Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Loretta Lynch Testifies on Capitol Hill at Hearing on Oversight of the Department of Justice. Aired 10-10:30a ET
Aired July 12, 2016 - 10:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[10:00:00] ANA CABRERA, CNN ANCHOR: One day after Starbucks it's raising wages for office store employees and the managers there in an effort to boost morale. Some workers will get a 15 percent raise.
The next hour of CNN NEWSROOM begins right now.
Good morning again. I'm Ana Cabrera in for Carol Costello today. Thanks for being with me.
We are following three major stories unfolding as I speak. Happening right now in Washington, any moment, Attorney General Loretta Lynch takes the hot seat there on Capitol Hill. That's the screen on the right where our reporters are getting ready. She's going to face lawmakers for the first time since announcing Hillary Clinton won't face charges for using her private e-mail system.
House Republicans are also expected to pounce on Lynch's controversial meeting with Bill Clinton before that investigation had been completed.
Also this hour, President Obama and the first lady leave for Dallas. Today they will attend a private memorial for the five police officers shot and killed last week.
And next hour, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders share the same stage again for the first time since their April debate, hitting the trail in New Hampshire together.
We begin with Lynch on Capitol Hill. CNN's Evan Perez joins us live in Washington with a quick preview -- Evan.
EVAN PEREZ, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Ana, good morning. And you expect that Loretta Lynch is going to face some very skeptical audience before this House Judiciary Committee. They will not buy -- they are not buying her explanation as to why the FBI and the Justice Department have decided that there are no charges to be brought against Hillary Clinton for using a private e-mail server during her time as secretary of state.
We expect that they're going to ask questions not only about the decision-making in that but about that ill-timed Phoenix tarmac meeting if you remember. Bill Clinton, the former president, charged up the steps of Loretta Lynch's plane on that tarmac and held a 30- minute conversation with her which she then later explained as being a very bad idea. Obviously last week we also had James Comey, the director of the FBI testify in Congress and defend why he recommended no charges be brought against former Secretary Clinton.
But it feels like the context has changed, not only because of Comey and the fact that he forcefully defended the decision, but also because of the events that have happened just in the past week including the police-involved shootings in Baton Rouge and in Minnesota as well as the killing of those five police officers in Dallas. This is a big part of what the Justice Department does. The Justice Department is not only investigating some of these shootings, but also doing a lot of work to try to encourage better policing tactics around the country.
Lynch herself has been a very big proponent of this, including pushing for more training for police officers. So you can expect a lot of conversation about that and not only criticism of what the Justice Department has done in these investigations, but also pushing for more work for the Justice Department to help improve policing around the country -- Ana.
CABRERA: Again, we're looking at live pictures there on Capitol Hill as Loretta Lynch gets ready to testify before the House and Judiciary Committee.
Evan Perez, we know you'll be watching as we will as well. Thank you.
Let's talk more about this. Joining me now is Ron Brownstein. He is a CNN senior political analyst, Art Broderick, CNN law enforcement analyst, Laura Coates, CNN legal analyst and Nia-Malika Henderson, CNN senior political reporter.
I want to start with you, Ron, because we know Lynch's relationship with the Clintons has essentially been called into question. She took the FBI recommendations to not press charge against Clinton over her private e-mails. She met privately with Bill Clinton just days before the investigation wrapped up. She's going to be asked about all this today.
Do you expect any answer that she might give could change the political narrative?
RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: I don't think so. I mean, you know, if you look at this, the entire arc of this episode, it has taken a significant toll on Hillary Clinton's public image. There's no question. I mean, doubts about her honesty, doubts about her judgment. And it is -- you know, it has really left a bite on her. And I think what you've got now is a situation where Republicans, frustrated that the FBI is not proceeding, are going to look for every possible way to keep this story in the foreground all the way through November and that will proceed along multiple fronts some of which we haven't even seen yet.
And I just look at this as one of those many fronts, like asking for a Justice Department investigation of possible -- of her statements to Congress, questioning Loretta Lynch's relationship with the meeting with Bill Clinton. The Paul Ryan gambit on trying to deny her intelligence briefings. There will be, I think, a cessation of these kinds of issues all the way through November because this may be her single biggest vulnerability at this point in the election.
CABRERA: Nia-Malika, as Ron just pointed out, Republican leaders in the last 24 hours officially asked the Justice Department to open a new investigation, this time into whether Hillary Clinton lied under oath when she said she did not send any classified material when she's talking about those e-mails from her private server. Now do Republicans, do you think, have anything to lose by dragging this out?
[10:05:00] NIA-MALIKA HENDERSON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Absolutely not. I think it's all upside for Republicans at this point, as we are entering a very contentious and partisan presidential election season with November coming up and polls showing that Hillary Clinton is leading Donald Trump at this point, I think you're going to hear about this ad nauseum really.
As Ron pointed out there, you're going to hear about this in campaign ads, you're going to hear about this certainly from Donald Trump in almost every speech he gives, he already mentions it. This is really goes to Hillary Clinton's primary argument about her candidacy which is that she is the one who is experienced, that she knows what it means to be president. She has the judgment to be president. So then you have this investigation coming out clearing her, but also raising some questions about that.
