At any time. Its a very important hearing were having examining state department and federal records. As we know, Hillary Clinton as secretary of state for four years, roughly four years, helped create what is reported to be one of the biggest Security Breaches in the history of the state department, an absolute mess. We have witnesses vital to our understanding the problem, how we got into the mess and how were potentially going to clean it up. Joining us will be mr. Justin cooper, a former employee of bill clinton and the Clinton Foundation. Mr. Cooper purchased the first server used by secretary clinton and had it installed in the basement of private residence in chappaqua, new york. He also registered the domain name clintonemail. Com. The same day, the secretary clintons confirmation hearings began in the senate mr. Cooper described his role managing secretary clintons private server as the, quote, Customer Service face, end quote. He explained to the fbi he helped secretary clinton set up her mobile devices. When she finished with them, he would break them in half or destroy them with a hammer. Interesting mr. Cooper was never employed by the state department while he managed the server she used to conduct the business of the government. Mr. Cooper needed upgrading to the server for better service. He turned to mr. Bryan pagliano who worked for secretary clintons 2008 president ial campaign and was in the process of closing out the campaigns i. T. Assets when mr. Cooper called to discuss a new server for the secretary. To put that new server together, mr. Pagliano used one from her campaign. Anything else he needed was evidently bought off the shelf. In march 2009 they met in the clintons home in chappaqua, new york, and installed the new server reportedly in the basement. Unlike mr. Cooper, mr. Pagliano went on to become a state department employee. Just a few months after installing the server, mr. Pagliano was hired at the state department as gs 15 schedule c. Public reports suggest mr. Pagliano received a state Department Check and was paid by the clintons, none of which he reported on Public Disclosure forms as required. A recent office of Inspector General report, mr. Paglianos supervisor at the state department, quote, questioned whether he could support a private client during work hours given his capacity as a fulltime government employee, end quote. Mr. Pagliano left the state department in 2013 just as Hillary Clinton, secretary clinton, left. When responsibility for the servers turned over left. When the responsibility for the servers turned over to our next two witnesses, things started to get a little bit more complicated. Mr. Bill thornton and Paul Combetta both worked for Platte River Networks. Platte river was hired by secretary clinton in early 2013 to host the email server after mr. Pagliano had been working on it. Prn, plat River Networks, managed on the managed server to its own server, which was located at a data center in secaucus, new jersey. Things with Platte River Networks get complicated in march 2015 according to fbi report. In early march 2015, New York Times revealed secretary clinton used a private email account while at the state department. The House Select Committee on benghazi sends both a preservation request and subpoena following the news. According to the fbi report, that preservation request is forwarded to prn, Platte River Network by secretary mills, chief of staff and current attorney. In his first interview with the fbi, evidently, he had no memory of the request. In a subsequent interview, he not only remembered that request but understood it meant not to delete any of secretary clintons emails. Then something happened. At conference because between Platte River Networks, mills, and one of the attorneys. Once again, his story changes. In his first fbi interview he said he deleted no emails of secretary clinton at the time. Later on he stated he not only deleted archives of email on the server but used bleach bit to delete her pst files on the server. At the same time a number of manual deletions were made on the backups of platte river server. We appreciate the Witnesses Today and hope they can ul lime illuminate the situation and help us understand. As i said before, this is one of the biggest breaches in the history of the state department. We have a duty and obligation to investigate it. Now recognize the Ranking Member mr. Cummings for his Opening Statement. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Today is our third third emergency hearing about secretary clintons emails in four business days. Third in four days. Emergency. I believe this committee is abusing taxpayer dollars and authority of congress in an astonishing onslaught of political attacks to damage secretary Clintons Campaign for president of the United States of america. This is the first time in my 20 years of congress i personally witness the oversight power of this committee abused in such a transparently political manner to directly influence a president ial campaign. The point of todays hearing is to investigate baseless republican accusations that secretary clinton or her aides ordered the destruction of emails to conceal them from investigators. The most important fact for todays hearing is that the fbi already investigated these accusations and thoroughly debunked them. They interviewed witnesses, examined forensic evidence and concluded that these accusations have no merit. Fbi director comey stated, and i quote, we found no evidence that any of the additional workrelated emails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them, end of quote. He went on to say, and i quote, we did not find any evidence of evil intent, or intent to obstruct justice. Thats the fbi director, a man who had been a lifelong republican, a man who was applauded by republicans as one of the most honorable Public Servants that ever existed. So he went on and emphasized in a memo to staff just last week, and i quote, the case itself was not a cliffhanger, end of quote. Of course republicans did not like the answers that the fbi director gave, so they simply manufactured todays hearing out of thin air. This entire hearing is a contrived campaign photoop. Here is a playbook the republicans are using. Step one, publicly accuse the witnesses of criminal activity no matter how ludicrous, then refer them to u. S. Attorneys office for investigation. Step one. Step two, the next day invite the same witnesses to an emergency hearing on those criminal accusations and rush to issue a flurry of unilateral subpoenas demanding they testify. No debate. No vote. Step three. Express false outrage when these witnesses this is a playbook. Express false outrage when these witnesses, who you just accused of criminal activity, take advice from their counsel to assert their fifth amendment right to not testify. There you have it. Presto, instant photo op. Thats what happened to them despite the fact of career Law Enforcement agents at the fbi just unanimously recommended against bringing any criminal charges in this case. Keep in mind director comey said this was an Allstar Group of fbi agents, an Allstar Group of fbi agents said unanimously that these gentlemen should not be charged. Then theres Bryan Pagliano, the i. T. Specialist who worked on secretary clintons email system. Mr. Pagliano has already been interviewed by the fbi. The fbi provided us the results of his interview. But the republicans disagree with the fbis conclusions, so here we are. Mr. Pagliano has already asserted his fifth amendment rights before this congress. He did this when chairman gowdy issued his own unilateral subpoena to force him to appear before the Benghazi Committee on the same issue. Of course i sat as a Ranking Member on that select committee. Obviously, mr. Pagliano was concerned about the criminal accusations republicans were making, so his attorney advised him to assert the fifth amendment. Theres no legitimate reason for republicans to force mr. Pagliano to appear yet again before Congress Just to assert his fifth amendment rights one more time. How many times will republicans do this . Will they force him to take the fifth in front of the Science Committee next . How about the Homeland Security or Intelligence Committee . Should we have them go to those committees, too . This is an absolute abuse of authority. Now, chairman gowdy and i disagree without many things, but i give him full credit for one thing that he did. At least when he subpoenaed mr. Pagliano, he did it in a private session. He did not force mr. Pagliano to assert the fifth in public just to humiliate him, and i respect mr. Gowdy for that. Let me say this as