Because i wanted to tackle the challenges of Good Government like working to eliminate improper payments and wasteful programs. Before i joined congress i had the privilege of serving in the army for 23 years and as i tackle those challenges and the challenges of helping reduce homelessness i witnessed firsthand the importance of improving government so when it comes to implementing reforms that will make sure that electronic records and other records and the history of our great nation are preserved for future generations ive done my best. Im focussed on ensuring that our nation sustains a long term commitment to the Electronic System to ensuring civil severity ants have the tools to achieve what should be nonpartisan and a shared goal. With respect to examining the tough Lessons Learned from the recordkeeping incidents that our company has dealt with my mission is clear, make sure we move beyond partisan politics and engage in the hard work of enchu ensuring that the laws meet the challenges of the 21st century. The Records Administration released a memorandum known as the managing government directive in 2012 and this director states and i quote by december 31st, 2016 federal agencies will manage both permanent and temporary email records in an accessible and electronic format. Federal agencies must manage all email records in an electronic format. Records must be maintained in an appropriate system that supports litigation requirements including the capability to identify, retrieve and retrain the records as long as as they are needed. As a director of a bureau who deals with Sensitive Information on a daily basis do you believe this directive is necessary and obtainable for agencies across the board within that fouryear time from from 2012 to 2016. I dont know whether its achievable. Are you familiar with the capstone approach. Thats the federal it says that federal agencies should save all emails for select senior level employees and that the emails of other employees would be archived for a temporary period set by the agency so that senior employees are kept forever and lower level employees are archived for a shorter period. Im aware generally. I know what applies to me an when i was Deputy Attorney general. I understand the fbi is using this approach according to the agencys for office of record management. My anding is the capstone approach is aimed at stream lining the recordkeeping process for emails and reducing the volume of records that an agency has to maintained. Agencies will be required to modernize their approach in the future. As the head of the Agency Within the department of justice which appears to be a leader in adopting the capstone approach would you agree that with respect to instituting foundational reforms the capstone approach should be accelerated and wrote out across the federal government. I think were doing it in a pretty good way. Im not an expert enough to say whether everybody should do it the way we do it. Are you satisfied with the way that youre doing it. I am but i dont want to sound overconfident because im sure theres a way we can do it better but i think were doing it in a pretty good way. Do you have any one person within the fbi that continually reviews your records keeping and also do they report directly to you as well as is there a periodic review of how youre implementing this process. Yes. We have an entire division devoted to records management. That assistant director reports up to the Deputy Director who reports up to me. Its an enormous operation requiring constant training so thats what i mean when i say i think were doing it in a pretty good way and we have record marking tools and we prompt with dialogue boxes requiring employees to make a decision, whats the nature of this record youre creating now and where should it be stored. Have you seen that in any of the other agencies that you have interacted with or have you had a chance an occasion to look at what some of the agencies are doing with their sensitive and classified information, are they following the same technique as youre doing in the fbi . I dont know enough to say, i personally. I am out of time but thank you. Okay. Well recognize the gentleman from michigan. I thank the chairman and thank you director cuomo for being here. Thank you for holding this hearing and director cuomo for making it very clear that you believe weve done this respectfully with Good Intention and i wish some of my colleagues that had instructed us on our intent were here. They have a great ability to understand intent better than i guess the director of the fbi but it is an intent thats important here we are oversight and Government Reform Committee and if indeed the tools arent there to make sure our country is secure and that officials at the highest levels in our land dont have the understanding on what it takes to keep our Country Security that we do the necessary government reform to put laws in place that will be effective and will meet the needs of distinguished agencies and important agencies like the fbi. So thank you mr. Chairman for doing this hearing its our responsibility to oversight and reform as necessary. In going back director cuomo to para phrase the espionage act the people in the seventh direct understand it that whoever is trusted with the information for National Defense permits the information to be removed from its proper place in violation of their trust shall be find or imprisoned understood the statute. It doesnt express intent. You explained by your understanding of intent is needed and we may agree or disagree on that but the general public looking at that statute says its pretty clear. The question i would ask whats your definition of extremely careless, if you could go through that. I intended it as a common sense term. You know it when you see it thing. Somebody who you know is should know better, someone who is demonstrating a lack of care that