So I think you're going to hear Comey's comments from his initial press briefing and some from the hearing as well in ads and in whatever comes out of these other hearings, Loretta Lynch and the additional calls from Republicans to keep poking around in this issue.
CABRERA: Kind of teeing up to what we expect to hear, the chairman of this committee, Bob Goodlatte, has said that no one is above the law. And Americans need to know law enforcement is taking Clinton's actions seriously, that she is not above the law.
I wonder, asking you, Art, do you think it appears that law enforcement has taken her action seriously? We did hear the FBI director testify that she did send classified information.
ART RODERICK, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Yes, Director Comey is a straight shooter. And his explanation of why they're not pursuing any charges rings true for me. There's two sides to this. There's the criminal side and then there's the administrative side. If Secretary Clinton was still working for the government, she would more than likely lose her -- lose her clearance.
I had the same type of clearance for about 15, 20 years when I worked at Homeland Security and at the Department of Justice and with the U.S. Marshals. And based on Director Comey's explanation of her being extremely careless using classified materials, she would lose her clearance. Absolutely. If it was me, I would have lost my clearance.
And I think her being the secretary of state, she should very well know what most of the information she deals with this classified and should not be shared with foreign governments. And I think really what it comes down to is I accept the -- Director Comey's explanation to why there's no criminal charges. You know, the other issue, she no longer works for the government at this current time, but she definitely would have lost her clearance.
CABRERA: And as we are watching the live pictures right now from inside this House chamber, there you see Attorney General Loretta Lynch getting ready to take her position. We saw her shake hands with Chairman Bob Goodlatte as she's getting ready to take their questions.
We expect her to first deliver some opening remarks regarding the police shooting and what the Justice Department is doing with regard to the investigation into what happened in Baton Rouge with Alton Sterling.
Also they are keeping tabs on the investigation in Minneapolis. I know we will be dipping into her testimony as soon as it gets under way. And here we go. Let's listen for a moment.
REP. GOODLATTE: Good morning.
The Judiciary Committee will come to order. And without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recesses of the committee at any time.
We welcome everyone to this morning's hearing on oversight of the Department of Justice. And I will begin by recognizing myself for an opening statement.
Welcome, General Lynch, to your second appearance before the House Judiciary Committee. The flags over the capitol are flying at half- mast in recognition of the five Dallas police officers murdered in cold blood last week. This was not an arrest gone wrong. The person who carried out this appalling act of terror and hate stalked and murdered five police officers and injured seven others and two civilians, ostensibly in retaliation for recent police shootings, including the tragic and fatal shootings in Minnesota and Louisiana last week.
We mourn all those tragedies. The divisiveness between our police and our communities must end. And I ask that we observe a moment of silence for all those who have lost their lives in these tragedies.
(MOMENT OF SILENCE)
GOODLATTE: Thank you.
We must not give in to state and let emotion replace reason. We must bridge the divide that separates us and embrace one another as Americans. We must have faith that the institutions that have sustained our republic for the last 240 years will deliver fair, impartial justice to victims of crime and punish the guilty.
I look forward to your thoughts on this important matter.
GOODLATTE: The American people also expect government officials to abide by the law, just like everyone else. And to be reprimanded when they break the law. That is not the case for former secretary of state Hillary Clinton. Last week FBI Director James Comey announced that he would not recommend criminal charges against Secretary Clinton for her use of a private e-mail server while at the State Department and the mishandling of classified information.
The timing of and circumstances surrounding this announcement are particularly troubling. On Monday, June 27, Attorney General Lynch, you met privately with former President Bill Clinton aboard your plane on the tarmac of the Phoenix Airport, despite the fact that his wife was a target of an ongoing criminal investigation.
This encounter is even more troubling if the FBI is also investigating improper donations to the Clinton Foundation, which was founded by former President Clinton, a member of the foundation's board of directors.
Five days later, the FBI held its first and only interview with Secretary Clinton after a year-long investigation. Three days later, and on the first day back from a holiday weekend, Director Comey publicly announced that he was not recommending charges against Secretary Clinton.
And a mere 24 hours later, Attorney General Lynch, you issued a press release announcing that no charges would be brought against Secretary Clinton. While Director Comey may have refused to criminally indict Hillary Clinton, his public pronouncement and subsequent congressional testimony is nonetheless a public indictment of her conduct and character.
Though Director Comey declined to recommend charges, he laid out sufficient facts to warrant a referral to the Justice Department. That forces one to confront the question of whether someone who was not in Secretary Clinton's position would have fared as well with the FBI as she did.
Secretary Clinton stated repeatedly that no classified information was contained within her private e-mail system. This is not true. The FBI found 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains containing classified information at the time they were sent or received.
Secretary Clinton stated repeatedly that no information in her e- mails was marked classified. This is not true. The FBI found that some of these e-mails were marked classified. Secretary Clinton said all relevant e-mails were returned to the State Department. This is not true. The FBI found thousands of work related e-mails that were not returned.
