends this way. I said i wish we didnt live in a world where little girls were to up off their front lawns where we had to do this kind of work but unfortunately we do and im so glad of those people and the rest of the people that worked in that world because we are safer and better and theyve chosen to do this with their lives the best part of my job is to people like to watch to see their work and admire their work in any way that i can they are doing extraordinary work for the American People across an array of responsibilities. I know you know that if we are grateful for the support you gave the men and women and look forward to the conversation about that work. Thank you, director we will begin the fiveminute rule an ai wont recognize myself. You testified that the fbi did not investigate the testimony to the committee under oath we referred the matter to the United States attorney for the District Of Columbia. As this the fbi now investigatie veracity of secretary clintons testimony to the committee . The department has a referr referral. Now its pending so im not going to comment on the matter at this point. But it has been received by the department of justice. And you can tell u cant telr or not you are investigating . When do you expect you will be able to tell us more about this pending matter before the fbi . I dont know. With the Platte River Networks asking how to strip out the email address from a bunch of archived email he went on into the issue is that these emails involved a private email address of someone you would recognize and try to replace it with a placeholder address that did not expose it. This demonstrates actions taken to destroy evidence by those operating in the previous server and by her staff. Certainly he didnt take it upon himself to destroy evidence that had been instructed to do so by secretary clinton or her staff. Was the fbi aware of this post prior to offering immunity on may 3, 2016 . I am not sure. I know the team looked at it i dont know if they knew about it before then or not. Isnt this evidence of obstruction of justice and a violation of the immunity deal . Not necessarily, no. It depends on why he wanted to do tha and i think he conclud it didnt have the actual address but it had some name or placeholder instead of the address in the front line. Last week the American People learned that cheryl mills and former state department chief of staff and Heather Samuelson were granted immunity for the production of their laptops. Why did they not targets of the investigation . Its someone you have evidence at some point during the investigation unfolds and the scope of the investigations with respect initially because she was an email correspondence and was the subject of the investigation. Did the fbi find classified information on the computers . I think there were some still on the computer that were recovered as my recollection. Is that a crime having classified information on computers outside of the server system in the department of state . You would have to know what are the circumstances and what was the intention but its certainly the reason that we conducted the investigation to understand where emails have gone in the unclassified system that contained classified information. What did you determine . My troops will correct me if im wrong but they were duplicates of emails that had been produced and used to sort before the production. Both were granted immunity for the production of these computers. Why were they then allowed to sit in on the interview with secretary clinton . They reached a Letter Agreement with the two lawyers to give them the act of production immunity meaning nothing that is found on a laptop he turned over to be used against them directly which is a fairly normal tool in the investigations. She was a member of secretary clintons legal team, so they decided which of the lawyers come to the voluntary interviews with the fbi. Is it unusual to allow a potential witness in a subsequent prosecution had one been undertaken to the present in the room when the fbi interviews another witness and a potential target of an investigation . If it was a judicial proceeding the judge could please who could be there and the lawyers are governed by ethics to decide what matters they can be involved inches it doesnt fall to us to say that you can be in are you campion. When she agree that is a conflict of interest for them to serve as attorneys for clinton having been interviewed from the fbi from witnesses. Thats a question the lawyer has to answer for him or herself. Your lawyer, whats your opinion . I dont offer an opinion on that but thats something a lawyer has to decide on themselves. I see with counsel and with consulting the canons of ethnic what matters you can be involved in what you can. The bureaus role is to interview the subject, who they the subject, who they bring is up to them. How can you trust the veracity of secretary clintons answers knowing that witnesses previously interviewed by the fbi were allowed to participate . We assess the answers by what set in the evidence gathered. In consultation with her attorneys who are also witnesses to what was previously done earlier i may fact have themselves violated the wall for which there were requested and granted immunity. The answers the same, we make the assessment based on what the witness says and the other evidence we gathered in the case, who is sitting there to me is not germane. Thank you, my time has expired. I recognize the gentleman for michigan. Thank you. Thank you so much, director james, twice this past week the city of charlotte, North Carolina has been shaken by the shooting death of black men, it is only one city out of many in this country looking for answers about the use of force by police. We come come on this committee are looking for answers to. You are a vocal advocate for better collection of information about violence it and encounters between police and civilians. Has the fbis ability to collect this information been proved in the year since we have less discussed it . And why are these statistics so important to our current discussion on the use of force by police . Thank you. We are having passionate, important conversations conversation in this country about please use of force in connection with encounters with civilians, especially with africanamericans. All of the conversations are uninformed today. Theyre all driven by anecdote because as a country country we simply do not have the information to know, do we have an epidemic of violent structure by Law Enforcement against black folks . To have an evident regarding from folk or white folk. We dont know. An absence of that data theyre driven by anecdote and thats a very bad place to be. I dont know if theres an epidemic of violence. My instincts tell me there isnt but i dont know. I cant tell you whether. I cant tell you whether shootings involving people of any different color are up, down, sideways nor can anybody else in this country. So to discuss the most important things that are going on in this country we need information. The government should collect it. I cant think it. I cant think of something more inherent in lee governmental than the need to use deadly force in encounter during lawenforcement work. So what what has changed in the last year for which is good news with is that everybody and leadership in lawenforcement and the United States has agreed and theyve agreed that the fbi will build and maintain a database, so we collect Important Information information about all encounters involving the use of deadly force. That will allow us to know what is going on in the country so we can have a thoughtful conversation and resist being ruled by individual anecdotes. Thats thats what matters. Were making progress, will have it done, we would like it done in the next year or two years, this database will be up and running because everybody gets white matter so much. Thank you on august 30, i wrote to you regarding Donald Trumps expensive connections to the russian government. The letter cites to a number of troubling reports some that suggest mere conflicts of interest, others that might suggest evidence of a crime. Last friday, we read a new report suggesting that mr. Trumps Foreign Policy advisor has been meeting with highranking sanctioned officials in moscow to discuss lifting economic sanctions. If mr. Donald trump becomes president. The same report quotes this is a senior United States lawenforcement official who says this relationship is being quote actively monitored and investigated, and quotation. Is the fbi investigating the activities of mr. Trump or any advisor to the Trump Campaign with respect to any line of communication between the campaign and the russian government . I cannot say sir. As as i said in response to different question we do not confirm or deny investigations. More generally then, is it lawful for a private citizen to enter into official government negotiations with a foreign nation . I dont think its appropriate for me to answer that hypothetical. Well, in my view our Research Shows that it is not. The 18 usc section 953 prohibits this conduct in my view. And finally just mr. Trump currently receive Intelligence Briefings from the fbi . At both candidates and their running mates are offered on a regular basis briefings from the entire Intelligence Community. Some portion of the first briefing including an fbi segment, so yes. Does his staff attend those meetings as well . Know, just the candidate and the Vice President ial candidate. And finally, if a member of either know im wrong. I have to to correct. Each was allowed to bring two people, as i recall trump did bring to individuals with clearances to the briefing. Secretary clinton did not. Im sorry, i miss stated that. Okay. That. Okay. Finally, if a member of either campaign were engaged in secret back Channel Communications with a foreign adversary, could that line of communication pose a threat to National Security . I dont think its appropriate given that im not commenting on it might make me look at whether we have an investigation side prefer not chance of us are. Well, thank you for being here today. I think the chairman and i yelled back. The chairman think the gentleman away recognize the gentleman from wisconsin. Thank you mr. Chairman, director, welcome. Who authorized cheryl mills immunity . The decision was made by the department of justice, dont know what level. In our investigation any kind of immunity comes from the prosecutors not the investigators. Okay, did she request immunity . I dont know for sure what the negotiations of all, i believe her lawyer asked for active production immunity with respect to the production of her laptop. That is my understanding. The fbi was not a part of those conversations. Now it is been a matter of Public Record that secretary clinton brought nine people into the room where two fbi agents were questioning her. Is that normal practice . Weather is a normal practice, ive, ive done interviews with a big crowd, and some with just the subject, its unusual to have that large of a number, but not unprecedented in my experience. Now cheryl mills, also stated that she was an attorney. Very concerned that when a fact witness represents a client who might be the target of an investigation that there is a conflict of interest, rather than letting this mills make the determination, with the fbi be willing to refer the matter, a fact witness of ms. Mills in this case representing a target secretary clinton in this case to the appropriate Bar Association for investigation . That is not a role for the fbi. Even though i happen to be a lawyer, were not lawyers, were investigators. Thats a question investigators. Thats a question for the legal part of the department of justice. Okay. Why did ms. Mills request immunity . Was she hiding something are afraid something would incriminate her that was on her laptop . I do not know. Im sure that is a conversation she and her lawyer had and then her lawyer had with department i just do not know. Okay. There was an oped by professor jonathan that appeared in the media that says there were a lot of good cases scuttled by granting immunity and there is lots of immunity that was granted here. Doesnt concern you as an investigator that your peace in the Justice Department decided to become an immunity producing machine for many people who would have been very key witnesses should there have been a prosecution . I dont think of it that way. It doesnt strike me that there is a lot of immunity issued in this case. I know its a complicated subject. There are many different kinds of immunity, probably three different kinds featured in this case. Its fairly typical fairly typical in a complex whitecollar case especially to try to work your way up towards your subject. My overall reaction is that this looks like ordinary investigative process to me. Will the target was not an ordinary target, i think we all know that. Since you announced that there be no prosecution of secretary clinton in july there have been several, very material issues that are troubling. Would that not require avenue reopening of the investigation to solve those issues . Ive not seen anything that would come near to that kind of situation. Theres lots of question about the controversy and very proud of the way this is done. , now, with all due respect, since you made this announcement there have been many more issues that came up that were [inaudible] the table prior to your announcements that the investigation against secretary clinton had been dropped. I think the American Public is entitled to answers on this, particularly since we have to know the extent of the classified information which ended up being in the private email server. All of us on this committee have got security clearance of some kind or another. Im kind of worried that you know if i got some classified information and went back to my office and used in unsecure server to send it to somebody who may also have had a classified information, i would be in big trouble and i should be in big trouble if i did Something Like that. There seems to be different strokes for different folks on this. Thats what americans are concerned about. Particularly when were looking to elect someone to the highest office of the land and the leader of the free world. I do not think your answers are satisfactory at all the circle me. I do have a great great deal of respect for you, but i think there is a heavy hand coming from someplace else and with that, i yield back. That you think the gentleman to recognize the gentleman from new york for five minutes. Thank you mr. Chairman, first let me express my admiration and thanks to the fbi for the professional manner and the excellent work they did in the bombings that occurred in new york about a block out of my district to apprehend the suspect within 48 hours and do everything it was a very good indication of teamwork and i congratulate you on that. Secondly, let me say that i think the mud that is being thrown on the other side of the table only continue because the ongoing president ial election. In the case in which the fbi decided theres nothing to prosecute, its over. We all know nobody would be talking about it if one were not, if Hillary Clinton were not a president ial candidate for this is a political maneuvering. Is political maneuvering. Let me talk about a case that may pose a current National Security threat to the United States. The earlier remarks and the reference on august 30 letter asked if the fbi was investigating the Trump Campaign officials. And whether they contributed to the illegal hacking of the Democratic National committee and the Democratic National Campaign