Return to Transcripts main page

Wolf

More Testimony from FBI Director Comey. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired July 07, 2016 - 13:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

BLUM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[13:00:00] Thank you, Director Comey for being here today, and thanks for hanging in there until every last question is answered.

I'm not a lawyer, that's the good news. I'm a career businessman. I spent most of my career operating in the high high- tech industry.

Today, I heard words such as common sense, reasonable person, carelessness, judgment, or lack thereof. I like these words. I understand these words. I think the average American does as well. I'd like to focus on that.

Last Tuesday, Director, you said, and I quote, "none of these e- mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full- time security staff like those found at agencies of the United States government or even with a commercial e-mail service such as Gmail." Director Comey, my small Iowa business doesn't even use Gmail for our e-mail because it's not secure enough.

I know some security experts in the industry. I check with them. The going rate to hack into somebody's Gmail account, $129. For corporate e-mails, they can be hacked for $500 or less. If you want to hack into an IP address, it's around $100. I'm sure the FBI can probably do it cheaper. This is the going rate.

Director Comey, are you implying in that statement that the private e- mail servers of Secretary Clinton's were perhaps less secure than a Gmail account that is used for free by a billion people around this planet?

COMEY: Yes. And I'm not looking to pick on Gmail. Their security is actually pretty good, the weakness is individual users. But, yes, Gmail has full-time security staff and thinks about patching, and logging, and protecting their systems in a way that was not the case here.

BLUM: I would like to ask you, what kind of judgment -- we talked a lot about judgment today -- does this decision to potentially expose to hackers classified information on e-mail service that's less secure than Gmail, your words -- what does that suggest to you?

COMEY: It suggests the kind of carelessness I talked about. BLUM: In August of last year, Secretary Clinton was asked by Ed Henry of Fox News whether she had wiped her entire server, meaning that, did she delete all the e-mails on here server? Her response, "you mean with a cloth?" March of 2015, during a press conference, Secretary Clinton assured us that her private e-mail server was secure saying, "the server was on private property guarded by the Secret Service."

Now, this would have laughable if it wasn't so serious. I know, you know, my constituents in eastern Iowa know, you don't need to be a cat burglar to hack into an e-mail server and you don't need a cloth to wipe a server clean. One would think that a former United States Senator, one would think that a Former Secretary of State would know this as well. Would you agree with that statement?

COMEY: You would think, although as I said before, one of the things I learned in this case is that the Secretary may not have been as sophisticated as people assumed.

She didn't have a computer in her office at the State Department for example. I don't think -- so I would assume the same thing about someone who had been a Senator and a high-ranking official. I'm not sure it's a fair assumption in this case.

BLUM: In your opinion, did Secretary Clinton know that a server could in fact be wiped clean electronically and not with a cloth?

COMEY: Well, I assume -- I don't know...

BLUM: Would you assume she knows that?

COMEY: I would assume it was a facetious comment about a cloth. I don't know a particular on that one.

BLUM: Would you also assume Director, that Secretary Clinton knew that a server could be wiped clean electronically, that it could be hacked electronically, not physically? You don't need a cat burglar to hack a server. Would you assume -- is reasonable to assume she knows that?

COMEY: To some level she would know that. To some level of understanding.

BLUM: Then once again, for someone who knew these things or we assume to some level she knew these things, what kind of judgment does a decision to expose classified material on personal servers suggest to you? What type of judgment?

COMEY: It's not my place to assess judgment. I talk in terms of state of mind, negligence in particular. I think there was carelessness here. In some circumstances, extreme carelessness.

BLUM: Was her server hacked?

COMEY: I don't know. I can't -- can't prove that it was hacked.

BLUM: That answer says to me it could have been hacked.

COMEY: Sure. BLUM: And if it was hacked, potentially damaging material, damaging to American secrets, damaging to American lives, could have been hacked, could have been exposed, correct? Lives could have been put at risk if that server was indeed hacked?