strikes me as theres ordinary accidents and then theres just real slopnesslopin you stated that you found 110 emails on the sever that were classified when they were sent or received yet secretary clinton has insisted over a year publicly that she never sent or received any classified emails. The question i have would it be difficult for any cabinet level official, any cabinet official, let alone one who ask a former white house resident or u. S. Senator, to determine if information is classified . Would it be difficult . Would it be difficult . Thats hard to answer in the abstract. It depends on the context in way theyre hearing it or seeing it. Obviously if its marked. The training that we receive and certainly as secretary of state would receive or someone who lives in the white house that goes above and beyond just the common sense individual out there trying to determine knowing that classified information will be brought and to remove to an unauthorized site might cause pause there shouldnt it. If youre a Government Official you should be attentive to it because you know that the matters you deal with could involve Sensitive Information so sure. So secretary clintons revised statement that she never knowingly sent or received classified information is probably also untrue . I dont want to comment on peoples public statements. We did not find evidence sufficient to establish to meet the intent standard. I understand why people are confused by the whole discussion. I get that but you know what would be a double standard, if she were prosecuted for gross negligence. But your statement on tuesday said there is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in secretary clintons position should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. I stand by that. And thats very clear. Thats the definition of carelessness and negligence. Which happened. Oh, yeah. As a result of our secretary of states former secretary of states decisions. Yes. Is it your statement then before this committee that secretary clinton should have known not to send classified material and yet she did . Certainly she should have known not to send classified information. Thats the definition of negligence. I think she was extremely careless. That i could establish. What we cant establish is she acted with the necessary criminal intent. Do you believe that the that since the department of justice hasnt used the statute that Congress Passed its inval add. I think theyre worried its invalid which is why theyve used it sparringly in the decades. Thank you. I yield back. Well go to the gentleman from california for five minutes. Thank you mr. Chair. I read some of my republican Colleagues Press statements and as i sit here today im reminded of that quote full of sound and furry signifying nothing. Ive heard some sound and furry today from the members of the committee and the reason they signify nothing is because of two truths the first of which none of the members of this committee can be objective on this issue. I cant be objective. Ive endorsed lk for president as have the democratic members of this committee. My republican colleaguings cant be objective, they oppose Hillary Clinton for president which is why we have you. Youre a nonpartisan career servant that has served our nation and you can be objective, it is your job to be objective to, to apply the law fairly and ekwally. I think it would be important for the the American People to understand your service. How many years did you serve as a federal prosecutor. I think 15. For a period of time you were at coulomban law school as slor yar. Sometimes i fantasize i still am. Thank you. When you served in the administration of president george w. Bush you were the second highest Ranking Member of the department of justice is that right. Yes. President bush appointed me to be the u. S. Attorney in manhattan and then the department of justice. When you were confirmed for the fbi the vote was 931, is that correct. Thats correct. With that strong bipartisan support its not surprising that republicans said during a con formation director cuomo has a reputation for applying the law fairly and equally. Did you apply the law fairly and equally in this case. Yes. Did you get any political enter forensic from the white house. None. Did you get any political interference from the Hillary Clinton campaign. None. You were appointed for ten years to help insulate you from politics is that right. Yes. The second truth today about this hearing is that none of the members of this committee have any idea what were talking about because we have not reviewed the evidence personally in this case. When i served in active duty in the u. S. Air force one of my daughte daughters was a prosecutor around one thing i learned is it is unprofessional and wrong to make allegations based on evidence that one has not reviewed. Has any member of this committee to the best of your knowledge reviewed the 30,000 emails at issue in this case . I dont know. Not to my knowledge. Has any member of this Committee Sat through the multiple witness interviews the fbi has conducted in this case. No. Has any member of this Committee Received any special information about the files you kept or other fbi kept on this case. Not to my knowledge. Now lets do a little bit of math here. 1 of 30,000 emails would be 300 emails is that right. I think thats right. 