But all of this evidence, according to Director Comey, amounted only to, quote, "extreme carelessness by Secretary Clinton and her staff." And although the director admitted that there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, he went so far as to publicly declare that, quote, "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." This defies logic and the law.
Contrary to Director Comey's assertions, the law does not require evidence that a person intended to harm the United States in order to be criminally liable for the mishandling of classified information. To be sure, Congress has set forth a variety of statutes on this subject with different intent requirements and penalties.
Were a rank and file federal employee to do what Secretary Clinton did, they would face severe punishment including termination, revocation of security clearances, or criminal prosecution. Even Director Comey acknowledged this fact at a recent congressional hearing.
But Secretary Clinton is not facing prosecution for her actions. This has now become an issue for Congress in that it appears Secretary Clinton testified falsely when appearing under oath before the Select Committee on Benghazi.
Yesterday I and Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Chaffetz asked the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia to investigate Secretary Clinton's testimony before Congress.
Secretary Clinton's extreme carelessness possibly jeopardized the safety and security of our citizens and nation. Her extreme carelessness suggests she cannot be trusted with the nation's most sensitive secrets if she is nevertheless elected president.
Frankly, the FBI's conclusion leaves many more questions than answers. And we hope, Madam Attorney General, to get answers to those questions today.
Thank you.
And it is now my pleasure to recognize the ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, for his opening statement.
CONYERS: Thank you, Chairman.
And welcome, Madam Attorney General, for being with us today.
The news of the past few days have been full of questions about violence, civil rights, and the safety of our police officers. I want you to know that we take seriously the burden of each of these questions on your office. It will not have escaped your attention that we're in the middle of an election season. You may also know that there are just three working days left until we break for the summer and really not much more time after that until the Congress ends.
Elections are about choices. A short working schedule is about setting priorities.
As you are no doubt aware, one of this Committee's top legislative priorities is criminal justice reform. We have already found consensus on a range of such issues including sentencing, prison, and asset forfeiture reform. The Chairman of this Committee and I also stand on the precipice of an agreement on policing reform legislation. Given the events of the past week, the need for this measure has never
been more urgent. Questions about the use of lethal force by police are not new, but the nation is newly engaged in the issue after Ferguson, Staten Island, Cleveland, North Charleston and Baltimore. Over the past week, we saw the same sad themes play out in Baton Rouge and Minnesota, as well as the horrific killing of five police officers in Dallas.
I believe it is more critical than ever that we reach a final agreement on police accountability and standards. In the time when African-Americans are 30 percent more likely than whites to be pulled over after -- over while driving -- more than three times more likely to have their car searched, and more than twice as likely to be shot by police, it is imperative that we restore public faith in our criminal justice system.
We must finish this work for both the communities that feel so much anguish this week and for the officers who patrol our streets every day. It is my sincere hope that we consider this matter before we're adjourn.
Unfortunately, there are many other areas where we have not been able to advance bipartisan initiatives. I'd like to tell you that we are prepared to have a substantive discussion about the manner in which we will restore Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The pre- clearance mechanism was used for decades by your department to restore a sense of fairness and jurisdictions that have known prejudice for generations.
Since it was struck down, we have seen at least 17 states enact measures designed to restrict access to the ballot box. Bipartisan legislation has been introduced that would have restored this vital tool long before voting began this year, but Mr. Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin's legislation sits untouched.
I would also like to tell you that we are prepared to address the scourge of gun violence in this country. The events last week in Baton Rouge and Minnesota and in Dallas, and the anger and sadness felt in communities across the nation, are what one commentator aptly called, "the horrific predictable result of a widely armed citizenry." This epidemic claims nearly 33,000 individuals every year.
CONYERS: It affects our churches, our schools, our homes. It places our police officers in to the direct line of fire. It makes our citizens afraid. But we have not held a single hearing on this topic, not when 26 children and teachers were murdered at Sandy Hook, not when our colleague was shot in Phoenix, and not when the body count reached 49 in Orlando.
Last month, every Democratic member of this committee wrote to our Chairman Goodlatte with a list specific policy proposals to address this violence and today I'm sorry to say we have received no response.
I would also like to tell you Madam Attorney General, that we have an answer for the millions of undocumented immigrants who came here in search of a better life but who are forced to live in the shadows. Some of us have put a great deal of effort into antagonizing and vilifying that community, but this committee has offered very few solutions acknowledging that these families are here to stay. But elections are about choices, Madam Attorney General.
There are only three working days, some counted less, left this month and then re-adjourned for seven weeks. How will my colleagues on the other side of the aisle choose to fill that time? Today, apparently Secretary Hillary Clinton's e-mail takes precedence over gun violence and civil rights. Let us be clear, the criminal investigation is closed. There was no intentional wrongdoing. Director Comey, whose reputation for independence and integrity is unquestioned, has explained his reasoning in great detail.