COMEY: I'm not prepared to say yes as to that last piece. That would require me going into a way -- I can't here due to the nature of the classified information. But there is no doubt that it potentially would have exposed information that's classified -- information that was classified because it could damage the United States of America.

BLUM: So it could I have happened, the FBI just isn't aware?

COMEY: Correct.

BLUM: Thank you very much.

I yield back the time I do not have.

CHAFFETZ: I thank the gentleman.

I now recognize the gentlelady from New Jersey, Ms. Watson Coleman, for five minutes.

WATSON COLEMAN: Thank you.

And thank you, Director. I've got a number of questions so I'm going to zip through these.

This is a question I'm going to ask you and you may not even have the answer to it because you may not have known this. This is about the classification marking issue that you've been asked about earlier. According to the State Department which addressed the issue yesterday, a spokesman said that, "the call sheets appear to bear classified markings -- but this was actually a mistake." To quote, "generally speaking, there's a standard process for developing call sheets for the Secretary of State. Call sheets are often marked, but it's not untypical at all for them to be marked at the confidential level prior to the decision of the Secretary that he or she will make that call. Often times, once it is cleared, the Secretary intends to make a call, the department will then consider the call sheet SBU, Sensitive But Unclassified or unclassified altogether, and then marked appropriately."

The classifications of a call sheet therefore is not necessarily fixed in time and staffers in the Secretary's office who are involved in preparing and finalizing these call sheets, they understand that. Given this context, it appears that markings in the documents raised in the media reports were no longer necessary or appropriate at the time they were sent as an actual e-mail. Those markings were human error. They didn't need to be there. Did you know this?

COMEY: No. WATSON COLEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Director.

Can you tell me based upon your information has there been and is there any evidence that our national security has been breached or at risk as a result of these e-mails and their being on this server? Is there any evidence?

COMEY: There's no direct evidence of an intrusion.

WATSON COLEMAN: Thank you very much.

I have to tell you that while I think that this should conclude this discussion, I know we're going to hear this issue ad nauseam. But I am concerned about another issue that I think really is resonating with the people in this country. That issue has to do with experiences that we had just the last two days.

Mr. Director, I want to bring this up for your consideration because I want to ask you, what can the FBI do in this issue? This morning, we woke up to another graphic and deeply disturbing video that actually brought me to tears when my staff played it for me, where a Minnesota woman's boyfriend has been shot as her young child sat in the back- seat after apparently telling the officer he was licensed to carry a weapon. He had it on him, and was going to reach for his identification.

Just the other day, there was a -- an incident in Baton Rouge involving a Mr. Alton Sterling, an African-American man who was shot while pinned to the ground by police officers in Baton Rouge. An interaction taped by two bystanders with cell phones captured this. So I think that we've got an issue here, an issue of real national security.

And I want to ask you, Mr. Director, do we have an opportunity to direct our time and resources in your department to those issues? Is it -- is it not important that we save their names to remind people of the loss of a Tamir Rice, to an Eric Garland, to an Alton Sterling, to a John Crawford III, to a Michael Brown, to a Walter Scott, and even a Sandra Bland? Deaths in the hands of police custody or by police happening -- are these not happening at an alarming rate and is this not a legitimate space for the FBI to be working in?

COMEY: Yes, is the emphatic answer. Those are incredibly important matters.

As you know, the FBI spends a lot of time on them because they're very, very important. We have an investigation open on the Baton Rouge case. I was briefed this morning on the Minnesota case and I would expect we'll be involved in that as well. It's an important part of our work.

WATSON COLEMAN: Do you feel that you have the resources from the legal imperative to the funding to address these cases and what seems to be a disturbing pattern in our country today?

COMEY: I'm a bad bureaucrat, but I have -- I believe I have sufficient resources and we are applying them against those situations. because I believe the individual cases matter enormously, but also the people's confidence in law enforcement is one of the bedrocks of this great country of ours. I have the resources and we're applying them too. WATSON COLEMAN: And in addition, we believe that our law enforcement

is by in large of high integrity and have the desire to keep us protected and safe. But when we find out that there are these occasions, and when there's an indication that there's a pattern that is taking place in this country, we have a responsibility to ensure that everyone in this country is safe. And simply because you're a black man or a black woman does not make you a target.