Committee. Youre familiar with that letter . Yes. Id like you to ask you a few questions. The letter said that on august 8, 2016 roger stone, donald trump stone, donald trump confidant revealed that he has communicated with someone with it release of additional illegally hacked democratic documents. He made the statements during Republican Campaign event will answer a question about a potential october surprise. Obviously if somebody is stating publicly that his intercommunication with the organization that obtained these illegally hacked documents, i assume the fbi would want to talk to that person. Has the fbi interviewed stone about his relationship or how he got these documents . I cannot comment on that. Mr. Stone stated that his knowledge about upcoming leaks of additional illegally hacked documents, has the fbi asked about those mutations . I also cannot comment on that. Because of the nine going investigation. I dont want to confirm whether there is or is not it investigation, thats thats how i answer the question. They knowledge and Public Statements and testimony that it was acknowledged that it was investigating secretary clintons use of private email Service Service and that was while the investigation was still ongoing, now you cant comment on whether there is investigation. Is there different standard for secretary clinton and donald trump, if not way is a consistent standard . Our standard is we do not confirm or deny the existence of investigation for the exception for that is when theres a need for the public to be reassured that when its apparent given the activities and public activities at the investigation is ongoing. Our overwhelming rule rule is that we do not, except in certain exceptional circumstances. Are these exceptional circumstances when close officials to a candidate of a Major Political party for the United States says publicly he think medication with foreign officials and anticipates further illegal activity . I do not think so. Mr. Trumps Campaign Manager resigned after failing to disclose his role in a prorussian party of ukraine. Associated press reported in a quote, Donald Trumps Campaign Chairman help the prorussian party in the ukraine the ukraine secretly with 2,200,000 dollars in payments to put 2 million in payments to two prominent washington lobbying firms in 2012. They did so in a way that effectively obscured the form Political Parties to influence u. S. Policy. Has the fbi interviewed mr. Manford about it this . Have to give you the same answer. Has the fbi interviewed were rick gates who work for the Trump Campaign . Same answers are. After you investigated secretary clinton, you made a decision to explain publicly who you interviewed and why, he also disclosed also disclosed documents including those from this interview. Why shouldnt the American People have the same level of information about your investigation of those associated with mr. Trump . Im not confirming that we are investigating People Associated with mr. Trump. In a matter of emailing investigation it was our judgment, my judgment of the rest of the fbis judgment that those were exceptional circumstances where the public needed to know. My final question, you investigated secretary clintons emails and so forth, everything weve been talking about. You concluded i believe that theres nothing to prosecute and you announced in my opinion quite properly, that you had investigated it there is nothing in, nothing to prosecute. That was proper. But having announced and that Prosecutorial Agency announces that weve investigated soandso and decided that weve decided to prosecute because all weve investigated and we decided not to prosecute because, why is it appropriate for that Prosecutorial Agency to go further and say, even though we decide not to prosecute, we still think this person did this that or the other thing and i was proper and improper, why is it proper Prosecutorial Agency to characterize your opinion of the propriety of the actions of someone whom you have announced that youd decided theres nothing criminal should not be prosecuted . Thats her decision that is why the it is the exception to the rule. You do risk of damaging someone who is not convicted. The the judgment i made in this case is given the unusual, i thought on net it was not an easy call. I wrestled with it. Let me just say before my time expires that i think and i just talking to myself that was highly inappropriate with having determined that there is nothing to prosecute and having announced that quite properly but prosecuting agencies and the department of justice to comment with commas that will be looked upon as authoritative that what she did was right or wrong, good, are back, not the appropriate role of the prosecuting agency and risks not in this case but i talk really now because of the future, dont want to see that happen again regards anybody because it puts anybody who did not commit a crime, who you have determined did not commit a crime and theres no evidence to prosecute it puts them at the mercy of the opinion of an individual or individuals within the prosecuting agency and thats not right. I youll back. The chair recognized gentleman from texas for five minutes. Think mr. Chairman. Tractor, thank you for those examples of the fbis good work in your opening statement. I think we all appreciate what the fbi has done. My first question is this, would you reopen the clinton investigation if you discovered new information that is both relevant and substantial . It is hard for me to answer. In the abstract we would look at new and substantial information. In general, and lets personalize it in general if you discover new permission that was substantial and relevant, you would reopen an investigation, would you not . Again, even in general cant answer that in the abstract. What we can say is that any investigation that people have new and substantial information we would like to see it so we can make an evaluation. Let me give you some examples mentions several new developments that i think have occurred and ask if you have become aware of them. The first example is what the chairman mentioned a while ago. An employee at at a company that managed former secretary clintons private email server said that i need to strip out a vips, very vip email email address from a bunch of archived emails. Basically they dont want the vips email address exposed to anyone. I assume you are aware that. Im aware of that. The same employee called a new retention policy designed to delete emails after 60 days, quote hillary coverup operation and you saw that, did you not . Im sorry. This aiming ploy called the new retention policy to delete emails after 60 days a hillary cover it coverup operation. I dont know that particular language. Will give us or speak and take my word for it that is what he said. I will. Another example, former former Clinton Foundation employee who also manage the clinton server destroyed devices used by former secretary clinton by smashing them with a hammer. You are aware that question are. Yes. To employees of a company that managed former secretary clintons recently put the fifth amendment to congress to avoid selfincrimination. Your wear that . Yes. Lastly, 15000 more workrelated emails were discovered and there have been an attempt to wrongly delete them. Your wear that . I think we discover them. To me, what i cited is not the actions of innocent people. Theres a distinct possibility that mrs. Clinton or her staff directed others to destroy evidence in a government a government investigation which of course is against the law. So, i would urge you to reopen your investigation. Do you want to comment on that . I do not. I know you cant tell us whether you have or have not, but i believe ive given evidence of new information that is relevant and substantial that would justify reopening the investigation. My next question is this. I know you granted immunity to a number of individuals. If you had new information that was relevant and substantial, you would be able to investigate them further, wouldnt you . The fbi doesnt grant immunity tenable to, the department of justice can grant different kinds of immunity. Immunity. Immunity, if new and substantial evidence develop that either someone lied or under and a kind of immunity that department of justice can pursue it. Nobody gets lifetime immunity. Thank you. The last question is as chairman of the Science Committee i issued the fbi subpoena on september 19, 2016. The due date for response was two days ago, september 26. Your staff. Your staff has still not provided the requested information and documents. Yesterday we pointed out to them that the Science Committee has jurisdiction for the National Institute of standards and technology which sets standards for the federal Information Security modernization act of 2014. I trust you intend to comply with the subpoena . I intend to continue the conversations weve been having about the subpoena. As you know weve made a lot of documents available to at least six committees and the question of whether we should make Additional Committee is something were struggling with but talking to folks about. To me theres no struggle, we have cleared jurisdiction which we can demonstrate a think it obligate you to comply. Yes sir, were not trying to be disrespectful. Were continued to talk about it. Thank you. With the gentleman yield. I will yield to the gel moved to california. Thank you, the chairman of the committee had asked something earlier and i want to ask to be placed in the record, according to the maryland code of ethics 19301. 11 prohibits a governor officer employee by acting as a council to some of they represented in government. Id like that to be placed in the wrecker. In in light of the fact that the maryland bar, that that has this prohibition, that had changed your view of allowing her in and saying you had no authority . I am not qualified nor my going to answer questions about legal ethics and the swarm. The fbi has no basis to exclude somebody from an interview with the interview is on their legal team. Thank you director coming. Thank you mr. Chairman, youll back. Of the chair think the gentleman the requisite gentleman wreck is a gentleman from california, for five minutes. Thank you. Thank you director coming for once again appearing before this committee as you appear before somebody committees in the house. Sometimes sometimes i wonder how you get any work done at all because you are called appear so frequently. There has been a lot of focus on the private email that secretary clinton used as her predecessor powell used. So theres no forensic evidence that there is a breach of that Service Although theoretically you could intrude in that evidence. There has been very little focus on the breach at the state Department Email system, it has has been reported in the press that this breach of the state Department Emails was one of the largest ever of the federal system and was accomplished by, according to the press either china or russia. Im im wondering if you are able to give us any insight into whether it was in fact the russian who had been to the state Department Email system or whether that is still under investigation . Not in this open form i cannot. Okay, im hoping we can get some insight in an appropriate classifieds setting on that. Now, we have watched was some concern, i know you are also concerned about the russian intrusion into our election system. It is been reported to us that the russian hacked into the Democratic National committee database, they also hacked into the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. It seems that they are making an effort to influence the outcome of this election. We have been warned that the information stolen my not just be release but also be altered and forged and then leaked in an effort to impact the election here in the United States. Yesterday there was press reports and i dont know if theyre accurate, im interested if youre able to tell us that the russians have also hacked a telephone of democratic staffers and there is a request for democratic staffers to bring their cell phones into the fbi to have the mirrored area can you tell us anything about that . I cant at this point. What i can say say in response to the first part of your question, any hacking is something we take very seriously. Any hacking in connection with this nations election system is something we take extraordinarily served seriously. Its something that were spending a lot of time on right now to try to understand. What are they up to them what is it involved it was a the scope of it, to equip the president to decide upon the appropriate response per that is why we are to be very careful about what i say about it. That work is ongoing. I should make clear to folks when we talk about our election system theres been a lot of press reporting about attempts to intrude into Voter Registration databases. Those are connected to the internet. Thats very different than the electoral mechanism in the country. We had a hearing and a hearing and i had a chance to talk with alex was a secretary of state in california. Number when they crip their database, number two, number two, even if you were to steal it, there is backups that you cannot steal. You cant really manipulate that. But you could cause a lot of damage. You could create chaos on election day and you could target that chaos to areas where voters had a tendency to vote for one candidate over another in an attempt to influence the outcome. Its not a benign situation certainly had one that we want to worry about. I want to quickly touch on a concern i have also on cyber on rule 41 and how the fbi is interpreting that. Im concerned that the change is understood by the fbi would allow for one word for multiple computers but would include allowing the fbi to access victims computers in order to clean them up. Cyber Security Experts that i have been in touch with have raised very strong concerns about that provision, specially using malware zone signaling system to disable the malware. The cyber experts who have talked and express concerns believe that it ultimately could trigger attacks. Im wondering wondering if you have any comments on how the fbi intends to use rule 41 visavis malware victims computers. It your time with a gentleman has expired you will be permitted to answer the question. Thank you. Im nonexpert but one of the things that we deal with with these botnets is how do we execute a search warrant to try to figure out where the bad guys are and get them away from those innocent people. What the challenge weve been facing is to go to every single jurisdiction and get a warrant would take literally years. So were charter. How can we use reporting want to have one judge give us that authority. I know my time, just like to close by expressing the hope that the fbi might seek the guidance of some of the computer experts at our National Labs on this very question of triggering Malware Attacks and i yelled back. The point is well taken. We recognize the gentleman from ohio for five minutes. Thank you mr. Chairman. Mr. Coming, the chairman in his introduction of you mentioned you are a graduate of the college of william and mary and you may know im a graduate from there as well. You may remember that our alma mater is very proud of something called the honor code. I checked out the wording of the honor code to make sure that i was correct on it now will tell you exactly what it says, it says is a member of the women marry community a pledge in my honor not to lie, cheat, or steal either my Academic Work personal life. One of the people whose behavior you investigated, Hillary Clinton didnt have the good