30 emails would be. 1 and 30 emails would be. 01 right. I think thats right. So of those emails, they bore these little little classified markings which is a c with parentheses correct. Correct. Its possible that a busy person who has sent or received offer 30,000 emails just might miss this marking of a c with parentheses, is it possible correct. Correct. So let know now conclude by stating what some of my colleagues have which is there is the strongest whiff of hypocrisy going on here. The American Public might be interesting in knowing that members of congress receive security clearance just for being a member of congress. We get to have private email servers and private email accounts and we can take devices overseas and really at the end of the day when the American People look at this hearing they need to ask themselves this question. Do they trust the biased partisan politicians on this committee who are making statements based on evidence we are have not reviewed or do they trust the distinguished fbi director. I would trust the fbi director. I yield back. Well recognize the gentleman from florida for five minutes. Thank you mr. Chairman. Director how long did you investigate this matter. Just about a year. A year. And do you believe you conducted a legitimate investigation . Yes, sir. And it was a legitimate subject that was something that you should look into, you had that responsibility, is that correct . Yes. We have a responsibility to hear from you on the action that you took. This weekend well tomorrow well go back to our districts and we have to explain to people albeit a couple of cafes where i see folks and meetings and theyre going to ask a lot of questions about what took place. Have you seen the broadway production hamilton. Not yet. Im hoping to. I havent eetither but i understand it won the choreography tony award. Do you and others know that. The problem i have in explaining to my constituents is whats come down it almost looks like a choreography. Let me go over it real quickly with you. Last tuesday, not this week, one week ago, former president clinton meets with the attorney general in phoenix. The next friday, last friday, mrs. Lynch, the ag says she is going to defer to the fbi on whatever you came up with. On saturday morning i saw the vans pull up. This is this past saturday and you questioned secretary clinton for three hours, i guess thats correct. 3 1 2. Okay. Then on Tuesday Morning the morning after july 4st i had my interns come in, i said lets hear what the fbi director has to say and you basically said you were going to recommend not to prosecute, correct . Uhhuh. Yes, sir. And then tuesday we had president obama and secretary clinton arrive in charlotte at 2 00 and shortly thereafter we had the attorney general as closing the case. This is rapid fire. I mean, now my folks think that theres something fishy about this. Im not a conspiracy theorists but there are a lot of questions about how this came down. I have questions about how this came down. Did you personally interview the secretary on saturday morning. I didnt personally, no. How many agents did . I think we had five or six. Did you talk to all of those agents after the interview . I did not speak to all of them, no. Did she testify or talk to them under oath . No. She did not. Thats a problem. No, its still a crime to lie to us. I know it is. Do you have a transcript of that no, we dont record our do you have a 302 i guess its called i do. I dont have it with me but i do. Did you read it. Yes. You did. Can we get a copy of it since the case is closed. I dont know the answers to that. I would like a copy provided to the committee. I would like also for the last 30 days any communications between you or any agent or any person in the fbi with the attorney general or those in authority in the department of justice on this matter, could you provide us with that . Well provide you with whoever we can under the law and understood our policy. It will be easy in my case. You see the problem that i have though is i have to go back and report to people what took place. Sure. Now, did you write the statement that you gave on tuesday . Yes. You did. And did you write you said you didnt talk to all of the agents, but all of the agents, did they meet with you and then as is that the group that said we all vote to not recommend prosecution . Yeah, i did not meet with all of the agents. Ive met with i guess i met with all of them were getting the word that it was like unanimous out of fbi that we dont prosecute. Whats your question, congressman . Again, i want to know who counselled you . You read their summary. She was not under oath. Members have krooited here where she lied or led to congress with possibly giving you a referral on this matter, youre a aware of that. Yes, someone mentioned that earlier. And that probably happen. Thank you for shedding some light on what took place. Can i respond. Sure. Just very briefly. I hope what youll tell the folks in the cafe is look me in the eye and listen to what im about to say. I did not coordinate that with anyone. The white house, the department of justice, nobody outside the fbi family had no idea what i was about to say. I say that under oath and i stand by there. There was an insinuation in what youre saying but i wanted to make sure i was definitive about that. Well recognize the woman from the Virgin Islands for five minutes. Thank you mr. Chairman. Director cuomo i would rather be here talking with you about the fbis investigation and those resources to those individuals who are acting under the color of law who have committed the killings in the recent days but instead mr. Chairman im sitting here and ive listened patiently as a number of individuals have gone on national tv and made accusations against director cuomo both directly and indirectly because he recommended against prosecution based upon the facts. Ive listened just very recently here in this hearing as my colleague from florida tries to insinuate the con dengs ash of the investigation into one week that actually occurred over a much much longer period of time. And using that condensation and Conspiracy Theory to say theres some orchestrating and they accused mr. Cuomo of basing his decision on Political Considerations rather than the facts. Ive heard chuckles and laughter in this hearing and i dont think theres anything to be smiling or launchighing about because i want to Say Something to those individuals