plainly as i can. If this committees goal were just to get mr. Pagliano or other witnesses on the record asserting their fifth amendment rights, we could do that easily in a private session just like mr. Gowdy did with mr. Pagliano a year ago. Theres no legitimate reason to force mr. Pagliano or the other witnesses who were subpoenaed for this hearing to assert the fifth in open session. Theres only an illegitimate reason to get a photo op that republicans think could harm Hillary Clintons president ial campaign. Second they, they think mr. Pagliano or mr. Combetta should testify before us because they received limited use of immunity for their statements to the fbi. But no lawyers worth their salt are going to are going to let their clients testify before a Congressional Committee whose chairman just sent another referral for criminal prosecution, no matter how frivolous the accusations are. They just arent going to do it. Pursuing these kinds of blatantly political attacks undermines the integrity of our committee, the congressional process and the Constitutional Rights that are supposed to protect our citizens against unsubstantiated accusations just like these. So with that, mr. Chairman, i yield back and thank you. Ill hold the record open for five legislative days for any members who would like to submit a written statement. Id also ask unanimous consent to allow lamar smith, science space and Technology Committee to join our committee and would be happy to also entertain a request for uc from the democratic side if they would like to join us as well. Without objection, so ordered to allow mr. Smith to join us today. We now like to recognize our witnesses. Do note the absence of mr. Pagliano. Let me address that. Let the record reflect mr. Pagliano is not present at the witness table. The committee invited him in a letter dated september 7th, 2016. Mr. Pagliano informed the committee through his attorneys he might assert his fifth amendment privilege. I authorized the subpoena for mr. Paglianos testimony. On september 8th, 2016, the committee transmitted a subpoena to mr. Paglianos attorney and the subpoena required his presence here today. Mr. Pagliano is uniquely qualified to provide testimony that will help the committee better understand secretary clintons use of a private email server during her tenure as secretary at the state department among other things. The committee invited him to appear with the expectation his testimony will advance the committees investigation which seeks further information about the setup and management of secretary clintons account and other technical aspects of the account. I take my responsibility as a Committee Chairman seriously, especially the decision to issue a subpoena. Its a serious matter. Mr. Pagliano chose to evade the subpoena dually issued. I will consult with counsel and my colleagues to consider the full range of options available to address mr. Paglianos failure to appear. It is vital to hear from us because its our understanding while mr. Pagliano worked in the i. T. Department at the state department nearly four years, virtually every single email mr. Pagliano had has suddenly disappeared. Theres Something Like less than 20 emails this is a guy who worked at the i. T. Department at the state department. Things that make you go hmm. Really . All his emails suddenly disappeared . Mr. Pagliano is important because he was receiving a paycheck from the clintons but failed to disclose that on his financial forms. Wed like to give him an opportunity to answer that question. We also believe he entered into an immunity agreement. Youd think somebody would sing like a song bird if you got immunity from the fbi. What are you afraid of . We wanted to hear from him. Thats why we issued a subpoena. There are a number of things we would like to ask him, and he should be here. When you are served a subpoena by the United States congress, that is not optional. That is not an optional activity. Hes not here today. Mr. Chairman . Mr. Cummings. Lets make sure we have a complete picture here. Last night the chairman sent another letter to mr. Pagliano saying our committee might go into executive session to accept his fifth amendment no, i did not say that . What did you say . I want this committee to be open and transparent. We do everything we can possibly do out in the open. That is the american way. Thats the way this committee is going to be run. Chairman yield . Sure. Its my understanding mr. Paglianos lawyers sent a letter saying they felt this was abuse of process and nothing but to embarrass him. He said if he wanted to go into executive session and be given immunity, hed be happy to. I just want the committee to have full breadth of what happened here. He said hed be happy to appear. So is there i take it the consultation youre going to do is going to go into whether or not were going to give immunity, have an executive session, and when might we expect the decisions. He made the decision not to be here, and there are consequences for that. Again, the integrity of the house of representatives, this is not an optional activity. You dont just get to say, hey, well, i decided not to do that. Well look at the full range of options. If anybody is under any illusion im going to let go of this and let it sail off into the sunset, they are very illadvised. Chairman yield . Yes. Im looking at your letter dated september 12, 2016, to mark j. Mcdougal. You say in this letter, and i quote, the committee requires mr. Paglianos appearance because, among other reasons, the possibility that he will waive or choose not to assert the privilege as to some or all questions, the possibility the committee will agree to hear his testimony in executive session, and the possibility that the committee will immunize his testimony pursuant to 18 usc section 6005. Thats what i was inquiring about. Thats your letter. To clarify. It requires his presence to have those types of discussions. When he doesnt show up, that option is off the table. You have to be here to have that discussion. Mr. Chairman, just a point of parliamentary inquiry. You said it is not an option for the witness who refused to testify. He was duly presented and served with a subpoena from this committee, is that correct . Yes. And one of the options would be possible contempt of congress among the options that we have available. At what point would that be appropriate to consider the options . In a future hearing or a request to the chair . We will consider all options. I would like to continue on with this hearing given the three witnesses that are here. They are here. Rather than unduly delay the rest of the hearing dealing with mr. Pagliano, well complete the hearing and then look at the options. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Just one thing, mr. Chairman. Are we going to do that after the hearing . What you just said youre going to do . Were going to consider the options considering mr. Pagliano is not in attendance after he was issued a subpoena. Well deal with that after the conclusion. One of those things we might consider is going into executive session since mr. Pagliano said he would be happy to come in executive session . Would that be one . I will entertain all of the potential requests, but im telling you i have no intention of going into executive session when he thumbs his nose at the congress, wastes this committees time and u. S. Marshals have to make him show. I just want to understand as well as i can. Did the chairman issue a criminal referral on mr. Pagliano . When we heard that the fbi had not looked at anything secretary clinton had testified under oath before congress, we did give a referral. And thats outstanding . We dont know. We dont know. Well, you issued it. We issued it, but here is my point. Here is my point. You issued a criminal referral for an individual, and then you asked him to come in here and testify before congress. Let me clarify that would require him to surrender his fifth amendment rights. If youre referring him and putting him under threat of criminal prosecution and then asking him to come in here, thats not fair. The immunity doesnt cover him. Because your referral for criminal prosecution came after the fact and beyond the limited purpose for which he was granted immunity, sir. There was no criminal referral on mr. Pagliano. Did we refer the comments and issues that mr. Comey as director of fbi brought up . Absolutely we did. He said he required us it puts him at risk what we have done as a community and through you on this referral is put him under threat of criminal prosecution because of the issue that youre investigating. I understand that. I understand