fortune to attend college of women married but she did attend wesley. I wonder if whether they had not honor code and i found out, i looked it up they do. They did and heres what it says. At the Wesley College student i will act with honesty, integrity and respect in making this commitment i am accountable to community and dedicate myself to a life of honor. Let me repeat that i will act with honesty. Im sure young women attending wesley today of those would have attended in the past are proud that one of their own could be the next president of the United States. But, the majority of American People have come to the conclusion that Hillary Clinton is not honest. And cannot be trusted. Its about two about 221. Who say that she is dishonest. The latest poll for example the question being, would you say that Hillary Clinton is honest or not, 65 said no and only 32 said yes she is on us. Republicans and democrats not surprisingly were overwhelmingly oneway the other but independence, 80 said no shes not honest and only 19 said she is. So director, since you and your people would want to investigate it Hillary Clintons email scandal i would just like task couple of questions. Hillary clinton claimed over and over that none of the emails that she sent contain classified information. Was she truthful when she said that . As i said when i testified in july, there were, forgetting the exact number but there were 80 or so emails that contain classified information. So she said they did not contain classified information and they did so that sounds to me not being truthful, i not trying to put words in your mouth but i think thats what that means. Hillary clinton i came back on a fallback fallback position sandwell, none of the emails i sent were marked classified, but that that wasnt true either was it . There were three as i recall three emails that were within the body of the text portion market classify the confidential. And again that putting words in your mouth that that means no she did not tell the truth in that particular instance. Hillary clinton said she decided to use a personal email server system for convenience and that she would only have to carry around one blackberry, was she being truthful when she said she just use one device . During her tenure as secretary of state she is multiple, not at the same time but sequentially. Again im going to take that as she said one and it was more. So therefore it [inaudible] us. In fact, some of the devices were destroyed with a hammer, as that has already been mentioned. Is that the type of behavior that you would expect from someone who is fully cooperative with an investigation, destroying devices with a hammer . We uncovered no evidence that devices were destroyed during our investigation. So, why people destroy devices when there is no investigation is in a question im not able to answer. Thank you. Mr. Director a little less than two months ago Hillary Clinton, talking about talking about her emails claim that you said, and i quote, that my answers were truthful. Pull in effect gave this appearance on fire rating. Did you say that she was telling the truth with respect to her email claim . I did not. I never never say that about anybody. Our business is not to say whether we believe someone our businesses to say what evidence is there to not believe that person its an odd window look at the world. It mustve been very awkward for you, your task with investigated a person who could be the next president of the United States. In the current president of the United States has already prejudge the case and telegraph to you and the entire Justice Department that he, your boss has come to the conclusion that there is not even a smidgen of corruption, his own words before you have even completed your investigation. You are aware that he said that, werent you . Yes, saw the report in the press. Finally, just seems to me that there is clearly a double standard going on. Like for example if anybody else had done this like a soldier, serviceman who did virtually the same thing, they wouldve been prosecuted but not Hillary Clinton and that is a double standard. And that is not the way it is supposed to work in america. Im out of time, youll back. I disagree with that characterization. The gentleman is permitted to respond. I dont think so. I think if we were to direct that should be prosecuted be a if someone else did this year be discipline. You not be prosecuted, that would not be fair. The time of the gentleman has expired. We recognize a gentleman from texas for five minutes. Thank you. Many americans have come to see Hillary Clinton as a dedicated servant, but i believe this is an porton, my colleagues have our ready made it and i look for to may be coming back to washington in dealing with the potential intrusion on the elect shouldnt system. Im not asking at this time, and also the issue of connecting the dots as we deal terrorism across america. I want to acknowledge Eric Williams and the outstanding detail for this and thank him for the service. I want to thank those in houston for helping us with a shooting in houston. He gave us a great deal of fear and scare a couple of days go. My republican colleagues have questions and attacked you and your team of fbi agents. They disagree with the results of the investigation, they want you to prosecute or as the doj to prosecute linton regardless of the fact. They engage in a daily ritual of trying to tear down the investigation. Any recommendations. Any recommendations. I believe you testified previously that your recommendation in that case was unanimous in your investigation was carried out by what you call an allstar team of career agents and prosecutors. Is that that right . Yes. These are some of our very best. Im like enough to be the person who represents the fbi people think its my conclusion, sure its my conclusion, but im reporting what the team thought and their supervisors and so on. This is painful as it is for people, this is not a close call. Let me continue. You say continue. You say that the case was not a cliffhanger. Correct. Recently republicans have attacked the decision to provide limited immunity to individuals during the investigation for example, when congressman shave its learned about this he stated and i quote, no wonder they couldnt prosecute a case, theyre handing out immunity deals like candy. I understand the fbi does not make the final call on immunity agreement, that that was doj. Sustainment was just wrong but. Our job is to tell them what facts we want access to. The prosecutors job is to figure out how to do that. They negotiate five agreements of different kinds. Did you or anyone ever object to these decisions to grant immunity, did you think it made sense. It was fairly ordinary stuff. Did the fbi or doj handing out immunity agreements like candy . Thats not how i saw. Christening gouty, good friend also objected to granting immunity, he said theres two people that pi gives immunity to come and those are the two that you would want to prosecute see you give immunity to the trigger people and everybody. To agree with his assessment. Did the the fbi screw up and let everybody go for because of these limited immunity deals . I dont so. The goal and investigation is to work up. The people have information that their lawyers who are telling you youre not gonna get without some limited form of immunity and their lord down you try to get that information to get a case against her subjects. Congressman gaudi also said this, ive been underwhelmed by an agency that i once had tremendous respect for. Let me just say sitting on this Judiciary Committee for many years, going to a number of investigations, ive never been proud of an agency that has always been there when Vulnerable People are hurting and when theres a need for for great work. My question is what is your response to that director, do you believe the criticisms are fair . I think questions are fair. I think criticism is healthy and fair. I think reasonable people can disagree with how i announced it and how i shouldve done it. What is not fair is any implication that the bureau acted in anyway other than honestly here. Thats not true. I knew this was going to be controversial. I knew thered be rocks thrown, but this organization and the people who did this are honest, independent people. We do not carry water from one side or the other. Its from one side or the other. Its hard for people to see because we see things through sides. We are [inaudible] anybody side. This was done exactly the way you would want it to be done. That said questions and feedback are fair. Absolutely but the food soldiers, you take issue of whether theyre compromised or if theyre adhering to someone elses messages. Absolutely. You can call us wrong but do not call us weasels, we are not. We are honest people. We did this in that way whether you agree or disagree with the result. You are able to learn what other set and if anyone provided seems to the fbi had actually provided evidence that secretary clinton has committed a crime, would you then have recommended prosecution to the doj . The case was there, very aggressively. Re sure you want to been nervous about doing so, little intimidated . Know, i really dont care. It i have a ten year term thats a beauty this. One of the great things is that a certain amount of job security so no, either way we wouldve done what the facts said to do. So are you now secondguessing your decision regarding Hillary Clinton . No. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. Chairman i want to thank the director and asked my colleague to give the respect that this agency in this instance deserves. Think of her service. I yelled back. Thank you i reckon is the german from california for five minutes. Thank you. Director, have a lot of concerns but one refuse to read it. At the time that the department of justice at your involvement gave paul immunity, did you do so knowing about all of the post he had unthreaded and capturing those posts and correspondence were he was asking how to wipe or completely erase on behalf of a very vip so to speak . Im not sure sitting here that we had so where. We had a good understanding of what we thought he had done but that is my best recollection. In the last week they have been deleting them from reddit post, is set consistent with preserving evidence . I said that because theyre still an ongoing interest by congress and only in spite of read its own senior what they call flak team trying to hide it only because a few people caught it do we even know about it and is it in this and other committees interested in getting the backups that may exist on these deletions. My question to you is, is he destroying evidence relative to congressional inquiries and i will answer for you, yes he is and what are you going to do about it . Thats not something i can comment on. Let me go into something that concerns the spotty in a very specific way. As a former chairman issuing subpoenas, i issued a subpoena and additionally i issued preserved letters and in addition to that now chairman has issued preserved letters. Some work directly to Hillary Clinton while she was secretary and others in 2013 was to secretary carry. These individuals destroy documents pursuant, or took it out of federal custody pursuant to our subpoena and our discovery. As a result they committed crimes. My question to you is, when i was a chairman and i chairman and i wanted to grant immunity to someone i had to go to the department of justice in your consultant, isnt that correct . In a particular matter . In any matter. I dont know whether the fbi is consulted. Okay for your record, yes. The department. The department of justice does not grant immunity to check to see if it will impact any ongoing investigation. Thats the reason why we have a requirement requirement to give notice. When the reverse was occurring, you are granting and handing out like candy according to some, immunity. Did. Did you or to your knowledge the department of justice confer with chairman goodlad, Board Chairman smith or any of the other chairman who had ongoing sis subpoenas investigations . Thats my knowledge. As their double standard that when you granted immunity to these five individuals you took them out of the reach of prosecution for crimes committed related to destruction of documents or withholding or other crimes pursuant to congressional subpoenas . I dont dont think anybody was given transactional immunity . All really. We cant make these public but im going to take a privilege of making part of a privilege. I read that you gave immunity from destruction to both of those attorneys, not just turning the documents over, specifically, specifically destruction. You did the same thing with these other two individuals, brian and paul. You gave them immunity from destruction. Again, i could always be wrong but i dont have it in front of me. Well because you dont let us take that out its hard for us to but the fact is when you read them. Im pretty sure that what was granted was use immunity in the case of those two people coextensive 6001 which is no statement you make can be used against you directly or indirectly. Transactional immunity is sometimes given which says he cannot be prosecuted in any event for the set of facts. I dont think theres any transactional immunity. When i read for the attorney that immunity was granted in both cases said destruction, in addition to the turning over. Why would you believe that was necessary or do you believe it would be necessary. You wanted the physical evidence, why did you have to get them them immunity from destruction of materials . Because my time is expiring, when you look into it and hopefully get back to this committee id like to know, does that immunity apply only to destruction on the computers delivered so that other destruction by cheryl mills can still be prosecuted. My recognized recollection is no immunity was given. The the protection of statements was given. Thank you mr. Chairman. We recommend that you live from tennessee for five minutes. Mr. Chairman, i asking him this consent quickly that a group of documents being included in our summarize them. Theyre theyre basically the letters and subpoenas that led up to the destruction of documents or previously held for preservation. Additionally the blog post from reddit if those can be placed in the record. Without objection. Thank you sir. Director, would you consider the fbis most important job presently, fighting terrorism and threats to the homeland . That is our top priority. , time to think the fbi and you have spent responding to congressional inquiries and on this particular email investigation . Could you give me an idea of how many man months or years have been expended on responding to the different committees that have called you in time after time and repetitious lady accused you of doing politics rather than be in an fbi director . I cant. I dont have any sense. Would it be months of cumulative manhours are years . I dont know. A lot of folks have done a lot of work to try to provide the kind of transparency we promise. It has been a lot by lotta people. I just dont have a sense speemac, a a sense. , he hours have you spent before congress on this . Testimony, four hours and 40 minutes without a bathroom break i want to know for the record. And whatever today is, those of be the two main appearances. I was asked questions that Senate Homeland yesterday about this and then house homeland in july. Im guessing ten hours or so. And he prepared for this. Ten hours is just the iceberg. Yes. Could your time and the fbi times it better be used fighting terrorist threats in america . We are still doing it all. No one should think