who are chuckling and laughing and making attacks on director cuomo for doing his job. You have no idea who youre talking about. Youre accusations are completely off base, utterly offensive to us as American People. I know this because ive had the honor of working for director cuomo during my own service at the department of justice from 2002 to 2004 i served as senior counsel to the Deputy Attorney general i worked with both the depu Deputy Attorney general thompson and cuomo when he became staff attorney. I know from my own experiences that director cuomo is a man of impeccable integrity. Theres very few times when you as as an attorney can work with an individual that is completely that, someone who is above the fray. Anyone who suggests or implies he made his recommendations on anything but the facts simply does not know james cuomo. Weve used the term no reasonable prosecutor. Well i know that james cuomo doesnt act as what a reasonable prosecutor would do because he is the unyielding prosecutor. He is the prosecutor who does what is politically not expedient for himself, his staff, but for the law. And im not the only person in this hearing, in this committee, who has worked for director cuomo or for him. Representative gaudy himself worked with director cuomo and he said i used to work with him. I think cuomo is doing exactly what you want. Hes doing a Serious Investigation behind closed doors away from the medias attention and im going to trust him until i see a reason not to. Representative fawdy referred to director cuomo as apolitical. He said this is exactly what you want in Law Enforcement. Its what you want in Law Enforcement until the decision is not the decision that you want. Director cuomo, the chairman one of my colleagues went on Public Television and accused of you political calculation and he said the recommendation was nothing more than a political determination in the end. Im going to ask you how do you respond to that . Were your actions in any way, shape or form governed by political consideration . No, not in in he way. And did anyone with secretary Clintons Campaign or the administration influence your recommendation for political reasons . No, they didnt influence it in in he way. Im going to take you at your word because i know and those who will go through the record of your long tenure as a career prosecutor and they look at examples will see that you have taken decisions that have not been that which your supervisors, which the president , which others have wanted you to take. As a fellow prosecutor who believed that the facts must come above politics, im thankful that we have you and director cuomo i want to thank you for your service to our country and you have our support. We would like to see as much documents and im grateful that you want to keep the transparency so the American Public can understand the difference between what they hear in the media and the elements of a crime necessary for criminal prosecution. Thank you. Well now recognize the gentleman from texas for five minutes. Thank you very much. I want to talk about cyber su security. The report detailed multiple attacks on secretary clinton agency computer and her replying from suspicious email from the secretary of state. Director you said that hostile actors successfully gained access to the commercial email accounts to the people that secretary clinton communicated with. In the case of the ro mannan hacker thats been public for some time. During your investigation were there other people in the state department or that regularly communicated with secretary clinton that you can confirm were successfully hacked. Yes. And were these folks that regularly communicated with the secretary. Yes. Were you able to conclude that the attempted hacks referenced in the report were not successful . We were not able to conclude they were successful. I think thats the best way to say it. While you said that given the nature of clintons sever you would be unlike lie to see evidence of whether or not it had been successfully hacked, how many unsuccessful attempts did you uncover . Did you find any there. There were unsuccessful attempts. I dont know the number off the top of my head. Were they from foreign governments . Where did they come from. I want to be careful what i say in an open setting. We can give you that information but i dont want to give any foreign governments knowledge of what i know. Would you be so far as to say they probably werent American High School students fooling around. Correct, it was not limited to criminal activity. During your investigation did you or anyone in the fbi interview the hacker gooser fer. Yes. He claimed he gained access to the bloomen thals email account and traced it back to the private email sever. Can you confirm he did not gain access to the email sever. He did not. He said that was a lie. Section 793 of title 18 makes it a crime to allow classified information to be stolen through gross negligence. Were you to discover that hostile actors had gotten into secretary clintons email, would that have changed your recommendation with respect to prosecuting her . Unlikely although we didnt consider that question because we didnt have those facts. I want to go back to the question of intent real quick for just a second. Im a recovering attorney. Its been decades since i actually practiced law but you kept referring to she had to know it was illegal to have the records for criminal intent. I was always taught in law school and i dont know where this changed that ignorance of the law was no excuse. If im driving at 45 miles an hour and i didnt see the 35 mile an hour speed limit im guilty of speeding even though i didnt know it. Maybe i didnt have the intent if my accelerator were jammed but even if i didnt know the law was 35 i was driving 45 im going to get a ticket and im probably going to be prosecuted for that. So how can you say ignorance of