that. But it puts him in jeopardy coming before this committee while that criminal referral is in existence. Im just saying hes an american citizen. I know the constitution gets in the way of the committee. The gentleman will suspend. Gentleman will yield. The to clarify. The referral was to look at secretary clintons testimony before congress. That was the referral. Mr. Pagliano, his attendance is required here. There was interaction with mr. Pagliano with another committee, but thats another committee. You have to bring that up with the other committee. Im concerned with the integrity of this committee. I think weve done the right thing. His attendance is required here, and hes not here and well deal with that after. We have mr. Combetta here, mr. Thornton here and we do have mr. Cooper here. Mr. Chairman. Gentleman from south carolina. Could i engage with the chair in a colloquy . Yes. I thought witness pagliano was granted immunity . Thats what ive read. Congress cant prosecute anyone. So the one entity who can has granted him immunity. Im trying to figure out what his criminal liability is. If the gentleman will yield . I was having a colloquy with the chairman, but you can answer the question. Ill be happy to hear from you. The fbi granted him limited immunity. The fbi didnt grant him immunity, the department of justice granted him immunity. For that limited purpose. How do you know it was limited use immunity . Let me also interject here. I have Great Respect for mr. Lynch. His attorney his attorney, mr. Paglianos Attorney Says in his letter that he was given limited immunity for that purpose. Well, that raises another interesting question i hope the gentleman from massachusetts will help me figure out. When youve reached an agreement with the government, oftentimes it includes cooperation with other entities within that government. I wonder if the department of justice in their proffer or immunity agreement with mr. Pagliano made it clear he could cooperate with another branch. We cant prosecute. They can. They made it Crystal Clear they arent prosecuting anyone in this fact pattern so where is the criminal liability . The gentleman has Constitutional Rights under fifth amendment. Whether they are violated by the fbi or violated here in congress, still violated. As the gentleman knows not required to be a witness against himself. But the fifth amendment doesnt protect you from nonincriminating answers. We have a criminal referral. Not on him. He can say his name, where he worked. Every answer doesnt incriminate you. The gentleman from massachusetts will suspend. The gentleman from south carolina, its his time. I was just inquiring of the chair. I thought there was immunity agreement in place between the department of justice and this witness. So if hes been immunized, and you cant prosecute anyone for anything, where is the criminal liability to him coming and answering questions, which further assumes every question you ask is going to expose him to criminal liability. Theres no fifth amendment privilege against answering nonincriminating questions. Will the gentleman yield . Sure. But he can incriminate himself because weve issued a criminal referral here. Hes got immunity. He doesnt have immunity. He doesnt have immunity. He doesnt have immunity. You havent seen the immunity agreement. Look, if you want to read it yourself, its from the gentlemans attorney. No, im going to need a more reliable source than a criminal defense attorney. I want to read the agreement itself. I want to read the agreement between the department of justice and this witness and whether or not it requires them to cooperate with other entities of government. That is commonplace for them to say you can tell us the truth but not Congress Makes no sense. Thats all i want. Gentleman will suspend. The committee should also be aware the committee did send a subpoena to mr. Pagliano to produce this immunity agreement that was today at 10 00 a. M. , and he did not produce that as well. He was under subpoena to not only have his presence here but so everyone on this panel can see this immunity agreement, which he supposedly has in his possession. Those documents were also subpoenaed by the committee, and he did not comply with that as well. Its the intention of the chair here, were going to move on. Theres a lot to address with mr. Pagliano. Like i said, were not letting go with this. We need to continue this hearing. We have mr. Thornton, mr. Cooper mr. Combetta here. We do appreciate. All witnesses are to be sworn before they testify. If you will please rise and raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony youre about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth . Thank you. You may be seated. Let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. We have not received any written testimony from todays witnesses. Mr. Combetta, are you making an Opening Statement . On advice of counsel, i respectfully refuse to answer and assert my fifth amendment privilege. Mr. Thornton, do you intend to make an Opening Statement . On advice of counsel i respectfully decline to answer and assert my fifth amendment privilege. Mr. Cooper, do you intend to make an Opening Statement . I have no Opening Statement. Please, if you all can move the microphone a little tighter, closer, its hard to hear. Mr. Combetta, we sent a subpoena to you for your supposed we read there was an immunity agreement. Mr. Combetta, did you produce your immunity agreement this morning as required under the subpoena. On advice of counsel, i respectfully decline to answer and assert my fifth amendment privilege. Mr. Combetta, a couple of questions. Senator johnson last year released a portion of an august 19th, 2015, internal communication between two platte river employees. Here is how it read. Quote, wondering how we can sneak an email in now after the fact asking them them meaning the Clinton Executive Services Corporation when they told us to cut the backups and have them confirm it for our records, starting to think this whole thing is covering up some shady theres an expletive there. I think if we had it in writing they told us to cut the backups we can go public with our statements saying weve had the backups since day one. Then we were told the trim to 30 days would make us look a whole lot better. As i understand it, you were one of two employees on the clinton account. Did you send or receive this email . On advice of counsel, i respectfully decline to answer and assert my fifth amendment privilege. Mr. Combetta, two days after that, you wrote, quote, were trying to tighten down every possible security angle on this customer. It occurs to us anyone at prn withes say to the data partner portal, i. E. , everyone here, could potentially access this device via remote rb feature. Could we set up either two factor authentication or move this to a separate partner account or some other method to allow only who we permit on our end to access this device via the internet, end quote. If i understand the email correctly, every single employee of prn could have accessed some of the most highly classified National Security information thats ever been breached at the state department. Can you prove no other individuals accessed this data or even passed it onto someone else . On advice of counsel, i respectfully decline to answer and assert my fifth amendment privilege. One last one here. Youre an i. T. Guy paid by clintons. Generally i. T. Guys dont erase their clients emails unless they are told to do so, so who told you to delete the emails . On advice of counsel, i respectfully decline to answer and assert my fifth amendment privilege. Mr. Cummings, do you have any questions . Do you all plan to continue to assert mr. Combetta, mr. Thornton, do you plan to continue to assert your fifth amendment rights . Is that your plan . Is that your plan . Is that your plan . On advice of counsel, i respectfully refuse to answer and assert my fifth amendment privilege. And you, mr. Thornton . On advice of counsel, i respectfully decline to answer and assert my fifth amendment im not going to have any other questions since its clear youre taking the fifth on it. But, and i can understand why youre doing what youre doing. Weve had the case here before where answering a question or two then ended up in all kinds of litigation as to whether or not you had waived your fifth amendment privileges, so i have nothing further. I do know that dcs ethics opinion that addresses abuse of witnesses trying to take their fifth amendment privileges. As a lawyer, im not going to be a part of that process. Mr. Combetta, given that you have indicated you do not intend to answer any questions out