that we have taken a play off because we are also doing oversight. We do both. And the case in new york where mr. Romney tried to bonds. They tried to did the fbi in her view him when he was in jail about his possible trips to pakistan. Im trying to be very circumspect to on how to answer these because hes entitled to fair trial. I dont do anything that would allow him to argue that he lost the ability to have a fair trial. We. We did not interview him when he was in jail. In 2014. Why would that be . You interviewed the father i believe, you may have talked to the brother or friend, the best evidence with him. Hes in jail. Why did they not going talk to him . Sitting here i dont want to answer that question yet. I have commissioned as i doing all these cases a deep look back. Were trying to make the case now but will go back carefully and try to make a look at the decisions and whether theres learning from that. I dont want to answer just now because i be speculating. Thank you. Some people suggested you made it legal calculation in your recommendation until he was secretary clinton in the emails. Did you make a political calculation your ultimate decision . None. Some said that a National Television that secretary clintons emails were destroyed after a director from the cling campaign. Units are decision and stated publicly that we found no evidence that secretary clintons were intentionally deleted to conceal them a second . Thats great. Others have said they lost confidence in the investigation question the genuine effort which was carried out. Did the fbi make a genuine effort to carry out a thorough investigation . Yes, very much. Did you take some hits from the position you talk when you announce your decision . A few. Yes. Difficult. I just thought it was the right thing to do. Im not loving this but i think it is important to come and answer questions about it criticize people have questions ill try to answer it. Do you need a bathroom break . I will let you know at 4 40 p. M. An fbi bill we know they should not be named in you know my position on that and i hope you keep that will mine. You are Credit Credit the fbi and government service. Into your alma mater. I yelled back my time. Recognize the gentleman gentleman from iowa for five minutes. Thank you mr. Chairman. Is listening the exchange between yourself and i would just like to confirm that you are confirming that they made the reddit post . Im not confirming it, i think it is my understanding. Thats my understanding, thinking they come i havent dug into it myself. Ive been focused on other things. Esther lincoln except that. I like to just go back to the interview with Hillary Clinton and how that came about on that july 2 date. First, you at the dates of the additional immunity documents i have review. And i see that one was dated december 2 and 1 december twentieth. Can you tell me why the first wasnt adequate and if there was an interview with him in between those dates of december 2222 and 28th of 2015 . I think what it is, the first was the mode colloquy for the day agreement which was to govern an interview. A limited use immunity and the second was an agreement was for use immunity in connection with the investigation. I a tryout for him to be interviewed and for that investigators to poke at him and then the second is an agreement they reached. If were going to go any further will go off of it december 28 agreement. I think theyre both important to him and his lawyer, but but the first is an intermediate step to the second. Thank you. Were you aware of the president s statement on octobed on october 9, 2015 that he said that Hillary Clinton would not have endangered National Security . I dont know the dates but i remember public reporting on a Statement Like that. , i will stated as october 9. On april 10, 2016 it was reported that the president had said Hillary Clinton was careless but not intensely daydreaming National Security. Were you aware of that as well . Yes. If you could characterize the interview around may 16 it was reported that you said you intended to interview Hillary Clinton personally. I never said that because i never intended that. Im sure he did not say that publicly. Where you aware of the report that was your Public Statement . Yes. I think i read it and smiled about it people imagine the fbi director just think the fbi director doesnt do. Noted [inaudible] on. The. Light general tell you for sherbet egg king give you a general sense of the witness stand her the gold team and on our side of the table the agents prosecutors from the department of justice and of the analysts are in there are not more dash or not. Comedy fbi investigators crack. I dont know for sure sitting here. I think maybe eight or 10 people prosecutors. Prosecutors . Did the redolent have heard people . Connect apartment adjust as lawyers . Yes. I think it was about four lawyers but i could be wrong with four investigators for potential prosecutors from the doj that would set the scene . Hillary clintons team was bigger than that but i dont remember the exact number. Flicking at the recommendation of privilege privilege, add to go through this quickly to review a videotape for a transcript to have to rely upon the everything for those in the room on the Investigative Team. The agents that conducted the interview. They write them up with the fbi. Sunday but had access to your investigators and out of that came a p. Seven vice to you that she already said she would have the responsibility or for tea you to make that recommendation whether or not to indict Hillary Clinton . I am not sure i follow entirely. Might formed a recommendation but to be uncoordinated from the department of justice. To make that final comment. Hacking into the database of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee with the Voter Registration system in arizona to serve on this warning to the American People of the electoral process in the modern era. With those damn emails. And then closed his perths convicted after five years of fruitless investigation. And then those persecutions. It is increasingly focused with that infrastructure. But on monday the Ranking Members issued enjoyed statement to set forth the status of this investigation. That the Russian Intelligence Agency to influence and then to put the state and now to the American Public. But is that statement accurate . I cannot comment in this forum. In what the russians may be up to in connection with political institutions. But i dont want to comment at this point. A compromise of a disruption of the elections process is something that this Congress Certainly should be looking into. Du agree with that . With the fbi looking into this very hard. To take this extraordinary seriously. Estates officials are attempting to penetrate the election system. The title was with the state board elections peeler disclosed the fbi is currently investigating cyberattacks and later with the russian assault on the election system offering to provide cyberSecurity Experts for those vulnerability is the end of the cedras security helping to defend the election system. But director since these alerts went out by appreciate you letting us know to have more attacks on state operations spinet there is a variety of scanning activities with that Voter Registration database from july and august we are urging the states two major the deadbolts are on to get the best information they can then this is very different in it was very hard to hack into and dispersed and theyre not connected to the internet that we urge the states to make sure you have the most current intermission. No doubt some bad actors have been poking around. With the fbi can control through a witness to come into an interview i have seen a lot of the fbi agents and then this case i am sure you have heard the questions raised by this more lawyers about providing immunity to people like cheryl mills in return for her presenting a laptop with every authority to get a subpoena and a request for a search warrant based what we now know to get it anywhere that you want and in fact, talking to the people that say if we give immunity to a witness to get out laptop then i would ask the fbi can you explain sissy where you chose to give immunity lozano laptop to cheryl mills was she was an important witness. I will give it my best shot. What you are talking about the details we want to give you a thing we will use anything we find. I understand that. And that is what is so shocking. Working directly with Hillary Clinton and the evidence indicates with so many of those emails that pretty much at what have been usable. And can you clean the slate . Some of the immunitys it was proper so was it proper of what the witness would say before those immunity deals were given . Can answer first . Why that made sense. My time is so limited. It is an important question. I fidelista in one of the cases. Guess or no. Was it proper as to what they would say before you give him immunity . And its one of them to understand what they would say. But what i have seen 30 years ago, and the fbi would say and the doj just like it is in the fbi job to find a reasonable prosecutor should version not due to give them the evidence and let them decide. To say this is what my client will say. Based on the offering here is the plea in the immunity and the deal is off. It is nothing substantial it is the investigation determined instead of getting a warrant where the people that you would need to make a case. We have people across the aisle to say only because she is of president happens to be in my case i dont care she is a president ial candidate or not. With the civilization of justice and fairness. If theyre treated fairly across the board ended does not appear in this case that fbi agents and they tell me they have never seen anything like this. And there was 700 pages of material for those who would go undercover. It was wiped out because some of the people that were not indicted or coconspirators of the holy land foundation, they do not allow agents what was put into the 700 pages that was so accurate that we could invent them without chitin and they would not suspect them. You need to start training your fbi agents so San Bernardino or orlando or new jersey they can talk to radicalized islamist to determine if they are radicalized. Otherwise you can never spot them and we will keep having people die. Your time has expired. You may respond. I have nothing at this point. Director comey last year i asked about the cases of u. S. Citizens who were arrested by the fbi and accused of different crimes of the espionage for china. Since the day last testified kind new york not personally familiar or may not be inclined to comment but could he be willing to provide a written explanation to clarify how new york . With the privacy act but i would certainly consider that. We will take a look at what we can do but not in the open forum. I appreciate that. I will address a different topic. With the Online Initiative about violent extremists them this was designed for teachers and students towards violent extremism however the National Education groups the way in which presents the of problem and what is particularly troublesome that they should look for warning signs with the slope of violent extremism of what may or may not be indicative. What website encourages them to report to use unusual language or suspicious places. And it is left to draw inferences or what language is unusual. For example, a trip to france or germany that may not sound suspicious but home to various muslims in the possibly would. August night in American Federation when n number of National Groups in a letter written to you for the record. Among disconcert earns is the initiatives to exacerbate the profiling of the middle eastern background so how do respond to the concern about the impact of the fbi dolby a puppet . Im glad they share their feedback. Before or after i have done it but i cannot understand the concerns but one of the big challenges of the kids go sideways towards violence had to a get them to a place where they have commonsense judgment they may be headed in a very dangerous direction . All clients of civic groups with good common sense and education for kids and teachers. We should meet with them they can show us what part is problematic and it is my overall reaction. So what place in is suspicious . Or what was you consider to be unusual language. With the unusual language it been speaking in the unusual way and if somebody is talking to classmates about going to syria the teacher ought to be sensitized. Do you have evidence to show that is recruiting the efforts quick. I dont but it makes sense to be. To equip the kids coming from radical islamist or the hate groups of different kinds. It isnt perfect but we welcome feedback but the general idea. Did gentleman from ohio. To say this was an unusual case. The three edes for secretary clinton is interviewed one of those was the chief of staff five people get some kind of immunity. And then they take the fifth in front of congress one doesnt even bother to show up with the subpoena and of course, the attorney general announces she would not follow your recommendations even though she does not know what they are. We have never seen anything like that. And use said earlier so lets examine it now. And they dont want that cip email address. So when i hear the email address food from these two sentences. Into is a vip . Is it likely this a very important person is it likely that is secretary clinton could. Yes. That it refers to the staff greg. Addon know that either her lawyers. What is important july 24 if, 2014. To remember that timeframe or directly after that. With those reports that were given to us this said during the summer of 2014 they indicated the state department as a request but none the same page the House Select Committee to reach an agreement with the state Department Regarding production of documents july july 23rd 2014. That is interesting then from your report reviewing several documents and after reviewing july 24 he explained that cheryl mills was concerned of what would be disclosed. And also they are urging to cover that up. It sure seems theyre trying to strip out the actual email address. But here is the take away in my mind. In the summer of 2014 july july 23rd the day before they reached an agreement on production of documents. He goes to try to figure out how he can get rid of the males even though he is not successful. And then just last week he tries to cover up his tracks and coverup the coverup. So in light of all of this big about reopening the investigation. Ed dont understand about the deleting the mills. Maybe i misunderstood . But my question the guy that you gave immunity and to change evidence that will not testify in front of congress and cheryl mills who walked out of certain questions and that is pretty compelling as well. Node doubt it was involved in defeating the mills per after conversations with cheryl mills becky had a moment that he told us and it is very important for us who told you to do that corrects that is why. Trying to cover up your post to figure of 02 coverup the email address so just the day before with the state department that they want the very documents. I find that compelling. This is just one more on that blessed rommel listed as high unusual. The director is permitted to respond. The chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. Director director comey there is serious response abilities of public corruption and as i told you enter agents all women and men of the dedication innermost grateful. With those laws involving because director comey never American National goes outside government