If any of my colleagues are not yet convinced, it is because they do not want to be convinced. And in their zeal to call Secretary Clinton a liar or maybe even a criminal despite the fact and despite the law, I fear we will have missed an opportunity to engage with you on more worthy subjects. We may also spend time today talking about the alleged wrongdoings of Commissioner Koskinen of the Internal Revenue Service.
Some of my colleagues want to use one of the remaining working days before the break to move his impeachment directly to the House floor, I hope they do not. In many ways, this gesture is totally meaningless. There is bipartisan consensus that the Commissioner's critics have not proved their case, and there is virtually no chance of a conviction in the Senate. But I believe that the rush to impeachment, although ineffectual, would set a dangerous precedent for the Congress and the American people. Once we cross this line, we write a new rule. Whatever the merits of the charges, the House may impeach an official without due process, without the right to counsel, without the right to present evidence to this committee and without the right question the evidence presented against him. Elections are about choices, and here is the choice we face as the clock runs down on the 114th Congress. We can spend a few days that remain on conspiracy theories and political sniping, that does little for our constituents but drive them further apart from their neighbors.
Or we can attempt to solve even one of the long list of problems facing this country today. We should choose to do work. The work we were sent here to do, or the public is right to choose somebody else to do it, and so I look forward to our conversation today, Madam Attorney General Lynch. I thank the Chairman and I yield back. Thank you.
GOODLATTE: Thank you Mr. Conyers, and without objection, all the members' opening statements will be made a part of the record. We welcome our distinguished witness today and General Lynch if you would please rise, I'll begin by swearing you in. Do you swear that the testimony that you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
LYNCH: I do.
GOODLATTE: Thank you. Let the record reflect that the witness has responded in the affirmative. Attorney General Loretta Lynch was sworn in as the 83rd attorney general of the United States on April 27, 2015. As Lynch began her career in public service by joining the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern district of New York. After nine years, Ms. Lynch was appointed by President Bill Clinton to lead that office as United States Attorney, a post she held until 2001.
Ms. Lynch then worked in private practice until 2010 when President Obama asked her to resume leadership of the United States Attorney's Office in Brooklyn. Ms. Lynch is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. General Lynch, welcome. Your entire testimony will be made a part of the record and we ask you summarize your testimony in five minutes, thank you and you may begin.
LYNCH: Thank you, sir.
Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, and the distinguished members of this committee, I'm grateful for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss how we can continue working together to ensure the security of our nation and the strength of our communities and the safety of our people. Now as we gather here this morning, I know that we are all thinking of the two bailiffs who were killed and the sheriff's deputy who was wounded in the shooting in a courthouse in Michigan yesterday.
The Department of Justice stands ready to provide whatever help we can to state and local authorities as they investigate this heinous crime and our sincerest condolences are with the friends, the colleagues and the loved ones of the devoted public servants that we lost. Now of course this incident follows on the heels of a series of devastating events that rocked our nation last week.
The tragic deaths of Alton Sterling in Louisiana and Philando Castile in Minnesota and the deplorable murder of five brave Dallas police officers, Lorne Ahrens, Michael Krol, Michael Smith, Brent Thompson and Patrick Zamarripa, who were protecting a peaceful protest along with several of their comrades who were wounded. The Department of Justice, including the FBI, ATF, the U.S. Marshall Service and our U.S. Attorney's Office in the Northern distract of Texas is working closely with our state and local counterparts and we will offer any assistance that we can as the investigation in Dallas unfolds.
And among other resources we will send assistance to the victims and to their families. Our hearts are literally broken for the families and loved ones of those we lost in these tragic events and our gratitude goes out to the brave men and women who wear the badge who carry our safety on their shoulders and who risk their lives every day to keep us safe. Now as we grapple with the aftermath of these events, the Department of Justice will continue to do everything in our power to build the bonds of trust and cooperation between law enforcement and the communities that we serve.
That work has never been more difficult not more important. We will continue to offer our state and local partners funding, training, technical assistance for critical programs as well as for assets like body worn cameras, de-escalation training and education in implicit bias. In fact in the last month, we announced that we would begin providing implicit bias training to federal law enforcement agents and prosecutors. We will continue to promote the recommendations of the president's task force on 21st century policing through training and technical assistance.
Our Civil Rights Division plays a critical role in ensuring constitutional policing and accountability and in rebuilding trust where trust has eroded.
And through our Office of Justice programs and our Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, we will continue to give local departments the tools they need and the training they require to come home safely, from funds for bulletproof vests to training in officer health, safety and wellness.
LYNCH: Now, at the same time that we are working to support police and citizens in their efforts to build stronger and more united communities, we remain committed to keeping those communities safe and secure.
Just one month ago today, 49 innocent lives were taken in an attack on the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando: an appalling act of terror and of hate that underscored the urgency of confronting threats to our nation wherever they emerge and whatever form they take. There's no responsibility that this Department takes more seriously. We're moving aggressively against those who seek to receive training from or are inspired by foreign violent extremist groups. And we've arrested more than 90 individuals since 2013 for conduct related to foreign fighter activity and homegrown violent extremism.