Thank you. I yield back my time.

CHAFFETZ: I thank the gentlewoman. We'll now recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Walker.

WALKER: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you Director Comey for being here.

There are a few things in this town that people agree on both sides of the aisle, one is your reputation. I'm reminded of the passage in James: Swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath.

I am a little disappointed in some of the things I've heard from my colleagues about some of the attacks on your character and integrity. I haven't heard those. And I hope that we have not -- you've not experienced that.

I also struggle with a change of heart that we're hearing today. I have a list of elected officials who have questioned your investigation, even attacked it. In fact, former President Clinton said, "This is a game." In fact, last Friday, Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz said, "Secretary Clinton is not the target of this investigation, or whatever you want to call it."

My question to you today: Do you feel like this has been a Republican witch hunt, this hearing? COMEY: No. I said from the beginning, I understand people's questions and interest. I'm a huge fan of transparency. I think that's what makes our democracy great.

WALKER: I think that is one of the reasons as to why you are so respected.

To me, this hearing is about understanding and disseminating the facts, and how you saw them, and how the American public sees them. And specifically in the areas of where there was wrongdoing admitted under your investigation, where there was obviously breaking the law, but also some cover-ups. Did Congress ask you to pursue this investigation?

COMEY: No. It was a referral from the Inspector General of the intelligence community.

WALKER: So it wasn't Republicans either was it?

COMEY: No.

WALKER: How did you go about collecting the evidence?

COMEY: We used the tools we normally use in a criminal investigation.

WALKER: Did or do you receive a congressional referral for all the information you collected?

COMEY: Not to my knowledge.

WALKER: One of the things I'm struggling with or what I would like to know specifically is, under oath Ms. Clinton made these three comments that we now know are untrue in the Benghazi hearing.

Number one, she's turned over all her work related e-mails. Number two, telling the committee that her attorneys went through every single e-mail. And finally, and probably the one that continues to stick the most, there was, and I quote, "nothing marked classified on my e-mails," end quote.

Now, earlier when the chairman questioned you about this, you said something about needing a congressional referral, recommendation. My question is something of this magnitude, why -- can you help me understand why didn't it rise to your investigation or someone bringing that to your knowledge as far as saying this is a problem, here she is, again, Secretary Clinton lying under oath specifically about our investigation?

COMEY: We out of respect for the legislative branch being a separate branch, we do not commence investigations that focus on activities before Congress without Congress asking us to get involved. That's a long-standing practice of the Department of Justice and the FBI. So we don't watch on TV and say we ought to investigate that, Joe Smith said this -- in front of the committee. It requires the committee to say, "We think we have an issue here; would you all take a look at it?"

WALKER: With all due respect, if you have the Secretary Clinton under oath speaking about your very investigation, and you've talked about your wonderful staff, and certainly have no reason to deny it; why wouldn't that rise to the level of suspicion that -- here she is saying this under oath. Lying under oath is a crime is it not?

COMEY: Yes.

WALKER: What's the penalty on that? That's considered perjury right?

COMEY: Perjury, it's a felony, I forget the exact -- it's potentially years in prison.

WALKER: I don't understand -- would you help me understand why somebody wouldn't have tipped you off that she's talking about the specific case under oath that you're investigating?

COMEY: There's a difference between us being aware of testimony and us opening a criminal investigation for potential perjury.

Again, it's not this case in particular, but all cases. We don't do that without the committee saying, "We think there was an issue in testimony given in this separate branch of the government." WALKER: You also mentioned earlier, and it's been quoted several times, that no reasonable prosecutor would move forward with some of the facts. Is there any room at all that somebody would differ on the opinion? I know that former United States Attorney General Michael Mukasey said that an illegal server disqualifies her from holding any federal office. So there are people of highest esteem that may differ obviously not privy to the exact facts.

