That could range from being terminated to being reprimanded, and a whole spectrum in between. Suspension, loss of clearance, a bunch of different options. Lets say one of your top two or three lieutenants, you find out theyve had this separate server out there and theyre keeping secret documents, you know, flipping them around. Do you think they should be fired . Not criminally charged, but fired . Yeah, i dont think its appropriate to say. I think it should go through we have a very robust process. There ought to be a very intense suitability review of that person. Maybe theres something were missing that would mitigate the punishment we would impose, but it would have to go through our system. Okay. Next question. Just for the listening audience here. First, when i hear about erasing emails, i think its like on my own phone where i might erase an Auto Insurance solicitation. The erasers here, however, were not just mrs. Clinton pressing delete, were they . There was a much greater effort made to make sure that these emails would never be recovered . Do you want to comment on what was done to erase the emails . I think what youre referring to is after her lawyers her lawyers say, although i dont im not able to verify this, there were 60,000 or so left at the end of 2014. They went through them, in a way i described in my statement two days ago, and then they produced the ones that were work related and then they erased from their system the once that were not work related. That was done using technical tools, basically, to remove them from the lawyers from the servers, to wipe them away. So in other words, the effort was not just mrs. Clinton or somebody went, delete, delete, delete. They went above and beyond that so your top technical experts could not get back these emails, correct . Not fully. We were able to you recovered a few . We could go through the lawyers laptops and see some traces, but not fully recover them. So now the information i have, you can correct me if im wrong, implies that these erasers were done in december of 2014, after the benghazi scandal broke, after there were questions about the Clinton Foundation. Did you ever come across why she allowed these emails to sit out there even for years after she stopped being secretary of state, but all of a sudden as these other scandals began to bubble up, she felt, or her lawyers felt that she had to erase them . Yeah, i think the way the process worked is, she had emails that were just on her system. She actually had deleted some, i think, over time, as an ordinary user would. And then the state department contacted her and other former secretaries and said, we have a gap in our records. We need you to look and see if you have emails and give them back. She then tasked her lawyers to engage in this review process, of that 60some thousand and make that cut. And was asked by her lawyers at the end, do you want us to keep the personal emails . She said, i have no use for them anymore. Its then that they issued the direction that the technical people delete them. Do you think mrs. Clinton knew that the technical people were erasing these emails, so that even your top technical experts could recover them . Based on my sense now of her technical sophistication, i dont think so. You dont think the lawyers told her thats what they were doing. Erasing all these emails that everybody on this committee wanted to look at . And im sure weve asked this what type of lawyer wouldnt tell their client they were doing that . But i dont think they i think our evidence from our investigation is that they did not. That they asked her, do you want to keep them . And they said no. And they said, wipe them away. Okay. Now, as i understand it, the goal was just to erase personal emails, but you have recovered emails that wouldnt be considered personal emails at all. Correct. I dont know if you didnt recover them, but based upon the emails that you recovered, presumably, her lawyers or somebody was going well beyond personal emails, is it possible well never be able to recover emails that dealt with the Clinton Foundation or dealt with the benghazi scandal. Is it possible, because of what her lawyers did, that they were erasing things that were incriminating . Maybe involving items that you yourself were not particularly investigating, but that these have now been destroyed forever . Its possible, as i said in my statement tuesday, we did not find evidence to indicate that they did the eraseture to conceal things. Im sorry, when you go to this length to make sure you can never recover the emails that are erased, wouldnt you think the intent was to make sure nobody can ever look at them again. I thank the gentleman. Well give the director time, if he wants to respond. I mean, i guess its a bit circular. You delete because you want to delete. What i mean is, we didnt find any evidence of evil intent, an intent to obstruct justice there. You wouldnt have been able to, because you dont know what was deleted. Thank the gentleman. We now recognize mr. Russell of oklahoma for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And director comey, thank you for your long service and your long suffering. I think were toward the end of the line here. I want to state for the regard, with regard to national security, i sleep a little easier at night knowing that youre at the helm of the fbi and thank you for your dedicated service and your integrity. Thank you. You have stated in your statement and also multiple times here that there should be consequences for the mishandling of state secrets. If i held a topsecret sci in the bureau, and i did hold one when i was in the United States army, in a career of service, i handled classified information here, but if i, if i held that in the fbi and you discovered that i mishandled state secrets on a private server in my basement, would i be trusted by the bureau to further handle topsecret sci information . Maybe not. You would go immediately through a security process to review whether you should continue working for us and if you do, what clearances you should retain. If i violated the handling of state secrets