channels on behalf of the United States that would violate the logan act which were violated the law would they take allegations in your jurisdiction . Yes. And if that violated the logan act . We have done many over the years. Amide correct that the publicly quoted comments that has targeted the United States . I am aware of the published reports. Those that had been sanctioned by the United States of the policy in violation of the logan act. At 01 to answer that is to close if we have an investigation. But that is clearly from the jurisdiction. You are confirming . Because everything that i just outlined apparently happened already. They were violated by carter page. So now the campaign appears to give the attention to his negotiations. I read reports from last week looking into this issue but russia who is a nation that hacks america to enable the saudi regime to go against the european allies it is a dangerous violation of federal law that Donald Trumps advisor is engaging in freelance negotiations with russia as we know in march it gave the Foreign Policy adviser to travel to moscow and during the trip meeting with the russian officials of member of the inner circle that was sanctioned by the United States under executive order prohibiting from traveling to the United States as a clear personal interest the u. S. Sanctions put in place by president obama, if these two men in that for those defects over the Trump Administration this would be concerned. Also seeking to determine has opened up private officials with the possible lifting of sanctions in that with russians to talk of lifting the sanctions and i am grateful for research that they would investigate those potential violations by any individual with a Foreign Government and i remind them that donald trump invited them for breaking the long standing commitment of u. S. Sanctions against russia. Is there a connection of these dangerous policy proposals of the logan act . We appreciate the vigilance and i yield back. 84 being here. We worked on a couple of cases together would you clarify something for me . That goes beyond the scenario you last for a computer from a witness and asking for immunity and my interpretation the agent that has that in his or her hands and is immune from getting on the stand because they gave it to be. Or was there additional och additional immunity are the tingles the could be on the computer . The active Production Community if you give us this computer and the thing we find directly against you in connection with prosecution with classified and permission. With that goes beyond the act of production and i can i get on the stand to say they simply gave that to me this sounds like more additional immunity and what is done this we cannot hold against you. I think of it as an active production that is allied characterize that agreement but one that simply says the fact that you give up this object to my be used against you directly. But i take your point. That is what this community was given with the investigative grand jury and to have the ability to get this information and to take the fifth weatherrelated is immunity and you have that authority. We will take you before a judge and then you will sit in jail until you answer the questions. And most of the time. It is a reasonable question. I dont want to talk about grand jury wed know were never to talk about that publicly but i cant serve generally. When you talk about a computer from a lawyer. Please let me interrupt you. Why did you go to the investigative grand jury . Not the target but to justify we have done that thousands of times this was too convoluted. 1 2 to steer clear of grand jury use in general with my experience to do things faster especially interacted with lawyers Investigative Team really wanted tax and access to the laptop that is a very complicated thing but they could navigate pretty well. Mrs. Clinton said 41 times i do not remember is that accurate . I dont know. Is a that taken into consideration . Site that nature and quality the time is expired. The woman from washington state. Day que director comey for spending all this time with us today. In 2010 to process and implement in 2014 to give the government day process to determine how and when to disposable ability and then to address those older abilities and there was disclosure in april the dade informed apple, they security flaw. With that Equity Process but may of this year the Cyber Division warned the privatesector of the device charger that could log the strokes of the wireless keyboards 15 months after the of the liabilities they stated if placed strategically in an office or other location where they may use wireless devices, a malicious cyberafter could have personally identify able information with trade secrets or other sensitive information. But other instances that they are scarce and a and is rare for that process and what is the view quick. The process seems to be in a structured fashion that could have an optic on this to talk about how do we think about disclosing that vulnerability to the private sector to those that are its stake in terms of National Security . In makes sense when we come across that color ability vulnerability with those particular sum the 15 month delay and to reacted the open forum but that is my overall reaction. But in terms of understanding clerics will make you have to know the of liability and to be exploited. We bought access we did not know the vulnerability are what was behind it. Is there a process you might use quite. Dino there would make a disclosure, but i dont know of a process. You are not shirt and every situation to . To make that sounds like a circular and serve. We could have somebody talk to you about it benefits falls of the attention then of course, redo. Diatribe to understand if there is a vulnerability in ashley dash why would that be in . To academy of there is a set that would fall outside the process or hollowed to me deal with that . Been mecca if you have other feedback and i would appreciate it. Stake to others to have an adults conversation. Would you agree there is room to Work Together that dont include a mandate the of back door . I would to mandate but we have to figure how to solve the of problem together because eveready cares about coming to talk about it. I can see the. But there less than lunacy effective for us what to do and house to do it is. Your recognize for five minutes. A want to start by elegy the support that we do so of those nine straight democrats without cascade for immunity. That is a record. Ken vice suspect they have not asked is they would say they have done nothing wrong. I find that interesting because that is exactly what and dash lace that is just a few days ago the fbi considered line and dishroom said this this is the chair that nothing is wrong. You are shirring the subjects are targets that they had done nothing wrong what are you seeking given seed every the fund said the mutiny was not for the laptop. And to receive immunity for the classified information and the federal records it came from and it could be for both budget did the Bureau Interview that originated the email that went to secretary clinton. But not everyone. And my opinion doesnt matter. But in my judgment you read them into the statutes and then we had a discussion about intent. So why we do not interview the originator of the bill . But the team decided but one was the civilian in japan and classified mendoza had written things that were classified. Nearly everyone was interviewed but they decided it wasnt worth the resources. If the originators of the email. And then i encountered what we did not have. Them with our obligations under the law. Did they announce ahead of time all this crime on this date i will do it that rarely have things so if they would head intended to set up the Safe Department system if they should have known that his or her job involved handling classified in formation whether or not with the use of multiple devices and that had bed hacked ended she took any remedial steps after for somebody who has been dealing with you prolifically and whether or not those false statements i am rather have a false exculpatory statement than a confession of a rather have somebody like to be proving that it is allied that i neither sent nor received classified information or i turned over but that goes to the issue of intent require a two more questions so for those in the future but what they had to do to warrant your recommendation. If all that was not be enough, shirley you cannot be argued have to have the intent for the prosecution . That is not a violation of the statute still beg you have to prove beyond reasonable doubt of the of lawfulness of your conduct of what you should our should not do then they need to consider what circumstances because it is all about prosecutorial judgment so can you prove that person do criminal intent . The way to prove that is if they took the steps to conceal or destroy what they have done that is the evidence that you have that they did was wrong. Is very good evidence i was with delicate with the subjects said about their conduct. There is a lot. Did assault under the heading of the false exculpatory statement. But thought you started off by giving examples and everyone of us working with the fbi the one that saved the girl and North Carolina is the fbi but when you have five Community Agreements allow witnesses to happen to be lawyers or targets to sitin on the interview this is not the fbi that i work with so i have been careful not to criticize you is somebody corrupting . No. I disagree. But you have to help us understand but it looks like things were done differently that i dont recall and with that i yield back. I hope some day when the political craziness is over this is the fbi you know, and love. The chair recognizes the gentleman from rhode island. Please convey to the professionals that the fbi my gratitude for their service to the people of this country with the extraordinary and prompt response of the recent bombings and new jersey and in york and new have extraordinary leadership. Many of us have expressed concern of growing gun violence of following the recent Mass Shootings where five people lost their lives are the same sentiment and charleston. But as more and boost their lives congress has been absolutely silent to act. I would like to turn to with your career in publicservice so with so much experience dealing with the consequences, share with you think Something Congress could do to reduce the confinements. I know drave the confirmation hearing you alluded to your support for universal background checks checks, bans on illegal trafficking and highcapacity magazines. So what is your perspective to help reduce the incidence of gun violence . Been mccue are right. We have a lot of time. If the kid is important they dont believe the policy business supply will respectfully avoid your question honestly we should not be the place finish in the fed showed that to haunt dash actual and should not suggest any particular law spit. laskis specifically. I will ask specifically when they purchased the gun with the time. That has elapsed, 15,000 sales two prohibited people were allowed to get a gun. 15,000 time someone legislation requires when that happens local lawenforcement is notified that they cant prosecute the Person Commission react executed search warrant greg so a person who should not have a dad bought one so does that make sense with your Law Enforcement of quick. I know that atf is notified. But they have different priorities to execute a warrant but state and local prohibitions but would it also makes sense . It might i have to figure through the issues that might arise but something to look at. Mine next question is there is a recent discussion about implementing stop and frisk at the national of all and that targets and after reaching the alltime high high, 53 percent were black 34 percent for latino 9 percent for white of the 685,000 people that were stopped, 80 percent never received a citation or arrested. Do believe this policy is effective to address crime . What would the implementation of lookalike and how can conference and is did we are investigative but the terry stuff that is based on reasonable suspicion is very important tool in the effectiveness depends on the conversation with a spouse. , they are told that i stopped you because we have a report why stop to do this behavior but the dangerous the the Room Research marks from with its temps by the russians to achieve freer agent this a ripple of important responsibility of the agency. I yield back. The gentleman from utah and the queue for chairman is the Oversight Committee making this military room available to us while ours is under renovation. I appreciate the extra five minutes of questioning for doing so. [laughter] and a cue for a are excessive budget mood dash ability or readily available but did you need tv vp bid to to give those to figure out the budget or was there other information quick. Those were the tools to sort the violist suffer if their man of of that had been dead civic but that is a question retrieve the lawyer and her client for whatever reason they thought it was better to get the few routes with the different rudy of justice. The fbi interviewed. At the remember. Going back to this post do you remember being associated with him quite. Thats right. This is the one mr. Jordan put up with the email address but the proximity to the date is deadening. The question quest for mattel was is not a conscious effort to alter the record correct spirit that is exactly what he was trying to do if it was exposure to say that we change this for privacy purposes. Documents under subpoena linter the preservation of hour. It out of that was true july 2014. Did feel ultimately destroy federal records quick. Have a reason to believe that he did. Wallace used before the bleach pet. Not just publicity but there was the preservation of order. You have. No one had to you rudy thief because in beverly the moon and bed if it was an incredible confusion up but to respect his new as iraq our record is a the of movement that was incredible that they did not have evidence to disbelieve but the hope was still lag may be they will often. But he did destroy a federal records in he was told the some point to do this . Who told him initially . He was supposed to win in december who told him to do that . The. Whenever lawyers were but those records were in the search for her in and of and four days later they were taken or deleted per vaughan the hoping viet fbi would take into consideration. And the judas exceed but those concerns regarding the federal records in use of a private sector but bills was replied the former secretary of state and and and and the immediate all of the assistance of a private server or when it became public knowledge. Pdf look at the ecl event 2010 with justin cooper. He works for clinton, not the state department. Coming back is the server and okay. We hear of the same server for her but have you come to that conclusion that she has coolidge could better remember about that one. The chair refuse in f but the of homicides per up 10 did that is startling civic any indication the rate. But the minnesota stabbing investigation is that confirmed but it is a stack of new october but then to look at those potential victims. I know i need to take responsibility for. Because they will claim response will for any sever jury through the eighth man and for them to huge jury thats true and. But this sounds about right we have very few fighters from the United States even over the last two years there have been a number of somalis American Heritage young men who have gone to fight. I