And we are working closely with our counterparts abroad to pursue terrorists and investigate attacks around the world. As the recent incidents in Turkey, Bangladesh, Iraq and Saudi Arabia have reminded us, terror knows no borders. And in the face of violent extremism, we must stand with our global partners in unity, readiness and in resolve. Now, I want to close with a comment about the investigation of Secretary Clinton's use of a personal e-mail server during her time as Secretary of State.
As you are aware, last week I met with Director Comey and career prosecutors and agents who conducted that investigation. I received and accepted their unanimous recommendation that the thorough, year long investigation be closed and no charges be brought against any individuals within the scope of the investigation. And while I understand, that this investigation has generated significant public interest, as Attorney General it would be inappropriate for me to comment further on the underlying facts of the investigations or the legal basis for the teams recommendation. But I can tell you that I am extremely proud of the tremendous work of the dedicated prosecutors and agents on this matter.
Thank you for this opportunity to make this opening statement.
GOODLATTE: Thank you General Lynch. We'll now proceed under the five minute rule with questions for the witnesses and I'll begin by recognizing myself. Before being confirmed as Attorney General in May of last year, you were first nominated by President Obama to serve as United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. You were originally appointed to the U.S. Attorney post in 1999 by former President Bill Clinton. The existence of Secretary Clinton's private e-mail server was first brought to light in March of last year, one month before your confirmation as Attorney General.
A few months after your confirmation, the Inspectors General of State and National Intelligence requested the Department of Justice investigate whether classified information was stored on her private e-mail servers. The FBI then opened an investigation to the matter. Given that she was a political appointee of your current boss and more importantly, the wife of your previous boss, why did you not see fit to recuse yourself from the investigation? Wouldn't recusal or appointment of a special prosecutor have removed any appearance of impropriety given your service during Bill Clinton's presidency?
LYNCH: Thank you for the question Mr. Chairman. As I've said on several occasions before when the referral came into the Department of Justice, it was received and referred to experienced, dedicated career agents and prosecutors who handle matters of this type everyday, with independence, with efficiency, with thoroughness and the matter was handled like any other matter. It was reviewed through the chain by those independent career agents and prosecutors and in considering the matter there was no connection. There was no need for recusal or an independent prosecutor. And I indicated before, I'm incredibly proud of the dedicated work that they did over the past year.
GOODLATTE: Let me follow up on that then. Two weeks ago, roughly a year into the FBI's investigation and a mere week before Director Comey's announcement. You met privately with your former boss, former President Bill Clinton on your plane at the Phoenix airport. Why was this meeting, particularly in light of your previous appointment by President Clinton, not grounds for recusing yourself?
LYNCH: With respect of my conversation that I had with former President Clinton in Phoenix, it was a conversation that was held on the airplane, on the tarmac. The former President indicated he wanted to say hello, and I agreed to say hello. And we had a social conversation, nothing of any relationship to the e-mail investigation was discussed nor were any specific cases or matters before the Department of Justice discussed.
GOODLATTE: We'll have some follow up questions to that later. But let me turn your attention to Director Comey's conclusions on a variety of points. Secretary Clinton stated that she never sent of received information marked as classified on her server. Director Comey stated, that was not true. Do you agree with Director Comey?
LYNCH: You know, Director Comey has chosen to provide great detail into the basis of his recommendations that were ultimately provided to me. He's chosen to provide detailed statements and I would refer you to those statements. I, as Attorney General, am not able to provide any further comment on facts or the substance of the investigation.
GOODLATTE: Well General Lynch, I think you would agree that the ultimate responsibility for a prosecutorial decision does not rest with the Federal Bureau of Investigation but with the Department of Justice, which you head. Have you not taken a close look at the work done by Director Comey, especially given the extreme national interest in this issue to make a determination yourself? Whether you and those working for you agree or disagree with Director Comey?
LYNCH: As I've indicated, I received the recommendation of the team and that team was composed of prosecutors and agents. With the unanimous recommendation as to how to resolve the investigation, and what the information that they had received.
GOODLATTE: Do you agree with the conclusion?
LYNCH: And I accepted that recommendation. I saw no reason not to accept it and again I reiterate my pride and faith in their work.
GOODLATTE: Secretary Clinton stated that she did not e-mail any classified material, and Director Comey stated there was classified material e-mailed. Do you agree with Director Comey's conclusion about that?
LYNCH: Again, I would have to refer you to Director Comey's statements for the basis for his recommendation.
GOODLATTE: Director Comey stated there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information. Do you agree with Director Comey's statement?
LYNCH: Again, I would refer you to Director Comey for any further explanation as to the basis for his recommendations. The recommendation that I received from the team, including Director Comey was that the investigation be - -
GOODLATTE: Director Comey made a recommendation, but he made a recommendation to the Department of Justice, which you head. And you would have to come to the final conclusion on whether or not to act. I would presume that before you acted, you would look at his conclusions and determine whether you agreed with them or not.
LYNCH: As I've indicated, I received a briefing from the team, which included, not just the prosecutors, but the agents and Director Comey, their unanimous recommendation was that the matter be resolved in the way in which we've announced. And I accepted that recommendation.