of respect for your Constitutional Rights, we will now excuse you from the table. Mr. Thornton, yesterday chairman lamar smith of house science, space and Technology Committee released an august 13th, 2015, letter from data to prns attorney which said this. And i quote, we have been following news reports concerning various investigations related to secretary clintons emails including Platte Rivers provision of i. T. Related services to her. We have some concerns relative to data security. Platte has not enabled encryption at the local device. Given the sensitive highprofile nature of the data which is alleged in press reports to potentially reside on the device, it may be the target of cyberattack from a multitude of highly sophisticated and capable entities or individuals. We believe such an event could place the unencrypted data at risk as well as expose both data and platte River Systems to collateral damage. In its current state and it goes on the device and data stored there on and it goes on is more vulnerable to cyberattack than data believes is prudent under the circumstances. Mr. Thornton, given the vulnerability identified, are you aware of any hacks of prns systems . On advice of counsel, i respectfully decline to answer and assert my fifth amendment constitutional privilege. Id like to just ask you one other question that i cant imagine has any implications, any criminal culpability or anything else. Just a simple question, yes or no, and well if youll answer this one, well cut you loose here. Were you interviewed by the fbi . On the advice of counsel, i respectfully decline to answer and assert my fifth amendment constitutional privilege. You cant answer the question about whether or not you were interviewed by the fbi . On the advice of counsel, i respectfully decline. Mr. Cummings. Again, as a member of the bar for 40 years, im not going to participate in this. I just think when we bring witnesses here and berate them when we could do it in executive session, or whatever, i think it would be unethical for me to do that, so i have nothing. Given that the witness has indicated he does not intend to answer any questions out of respect for his Constitutional Rights, we will now excuse mr. Thornton from the table. We will recess for two minutes while the clerk is able to reset the table. Committee stands in recess. The committee will come to order. As we last left it, there are some serious questions based on the emails about here you have some of the most vulnerable secrets in all the state department, all the United States. People put their lives in danger for the country, data without authentication and it begs a lot of questions. Mr. Cooper, you told the fbi, evidently, that you helped set up Hillary Clintons secretary clintons new york and d. C. Residence with an imac, correct . That is correct. So did you set them up, or did you set them up with somebody else . Those were out of the Box Solutions that were set up prior to her sorry, youve got to move it a little closer. These were out of the Box Solutions set up prior to her becoming secretary of state. And where did you set them up . They were set up in the offices she used in each of her homes. Did that include the scif. At the time they were set up, those rooms were not used as scifs. Did you ever have to service any of those computers or work on any of those computers . Over a period of time, i did service and work on those computers. You did or didnt work on the computers . I did. Including the one in the scif . I dont any specific time i worked on it once they were in the scifs. So how many did you set up in her home . There was a computer in each office in each home. I worked on her homes for a period of 15 years. Certainly when they were originally set up, they were originally set up for staff to use in their homes. Once they became scifs i dont recall using those computers. Or servicing those . No. Did you have a security clearance at that time . No, i did not have security clearance. After you left the white house early in when did you leave the white house . 2001. Did you ever have security clearance after that . No, i did not have security clearance. You had full access to the server the entire time you were working for the clintons . Yes, i had access to the server. You had no security clearance . I had no security clearance. You told fbi huma abedin recommended you contact Bryan Pagliano to build the new security system. I spoke with mr. Pagliano at ms. Abedins request. I spoke as that system had its limitations and we were thinking about expanding it. He had some opportunities using surplus equipment from the Clinton Campaign that we could use for president clintons office to sorry. Weve got to still move that microphone. Just straighten it out and put it right there. There you go. A little closer. What conversations did you have with huma abedin about the setup of the server . I dont recall conversations with her about the setting up of the server. What about setting up emails . At some point i had a conversation with her about setting up an email for the servers. What about setting up for huma abedin. Did you set up an email for huma abedin . Yes. Did she use that . As far as i know, yes. What other staff used the email . The others were staffers of clinton. Other staffers in the office. Not on the email domain. So who had an email address at clintonemail. Com. Additional person with email address was Chelsea Clinton. Did you have one . No. So you, huma abedin and secretary clinton had email addresses there. I did not have an email address. Sorry. Okay, so Hillary Clinton, huma abedin and Chelsea Clinton each had email addresses at that address . Correct. What other computers did you set up in their residence . How many computers did you set up . The only computers were the two imacs which you previously mentioned and the initial apple server which came in with support from apple to set up that server in their household. Did you set up anything in washington, d. C. , at a residence there . As mentioned, one of the two imacs referred to was in washington, d. C. The other one was in chappaqua, new york . Correct. So theres a total of two computers, one in chappaqua. Why did you set up clintonemail. Com . Secretary clinton was transitioning from president ial campaign and her senate role and had been using primarily a blackberry for email correspondence. There were limitations to her ability to use that blackberry as well as a desire to change her email address because a number of people have received her email address over the course of those activities, so we created, with a discussion, i believe, with huma abedin at the time what domains might be of interest. We obtained a domain and added it to the original server used by president clintons office for her to use with her blackberry at the time. And we set that up in a way where the messages simply came into that server and bounced right to her blackberry and were not retained on that apple server. Who paid for these computers . All of them were paid personally by the clintons. Personally . Personally. And who were you being compensated by . I was being compensated by the clintons. Personally or clinton executive services, Clinton Foundation, what was it . At that time i was employee of both the Clinton Family personally and Clinton Foundation. Okay. All right. My time has expired. Now recognize Ranking Member mr. Cummings. Mr. Cooper, the fbis investigative summary states the apple server you helped install in the home of president and secretary clinton in 2008 was originally purchased for the purpose of hosting email services for president clintons staff. To the best of your knowledge, is that accurate . Yes, thats accurate. According to the fbi summary, the decision was made to keep that server in the clinton residence. The reason was, and i quote, due to concern over ensuring email reliability and desire to segregate email for president clintons various postpresidency endeavors, end of quote. According to the fbi, the decision was made in january 2009 to switch from the apple server to a new server. Yes, the fbi investigative summary states that in 2009, quote, according to cooper, in or around january 2009, the decision was made to move to another server because the apple server was antiquated and users were experiencing problems with email delivery on their blackberry devices, end of quote. Is that accurate . I would say theres not a date certain there was a decision made to switch from one server to the other in my conversations with mr. Pagliano i was aware the apple server we were using was not fully meeting our needs and not expandable to meet other needs. It didnt have