suspect that is one area we have the largest concentration susceptible everybody is dispersed that is the the areas loss of committee that seems to be susceptible but in small measure, eight people i think. What is the fbi doing that may make this problem more significant . Have today, that that . With lots of partners to make sure those. That paul canberra and i try to figure and a wide have an but he said he has no factual knowledge from the alcohol they did not provide any information. But i am not sure. I saw one that said he pled the fifth obviously he was given immunity of the time attorneyclient privilege so enshrined to figure out what happens . He had immunity it was much more fresh in his mind in previous conversations would have banned the use said he was credible. The house spent sends the subpoena but then theyre all bleach low and behold. And then conducted them to do that we develop no evidence to contradict. Were not in the business of believing bell what establishes disbelief . We dont have any contrary evidence. The accounts are not contradicted by the hard fact civic even if it is a situation with the finger under. So was a more reasonable to think that i just thought dont need any direction at all . That is difficult but then you send a memo to your employees that the fbi basically defending the way that you handled this investigation. Why did you send that . The mickey was about transparency whether we were trying to hide stuff i wanted to equip the workforce with transparency how we were doing questions from congress to answer from their family and friends. You mention former agents and the controversy with former agents quick. Not within the fbi. I should have bass mr. Gilbert. If they are concerned or confused please contact me we will get you the transparency that you need. Where i was in the military potential to have topsecret information. I yield back. Direct but as you stated that no prosecutor civic that is a personal of new but i accept his good faith. But with those relating to classified information. And i will need your help to understand how labatt is possible shaking heads and wonder if there is a real possibility that Hillary Clinton navy what about those says joe if this behavior is the. But theyre really seeing a in they could have been received but i dont care about the decision but since season but that goes to these she benefits due respect the fbi and justice among but those interviews never take place because there is ever any possibility that Hillary Clinton may have said on july 22nd to possibly resulted in criminal charges to possibly result in a trial against or relating to the classified information then use your words directly there is no reasonable prosecutor that would allow too many witnesses. Did your long career you never have had that circumstance. Is that correct question mark mecca i never have either been never met a prosecutor that hasnt. To become the only way but their colleagues of ours but contact me her really. Message value again that after that i did know would happen in that interview. To kick out of illinois and someone is. But this subject would give hendon never have been enough you have defended those who are involved but if a number have been then why . What we have never seen make we are ripest since. In favor terry its. But the subject was held of recounting. Of course, with the if rehab bet you could think of them differently. And ben is important price limit it happens all the time it is very important sometimes you prosecute other times you try to sign them up. But if there life after date forgiven nbd david after the agreement the necks of that is the point you should not have immunity. Media misunderstood, he admitted he deleted the email. That according to the documents these interviews to place february march and may this year but. And i am confused i dont think thats right. Runtime is expired but at this point any laws were broken by Hillary Clinton or her lawyers . Been righttolife think i dont think there is establish as evidence to establish that. May be not the way she handled classified information but obstructed obstruction of justice . Office pdf so this comes from the fbi zero report that they did not have the server used for her work emails but the laptop that thumb drive was thought to be lost in two of the devices did not have the same card 13 mobile devices were lost for district but those a little stuffed by the bank gauzy committee. Have been selected to be wiped clean master they were subpoenaed. And also permanently deleted so they did not review that will flee that is accurate anyone of those in the long list is obstruction of justice and then to ignore them allows just not reasonable prosecutors but this was made a long time ago. With that i yield back similitude nor that which we dell have we make a evaluations using the tools that we have these things that you dont have led chair recognizes the gentleman. Thank you for being here director comey. I know you would fetch rather not be in the hot seat to but here is rather i am coming from you have announced a lot of questions about the clinton investigation and what i hear with the big picture is just doesnt simply pass for white colleague from texas with a long list of things would you reopened investigation or what would it take . May have had five people with the median because nothing. And or interpretation testimony before Congress Section 793 requires a standard of gross negligence and that is a long list of things people scratch their heads to save this would happen to me, i would be in the world of hurt and probably in jail. Howdy respond to people who say this is not how the average american would be treated . Just Hillary Clinton. I have heard that a lot responses when people tell you that they are treated differently then demand from a trustworthy source the details because i believe all shows a very aggressive prosecutor i went through 40 years of cases and i am telling you under oath to prosecute on these facts would be a double standard million would be in trouble is the unclassified system it would be in big trouble and to be highly confident that is what they tended to lump together and this demonstrates. Candling classified and i will go back to what you say but i demanded to know the facts the case is over plywood happy to go through this very different answers. You tell your fbi agent what we are investigating material from the fbi they could potentially be fired Hillary Clinton did not get any trouble with the state department has tried to explain to the American People spanish is not a Government Employees of the normal range is of the did something similar does not apply that is some other reason for their confusion to love these together with their frustration bedded is what it is i can just tell people to demand the facts kahane. As a hypothetical if somebody here in congress would send some pacified of rhaetian and it comes to my cellphone i think that probably should not be there but it dont do anything. To me that is grossly negligent and that is a violation events exactly when Hillary Clinton did. At what point do you get to intent . Pdf does on the and secure server you knew was there and you did not do anything about it to have gross negligence. I would prosecute people for that span game, you wouldnt bet we will agree to disagree. [laughter] if you work for us dont do that. Again, dont get frustrated rudy continue to ask questions we do not want to badger you but the American People are upset and they dont think it was handled appropriately so that is the basis and leader of my questioning. And a stand there is a lot of questions that people have we try so hard to be transparent the because i understand the question is important i hope people separate the two things the questions about facts and judgment and integrity you can call us wrong but she cannot call was a weasel that is not fair the hope we have gotten to of place rating doesnt have to be torn down on the integrity basis just to disagree there is not a fair basis that in any way that was not honest that is when i get worked up sari. I am not a time out of time. Director comey just as a followup specifically with regard to the interview of secretary clinton upholding in my hand from the Deputy Attorney general the memorandum was issued on the policy concerning electronic recording statements are you familiar with the presumption does not exist. San given not magnitude today and with innovation this is specifically important to this discussion. Get also includes did to the investigative matter. Civic the fbi does not but yes they would encourage us to talk about that. So then they do not conduct the interview quick. We do not record vaughan custodial interviews maybe they will change that policy but not for one k. That is the problem the policy that was issued so if you dont high assume it is against the department of justice. Those who have them locked up is not inconsistent with not custodial voluntary interviews. Or if that is within your discretion. I am sure that you could. The fbi practices and with regard to refugees and with the Syrian Refugees we talk about the process but is simply we dont have the death information to make sure theyre not a threat to our country. And with more capabilities. But i say this because in my district in michigan taking the fourth most refugees and onethird of the most of iraq in the second post from syria. Michigan has a sore denny nervous number of refugees. You cant understand our concern that we dont have the deficit and permission necessary to identify if they are a threat. Can you assuage my concern that we have a system in place but the challenge remains with respect to those in syria that cannot have anything in holdings because of the counteracts theyre there for a long period of time we have biometrics to have the picture of someone coming from syria and what we want folks to be aware of. Has anything changed Dzhokhar Tsarnaev the concerns of increased terrorist activity including new york or new jersey . Can you be confident that they dont plant future attacks on the country . I dont know of anybody else that has classified this. The department of justice prosecuted at least seven people in the espionage act, all very similar. You said go look at the facts. We are looking at the facts of these cases. The interesting 1 i look back at your mishandling, we cannot find a case that had criminal charges. Didnt take nothing but a simple legal search that found a marine, whose name is not jane or joe, so he was prosecuted. Simple mishandling. The court of appeals upheld this case and this is what they said, that unauthorized documents would mean how you deal with this, regardless of means of removal and with the proximate cause of the documents removal. Clear of the congresss classifying to lose classified materials or the mishandling of. It was obvious to me when i went back, i had to do my annual Information Assurance training, that went through everything we have to do with handling classified information. This is Common Knowledge among most everybody obviously not the secretary. How can you then explain to me this marines mistake in taking classified documents are mishandling them is more severe than the secretary of state who sent and received classified emails on a regular basis, including those that were originally classified . Caseam familiar with the i willas prosecuted , its aand check again military justice prosecution, am i remembering correctly . Regardless, i dont think this is under the same provision, but even there that is involving someone who stole hard copies of classified information. T people need to remember and i think this is a very the secretary, used in unclassified email system to conduct your business. Itself, lets of come back to the basics. Purse tog to society, evenys if you go through any Emergency Service class, they tell you i cannot be on it personal matter. There was a chief petty officer who had a personal computer and went back to work. That is not physical documents. I think you are one of the more upright people i have met. I think the attorney general blew it and there is no other way you can say there is no one that resembles this as a lawyer, you are taught all the time to take fact that sit under the law. I guess i need to change the question because you will say let me ask you this. That ahonestly believe woman of vast intelligence who was the first lady of the united who hadwho is a senator access to classified information, who was secretary of state who have even further classification ability beyond what we have here, do you believe that in this case, honestly, she was not grossly negligent or criminal . I dont believe anyone other question is my what evidence do i have to establish that state of mind and i dont believe i have it. Than what we are saying is this. He said i cant prove it and i understand. There are a lot of folks who come to us and say its not what we know, its what we can improve. I get it. But this is a person who is asking to leave the country. If she can hide behind this and get approval from the fbi, which is being covered thoroughly, then i do not understand she is either the most arrogant or the most insanely naive person we have ever met. When i show evidence of the same thing, which you can take fact this is whyo law, the armed forces have the new term called the clinton defense. I didnt know. Its the clinton defense. With questions like this, we give the ability where nobody takes this seriously. And this is why people are upset. When it was originally classified, she can tell all the story she wants. She can have the backup that a lawenforcement would tell the prosecutor for a lawenforcement agents, im not sure we have the case, but the Prosecutor Says theres a case. I dont really have if i can see the case, that is my job, not yours. And yet now we have a whole system that has been turned upside down, not because i dont believe your honesty, i believe you blew it because you didnt have the whole situation where the fbi wouldnt look political, and that is all you have become. If the sad thing, because you all do great work. But i think it is the fbi wouldnt look political, time to bring down the curtain. Theres a wizard behind it who is playing all of us, because she is not that naive, she is not stupid, she knew what she was doing because she was too bored. If she gets at 600 pennsylvania avenue and gets bored, god help us. Mr. Chairman two pieces i need to respond to. Fir, he said hiding behind something. This case was investigated by a group of professionals. If i blew it, they blew it too. The very best we have were put on this case. We are a team. No one hid behind anything. American citizens should insist that we bring criminal charges if we are able to investigate and produce evidence beyond reasonable doubt to charge somebody. That should be true whether you are investigating the or you or joe smith. That is the way this case was done, it is about evidence. The rest of it i will let go. Not this is the problem. When you take it alcohol, this is a unique case. This is a unique case because i truly and i dont think you can convince anybody i dont think you said they couldnt, they blew it. Anybody else would have been prosecuted. We will have to agree to disagree. Theres a lot to disagree on. The gentleman from idaho is recognized. Thank you. Director komi, i have always appreciated your testimony, and i respect the work you do for the fbi. When you major recommendations to not prosecute Hillary Clinton, i disagreed with your decision, that i appreciated your candor in explaining to the American People those recommendations. That decision i