GOODLATTE: Let me ask you one final question. That does not regard the specific facts with regard to Secretary Clinton, but Director Comey said that there was not clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information. My question for you is, is intent to violate the law a requirement under 18 USC Section 793F?
LYNCH: Well, Congressman, I think the statutes that were considered here speak for themselves, to answer further would require a discussion of the facts and analysis of this matter. Which as I've indicated, I'm not in the position to provide at this time. Again, I refer you to Director Comey's discussion for that. As I've indicated, the team reviewed this matter and it was a unanimous team decision. GOODLATTE: And you made a decision following their recommendation to you, that you were not going to prosecute and the matter was closed, is that correct?
LYNCH: I made the decision, some time ago, that I would accept the recommendation of that team, and was awaiting that recommendation. When I received it, there was no basis not to accept it and again I reiterate my pride and faith in them.
GOODLATTE: Well thank you. I appreciate your faith in them. The concern here is regard to your sworn oath to uphold the United States Constitution and the laws there under, including 18 USC Section 793F and 18 USC Section 924 and to conclude that no prosecution would take place without examining and drawing conclusions regarding the questions that I've just asked, does not seem to be a responsible way to uphold your constitutionally sworn oath.
At this time, I recognize the Ranking Member of the Committee the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, for his questions.
CONYERS: Thank you.
Thank you for being here again, Attorney General. And thank you very much for your frank and candid discussion with us that is now taking place.
I'm looking for answers, and views of some events that I'm going to string together and ask you to discuss as far as you can, and in an appropriate manner. Baton Rouge, Louisiana police shot and killed Alton Sterling, video shows that he was shot while being pinned to the ground by two officers. Outside of Minneapolis, police shot and killed Philando Castile, at what should have been a routine traffic stop. He was armed but reports suggest that he repeatedly told police that he had a valid permit for the weapon. In Dallas, a gunman killed five police officers and wounded seven others in what appeared to be a well planned attack.
This terrible act in the middle of an otherwise peaceful protest in a city that has become a model for community engaged policing. And so I think you're qualified to advise us here as both the chief law enforcement officer in the United States and the first African- American woman to hold that post.
How can we make sense of these events during these trying times, ma'am?
LYNCH: Thank you, Congressman, for the opportunity to speak on these issues. I believe that you have truly outlined the issue of the day facing our nation. And it is my hope that as we all look at these tragic incidents that we will take the opportunity to draw closer to each other, to have the difficult conversations about race and policing in this country involving all sides, involving all issues and all points of view.
I have spent the last year as Attorney General touring this great country, meeting specifically on the issue of police and community relations. And I have sought out jurisdictions that have had extremely troubled relationships, but have in fact made the conscious decision to pull themselves back from that brink and develop a positive relationship, between the community and law enforcement.
It can be done. I have seen it done. You have cited Dallas as one example of a police department that through its community policing efforts has crafted a strong bond with its community. So that when there is tension, there is an outlet, there is a way for discussion. I believe, Congressman, that the key to many of the problems that we face is communication. Communication and truly listening to one another, listening to individuals who feel, for whatever reason, separated and at a distance from the goals of this great country.
Individuals who feel that they do not have an opportunity to fully participate in this great democracy, as well as listening to our brave members of law enforcement who talk to me every day with great poignancy about why they joined this wonderful profession, their desire to protect, to serve, to put young people on the right path, to build a better country and build strong communities because they live in those communities.
All of that must be recognized as well as the pain of law enforcement who feel themselves under attack, as well. By recognizing our common humanity, our common loss and our common goals we can in fact work on this difficult problem.
CONYERS: Thank you for your response. I would like to ask you in a friendly way how we can, as a committee, what is it that we can do to address the problem? And we seek your friendly advice in that direction because we want to work together with all of the branches of government and the House Judiciary Committee is in a very unusually important position to play an important role in this.
LYNCH: Yes, thank you, Congressman. The Department of Justice is actively engaged in working with both communities and law enforcement to further these discussions. And, of course, efforts in our grant- making arena are important there.
And we welcome and appreciate the support of this committee and others in making sure the department's grant-making operations are fully funded. We also provide a great deal of support for law enforcement through training and technical assistance, for example, the bulletproof vest program and our funding for body-worn cameras for so many police departments.
Again, we thank this committee and so many members of Congress who have provided bipartisan support for those efforts and we would hope those efforts in funding in particular would continue. Those are just a few of the examples of ways in which we hope to continue to receive support.
I would also note that the issue of criminal justice reform is a larger canvas upon which this conversation is being writ. And certainly we support the efforts by so many on this committee and others throughout Congress to push that important legislation forward. We've provided assistance in terms of many of the details that have been raised in the context of that legislation. I know this committee, in particular, has spent so much time and effort on that. And we appreciate that and all of the issues that have been raised.
And that is an important way towards dealing with making our criminal justice system more effective, more efficient, and more fair. That in and of itself, will go a long way towards restoring faith and trust in the overall criminal justice system, which is also a problem often raised to my attention during my travels.