the law is the excuse in mrs. Clintons case . Well the comparison to petty offenses i dont think is useful but the question of ignorance of law is no excuse but heres the sbings, you have to have general criminal intent. You dont need to know which statute you are violating but you must be aware of the wrongful nature of the connect. What are we going to have to enact to get you guys to prosecute something based on negligence or gross negligence . By the way we dont mean we mean you dont have to have intent there . Thats a conversation for you all to have with the department of justice but it would have to be something more than the statute enacted in 1917 because theyve been worried about its constitutionality. I think thats something this committee and congress will hold a Judiciary Committee that we also sit on and will be looking at it. I was on television this morning and i want to relay a question that i received from a caller into that Television Commercial and its just real simple. Why should any person follow the law if our leaders dont . We can argue about intent or not, but you laid out the fact that she basically broke the law but you couldnt prove intent. Maybe im putting words in your mouth but i do want to know why any person should follow the law if our leaders dont have to. Maybe thats rhetorical but ill give you an opportunity to comment on that. Thats a question im no more qualified to answer than any american citizen. Its an important question. In terms of my work and my world, my folks would not be one of my employees would not be prosecuted for this. They would face consequences for this so the notion that its easy prosecute or you walk around smiling all day long is just not true for those people who work for the government. The broader question is one for a democracy to answer, its not more me. The ultimate decision as to whether or not mrs. Clinton works in government or not is in everybodys hands. I thank the gentlemen. Well recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania for five minutes. Thank you mr. Chairman and director cuomo for appearing on such short notice. I want to share with you something a friend of mine was expressing when watching your press conference 48 hours ago and this is someone who ask not in any political. In fact, probably typical of most american citizens today in being depressed about the remarkable level of cynicism we have in our government that specifically those of us who are in government make decisions first and foremost because the party hat we wear and not necessarily based on the facts and the evidence and he texted me after watching your 15minute presentation. Its nice to see a real pro, you can tell he would make the decision based on the facts and evidence and not what party hat he wears. I think thats important if were going to get to a place in this country where we restore some faith we had in government. If you look at the poll numbers from 1940s and 1950s and you look at faith in government among the American Public and you look at those numbers today, the numbers are anemic. Theyre nowhere near the levels they were for decades ago. So for that i want to say thank you and i think that many citizens have the same impression. When i first meet you a couple of years ago you might remember that we had a discussion about my biggest concern frankly facing the security of the American People and that is the possibility of a loan wolf terrorist, someone become self radicalized and acting based on that we had an exchange that ill keep private but i think i can characterize you share my concern. Im thinking for the last 2 1 2 hours that weve been here weve had the fbi director asking questions on this matter when frankly i would have much rather your time spent dealing with the loan wolf terrorists and other coordinated attacks that we face but since this is the oversight and Government Reform Committee trying to find something that we can now take and possibly use in a systemic way, not just the celebrity of secretary clinton and the fact because it involves her lets face it, thats the reason why were here, but i want to try to take something out of this very expensive and long investigation and try to use it in a productive way toward reforming government that possibly we can get something good out of it. So toward that end im really concerned about this issue of upclassification because it seems as if and i was not aware of this until the investigation, there is quite a strong diskrepsy between not just former secretary of state but even former secretary powell what he thinks should be classified and then what is classified after the fact. I think you if im right, there were some 2,000 emails that were upclassified. I was wondseriering if you coul speak to that. It was not a concept i was real familiar with before this. Its something that in hindsight the Government Agency considers release it they raise the classification level to protect it because its an assessment of a foreign leader or Something Like that. I think its a state department thing because the diplomats will be speaking in an unclassified way because when they think of releasing they think it ought to be protected. I pushed those to the side. The important thing here what was classified at the time. Thats what matters. Right. That for a Law Enforcement official matters but im just wondering if you could share with us any of your impressions about a system that exists where there is such gray area and diskrepsy in whats classified and whats not and if you or your agents had any suggestions for you either in the government reform or the Foreign Affairs committee, do you believe this is a matter that we should take up where there is such discrepancy on whats classified and whats not classified . I think of one example, embassador ross put something in a book that wasnt classified an was upclassified after the book came out. What good