Capacity if that person demonstrated carelessness in handling top secret info . We would look very closely at that in a suitability determination. Its hard to answer yes in all cases and no in all cases but it would be very important. So there would be instances where someone would be extremely careless and still maintain confidence. We have a lot of people in this country that would love to work for your agency but yet it would be extremely careless and continue on. And it was a long time ago and it was a small amount of conduct or something. Thats why its hard to say. Would being extremely careless and expose an employee for potential determination. Why wouldnt they use them if theyre discussing classified or Sensitive Information . Because the mobile device will transmit its signal across networks that are likely controlled or at least accessed by that. Thats the guidance that the fbi gives all officials when traveling overseas. Thats still good guidance, correct . Thats good guidance. How did top secret information end up on the private server . You did not address any of her aids in your statement. Attorney general lynch exonerated everybody. That information didnt just get there on its own. How did it get there . Were you able to determine that . Yes, by people talking about a top secret subject in an email communication. So not about forwarding a top secret document. Its about having a conversation about a matter that is top secret. And those were things that were originated by secretary clintons aids and then sent to her which would obviously be in her server but it was also secretary clinton originating the emails. In the one involving top secret situation not only received but also sent emails that talked about the same subject. Of that top secret information you found was somebody that was sophisticated in those matters should it have been obvious to them that that was very Sensitive Information . My issue about knowledge about what youre doing but in order for secretary clib on the to have access to top secret information and acknowledging her duties and responsibilities and safe guard this information. Its called a read in form that lays it out. Theres certain requirements to handling certain levels of information. For example, a top secret document. You have to follow certain guidelines and i guess my question is she is very sophisticated person. She did execute that document, correct . And her aids that are getting the classified information they executed similar documents to get a security clearance, correct . I believe so. She knowingly clearly set up her own private server in order to let me ask you that, was the reason she set up her own private server in your judgment because she wanted to shield communication from congress and the public. Its a matter of convenience. It was an already existing system that her husband had and she decided to have a domain on that system. Its very sophisticated and information that clearly anybody that had knowledge of security information would know that it would be classified. But im having a little bit of trouble to see how would you not then know that that was something that was inappropriate to do . Well, ill take one of your assumptions about sophisticated. I dont think our investigation decided she was sophisticated with the levels and treatment. Isnt she original Classification Authority though. Yes, sir. Good grief. Well i appreciate you coming and i yield back the balance of my time. I think hes set to enter into the record two documents. One is the Sensitive Information. Nondisclosure agreement. The other one is the classified information nondisclosure agreement both signed by Hilary Rodham clinton. Now recognize the gentleman from missouri. Thank you mr. Chairman and thank you director comey for being here today and for the professionals whom you lead at the fbi. Two years ago after my urgent request to them and the former attorney general for an expedited Justice Department investigation and the diligence an absolute integrity. And its in this matter as well. I did not think it was possible for the majority to see the arrogant abuse of federal funds we have witnessed over the past two years as they have engaged in a partisan political witch hunt at taxpayer expense against secretary clinton. And this proceeding is just a sequel to that very bad act and the taxpayers will get the bill and its a new low and it violates both house rules and the rules of this committee. So with apologies to you and the fbi, and the proceeding in terms of the facts of this case as you clearly have learned them. First question, does secretary clinton or any member of her staff intentionally violate federal law . We did not develop clear evidence of that. Did secretary clinton or any member of her staff attempt to obstruct your investigation . We did not develop that. Does it rise to a level that would be worthy of federal prosecution . As i said tuesday, our judgment, not just mine but the teams jult of the fbi is that the Justice Department would not bring such a case. No Justice Department under any whether republican or dell cat administration. Thank you for that response. I know the fbi pays particular attention to groups by training local Law Enforcement officers and participating in local hate crime working groups is that right . Yes, sir. Some of these seem relatively harmless but others appear to be very dangerous and growing. Some even promote genocide in their postings and rhetoric online. In your experience, how dangerous are these groups and have they insighted violence in the past. That would be too hard to answer in the abstract. Some groups are dangerous and some groups are exercising important protected speech under the First Amendment. Let me ask about a more direct question. A gentleman named andrew is the editor of a website called the daily stormer that is dedicated to the supreme sy of the white race as well as attack jews, muslims and others. The website features post with the White Genocide to protest what they contend is an effort to eliminate the white race. Are you familiar with this movement . I