So the department looks forward to continuing to support those important efforts.
CONYERS: I'm so pleased that you would be with us today. And I hope that we can continue this communication because it's very important for all of the citizens in our nation.
And I thank the chair.
GOODLATTE: Thank you, Mr. Conyers.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner, for five minutes.
SENSENBRENNER: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, General Lynch, for being with us today. You are in charge of the Department Of Justice. The buck stops with you. And I am concerned that you keep on saying that you have deferred the authority that by law is yours to Director Comey.
Let me give an example. Mr. Comey has said that Secretary Clinton was extremely careless in her handling of highly classified and very sensitive information. Now, the criminal statute uses the word gross negligence.
And I can't, for the life of me, figure out what the difference between gross negligence and extremely careless is unless one really wants to parse some words. Secondly, the misdemeanor statute does not require intent. It's a strict liability statute and it relates to the removal and retention of classified information.
So it doesn't matter whether Secretary Clinton had the intent to do that or not, the fact is, is that the FBI said that she did it. Now, I think that what the Director Comey has said is that Secretary Clinton's actions essentially meet the definition for prosecution under the statute.
Why did you defer to Director Comey when the responsibility is yours?
LYNCH: Thank you, Mr. -- thank you, Congressman, for the question. Let me be clear that my decision was to accept the recommendation of the team of agents and investigators who worked on this.
And these are the career attorneys and as well as the dedicated investigators including the FBI director who worked on this matter for over a year. They've reviewed the facts. They followed the facts. They looked at the law.
They've applied the facts to that law and came up with a unanimous recommendation, a joint recommendation in effect that was provided to me.
(CROSSTALK)
SENSENBRENNER: Well, I have a limited amount of time. You know, the fact is, is that whether it's extremely careless or gross negligence and a strict liability statute, I think that the language of the statute is clear.
Now, I've noted that the Justice Department over the last several years has prosecuted several servicemen for doing the exact same thing that Secretary Clinton did. And in one case, actually reached a judgment of a court that prohibited that servicemen from ever having a security classification again.
Now, you'll have a problem, Madam Attorney General, that people think that there's a different standard between the servicemen and Secretary Clinton and the fact that the language is almost synonymous, if not synonymous, saying no prosecution of Secretary Clinton and prosecution and conviction of the servicemen.
You have a burden, I think, to convince to the American public that you don't have a double standard. You're not meeting the burden, how do you plan to change the argument that you make to the American public so that they can be convinced that the thing was correct and that you made the right decision rather than simply deferring to people in the FBI and prosecutors?
LYNCH: Congressman, every case stands on its own separate facts and application of those facts to the law. So you have to refer to the specific facts of the other matters that you're referring to.
With respect to the investigation into the former secretary's handling of classified information, her private e-mail system. Again, I tell you, I can tell you and this entire committee and the American people, that all of the relevant facts were considered, investigated thoroughly, and reviewed by the entire team.
LYNCH: Which, again, is composed of career independent, investigators, as well as lawyers and their recommendation upon a full and thorough analysis was that the matter be revolved in the way in which is was recommended to me.
As I've indicated, I've determined to accept that recommendation and did in fact accept that recommendation.
SENSENBRENNER: One final question. One of the service people who was prosecuted basically sent an e-mail out that his fellow Marines were in danger. And he ended up getting prosecuted for warning his fellow Marines that their lives may be in danger. Now here in the case of Mrs. Clinton, the private e-mail arrangement was simply to avoid public scrutiny. So in terms of the intent of Major Jason Brezler and Secretary Clinton one, Major Brezler, was doing it to save his colleagues. The other, Secretary Clinton, was to avoid transparency.
In terms of the bottom line, that's the hoop that you have to jump through in order to retain and regain your credibility with the American public. I hope that you'll be able to do that. And I yield back.
GOODLATTE: Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler, for five minutes.
NADLER: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you Ms. Lynch for appearing here today and for your service as Attorney General. I'm sure that many of my Republican colleagues will spend their time discussing the over-hyped matter concerning Secretary Clinton's e- mails and I'm going to focus instead on more important issues facing this country.
We're all sickened by the killings of Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge and Philando Castile outside of St. Paul. According to the ACLU Mr. Castile was the 123rd African-American to be killed by law enforcement this year. That is of course no excuse for last week's vicious murders of five police officers in Dallas but the knowledge that Mr. Sterling's and Mr. Castile's deaths come on the heels of a long list of senseless killings of black men, women and children's encounters with the police might have gone differently had they not been black must spur us to take action.
Black Lives Matter is not a hashtag. It is an imperative. And I appreciate the work that you are doing and your department is doing in this regard and I hope you'll keep us informed on that. But I want to go to a different matter, related, unfortunately. Exactly one month ago today a lone gunman killed 49 people and wounded more than 50 others in an LGTB nightclub in Orlando. Mass shootings are now an all- too-common occurrence in this country. In 2016 there were 229 mass shootings defined as shootings in which at least four people are shot.