does that in terms of a country in terms of trying to protect the intelligence of the United States. Im not an expert in this upclassification business but i suspect it will be effort till ground to trying to find predictable ways to do it. Thank you for your service. Well recognize the gentleman for georgia for five minutes. Director cuomo your statement on tuesday clearly showed that secretary clinton not only was extremely careless in handling classified information, but that also any reasonable person should have known better and that also in doing so she put our National Security at risk with her reckless behavior. So it seems to me that the American People are only left based your assessment with just a few options, either secretary clinton herself is not a reasonable person or she is someone who purposefully, willfully, exhibited disregard for the law or she is someone who sees herself as above the law. To muddy the water even further after listening to you lay out the facts of the investigation, much of what you said directly contradicted her in previous statements that she had made. I think all this compiled putting the connecting the dots that so many American People are irate that after all of this there was not a recommendation for secretary clinton to be prosecuted. Now, i do greatly appreciate the fact that you came out with much more information on this than you would have in other cases and i think that was the right thing to do. Undeniably this is not a typical case. This is something of great public interest. Obviously the subject of the investigation, former secretary of state, former senator, in all those things that we have talked about, former first lady and so forth, and in addition to this her husband, who happens to be a former president of the united stat states, is meeting privately with the attorney general right before all of this interview takes place. Obviously this is very suspicious. Just the optics of it all. And at the same time that you were coming out or more or less at the same time you are announcing the decision, secretary clinton is flying around in air force one with the president doing a campaign event. I mean, theres nothing about this case thats ordinary, theres nothing about the subject thats ordinary. So let me ask you this, director, did secretary clinton in fact comply with the departments policies or the federal records act . I dont think so. You i know you have the state Inspector General here who is more of an expert on the policies but at least in some respects no. So keeping the servers at home and all these types of things is obviously not in compliance with the departments policies. Yes. And ive read the Inspector Generals report on that thats part of the reason i can answer with some confidence. She said publicly she fully complied. So there again is another issue. If you had the same set of facts but a different subject, a different individual involved, say just an average, ordinary, state Department Employee or an anonymous contractor what would be the outcome. Highly confident there would be no prosecution. They might get fired or lose their clearance or suspended for 30 days, there would be discipline, maybe just a reprimand. I doubt it. I think it would be higher on the discipline spectrum but some sort of discipline. Is it your opinion there should be some discipline in this case. Thats not for me to say. I can talk about what would happen if it was a Government Employee under my responsibility. Well, then what youre laying out is there is a double standard for someone else, a different subject, but because of who the subject is youre not willing to say there should be discipline. This is what the American People are so upset about. Let me say when you stated that no reasonable prosecutor would pursue this case, is that because the subject of this investigation was unique . No, uhhuh. Theres no double standard there and theres no double standard either in the sense if it was john doe former Government Employee is in the same boat. He would have discipline. Not if he left the service. If they had lied about sending and receiving classified emails, had they lied about not deleting those emails, had they lied about not have any marked classified, the statements are clearly documented and youre saying that this an average person would experience discipline by your own words but secretary clinton does not deserve to be disciplined. The gentlemans time is expired but the director may answer if he wants to. An average employee in Government Service would be subject to a discipline area process. If they left you would be in the same boat. Gentleman from georgia yields. We recognize the gentleman from vermont. Thank you very much mr. Chairman and director cuomo. A prosecutor has really awesome power, the power to prosecute is the power to destroy and it has to be used with restraint. You obviously know that. Youre being asked to you have had to exercise that responsibility in the context of the very contested president ial campaign under enormous political pressure. You had to do it once before and i go back to that evening of march 10, 2004 when the question was whether a Surveillance Program authorized after 9 11 by president bush was going to continue despite the fact that the Justice Department had come to an independent legal conclusion that it actually violated our constitutional rights. Thats a tough call because america was insecure, the president was asserting his authority as commander in chief to take an action that was intended to protect the American People, but you and others in the Justice Department felt that whatever that justification was the constitution came first and you were going to defend it. As i understand it you were on your way home and had to divert your drivers to go back to the hospital to be at the bedside of a very sick at that time attorney general and you had to stand in the way of the