am not. Okay. Well this hashtag has been promoted all over social media by a growing number. For example one nazi sympathizer tweeted repeatedly using the handle whitegenocide tm. Are you concerned some groups are increasing their followers in this way . Particularly if some of those followers could become violent . I dont know enough to comment. We are always concerned to go beyond propeck tif speech and our duty is to figure out when people have walked outside the First Amendment protection and looking to kill or hurt folks but i dont know to comment on the particular. One of my biggest concerns is certain public figures are promoting these dangerous groups. As you may know one of our most vocal candidates for president retweeted White Genocide tm. Three weeks later he did it again. Two days after that he retweeted a different user whose image also included the term White Genocide and thats not even all of them. Director comey, dont these actions make it easy for these groups to recruit even more supporters . I dont think im in a position to answer that in an intelligent way sitting here. Well i appreciate you trying and thank you mr. Foreman director for your acceptional service to our country. Thank you. Well now recognize the gentle woman from wyoming. Welcome director and thank you so much for being here. My phone has been ringing off the hook from constituents that dont understand how this conclusion was reached so i appreciate you being here to help walk us through it and heres the issue that the people that are calling me from wyoming are having. They have access to this statute. Its title 18, u. S. Code 1924 and im going to read you this statute. It says whoever being an officer employee contractor or consultant of the United States and by virtue of his Office Employment position or contract becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information to the United States knowingly remove such document and materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents and materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined unthis title or imprisoned for not more than one year or both. Armed with that information theyre wondering how Hillary Clinton was also an attorney and theyre held to a higher standard of knowledge of the law, how this could not have come to her attention. She was the secretary of state. Of course the secretary of state is going to become possessed of classified materials. And practiced with a prominent arkansas law firm. The rose law firm. She knew from her white house days with her husband, the president , the classified materials can be very dangerous if they get into the wrong hands. She had to have known about this statute because she had to have been briefed when she took over the job as the secretary of state. So how, given that body of knowledge and experience, could this have happened in a way that could have potentially provided access by hackers to confidential information . Its a good question and a reasonable question. The protection that we have as americans is that the government, in general and in that statute in particular has to prove before they can prosecute us that we did t and when we did it we knew we were doing something unlawful. We dont have to know the code number but that we knew we were doing something unlawful. Thats the protection we have. I did a lot of work with the chamber of commerce to stop the criminalization of negligence in the United States may i interrupt and suggest that this statute says knowingly remove such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location. The intent here in the statute is to retain the documents at an unauthorized location. Its not intent to pass them on to a terrorist. Or to someone out in internet land. Its just the intent to retain the documents or materials at an unauthorized location. Its more than that, though. Youd have to show that and prove criminal intent. Both by law and they have reserved that statute for people that clearly knew they were breaking the law and thats the challenge. Should have known, must have known, had to know does not get you there. You must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they knew they were engaged in something unlawful. Thats the challenge. Then may i turn to her attorneys. Did all of secretary clintons attorneys have the clearances at the time they received all of her emails . Especially those that were classified at the time they were sent . No. They destroyed, as has been noted, 30,000 emails of secretary clintons. Do you have 100 confidence that none of the 30,000 emails destroyed by secretary clintons attorneys was marked as classified . I dont have 100 confidence. Im reasonably confident some of them were classified. There were only three in the entire batch we found that bore any markings that indicated they were classified. So thats less likely but surely its a reasonable assumption that some of the ones they deleted contained classified information. Thank you director. Thank you mr. Chairman. I yield back. I now recognize the gentleman from massachusetts. Secretary clinton is certainly not the only secretary of state to use a personal email account with information later identified as being classified. I just want to show you, this was a book that was written by secretary of state colin powel and in his book he says to compliment the official state Department Computer in my office i installed a laptop computer on a private line. My personal email account on a laptop allowed me to direct access to anyone online so i started shooting emails to my assistants and individual ambassadors and foreign minister colleagues who like me were trying to bring them. And not a private server. Used a commercial email account for state department business. Private line, unprotected. Correct. Not a state Department Email system. Right. He went rogue so to speak, right . I dont know if id say that. Okay. Im not going to put words in your mouth but you think this was careless for him to do that . Get his own system. He installed a laptop computer on a private line. My personal email account was on a