in the fbi, would you consider me the best suitable candidate for promotion and higher responsibility . It would be a serious concern, and we would stare at it very hard in a suitability review. Although you have recommended to the department of justice that no criminal charges be brought to bear, are you recommending to the department of justice that there be no consequences for the mishandling of state secrets . No, my recommendation was solely with respect to criminal charges. What would you recommend . I dont think its for me to recommend. But you do youve been very open and even stated why you felt that these were unique sets of circumstances that called for greater transparency. You do make recommendations routinely, as youve stated here today. Were talking topsecret sci information thats been mishandled. You would take a dim view to that if i were an agent. What consequences this is what the American People feel exasperated about. There seems to be no consequence. So in a case like this, if its not going to be criminal charges recommended, what are the American People to do to hold their officials accountable if maybe they shouldnt be trusted for further promotion and higher responsibility . What i meant earlier is thats not a question that the American People should put to the fbi director. I can answer about the things within my remit, but i understand the question, but its not one for me to answer in my role. Well, i hope its one that the American People answer in the future, because we do have a choice about those that would mishandle information. And while were all fallible human beings and we all make mistakes, in a case like this, for decades of my service in the Army Infantry and handling topsecret sci information and then as a member of congress, we know those responsibilities. Is it your view and others that have interviewed mrs. Clinton that she would not have known what those responsibilities were . No, i think in a way, you would expect she understood the importance of protecting classified information. Well, i would agree with that. And theres been a breach. And i think that the American People demand a consequence. That they demand an accountability. And i think its important to uphold the form of our republican government that we have a consequence. And with that, thank you for your appearance here today. And i would like to yield the remainder of my time to chairman chaffetz. Thank you. I think if you yield back, through mutual agreement, mr. Cummings and i have agreed that i do have about a dozen or so quick followup questions. You have been most generous with your time, but i would like to get through this last bit. And again, well do so with equal time. How did the department of justice or how did the fbi view the incident in which Hillary Clinton instructed Jake Sullivan to take the markings off of a document that was to be sent to her . We looked at that pretty closely. There was some problem with their secure fax machine, and theres an email in which she says, in substance, take the headers off of it and send it as a nonpaper. As weve dug into that more deeply, weve come to learn, at least, theres one view of it, that is reasonable, that a nonpaper, in state department parlance, is a document that contains things we could pass to another document. So essentially, take out anything thats classified and send it to me. It turns out that didnt happened, because we actually found that the classified fax was then sent. But thats our best understanding of what that was about. So this was a classified fax. Correct. So Hillary Clinton sends to Jake Sullivan let me go back if Jake Sullivan says, they say they have issues sending secure faxes. Theyre working on it. Hillary clinton sends to Jake Sullivan, if they cant, turn into nonpaper with no identifying heading and send nonsecure. So youre telling me its a classified piece of information shes taking off the header and shes instructing them to send it in a nonsecure format. Is that not intent . Well, it actually caught my attention when i first saw it. And what she explained to us during her interview was and other witnesses did as well, is what she meant by that is, make it into a nonclassified document. Thats what a nonpaper is, in their world. And send it to us. Because i just, i dont need the classified stuff, i just need then why take off the heading . If its going to be turned into a nonclassified document, why take off the heading . I assume, because it would be nonclassified anymore. So you wouldnt have a classified header on it. I think is what she said she wanted to be technically correct. Is that what youre saying that i think what she said during the interview is, i was telling him, in essence, send me an unclassified document. Take the header off, turn it into a nonpaper, which is a term id never heard before, but im told, by people i credit, that in diplomatic circles, that means something we can pass to another government. You are a very generous in your accepting of that. Let me ask you, director, did any uncleared individuals receive any classified information over Hillary Clintons server . Did any uncleared people receive classified information . I dont think any of the correspondents on the classified emails were uncleared people. These were all people with clearances working, doing state department business, on the unclass system. Did mr. Pagliano have the requisite security clearance . As i sit here today, i cant remember. He was not a participant on the classified email exchanges, though. He was running the server. He set it up. Thats a different question. Im sorry, i misunderstood your question, then. Theres no doubt that uncleared people had access to the server. Even after pagliano, there were others who maintained the serve who were private sector folks. So there are hundreds of classified documents on these servers. How many people, without a security clearance, had access to that server . I dont know the exact number as i sit here. Its probably more than two, less than ten. I appreciate your willingness to follow up with this. Did secretary clintons attorneys have the security