white house chief of staff and the white house counsel. Im not sure that was a popular decision or one that you could have confidently thought would be a career booster, but i want to thank you for that. Fast forward weve got this situation of a highly contested Political Campaign and there is substantive concern thats legitimate by democrats and republicans for independent political reasons but you had to make a call that was based upon your view of the law, not your view of how it would effect the outcome of who would be the next commander in chief. Others have asked this for you but im think im close to the end, i want to give you a chance to just answer i think the bottom line questions here. Had you after your thorough investigation found evidence that suggested that criminal conduct occurred, is there anything, anything or anyone, that could have held you back from deciding to prosecute. No. I mean, i dont have the power to decide prosecution but i would have worked very hard to make sure that a righteous case was prosecuted. You would have made that recommendation to the attorney general. Yes. Was there ainterference implicit or explicit from the president of the United States or anyone acting on his behalf to influence the outcome of your investigation and the recommendation you made. No. Was there in anyone in the Hillary Clinton campaign or Hillary Clinton herself who did anything directly or indirectly to attempt to influence the conclusion that you made to recommend no prosecution. No. At this moment after having been through several hours of questioning, is there anything in the questions youve heard that would cause you to change the decision that you made. No. I dont love this but its really important to do and i understand the questions and concerns. I just want the American People to know we really did this the right way. You can disagree with us but you cannot fairly say we did it in any kind of political way. We dont carry water for anybody. Were trying to do what the right thing is. I very much appreciate that and i very much appreciate that it takes strong people of independent judgment to make certain that we continue to be a nation of laws. Mr. Chairman, just one final thing and ill yield to m. We have a political debate where a lot of these issues are going to be raise and fought in the campaign and weve got secretary clinton who is going to have to defend what she did, shes acknowledged its a mistake, weve got that great constitutional sclol arrow mr. Trump who is going to be making his case about why this is wrong, but thats politics. Thats not having anything to do with the independence of prosecutal discretion. Thank you mr. Cuomo. I yield whatever additional time i have. I think the gentleman is going to yield back. Well recognize the gentleman from kentucky for five minutes. Thank you mr. Chairman and director cuomo for showing up and your willingness to answer a lot of unanswered questions. A few hours before this hearing started i went on social media and asked people to commit questions and i have over 500 questions and i dont think ill get to ask them all but one of the common themes that i came in here to ask which i realize is no the the right question now is what is the difference between extremely careless and gross negligence but what i hear you say thats not what your reluctance is based on its not based on your concern from this statute, is that correct from your opening statement. Its broader than actually the statute and it fits within a framework of fairness and also my my understanding of what the department of justice has prosecuted over the last 50 years. So when you say a reasonable prosecutor wouldnt take this case. Its not because you dont think she made that she lied in public or that maybe she was negligent. Its because you have concern with the prosecutorial history of the statute . Not just that statute, but also 1924, which is the misdemeanor. I also dont see cases that were prosecuted on facts like these. But you did find one prosecution. Has it been overturned by the Supreme Court . No, there was one time it was charged in an espionage case. A guy ended up pleading guilty to a different offense, so it was never adjudicated. So your concern is with the negligence threshold. That you think it requires mens r rea, or knowing the crime. Isnt there a negligent homicide statute in all 50 states and arent people prosecuted for that all the time, and doesnt the Supreme Court and all the courts below that uphold the prosecutions, just on the basis of negligence . I dont know whether all 50 states. I think negligent homicide and manslaughter statutes are relatively common. Dont all 50 states have Something Like that, and arent those sustained in the upper courts, those convictions . I dont know whether all 50 states have Something Like that, but i think its very common and i think those are sustained. So dont we have a history of, you know you implied that the American History system didnt have a history of convicting someone for negligence. But dont we in other domains of justice . We do. I know the federal system best. There are very few in the federal system. Most were talkinged about earlier in the environmental and food and Drug Administration area. I want to ask another question thats come up here. Youve basically related to us that this information is top secret or classified information, got into these email chains because of conversations people were having. They were relating what they heard before in other settings, is that correct . No. Maybe in some cases, but it was people having an email conversation about a classified subject. So they were having an email conversation, but how in this email conversation did this boor marking show up . If theyre not sophisticated enough, as you said before, even Hillary Clinton wasnt sophisticated enough to recognize a boor marking, with parentheses for confidential or