laptop and allowed me direct access to anyone. Anyone online. Thats his own statement. Im just trying to compare secretaries of state because secretary powell has never been here. As a matter of fact, when we asked him for his emails, unlike the 55,000 received from secretary clinton he was like i dont have any to turnover. I didnt keep a cash of them. I did not print them off. And was secretary of state and operate on a private system. Not the time 15 years ago but i am now. So recently, back in october 2015 they sent secretary powell a letter requesting he contact aol to determine whether any of his emails were still on the unclassified systems. Are you aware of that on going investigation . I dont know that investigation that request for information from secretary powell. Yes. I am. Youre aware of that. Are you surprised that he has never responded . I dont know enough to comment. I dont know exactly what conversation he had with the state department. All right. Im trying to look at t you know, where we have a lot of comparisons in other cases and it seems like all the cases where prosecutions have gone forward the subject of the investigation demonstrated a clear intent to deliver classified information to a person or persons who were unauthorized to receive that. So if you look at the pfc, bradley manning, now chelsea manning, that was a court martial. And demonstrated a clear intent to publish that information. The wikileaks editor and publisher, again, a wide and deliberate attempt to publish classified information. General petraius as we talked about today shared information with his biographer. Former cia officer was interested in writing a book so he hung on to his information and even former director of the cia retained class identified information on a couple of servers. And one in maryland and that was after he became a private citizen. So in all of those cases theres a clear intent. As you said before, you look at what people did and what they were thinking when they did that and i would just ask you, is there a clear distinction between what those people did and what secretary clinton did in her case. It illustrates it perfectly. He took a huge amount of documents. Almost all at the level and had them hard copy at his house. Attempted to destroy some of them when he got caught. Admitted i knew i wasnt supposed to be doing this. You have clear intent. Huge amounts of documents, obstruction of justice. Those are the kinds of cases that get prosecuted. Thats what i said. Thank you. Well now go to the gentleman from North Carolina for five minutes. Thank you mr. Chairman, theres been much said today about criticizing you and your service. I want to go on record that even though many of my constituents would love for me to criticize your service because of the conclusion you reached, never have i nor will i criticize your service. We appreciate your service to this country and the integrity so im going to focus on the things that you said, not the conclusion that you drew. And the congressman and i talked a little bit about this but on february 4th, 2016, secretary clinton during a president ial debate said i never sent or received any classified material. They are retroactively classify it. Close quote, so in your statement on july 5th, you said that there were, indeed, 110 emails. 52 email chains which there was classified information on it at the time it was sent or received. So those two statements, both of them cannot be true, is that correct . Your statement and her statement . Its not accurate to say she did not send or receive so she did not tell the truth during that president ial debate that she never sent or received classified information and it was retroactively classified . I dont think thats a question i should be answering well, either your statement is not true or hers is not true. Both of them cannot be true. So is your statement true. That i can speak to. Your statement is true so the American People will have to judge with her statement not being true. So let me go on to another. On october 22nd, she said there was nothing more classified on emails either sent or received and a very small number of emails contained classified information and markings indicating the presence of classified information at the time. So she makes a statement that says there was no markings. You make a statement that there was. So her statement was not true. That would actually have a little bit of insight in the statement that we asked her about that. Theres three documents and youre obligated with somebody classified to put a marking on that photograph. Thats confidential classified information. Secretary of state, first lady was a reasonable person. That was a classified marking a reasonable person. Thats all im asking. Before this investigation i want to say yes im not so sure. Director comey, come on, ive only been here a few years and i understand the importance of those markings. So youre suggesting that a long length of time that she had no idea what a classified marking would be. Thats it today. Not that she would have no idea what a classified marking would be but its question about sophistication that came up earlier whether she was sophisticated enough to understand what it means. So youre saying the former secretary of state is not sophisticated enough to understand a classified marking . Thats a huge statement. Not what im saying. You asked me did a assume that someone would know. Probably before this investigation i would have. Im not so sure of that answer any longer. I think its possible. Possible that she tint understand what a c meant when she saw it in the body of an email like that. After years in the senate and secretary of state thats hard for me and the American People to believe director comey and im not questioning your analysis of it but wouldnt a reasonable person think that someone who has the highest job of handling classified information understand that . I think thats a conclusion a reasonable person would draw. It may not be accurate. So let me go a little bit further because the last quote came october 27th, 2015 under sworn