clearances needed . They did not. Does that concern you . Oh, yeah. Sure. Is there any consequence to an attorney, rifling through secretary clintons, Hillary Clintons emails without a security clearance . Well, not criminal consequences, but a great deal of concern about an uncleared person, not subject to the requirements we talked about in the readin documents potentially having access. Thats why its very, very important for us to recover everything we can back from attorneys. So whats the consequence . I mean, here, Hillary Clinton gave direction to her attorneys, without a security clearance, to go through documents that were classified. I think thats what happened in fact. Whether that was the direction is a question i cant answer sitting here. So you i youre parsing that one a little bit. No, no, you were just asking me. Whats the consequence . They dont work for the government. We cant fire them. So is there no criminal prosecution of those attorneys . Should they lose their bar license . Whats the consequence to them . Well, if they acted with criminal intent or acted with some malintent what youre telling us is that it doesnt matter if you have a security clearance or not. Because i may be innocent enough, hey, im just an attorney. I like the secretary, im trying to help Hillary Clinton, im not trying to give it to the chinese or the russians, im just trying to help her. So theres no intent . It doesnt matter if these people have security clearances . Of course it matters. Thats why i said but is there no consequence, director . Theres no consequence. Well, i dont know what consequence you would have in mind. Prosecute them an attorney for receiving from his client information that ends up being classified . I asked you at the very beginning, does Hillary Clinton does is there a reasonable expectation that Hillary Clinton would send and receive, if not daily hourly, if not daily, classified information. Thats reasonable to think that the secretary of state would get classified information at every moment. Shes not the head of fish and wildlife. So, the idea that she would turn over her emails, her system, her server to what it sounds like, up to ten people, without security clearances, and theres no consequence. So why not do it again . Thats a question i dont think you should put to me. Youre asking im talking about my criminal investigation. But how can that theres no intent there . Does she not understand that these people dont have security clearances . Surely she understands, at least some of them dont have security clearances. So she understands they dont have security clearances, and its reasonable to think shes going to be getting classified information. Is that not intent to provide a noncleared person access to classified information . Youre mixing it up, though. I dont think its reasonable to assume mixing me up, sorry. Its not your fault that someone who is maintaining your server is reading your emails. In fact, i dont think thats the case here. Theres a separate thing, which is, when shes engaging counsel to comply with the state departments request, are her lawyers then exposed to information that may be on there thats classified. So and did they see any classified information . Did Hillary Clintons attorneys, without security clearances, see classified information . I sit here, i dont know the answer to that. It has to be yes, director. You came across 110 and they said they went through all of them. Well, they didnt read them all, they just looked at headers. Their excuse is, we saw the emails, but we didnt read them. I think i said this in my statement on tuesday, they sorted the emails by using headers and search terms to try to find workrelated emails. We read them all. I know that you read them all. Do you think its reasonable or unreasonable to think that her attorneys, under her direction, did or did not read those emails . Because there were let me go back to this, yes or no. Were there or were there not classified emails that her attorney that Hillary Clintons attorneys read . I dont know whether they read them at the time. They theyve did Hillary Clinton give noncleared people access to classified information . Yes. Yes. What do you think her intent was . I think then it was to get good legal representation and to make the production to the state department. That could be a very tall order. In that circumstance, i dont see the evidence to make a case that she was acting with criminal intent in engaging with her lawyers. And i guess i read criminal intent as the idea that you allow somebody without a security clearance access to classified information. Everybody knows that, director. Everybody knows that. Ive gone way past my time. Let me recognize mr. Cummings for an equal amount of time. Director, thank you for your patience. I want to clear up some things. I want to make sure i understand exactly what you testified to on the issue of whether secretary clinton sent or received emails that were marked as classified. On tuesday, you stated, and i quote, only a very small number of the emails containing classified information bore markings. And i emphasize, bore markings, indicating the presence of classified information. End of quote. Republicans have pounds on this statement as evidence that secretary clinton lied. But today we learned some significant new facts. And i hope the press listens to this. First, you clarified that you were talking about only three emails out of 35,000. Your office reviewed. Is that right . Three, yes. Three out of 30,000. Is that right . Yes. At least 30,000. At least 30,000. Second, you confirmed that these three emails were not properly marked, as classified at the time, based on federal guidelines and manuals. They did not have a classification header, they did not list the original classifier, the agency, office of origin, reason for classification, or date for declassification. Instead, these emails included only a single, quote, c parenthesis end parenthesis, and then end of quotation mark for confidential on one paragraph lower down in the text. Is that right . Correct. Third. You testified that based on these fact