continue to view you as honorable and a strong leader. I did 20 townhall meetings over the recess, and i was lambasted at everyone i think i lost votes because i defended your integrity at every one of those town hall meetings, and i told them why even though i disagree with your conclusion i saw you came to it from an honorable place. However, as more information has come to light, i question the thoroughness im not questioning your integrity, but the thoroughness and the scope of the fbi investigation. In the past week we have learned of the grant of immunity to several key witnesses, including Hillary Clintons former chief of staff and one of the individuals responsible for setting up her server. Im really disappointed by this revelation and confused as to why these immunity grants were necessary and appropriate given the circumstances. It appears to me that the fbi was early in this investigation andwilling to strike deals assure officials could never be prosecuted for their wrongs and what we now know was a massive breach of National Security protocol. We have a duty to ensure that our fbi is still in the business of investigating criminal activity. At what point in the investigation was cheryl mills offered immunity . Cheryl mills was never offered immunity. She was given later immunity to govern at what point . June of this year. About 11 months into the investigation. Was she offered immunity from interview or for turning over the laptop . Turning over the laptop as evidence. In god and what could be done in terms of using it against her. So your knowledge of cheryl mills was a cooperative witness . Ie was cooperative forget the month she was interviewed but she was interviewed fully. That she always cooperated . Reason to believe she was being uncooperative. Could this investigation has been has been completed without the immunity . Day could have been concluded , eating thely laptops was important to me in the Investigative Team. In your experience as investigator and now the fbi director, how many times have you allowed a person who is a material witness to a crime you are investigating to act as a lawyer in that investigation . To left is what i am stumbling on. The fbi has no power lets be honest. You allowed the fbi allowed cheryl mills to act as the attorney in a case that she was a material witness how many times how many times how many times have you done that prior . An experiencehad where the subject of the interview was represented by a lawyer who was also a witness. Not my experience. You prosecuted terrorism lobsters, and during your time in justice, how many times did you allow a lawyer who was a material witness to the case you are prosecuting to also act as the subject as the attorney i dont think i have encountered this situation where a lawyer was also a witness. So this was highly unusual. In my experience. You indicated you had no reason to disbelieve it when he told you he erased the hard drive on his own. Correct. However, in the exchange on reddit, he said i need to strip out of the ip email address from a bunch of archived emails. Basically, they dont want the vip email address exposed. Those statements are not consistent. That he wassay truthful when he told you nobody told him to act this way and yet you saw this reddit account where they told him that he needed to act in this way . The assessment of the Investigative Team those are different subjects. One is a year before in the summer of 2014 about how to produce emails where there is a way to remove or mask the actual email address. Deleting theabout content of those emails. It seems in your investigation you found time after time evidence of oftruction, evidence breaking iphones, all these different things, and yet you find theres no evidence of intent. I confused as to your on the oneion hand you said that secretary clinton couldnt to be charged because her conduct was extremely careless but not grossly negligent. That is what he said today. Was no also said there evidence of intent to harm the United States. But you will agree that a person can act with gross negligence or even acts knowingly without possessing some additional, specific intent which is it . Is it a lack of gross negligence or a lack of intent . In terms of my overall judgment, its a lack of evidence to meet what i understand to be the evidence of the crime and a consideration of what would be fair with respect to how other people have been treated. Se things together tell me nothing has changed my view and no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. The specific intent question, i agree that specific intent is a different thing than a gross negligence or willful us. One less question. You talked about mary and jill. They would be disciplined at the fbi if they did what Hillary Clinton did, but they came to you and asked for a promotion immediately after being disciplined, which you gave them. It would depend upon the nature of the conduct in what discipline had been imposed. And would they ever ask for a promotion that would give the management and control of Cyber Security of your agency and the secrets of your agency after they had done these things. Would you give them that promotion . That is a question i dont want to answer. The chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mrs. Walters. Hi. Despite the absence of an intent , you have said that there has never been a prosecution without evidence of intent, thus the standard has been read into the statute despite the specific language and acted. What exactly are the Legal Precedents that determine that . My understanding is governed by a couple things three things. The legislative history from 1917, which i have read, and the one case that was prosecuted. Those things combined tell me that when congress enacted 793, we were worried about the gross negligence language and put in legislative history that we understand to be close to willfulness. Then the next hundred years tell me the department of justice for a century has had that same reservation and have only used it once. That was involving an fbi agent who was in espionage context. Importance of the protecting classified information, a lot of people disagree that an intense standard should be read into that statute. What specific language would you recommend we enact to ensure that gross negligence is the standard, not intent . I dont think that is something the bureau would give advice on. Its a good question. I can imagine federal employees being concerned about how you draw the line for criminal liability, but i dont think that is something we ought to advise on. Should we enact the standard for extreme carelessness . Same answer. Should we enact a civil fine . For mishandling . I dont know. Its already subject to discipline, which is suspension or loss of clearance and job, which has a big monetary impact i dont know. I want to change subjects. As you know, the number of criminal background checks for noncriminal purposes like full Employment Decisions continues to increase. I dont expect to have this information on hand, but would you be willing to provide the committee and my staff with the number of criminal history record checks for fingerprintbased background checks that the fbi has conducted over each of the past five years . And what are your thoughts regarding whether the fbi has the capacity to process the increasing number of background check requests . Im sure we can get you that number. I am sure we track it. I will make sure my staff follows up with you. I believe we have the resources where we have been strained his back rent checks for firearms. We run iocesses overall sense is we have enough to do that, we have a fee and we are able to generate the resources we need. Ok. Could the gentlelady yielded to me . Thank you. Director, some time ago you appeared before this committee and told us you had exhausted all the capability to unlock the San Bernardino iphone. Did that turn out to be true . Still true. If you had exhausted all your capability, shouldnt we be concerned from a cyber standpoint that you couldnt that an Israeli Company came forward and unlocks for you, and a cambridge alsossor for 90 has shown to unlock and mirror or duplicate the memory . S is purely a question of you apparently do not have the resources to do that which others can do, is that correct . Im sure thats true in a whole bunch of perspective but i have to correct you, you said an Israeli Company a contractor for you reported to be for 1 million unlocked the phone. I would ask you to confirm that it got unlocked. It did. So the technology could be created outside of ordering a company to reengineer their software for you. In this case, yes. So you lack that capability how can the committee know you are in the process of developing that sort of technology, the equivalent of the cambridge 90 technology . How can the committee know . Where are the assurances that we have an Encryption Working Group that was formed between multiple committees to no small extent because of your action of going to the magistrate and getting an order because you lack the capability and were drawing a new technique of ordering a company to invent for you. The question is how do we know that wont happen again, that you will go to the court, ask for something, when in fact the technology exists or could exist to do it in some other way, Key Technology that you should have at your disposal or some federal agency should . Happent of all, it could again, which is why its great that people are talking about what we might do. Its an interesting question as to whether we invest in to us having the ability to hack into peoples devices, it doesnt strike me as the best solution, but i have asked for more money and we are investing in those capabilities so when we really need to get into a device we can. Its not scalable and its not thrilling to know. I will be brief isnt it true that we have clandestine organizations who have the , to looko do just that around the world and to be able to find information that people dont know you can find, keep it secret, and headed out there . Shouldnt we instead of giving you the money simply continued to leverage other agencies who already have that mandate, and then ask you to ask them to be your conduit for that when you have an appropriate need . Thats a reasonable question. There are real challenges in using those techniques in the bulk of our work, because it becomes public and exposed, but that has to be an important part of the conversation. Thank you. The chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. Chairman. Ou, mr. Thank you for being here, director. Director, the last thing i want to do is to lecture you on anything related to the law, because i think you have given your whole life to that effort. In the face of so many things already having been said, all i reassociate try to this in a reference of why there is a rule of law. Unpleasantness in the 1770s with england over rule of law, because we realized there were only two main ways to govern, the rules of men or the rules of law. Sometimes its important for all what thiseconnect whole enterprise in america is all about and again, i dont seek to lecture you in that regard. I know and you have to forgive me for being a republican partisan, because i am very biased in this case, but i know that when you interviewed mrs. Clinton you were up against someone that really should have an earned doctorate of duplicity and deception hanging on her wall. I dont know that you could have interviewed a more gifted i know you were up against the best. But having said that, when i read the law that i know so many 18 usc,eady referenced, 1924 provides that any federal becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States and knowingly removes that document without authority and suchthe intent to retain documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year. It does not require that section does not require an intent to profit. It doesnt require harm to the United States or to act in any manner disloyal to the United States. It only requires intent to retain classified documents at an unauthorized location. And i believe, sir, in all sincerity that some of your comments reflected that is what occurred. Over the last several months i believe that is the case. So it is my job to ask you clarityy this simple was not applied in this case, because the implications are so profound for your children in and i do this country, not envy your job but i want to give you the remainder of the time to help me understand why a law like this that any Law School Graduate if we cant apply this in this case, how in gods name can we apply it in any case in the world . Why is it even written . Higher going to stop there and ask you for barents. Its a reasonable question. Thats the 1924 misdemeanor mishandling statute that is the basis on which most people have been prosecuted for mishandling classified information. It is not a strict statute, and i argued against criminal statutes. It requires of the department of justice proof of some criminal intent, butspecific a general awareness that you are doing something unlawful. There are two problems in this case; one is developing evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that senator clinton acted with that criminal intent, and even if you could do that, which you cant, looking at the history of other cases, what will be the right thing to do . Has anyone ever been prosecuted near this . And when people tell you lots of people have been prosecuted, please demand the details because i have been through them all. That combination of what the history of prosecution has told me people can take a different view and it is reasonable to disagree that no reasonable prosecutor bring that case. That is what it is. You said it was a reasonable question and it was a reasonable answer, but i cant find that in the statute. Thank you, sir. The chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I am going down a completely different path. Our Law Enforcement in this country has a consistent enemy in a group called sovereign citizen. What i have seen in my district we lost two officers about four years ago and we just lost another three officers in baton rouge with another couple injured. Parish,ase in st. John we had the perpetrators on the some in louisiana, and at point, they moved to south louisiana and we lost contact. So in st. John parish deputies went to their trailer park, they had no idea what they were walking into, and they walked with ar15 said ak47s and the unimaginable happened. Are you all focused on making sure i think there are about 100,000 of them but are you focused on making sure our Law Enforcement has the best withmation when dealing whether it is sovereign citizen or terrorist cells, that the information gets to the locals that they are not surprised in an ambush . We sure are. I dont have the circumstances of the case that i will find out. Obviously we want people to know when someone is wanted, but more than that we have a note or suspected terrorist file that should have information about people we are worried about so that if an officer goes to execute a search warrant and they run that address, you will get a hint. That is our objective and its a race to make it better. Lanes because this is an issue when we Start Talking about criminal Justice Reform of the fbi in my community, in communities of color, and elected officials. There seems to be two standards, one for lowlevel, elected officials and one for other people. I guess the fact i will give you in some of our cases and you tell me if it sounds inconsistent with your knowledge of the law a nonprofit organizations where elected officials have