a robust solution to support plaqblackberry usage. Its hard to remember what the technology around blackberry was then and how they functioned. There were more progressive ways to use a blackberry. Mr. Pagliani had the ability to set up a server with a proper blackberry interface with it. And that was something desired by president clintons team. Over a period of time as bryan decommissioned those servers from the campaign, we were able to purchase them from the campaign. He then took time to set them up on his time either in the Campaign Offices or his home. Im not sure the location. And then delivered them to chappaqua. I believe in around march of 2009 when i physically helped him move them into the space where they were going to reside. So secretary clinton began using that new server for email around march 2009 . Is that correct . Her connection to that server was in march 2009. The republicans have a Conspiracy Theory that secretary clinton used the server in her home for email in order to avoid asked directly about that theory. He asked and i quote, was the reason she set up her own private server because she wanted to shield communications from congress and from the public . And this is what he said and i quote, i cant say that. The best information is that she set it out as a manner of convenience. It was an already existing system that her husband had and she decided to have a domain on that system. Do you have any evidence to dispute that . No, i believe secretary clinton had personal email on our blackberry and was looking for a new solution to be able to use personal email. Were you ever told she used a server in her home to avoid the federal act. No. I was never told that. Mr. Cooper i think it would be helpful to walk through what your role was and was not with with regard to the production of secretary clintons emails to the state department and the fbi. Did you cooperate with the fbi investigation to the best of your ability . Yes, i did. Did you turnover to the fbi any relevant records that were in your possession . Yes i turned over records to the fbi. In mid to late 2014, secretary clintons attorneys attempted to collect all of secretary clintons work related files from her tenure at the state department and turn them over to the state department. Were you involved in that 2014 process . I was not. And they were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them from investigators. Do you have any reason to dispute that finding . I do not have any information to dispute that finding. Now organize a gentleman from florida. So mr. Cooper you started again and you gave the clinton domain email address, set that up, is that correct . That was at the very beginning as she was leaving the campaign coming into office . From my recollection there was a president clinton domain set up prior to that point and clinton email domain was set up in january 2009. 2009. At some point when she left the private capacity and came into the public i have some information that at least two of her old mobile devices were destroyed and you took part in that. Is that correct . I believe youre referring to the fbi report that mentions them. Good. I cant when did you take part in destroying some of her old mobile devices . Yes at some point in time when she was transitioning from one mobile device to the next we would take the information that was on the old device back it up, transfer it to the new device. And you worked with him . I would interface with him on this. Did you ever discuss with him how you could destroy a device . Are you aware of what happened to his emails . You were the one servicing the server for most of the period while she was secretary of state; is that correct . I would categorize it differently. He serviced the server. You set it up and he conferred and you conferred with him . He set it up. He engineered it. And i was the interface between the users. Would he have had any emails on those servers to your knowledge. No. He wouldnt . And you have no idea what happened to all of his emails. You also were made aware on two occasions to secret service, i think january 2011 that someone is trying to hack the southern land; is that correct . I use that word to describe what was a series of false log ins. On the server. Not once but twice. Then you close down the system briefly to deal with the situation . Correct. When you were first contacted by the fbi. I believe it was august of last summer. That was your first interview . Yeah. How many times were you interviewed . Three times. Could you give us the dates . Last summer it was the first and then subsequent. Last summer, subsequently in the fall and spring. Were you ever offered any type of immunity or agreement by the department of justice. I was not. How long have you been represented by your Current Council . Since the beginning. Since i was first contacted by the fbi. You explained it was the clintons that paid for your council up to that time and the organization that was set up by the clintons . Im the only person that paid for my council. You paid for your own expenses . They are not paid for any. Direct. Did you have a joint Defense Agreement with any other individual involved in the fbis investigation . No such agreement. Finally you step back from the daytoday activities by the clintons about the time of the transition. Is that correct . As she left office. And took over. Yes and you were also responsible for the transfer. Helping with the transfer effect and you walked her aid over the phone for taking the information that they had in emails and archiving and thats correct. And setting up the Laptop Computers so that she can create an off line archive. To your knowledge, was everything do you know finally was there any deletion or attempts to delete any information that had been stored that was going to be transferred and archived . I have no knowledge of that. Thank you. I recognize the gentleman from the district of columbia. Thank you mr. Chairman. The fbi report for the average american put the matter involving mrs. Clintons emails to rest for the average person. And yet you can take whats happening here and i want to ask you mr. Cooper, one of those colonels, one of the most conspiracy theories to come forward out of that report files on from testimonies that you gave. That report quotes you and i take it youre under oath before the fbi. Im sorry i was not under oath. Well it says you advised that you sometimes assisted users including clinton when they obtained a new mobile device by helping them back up the data from the old device before transferring it to the new device and sinking the new device with clinton. With the clinton server. Thats correct. That quote is correct. And then the summary describes two instances and heres where the conspiracy theories acted out both in this house and in the president ial campaign. And you recall two instances that you destroyed all mobile devices with a hammer and mr. Trump claimed that who would do that if it didnt have anything to hide and he picked up that rhetoric and says you can show that intent to hide something. Id like to directly ask him about the destruction of those blackberries. Was your purpose in destroying the old blackberry device ever to hide secretary clintons emails from being saved or disclosed from federal records and laws . No. Not in anyway to destroy or hide any information at all. I couldnt speak to whether there were records on there that needed to be or should be considered federal records. In fact that would be the case. I was going out of my way to prefsh them and transfer them to the new devices and transitioning various emails. Its the back up procedure and the procedure of activating a new device and the previous device would have ended up on the new device before we went and deleted using the blackberry tools to wipe it away. So that would mean, would it not or did it mean that you copied the content, photo content of the secretary device and saved it and loaded it on to a new device and the same thing on to the new device. That is correct. During the fbis investigation the extra copy of the content of those devices on your own machine. And i turned it over to those that worked with the fbi and the department of justice on capturing that material for their possession. So i take it that that was to make the case that you did not intend to destroy the blackberri blackberries. Its from one blackberry to another blackberry. Yes. Thank you very much. Thank you very much mr. Chairman. Mr. Cooper, do you have an i. T. Background or do you consider yourself to be an expert in the iflt t. Field. No i do not. Do you think the state department should have had someone more qualified than you to oversee the server from hackers. I was not working for the state department and it was primarily used by president clintons office. Secretary clinton had a personal account on that server. I cant im not in a position to talk about what the role of the government is in protecting that information. On january 29th at 2 57 a. M. You sent an email to secretary clintons top aid explaining someone was trying to hack the server. How many times did that happen . It was her and president clintons office on it. It was a series of failed log on attempts which were brought to my attention by an alert we had on the system. One of the ways to stop that was to shutdown for a period of time. And you can then overtime develop more sophisticated ways to help to filter those attempts. Do you know if pow oring down the server is the way to protect against hacks . I cant speak to that. Do you know what a brute force attack is . Yes, a brute force attack from my understanding is a series of attempted log ins using a variety of passwords. How many did you observe on the clinton server . I cant say with any specificity. They happened with some limited frequency over the period of the last 2. 