As you know every day on average nearly 300 Americans are shot in murders, assaults, suicides, suicide attempts, accidents and police actions. Forty-eight of them are children and teenagers. This is a distinctly American problem. More than 33,000 Americans lose their lives to gun violence each year. In the United Kingdom, in 2011, 146 deaths to gun violence. In Denmark, 71. Portugal, 142. Japan just 30. In the United States, 33,000.
You cannot tell me, no one can tell me, that the American people are a thousand times more mentally ill than people in these other countries.
A recent study in the American Journal of Medicine found that compared to 22 other high-income countries the gun-related murder rate in the United States is 25 times higher. We have held exact (Inaudible) there is an epidemic of gun violence. And how is the majority in Congress responded? With emergency hearings about Hillary Clinton's and Lois Lerner's e-mails. WE have held of course zero hearings on gun violence. We have passed no bills to address the issue. We have done nothing to require universal background checks, we continue to allow military style assault weapons in our streets. We have not even prevented those on the no-fly list from purchasing guns.
That;s why I was proud to join John Lewis and nearly the entire Democratic Caucus in protesting the Republican Congress' abdication on this issue. Now, Ms. Lynch, what does the assassination of five Dallas police officers last week tell us about the NRA's favorite adage, "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." The police officers after all were armed. And what about an armed society is a polite society.
LYNCH: Congressman thank you for raising this important issue of gun violence in our society. I don't have a comment on the NRA's positions or statements...
NADLER: But what about that statement -- never mind their positions -- what do you think of the statement that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Is that true? Does it work?
LYNCH: Congressman, the issue as usual doesn't really lend itself well to aphorisms and short statements. It;s my hope that the work of many on this committee and indeed throughout Congress in having the discussion that has begun on this issue will continue so that we can in fact continue to work on serious issues of access to firearms in our society.
Earlier this year I did make several recommendations to the White House which were accepted for important ways of dealing with this issue. Ranging from clarifying gun guidance on those who are engaged in the business and therefore must provide background checks for purchasers, ranging from clarifying rules on acquisitions of certain types of firearms, and by those in certain business capacities such as trust.
But also, a very important part of that was a request for additional funding for ATF, for more resources to deal with the information and the issues arising out of gun violence as well as funding for HHS to deal with the issues of mental health that place so many Americans in jeopardy.
NADLER: A loophole in federal law allows the transfer of firearms to anybody after three business days even if a background check is not complete. Last year the FBI concluded the suspect in the shooting in Charleston was able to purchase a gun through this loophole. Should that policy change, should we hold the transfer of firearms until the background check has been completed?
LYNCH: Congressman in order to change that rule it would require Congressional action. The three day waiting period is part of Congressional action that has already been voted on by Congress. And certainly it is a fact that with the rise in purchases and the increased use on the NICS background system, there is ever more use of that system. We are working to improve the NICS system, to make it as efficient as possible. We've expanded the number of personnel working on those background checks. We are working also to improve the automated portion of the NICS system so that the dealers who go through the NICS system will be able to get information more quickly and to be able to respond either by proceeding or denying the sale, or in other ways as appropriate. So we are working within the system as it is currently structured. In order to change that it would require Congressional action.
NADLER: Thank you. My time is expiring but I want to briefly mention one more issue. We've been following the Department's review of the consent decrees that govern ASCAP and BMI. There are reports that the Department is not recommending any changes to the consent decrees but is moving forward with an interpretation of the decrees requiring these organizations to license works on a 100 percent basis instead of the current practice of fractional licensing, in conflict with the formal opinion of the U.S. Registrar of Copyrights.
I've heard from numerous songwriters and constituents greatly concerned about the destruction this will cause in the industry and to the greater process. Several of the parties involved have raised a host of other issues relating to the consent decrees as well. Can you clarify for the committee the status of the Department's review of the consent decrees and the process moving forward?
GOODLATTE: The time of the gentleman has expired. The witness will be permitted to briefly answer the question.
LYNCH: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you Congressman. The anti- trust division is engaged in a review of the consent decree which I believe dates to 1941. It has been utilizing a public comment system. After going through an initial round and receiving public comments another round of public comments was also opened. Those comments are still being reviewed. Stakeholders are being consulted with and it is my understanding that the Anti-Trust Division will be wrapping up this matter shortly. And will be making public its findings and we will of course make sure that they're made available to Congress.
I think they would be in any event provided to you but we will certainly make sure that they are provided to you.
NADLER: Thank you very much.
GOODLATTE: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot for five minutes.
CHABOT: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Madame Attorney General, I think the thing that I find so disheartening, so unfortunate about FBI Director Comey's decision not to recommend criminal charges against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last week was that for a lot of Americans it looked like we're setting a double standard here. Unequal treatment under the law.
Under the facts of the case as laid out by Director Comey, virtually anybody else -- I think most Americans think, including myself -- there would have been charges brought for a crime. Against virtually anybody else in this country. But the politically-connected Hillary Clinton, well we won't charge her. Look what Comey laid out. It's already been laid out to some degree but I think it warrants doing it again.