either been on boards or had some affiliation are usedn those funds in a manner that benefits them personally, they have been prosecuted in amounts that range from 2000 to 100,000. Law interpretation of the is usedif a nonprofit to benefit a person and not the organization, that that is a festive funds, can those are a lot of the charges i have seen in my community, would you agree with that . It could be, and i know from personal experience that is often at the center of the case involving a corrupt official. Lets take a look to the official out and take any foundation, director, board director, or executive director who would use the funds of the nonprofit to pay personal debts for bills, or takes money. You would agree that that would constitute a violation of the law, criminal statute . On the federal side, potentially. Wire fraud, mail fraud. The other thing i would say in our community, we feel that selective prosecution, that if you are rich you have another standard, that if you are an africanamerican you have another standard. There are a number of cases that i will give you offline. My appears that concern is the authority of your agent to decide that a person is bad and then take them through holy hell to try to get them to the ultimate conclusion that the agent made and they dont let the facts get in their way. You havef the day Business People who spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to protect their reputation and to fight a charge that they ultimately win, but now they are broken and defeated because it says the United States of america versus you. I would ask you to create a mindset within the department that they understand the consequences of leaks to the happensharges, and what when those charges are not substantiated, you are still breaking person, and i think you have a responsibility to be careful with the awesome power that you all are given and with that i yield back. The director is welcome to respond. I very much agree with what you said. The power to investigate is the power to ruin. Ruinous,people can be and we have to be extraordinarily prudent in exercising fair, openminded, careful i very much agree. The chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you for your service. Ofn you made your statement the press conference in july you say that i have not this statement in any way with the department of justice; they do not know what im about to say. I have no reason to question your integrity, but is there any chance that someone working as part of your investigation you what you are going to decide and recommend and maybe told one of the attorney generals staff or what was about to happen . Anything is possible. I would bet my life it didnt happen, because i know my folks. Heres why i ask. The facts give me pause. The investigation started in july of 2015. Then he suggested that the attorney general general should recuse herself because of her friendship with the clintons. She had the fortuitous meeting on the airplane with former president clinton on june 30. Then on july 2 she came out and said i created an appearance of impropriety so i am going to follow whatever the fbi directors recommendation is in three days later you had your where you saide, in our system of justice the prosecutors make the decisions about what charges are appropriate based on the evidence. Thats not what happened; you made the decision. I made publicly recommendation the decision to decline the case. Press before you had that conference, you knew based on the Public Comments that she was going to follow whatever she recommended. So ultimately you made a decision isnt that the reality of what happened . Thats a fair characterization but i would add that she said she would defer to the fbi and career prosecutors. I knew once i made public the fbis view that this wasnt a prosecutable case that there was zero chance of the department of justice was going to go in a different direction. Part of my decision was based on my prediction that there was no way the doj would prosecute on these facts in any event. I just wanted to add that. How some ofan see us would look at the dates in the facts leading up to your press conference and think, ok, we have been suggesting shes not the appropriate person to make the decision. She wont recuse herself. Three days before you come out with a recommendation, she basically decides to accuse yourself. I get my folks would ask about that but i think there are two blue dates that matter in what generated that was the controversy around her meeting with president clinton, not the interview lets talk about cheryl mills. You said earlier today that it was meant to you to weigh in on whether theres a conflict for her to act as her lawyer in the interview. You are taking your attorney had on and off whenever it is convenient. You decided at the beginning of the interview that it wasnt appropriate to weigh in as a lawyer, suggesting there was a conflict, but their recommendation is a lawyer you see the inconsistency . I see the point i would rather not have a hat on it any time. I put it on because thats what i thought was necessary. It is noty that to them to kick out a lawyer. What would have happened if you had said you cant be in this interview . I dont know. Could you have said that to her . You could, but it would be well outside our normal role. When you say there is no double standard i am asking you as a citizen, can you sort of see why a lot of americans are bothered by a perceived double standard . If any of the gentleman sitting behind you this morning it done some of the things ms. Clinton did and told some of the lies she told, you said in your statement that this does not suggest under similar circumstances there wouldnt be consequences. It would be subjected to administrative sanctions. Now we have an election going on where she is speaking about a big promotion. Maybe your point is she wouldnt be charged under similar facts. But can you see why so many people are bothered by the facts given that Nothing Happened to her and now shes running for president . Can you see the optics are troubling . It, and that is one of the reasons why i am answering as many questions as i can but folks need to realize if you did this in the fbi you would be in huge trouble. You might be fired. I am also certain you would not be prosecuted criminally on these facts. I appreciate that. Mr. Bishop started to talk about this and his district is affected as well. My district has the Third Largest resettlement of refugees in the country behind san diego and chicago detroit. That youast fall really didnt have the data to properly vet the Syrian Refugees trying to come in and he said that again this morning. Last weekend i was at a Grocery Store and two different people locked up and said, can you stop the resettlement of Syrian Refugees in detroit . We are all afraid. Based on your comment that we dont have the database to that these folks, anything i can tell them in michigan that we are doing other than we just have to wait for a new president because this one has increased the number of refugees . I would like to be able to say the fbi is doing Something Different than they were doing last year. As i said earlier, they can no that if there is a whiff about this person somewhere in the u. S. Governments vast holdings we will find it. The second thing they can know is that if we get a whiff about somebody once they are in we will cover in a tight way. What i cant promise people i cant query what is not in our holding. Thank you, i yield back. Duringctor komi, questioning earlier, there was a dispute that arose over the contents of one or more of the immunity letters that were issued, particularly with regard to the issue of whether or not it contained immunity for destroying documents. And emails the individual who was questioning you about that was a former chairman of the oversight and government Reform Committee. I want him to be able to clarify because we have contacted the department of justice and asked them to read the letters with this. I will try to be brief. Under the immunity agreement with one or more individuals with cheryl mills as one of the individuals, she negotiated a very good deal, from what we can discover. She did not just receive immunity related to the production of the drive, the computer, the contents, but received immunity under 793. 1924, and the socalled david petronius portion, 18 usc 2071. Her immunity is against any and all taking, destruction, obstruction of documents classified or unclassified. Youonly question i have for and i know you are going to put this to justice and we may have to ask them separately for the purposes of what you needed as an investigator, because you were the person that wanted access, is that deal making any sense to in return for things which he could have objected to as an attorney and held back, but which had no known prosper of leading to criminal indictment . She received complete immunity as we read it from obstruction or destruction of documents, classified and unclassified, based on a rereview of the immunity agreement. You are right, this is a question best addressed to justice but i think you are misunderstanding it. This was a promise in writing for the department of justice we will not use anything on the laptops directly against you in a prosecution for that list of offenses. Its not immunity for those offenses if there is some other evidence. That said, im not sure why the lawyer asked for it because at that point we didnt have a case to begin with. I understand that. But based on the rented theyry and others, asked me to do it you have an immuned witness to had to tell you who they were. If they told me to delete and that was cheryl mills then you have evidence from an immune witness of a crime perpetrated by cheryl mills, the ordering of the destruction of any document, classified or unclassified, which clearly she seems to have done. We developed evidence that she have obstructed justice all she is protected from is we cant use this evidence so the information put in the record today, which included these read it discoveries, showed that there is the destruction of information under 18 usc 2071. If she doesnt have immunity for that order, she could and by definition should be charged because ordering somebody else to destroy something as an attorney well after there were subpoenas in place, that is clearly a willful act. Chairman, would you yield . Of course. Your line of questioning let me show my cards. I believe cheryl mills has an impeccable characters as my line of questioning suggests that they have impeccable character, but there is immunity given and i dont think it applies to miss mills. The section you are speaking at if you take local actions given to the worst of character for a variety of reasons, that was not the reason given to miss mills. I am sure it was a lawyer that was trying to be the most effective counsel reclaim my time, the gentleladys point may be true, im only speaking to the director based on things were done that should not have been done. We now have evidence in front of ofs committee and the record people destroying records of activities as late as a few days ago. The fact that they still should be an open question, first of all, could you be prosecuted to if they had told me destroy this, under the exact stain statute that included david trias, who was no longer on active duty, 18 usc 2071, there is at least a case to be made. The problem we have is that the lawyer negotiated a set of terms which hopefully doesnt mean that she gets a free pass even if she willfully ordered the destruction of documents, which it does appear she did. My job is not to be judge, jury, or hangman. My job is to look at what has been presented to us as the highest Law Enforcement officer in the land, to look into it, because it does appear as though it is fair. Briefly certainly we have an oversight responsibility and i think he has been forthright, but none of the actions of destruction i dont think we have anything in evidence that suggests miss mills contributed to the dictating or directing thegentlelady gentlelady may not have been here at the time, but the director himself, when asked who in day would have been in order to destroy, at least said it probably or likely was cheryl mills we arent saying it is, but we are saying you have an immune witness. The purpose of this was to set the record straight as to what the context of the document was. That has been accomplished in the debate will continue on outside of this hearing room i would only add that the director be able to review those documents and followup with the committee, that would be helpful to all of us. I thank the chairman. The director has answered in the affirmative that he will do that. First of all, i want to thank we didnt make for hours and 40 minutes but we did almost make four. I know you have been generous with your time. I would also say that i think a lot of the questions here indicate a great deal of concern about the manner in which this investigation was conducted, how the conclusions were drawn, and the close proximity to that, and the meeting of the attorney general former president clinton on the tarmac at the same time when she said i will recuse myself and shortly after that you took over and announced your conclusions in this case, which are hotly disputed. The committee and the oversight and Reform Committee have referred to the u. S. Attorney , a the District Of Columbia referral based upon her testimony before the select committee on benghazi, suggesting that your statement that your press conference and testimony for the oversight and government Reform Committee, very clearly contradicted a number of statements she made under oath before that committee. Hownt to stress to you important i think it is that we made that referral for the purpose of making sure that no one is above the law. In many cases regarding investigation, it is not just the underlying action that is important but the efforts of people to recover those to cover those up through perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of documents. Would ask that this matter be taken very seriously as you pursue whatever actions the department chooses to take, making sure that no one is above the law. Thank you, sir. We conclude, todays hearing. I think our distinguished witness for attending. We will have five legislative days to submit additional questions or materials for the record. The hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2016] cspan, but as a Public Service desk brought is a Public Service. John richardson talks about Naval Operations this morning at the center for strategic studies. Watch it at 10 00 a. M. Eastern on cspan two. And the army holding their annual meeting in washington. We will hear from Army Secretary eastern on11 45 a. M. Cspan two. The next president making appointments to the Supreme Court of the u. S. Will be president donald trump. With Hillary Clinton in the white house, the world will never forget why they have always looked up to the United States. The Campaign Continues with the Vice President ial debate between mike pence and tim kaine, tuesday night, from virginia. Beginning at 7 30 p. M. Eastern, with a preview of the debate. At 8 30 p. M. , the briefing for the audience. And then 00 p. M. , live coverage and event viewer reaction. The Vice President ial debate live on cspan and anytime on demand at cspan. Org and listen on the free cspan radio app. , q a, and next then washington journal. This week on q a, john podhoretz, editor of commentary magazine and movie critic for the weekly standard. He talks about his career, and discusses movies he has reviewed over the pt