classified. How did they recreate that marking in their emails when theyre having these discussions . A lot of what ended up on secretary clintons server was stuff that had been forwarded up a chain, gets to her from her staff, a lot of that forwarding. And she comments sometimes on it. Someone down on the chain, in typing a paragraph, put a portion marking, see paren, on that paragraph. Doesnt it take a lot of intent to take a classified document from a setting thats authorized and secure, to one thats not . Wouldnt it require intent for somebody to recreate that classification marking in an unsecure setting . I dont know. Its possible, but do they accidentally type see parentheses and intent the paragraph. Oh no, you wouldnt accidentally type that. Someone down the chain said this is my question is, someone down the chain being investigated. Because they had the swept, clearly, if they had the sophistication. Which Hillary Clinton, you insinuate may have lacked, they have the sophistication to know what this boor marking was. They had to have the intent to recreate it. Or cutandpaste. Wouldnt that be correct . Potentially. But theres not an open criminal investigation of that person way down the chain. Shouldnt there be . A criminal investigation . An investigation, if theres intent, which is what you i mean, and i think you may be reasonable in requiring that threshold. But dont we treat everybody the same, whether theyre top of the chain or the bottom of the chain . Sure. You want to. If the conduct is the same. But we did not criminally investigate whoever started that chain and put the see in those paragraphs. I would suggest maybe you might want to do that and i will yield back to the chairman. I will now recognize the gentlewoman from michigan ms. Lawrence for five minutes. Director comey, how many years have you been a director . Three years. I know the exact day count i think at this point. How many cases have you investigated approximately that you had to render a decision . The bureau investigates tens of thousands of cases. The director only gets involved in a very small number of them. So about how many . I think ive been deeply involved in probably ten to 20. Have you ever been called before congress on any of those other decisions . No, this is the first time. Thank you. There are some republicans support you. Not surprisingly, theyre the ones who actually know you. And i have a letter here, and i would like to enter into the record from richard painter, mr. Chair. He was president bushs chief ethics lawyer. May it be entered into the record . Without objection, so ordered. Mr. Painter refers to mr. Comey as a man of, and i quote, a man of the utmost integrity who calls the shots as he saw them without regard to political affiliation or friendship. He states, and i quote, throughout the fbi investigation of secretary clintons email server, i have been convinced that the director would supervise the investigation with being impartial and strict adherence to the law, as well as prosecutorial precedent. He also adds, although im aware of very few prosecutions for carelessness in handling classified information as opposed to intentional disclosure, i knew that the director would recommend prosecution in any and all circumstances where it was warranted. I cannot think of someone better suited to handle such a politically sensitive investigation. Finally, and i quote, i urge all members of the United States congress to stop from inferring in specific decisions, particularly those involving political allies or opponents. During my tenure in the white house, there were unfortunate allegations that powerful senators sought politically motivating firing of United States attorney. Whether or not such allegations were true, it is imperative, and im still quoting, that members of the senate or the house never again conduct themselves in a matter with such interference could be suspected. And i want to be on the record, i i wholeheartedly agree with mr. Painter. You have demonstrated yourself, you sat here and asked the questions, and i would never oppose to finding the answers to any situation that is directly related to federal agencies which we on this committee are responsible for. I want to be clear that congress has no business interfering with these types of decisions that are coming in your responsibility. These type of attacks are not only inappropriate, but theyre dangerous. Theyre dangerous because they could have a Chilling Effect on the future investigations. How many times have you made decisions and it was not pulled in 24 hours before this committee . And then we see its not political. And you have said repeatedly, regardless of who it was, you conducted the under your responsibility. And here you have republicans who are saying youre an honorable man and i have not heard any complaints of your judgment. So i sit here today as a member of congress on the record that the slippery slope that were seeing today in this hearing, i want every member to be cautious of what were saying, that in america when we have investigations that we will allow our own elected congress and senate to make this a political agenda, to attack, but only if its in their agenda, this goes for democrats and republicans, we are not here to do that. Thank you, and i yield back my time. Well now recognize the gentleman from iowa. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, director comey for being in here today, and thanks for hanging in there until every last question is answered. Im not a lawyer. Thats the good news. Im a career businessman. Ive spent most of my career operating in the hightech industry. And today ive 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. So id like to focus on that. Last tuesday, director comey, you said, and i quote, none of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all these emails were housed on unclassified personal servers, not even