5 years. They occurred with with frequency. Some frequency. I yield my time back to the chairman. Mr. Cooper, how many people had access to this server . Two people had some administrative rights. I cant off the top of my head tell you how many users there were over the lifetime of the server but it was less than 20 people. Was it encrypted . He was a user. Did it have dual authentication . I dont recall dual athe authenticati authentication. It does have remote access. You have some 20 odd people that can do it. Its with the Clinton Foundation and clinton executive Services Also have access to that . I cant say its intermingled with the Clinton Foundation. Clinton executive services. Youre being paid by them. People are being paid by Clinton Foundation that were accessing and using the system, right . In part there were individuals that had multiple Job Responsibilities for multiple entities within the clinton world and some people did do work for the Clinton Foundation, yes. So did the state department ever contact you or complain or issue any sort of concern . No, i do not have any concern. Mr. Chairman i have one more question. In order to make the private server much more secure server the state department had to lower its own security settings temporarily to manage her more insecure security server. Do you know about that . The fact that she had this insecure server . Thats not something i specifically know about. Mr. Cooper, the fbi conducted a yearlong investigation and said we did not find secretary clinton or her colleagues with classified information and went on to say that i do not see evidence that is sufficient to establish that she corresponded both talked about classified information on email. In the yearlong investigation the fbi did have a number of technical computer experts on the team and. He said with respect to potential intrusion there was evidence that her personal email domain since 2009 was successfully hacked and the summary similarly stated fbi investigation had forensic analysis, did not find evidence confirming that clintons email server systems were compromised by cyber means. Do you have any information today mr. Cooper that contradicts the fbis finding . Do not have any information to contradict that finding. Okay. The fbi summary describes in some detail what you explained and it states as i quote, when asked about the maintenance and security on the server system he stated there were no Security Breaches but there were many failed log in accounts and referred to earlier in atlanta questioning. Is that statement that i just read that quote from is that consistent with your recollection . That is consistent with my recollection. Did you take any steps to protect the server when there are these failed brute force, socalled, log in attempts . Overtime he developed a few Different Solutions and manage them in a variety of ways from blocking the ip addresses automatically as i recall. The fbi summary explains some additional steps that were descri described and including establishing secure socket layer certification for incrypted log in on march 29th and filtering to block access on would be hackers. Was that consistent with your recollection . That is consistent. Thank you. Gentleman yields back. Now represent the gentleman from ohio. I have questions for the guys that arent here so i want to just walk you through a few things. If we put the up the slide this would be good and look at the date first. August 2015. A lot of things happened before that day. Wondering how we can sneak an email in now after the fact when they told us to cut the back ups and have them confirm it and its really covering up a lot of bad stuff. They wanted something in writing because they knew they were going to get thrown under the bus later on. We know they changed the back up structure because look at the fbi report. Cheryl mills instructed someone to modify the policy on clinton mail. Com email account lets just walk through some history here. From the fbi report july 2014 at the request of cheryl mills, they remotely transfer all Hillary Clinton email to their laptops and these laptops are later have stuff deleted. What happened right before that . Theres going to be a letter coming requesting all of her emails. Jump forward to december. Cheryl mills requests they change the email retention policy on her account. What i just read. What happened right before that . What prompted this change . December 2nd chairman of the Benghazi Committee says we just found out about this other account. We didnt know at the time it was the only account, this other account that Hillary Clinton has. Hed like the information in emails relating to the benghazi situation from that account and of course right after that they changed the policy and is its instructed to delete anything for 60 days. And in the opening comments. March 2015. March 2nd, New York Times reports just this one email account. This private server situation, march 3rd. Sends a preservation letter telling them to preserve everything that might be relevant to our investigation march 4th. Theres a subpoena. March 9th, flat River Network is put on notice about the preservation notice. March 10th she does her press conference and of course the important dates. March 25th and march 31st. Those two days theres con presence calls with clinton lawyers. And Hillary Clintons lawyers and flat River Networks and on the 31st of that month they get rid of everything. They get rid of everything. Now we have two guys. Three guys. One on the front end. Helped mr. Cooper set it up and get immunity. And now we have two guys on the tail end, right . Mr. Thorton didnt work for the government. They take the fifth and at least he gets immunity. Go back to the date again. August 2015, these guys are starting to wonder, wow we dont have anything in writing. We have been dpichb all of these instructions. Verbally, phone calls, conference calls. All of these instructions to change the back up and delete things. Race things. Take hammers to things. We dont have anything in writing. We might in b in trouble. Guess what, they are. Thats the story and thats why its appropriate mr. Cummings for the chairman to invite him in today and see if they would finally answer somebodys question. He is just right. He is exactly right. Theyll talk to the people that can put him in jail but they wont talk to congress. Theyll talk to the Justice Department. Theyll talk to the Justice Department but they wont talk to us. We cant put them in jail. We just want to get answers for the American People and they wont talk to us. Ive never seen anything like this mr. Chairman where you get and we talked about yesterday, no regular american can get away with the kind of behavior secretary clinton gets away with. Two standards now in the country and this is what is so wrong and this is why the hearing youre having and the investigation were doing is entirely appropriate and with that i yield back. The gentleman yields back and ill now recognize the gentleman from texas. Thank you. Thank you for being here and having the courage to testify before us and getting to the truth. I want to just take a big step back. Im going to ask the geek questions you may or may not be able to answer. The server the clintons had, this wasnt like just a personal computer that everybody has. I have a server in my house. Thats how i get email. They think their personal computer is a server. This is running Business Class software that delivered