Can you make any room? You said no reasonable person. Do you understand why American people or would understand why other people may say that she has stepped across a line or broke enough laws here that you would come to a different conclusion?

COMEY: Sure, I respect different opinions.

My only point -- as I said earlier, I smile because those folks are my friends, I've worked with them for a long time. None of those guys in my position I believe knowing what I know, would think about it differently. But I also respect that they have a different view from the outside.

WALKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

CHAFFETZ: I thank the gentleman. I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. DeSaulnier.

DESAULNIER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director, I just want to thank you as others have, and I know you don't need this but I think the American people clearly need to hear it, you've done a wonderful job today. There are moments in my political life and as an American I despair for the future of this country, not often but -- in those moments comes an individual like yourself, be it by providence or good fortune or framework of the U.S. constitution, I really believe you served this country and all Americans well irrespective of their party affiliation.

So really two questions. Two lines of questions, I should say. One is I -- another colleague brought this up, but you mentioned in just previous testimony about the bedrock and the importance of public confidence and public safety institutions, yours and all. So I just want to give you an opportunity, I think you have responded to this multiple times -- but given you had little opportunity tonight -- because I think it's important for the American public to know that the system isn't rigged, that there are people such as yourself and the 15 individuals who worked on this case and others that do their job and believe in the Constitution of the United States. And if you have any further comments about -- comments that would say that the system's rigged and Americans should give up on the system.

COMEY: One of the reason I welcome this opportunity to have this conversation, is I was raised by great parents who taught me, you can't care what other people think about you. In my business, I have to and deeply do, that people have confidence that the system's not fixed, against black people, for rich people, for powerful people.

It's very, very important that the American people understand that there really are people that you pay for with your tax dollars who don't give a rip about Democrats or Republicans, or this or that, who care about finding out what is true. And I am lucky to lead an organization that is that way to its core.

I get a ten-year term to ensure that I stay outside of politics, but in a way that it's easy. I lead an organization that is resolutely apolitical. We are tough aggressive people. If we can make a case, we'll make a case. We do not care what the person's stripes are or what their bank account looks like. I worry very much when people doubt that.

It's the reason I did the press conference two days ago. I care about the FBI's reputation, I care about the Justice Department, I care about the whole system deeply. And so I decided I'm going to do something no Director's ever done before. I'm not going to tell the Attorney General or anybody else what I'm going to say or even I'm going to say it. They didn't know nor did the media know until I walked out what I was going to talk about and then I offered extraordinary transparency, which I'm sure confused and bugged a lot of people.

It's essential that people see as much as they can so they can make their judgment. Again, they may conclude I'm an idiot and that I should reason different, but what I hope they will not conclude is that I'm a dishonest person. I'm here trying to do the right thing in the right way.

I lead 36,000 people who have that as their spine. That's what I want them to know. I don't care that people agree or disagree about our democracy, but at its core, you need to know there are good people trying to do the right thing all day long. You pay for them and we'll never forget that.

DESAULNIER: I appreciate that.

Within context of these are human institutions -- pretty clear to me as non-lawyer that you had a bright line in terms of your decision about pursuing prosecution. But you did spend an extended period of time talking about, what I think I take from you as being a fairly objective analysis of what was careless in terms of handling of it, either ascribed to the former secretary of state or to the department.

You said, and I quote, during your comments, "while not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that a security culture of the State Department in general with respect to the use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular was generally lacking in the kind of care classified information found elsewhere in the government."

That's accurate, isn't it?

COMEY: Yes, sir.

DESAULNIER: So struggling with this, and this is in the context of this hearing, oversight in State Department in this committee, as to how do we go from here, and be clearer about how the State Department -- we'll talk about this with the I.G., and some of the comments former Secretary Powell has made including that the absurdity of the retroactive classification.

And now we have 1,000 of these e-mails from Secretary Clinton that's out in the public and are being spread even further. So there are other people involved.

Sitting there, how does this committee go forward to make sure the State Department can still function in the way it does with human beings and have conversations that are both transparent, but also national security?

What are the things we need to do to make sure that this doesn't happen again?

COMEY: Well, I think a good start -- I think the reason the chairman has the I.G. from the State Department here is to start that conversation. The I.G. knows deeply the culture of a department and is far better equipped than I to say, you ought to focus here, you ought to focus there to make it better.

So I think that's the place to start. DESAULNIER: Thank you, Mr. Director. I yield back.

CHAFFETZ: Thank you. We'll now recognize the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. DesJarlais, for five minutes.

DESJARLAIS: Director Comey, thank you for appearing so quickly on short notice. I think it's really important that you're here because of the way you laid out the case on Tuesday, there is a perception that you felt one way and then came to another conclusion.

I, like many of my colleagues, put a post up back in my district and let them know you were coming. And in less than 24 hours, I had 750 questions sent to ask you. So again, thank you for being here.

But a common theme, just to summarize a lot of those concerns, were that in this case Clinton was above the law, that there was a double standard and a lot of that was based on the way you presented your findings.

Now, your team, you said you did not personally interview her on Saturday, but your team did for about three-and-a-half hours, correct?

COMEY: Yes.

DESJARLAIS: OK. Do you know, in reading the review or the summary, did they ask Hillary Clinton about her comment that she had never sent or received classified information over private e-mail?

COMEY: I think so, but I can't -- I can't remember specifically.

DESJARLAIS: OK.

COMEY: It's a very long, 302. I'd have to check and then get back to you. DESJARLAIS: OK. And we'll get access to that.

Do you know if they asked her when she said that there was nothing marked classified on my e-mails sent or received?

COMEY: Same answer. I'm not sure.

DESJARLAIS: OK. And so the same answer then when she said, I did not e-mail any classified material to anyone on my e-mail, there was no classified material, you don't know whether they asked her that?

COMEY: I don't know whether they asked her that question. The entire interview was going to be -- was focused on, so what did you know, what did you see, what is this document, that kind of thing.

DESJARLAIS: OK. Do you know if she asked her whether she stands by the fact she that said she just used one device and that was for her convenience?

COMEY: I don't know. I know they established, in talking to her, she used many devices during her four years. So I don't know whether they asked her specifically about that statement. That's easy to check, though.

DESJARLAIS: OK. I guess my point is, you're trying to get inside the head of Hillary Clinton in this investigation and know whether there was intent. And so we all know what she told the people. That has been well-documented.

She said that she did not do those things, that she did not send or receive classified e-mails, that she used one server and one device for her convenience.

And since then, I think even in your statement, you recognize that those were not correct. Is that fair?

COMEY: I really don't want to get in the business of trying to parse and judge her public statements. And so I think I've tried to avoid doing that sitting here.

DESJARLAIS: Why do you feel that's important?

COMEY: Because what matters to me is what did she say to the FBI. That's obviously first and foremost for us.

DESJARLAIS: Right.

(CROSSTALK)

DESJARLAIS: Honest people don't need to lie, is that right?

COMEY: Honest people don't need to lie? I hope not.

DESJARLAIS: OK. Well, in this case, for some reason, she felt the need to misrepresent what she had done with this server all throughout the investigation. You guys after a year, brought her in on Saturday and in three-and-a-half hours came out with a conclusion that she shouldn't be prosecuted because there was no intent, is that right?

COMEY: No.

DESJARLAIS: OK. So I don't want to put words in your mouth. But is it fair to say that your interpretation of Hillary Clinton's handling of top secret information, classified documents was extremely careless?

COMEY: Yes.

DESJARLAIS: And is it fair to say that you said that -- you went on to define "extremely careless," that Hillary Clinton's handling of top secret information was sloppy or represents sloppiness?

COMEY: Yes. That's another way of trying to express the same concept.

DESJARLAIS: OK. And then just a few minutes ago, you also stated that you now believe that Hillary Clinton is not nearly as sophisticated as people thought, is that correct?