and stored email for dozens of people. Is that correct . Yes thats correct and are you familiar with many people who have this type of equipment in their home . Its typically in an office. Thats correct. Do you know anybody that has a server in their home besides me. Some people. But its pretty rare . Are you familiar with what email software was running on the server . I do not recall specifically. You told the chairman that what it was set up to do as an email came and forwarded it to mrs. Clintons blackberry. Did it delete it from that server or keep it on that server . My recollection, just to be clear theres two servers were speaking about. There was an apple server in use from june 2008 until march 2009. That server which was originally set up for president clintons office staff had some software and i dont recall the name of what that was. One was a male client and one was a cool that was supposed to interface with blackberry but it wasnt blackberrys own product. Was it secured or forward using like the verizon blackberry gateway. I cant speak to the security of what that software was but i believe in the case of secretary clinton because she wasnt going to be accessing the email and fashion and the focus was transiti transitioning her and receiving messages in and not retaining them on that server and having them automatically forward. On a later server, it functioned more like what you were probably used to in your daytoday activity where there was a mailbox on that server that could be accessed. Was it opened up where you could get your email for that server through imap or web client . I dont specifically recall but i believe depending on the user we were customized. Brian would help to customize what ports were opened based on how that user was accessing. Would you require that it used a se keir client or has come in over the standard ports. I dont recall what the protocols were. There was a requirement and could have potentially in clear text. Did you turn over the logs and moet fireworks kagss that you received to the fbi in the email of brute force attacks. I did not turn those over to the fbi. There was an instance where we shared some log with the secret service when we were first experiences failed log in attempts. You have to notice when there was a failed log in attempt but if somebody doing it and throw random passwords at it. You would have thought it was a legitimate user getting in. You only hit notices of failed log in attempts. You werent notified every time somebody actually logged in. Correct. Somebody could have gotten the end but you just wouldnt have known it. Was there a firewall and a piece of hardware. Its part of the apple server. Wrote recall. Then we talked a little pit about mrs. Clinton going through a variety of blackberries. Were they all the same version of blackberries or did she migrate up and when it came out did she want the latest and greatest blackberry . Its difficult i think for me at least to time warp but blackberry was releasing models quite frequently then and track balls to track wheels. And her older device might have been failing. Security patches they were updated. Having kept a server in my house for ahiel and now moved over to an online hosting. Its next to impossible to keep one the pace of the security fixes that are coming out. It happens when i dpeek out. Well now recognize the gentleman woman from wyoming. Im glad that we had a geek out because i cant do that. Im a rancher. Im not as familiar with these technologies but i do know this, just as an average american, we he do know that the Chinese Government hires people to hack by day and that the same hackers r hack for hire at night. So this are people who are spending every single day in china, probably russia, other countries trying to hack into the computers of u. S. Government officials. So security is a constant problem in this country. Especially for high elected officials or appointed officials. And i do know this, that encryption can be used to help prevent that. That dual authentication processes can be used to help prevent that kind of hacking. So mr. Cooper, are you telling me that there was no dual authentication. No encryption. And the secretary of state had no protection of our secrets and we all know that efforts are being made to hack people just like her in government. Security functions were on the server. And they evolved over time and there were Different Things that were available and considered it different structures. I would certain lay agree with you that this is something that we should all be concerned with and i saw this again as this was there was a need to, yes, protect the privacy of individuals and their personal lives. Using their email. We also know that as members of congress and we travel to a foreign country and we have a device and especially russia, they tell you to write our devices in aluminum foil so theres no transmission and i have seen televised examples of secretary of state clinton using her Electronic Devices to communicate while she is all over the world and now that we know that these servers and devices were scattered around in her home and there was some sort of management of documents and in colorado. How can people like me ensure the American People that the information that was on those emails and that some of which has been at the stroied and was not available to us. Is not being sifted through. And even as we speak by chinese hackers and russian hackers. What security does our country have by virtue of what looks to me like some pretty lackadaisical attitudes toward sensitive data, top secret data. Secret data. Confidential data. Im not an expert in Computer Security. I understand some of the concerns that you have expressed from things i read in the newspaper but i had no expertise in this area. Second i had no knowledge of the content and could not verify what the content was on this equipment and third i also have no specific knowledge of which countries secretary clinton chose and did not choose her devices. Mr. Chairman, i yield back. Before you yield back. You get huge browny points for the committee for showing up and having the guts to answer questions. Were very grateful for that. Im also very grateful for your candid nature in expressing the idea that you dont have the expertise to even answer those questions as thoroughly as possible. The problem i have, i believe its based on the testimony thus far. Heres you mr. Cooper, no experience, no dual authentication and who do you think is going to win that one, thats going to scare the living daylights out of us is the cavalier nature is some of the nations most sensitive and secure information. Thats the concern. Im going to recognize the gentleman. Not going to recognize the gentlemen from vermont for five minutes. Thank you very much. Ill have a few questions and a bit of a statement. Mr. Chairman, youre a good chairman. Doing a great job but i disagree to you about my focus on Hillary Clinton. I want to give a little perspective here. Legitimate investigation but we had the fbi. Mr. Comey who has a unimpeachable record of vigilance as a prosecutor. Who calls him as he sees them. He went through every single thing. Every single email and he came to the conclusion that there was no criminal conduct. There is no evidence of that in fact of the secretarys email had been hacked. Its not even a close call. B even if the email set up the private server the secretaries acknowledged that that was a mistake. Theres a legitimate basis to inquire as to what happened. I have a feeling that a little bit of this has to do with something other than emails and it may have to do with something thats looming in november. Now one of the issues that i have as i listen to the questions of my colleagues is theyre asking the witnesses to try to disprove a negative. My friend from wyoming was asking about the russian or chinese and they probably are. Trying to get into every department i have. And department of defense and the joint chiefs of staff and that aprehengs is well founded. Theres no way that any of us can disprove or prove that they havent gotten to the email of the secretary of defense or the secretary of state or the white house or any of the house accounts and the question that it raises the apprehension and focussing at all with Hillary Clinton and access that intentionality of the russians and chinese doesnt apply across the board and may have access to any one they want. And talking about having the guts to come in here, thank you mr. Cooper, but you cant prove or disprove anymore than anyone else can whether the russians have successfully penetrated anyones email account let alone secretary