COMEY: Yes, I think that's fair, actually -- no, not as people thought, but as people would assume about somebody with that background.

DESJARLAIS: OK. So...

COMEY: I'm sorry. I should be clear about this. Technically sophisticated. I'm not opining on other kinds of sophistication.

DESJARLAIS: All right. In the last minute, Director, I want to talk a little bit about precedent, because I think my colleague Trey Gowdy made a great point that there still is really no precedents in terms of punishment for this type of behavior.

Are you particular with Bryan Nishmura's case.

COMEY: Yes.

DESJARLAIS: OK. He's a naval reservist, for those who don't know, and he was prosecuted. What is the difference between his case and Hillary Clinton's case in terms of extremely carelessness and gross negligence, because we're dealing with Statute 793 Section F where it does not require intent, is that correct?

COMEY: I'm sorry, 793-F is the gross negligence standard.

DESJARLAIS: Right.

(CROSSTALK)

DESJARLAIS: Right, and is that why Bryan Nishimura was punished?

COMEY: No. Nishimura was prosecuted under the misdemeanor Statute 1924 on facts that are very different -- if you want me to go through them, I'll go through them, but very different than... (CROSSTALK)

DESJARLAIS: Well, OK, I think that there has been a review of this case, and they're very similar. And that's why people feel that there's a double standard...

(CROSSTALK)

COMEY: What they're reading in the media is not a complete accounting of the facts in that case.

DESJARLAIS: Well, would you agree then with Representative Gowdy that there still is really no precedents for punishing someone like Hillary Clinton, and she could really go in -- potentially be elected president and do this again without fear of being punished?

COMEY: I don't think I'm qualified to answer that question.

DESJARLAIS: All right. My time has expired. Thank you for your time.

CHAFFETZ: Thank the gentleman.

Now recognize the gentlewoman from New Mexico, Ms. Lujan Grisham.

LUJAN GRISHAM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I've had the benefit of -- when you're last to -- or nearly last, to really have both the benefit and then to question the kinds of statements and the dialogue back and forth.

And where I'm settled at this point in time is in a couple of places, but particularly, I don't think there's any member in this committee, or quite frankly any member in Congress who doesn't both want and expect that the FBI and the Department of Justice to be -- to operate in a fair, unbiased, and highly independent manner.

Otherwise, you can't appropriately uphold or enforce federal law. And while we've all -- this has been stated in a couple of different ways, I'm going to see if we can't -- I want to get direct answers.

So, Mr. Comey, is there any evidence, given that that's the standard that we all want, desire, and expect, to suggest that Hillary Clinton was not charged by the Department of Justice due to inappropriate political influence or due to her current or previous public positions?

COMEY: Zero. And if there is such evidence, I'd love folks to show it to me.

LUJAN GRISHAM: And in that regard, was there a double standard?

COMEY: No. In fact, I think my entire goal was to avoid a double standard, to avoid what sometimes prosecutors call "celebrity hunting," and doing something for a famous person that you would never do for an ordinary Joe or Jane. LUJAN GRISHAM: Thank you. And I really appreciate that you're here today and explaining the process in great detail, frankly. And I've -- this committee works at getting specific detail about a variety of reviews, investigations, policies, concepts throughout federal government.

And I think I can say that this committee often finds that we don't get very much clarity or specific responses to the majority of questions that we ask. So I really appreciate that, and that in explaining that what led the FBI to conclude that Hillary Clinton should not be charged.

Saying that, however, I'm still concerned, frankly, that the use of this hearing and some of the public statements made by the elected officials accusing the Department of Justice of using a double standard, without any evidence at all to support that statement, leaning on accusations of such, in fact jeopardizes the very thing we want the most, which is an apolitical and independent Department of Justice. And we have every right to ask these tough questions and to be clear that the process that you use for everyone, including elected officials, works, and that there's a responsibility not to substitute your own political preferences for the outcome of an independent and apolitical Department of Justice investigations on any level, whether it involves Hillary Clinton or anybody else.

[13:30:06] Do you agree with that general statement?