clintons. So the whole issue here is a repetition of an initial assertion that somehow, some way, not only did secretary clinton make a mistake by having a private server but that the insi insen you wags is that she jeopardized secrets. This committee had m. Comey in here and he answered every single question that every Single Member had and that exhaustive investigation that mr. Comey and the fbi did demonstrated that there was no real evidence of either criminal violation and he found no evidence that the emails had been penetrated. So thats really the basis upon which a lot of us believed that this committee and this great committee, all of us are proud to serve on it is playing a role that is beyond oversight investigation is kind of advocacy and among American People as to whether something that is valuable information has been taken. Do you have any indication mr. Cooper that any secret information has been taken by the russians, the chinese or any other actor. Have no indication i simply refer to the fbi report. All right. And in all of your discussion with your colleagues, is anybody else indicated that they have a shred of evidence. Any National Security information of the United States was penetrated as a result of the clinton emails. I dont even think i had any conversation to that effect. Devices, ipads, blackberries, is that a big deal. Its rather common place. Or the gentleman that yields back, i appreciate the kind comments and lets remember we got multiple people pleading the fifth afraid of criminal wrong doing and we also have an fbi director. One of the questions was did you look at what secretary clinton said undernoeth theres other equities that we have in the destruction of documents. He said he didnt look at any of that. So that was also part of his testimony. Didnt look at part of it. Thus to do our jobs but i do appreciate the gentleman, appreciate him yielding. Well now recognize the gentleman from north carolina. Thank you mr. Chairman. Mr. Cooper. Thank you for your answers as we look into this further. And have those private he emails served on that server, is that correct. Two servers both with the pry vary purpose of serving president clintons personal office but in servicing mrs. Clinton you put her domain name to service he emails on those servers. Why did you not use another server like one and one or any of the other servers that are out there . Why would you not use this . I have a device that has a domain name that i own that i get emails at. Its much cheaper for me to just have a server that does that. Why would you not have done that. First we have this in place. It was certainly an option and considering other options i think that there were some appeals to this and that the data was contained in one mace. We knew where it was contained. It was physically in a secure location. I think that some of the tools that you or i may employ today even with a personalized domain were not available at that time. Well, in 2009 they were because i was using them and so i was available them and you were saying the reason to not have another youre getting advance from your council. So, the other aspect of this, mr. Cooper, is you made a conscious decision to put her email address to keep it from being viewed by other people that might have a server like anyone else. Is that your testimony . Not sure. Was it Hillary Clinton . So youre testimony here today is that she said she would prefer to have mrs. Clintons email on a private server vers versus a server managed by someone else. My testimony is that that was communicated to me. Well, thats eliminating because if thats the case what would be the potential reason where you can see it and someone else couldnt see it. Its the use of president clintons office and i think it provided a convenient and reliable solution for her personal email. How many email addresses did she have. And used any address at the time. You notice in our emails they have numbers behind it and everything else. If you count her email address as one and two on the clinton domain that im aware of. As you were managing this, the other concern i would have is did you have a blackberry Exchange Server on your server . You had the Push Technology on your server. Correct. So when the discussion between plat river and the attorneys and all of that happened in march were you part of that discussion to clean and erase some of those emails from servers. That was not part of this discussion. Is it common place when you have a discussion about erasing emails to have an attorney on a discussion with a client . I was in business a long time and it never happened with me. Thats not something that have been able to comment on. Well, you have an ability to comment on it. You may choose not to. Well, have you ever been part of a conversation to erase emails where theres been an attorney there to advise you on the advisability of that . Have you personally . Yes or no. Ive personally had no experience in that. Okay. Let me finish. You said that youre paying for your attorneys fees here. Correct. Have you ever been reimbursed or have you ever had any potential reimbursement for fees for attorneys fees for anyone other than your own personal accounts . No. Do you anticipate any reimbursement. No, i yield back. Well now fwot to gentleman from georgia. Thank you mr. Chairman. And its shameful that so many of our witnesses are no longer here. And frankly the appearances they could care less about our National Security and are less concerned about defending our country than they are on being absent and pleading the fifth and as was brought up earlier theyre willing to meet with and talk with others, those that had the potential of prosecuting them. Who knows what possible deals have been made in some of those discussions . But they refuse to meet with us and begs the question what in the world are they hiding . So i want to thank you mr. Cooper for your courage and youre willingness to be with us and provide some answers. It means a dpraet deal to us. Did they have any more than one device . I dont recall specifically her having more than one email device. Have come to learn that at some point she had that she may have used simultaneously with the blackberries. Theres a possibility that she may have had more than one device at a time. Its possible. You have referred to yourself as not being an it expert. At any time did you consult Cyber Security experts when you were setting up her initial server. The initial server we consulted with under Business Solution program to set up that server and of course later we consulted with mr. Pagliano. And from any department or agency in the government did you consult with at all. Okay. When you referred earlier to some of the hacks that were taking place with some degree of regular you lairty did you report those hacks or potential hacks to the fbi or secret service or any other agency. As i mentioned earlier when we first experienced the repeated failed log in attempts i reported them to the secret service. Okay. Did any of the do you know if anything was done when it was reported. Do they come to investigate. The secret service reviewed some blogs from the server and made some recommendations about the possibility origins of those log ins and techniques to mitigate that problem. And express any concern over this being a private server or use of private emails. Not directly to me. So even when they came and did some investigation and some research, that question kwwas never brought up to you. Correct. How does it work . Are you familiar with that . Im not familiar with that. Well it seems to me mr. Chairman and mr. Cooper and everyone in this room and everyone in the country for that matter, i mean, we know how absolutely dangerous it is, the potential dangers of information getting in the hands of our adversaries. And you have related that that possibility exists dramatically. In fact, director comey was right when he said that i thought he was being very polite when he said this is extremely careless what has taken place and unfortunately mr. Cooper youre right in the middle of that we have nations coming after us and here you are standing up as a defense to try to keep security from being leaked out to professionals and countries and the word of director comey have to be directed to you as well. This is extremely careless what has taken place and your handling frankly of the i. It felt infrastructure even in the midst of not being an expert in this field to me shows disregard for our National Security and plf mr. Chairman im grateful for your continued commitment to pursue and try to get to this and those that refuse to answer our question and plead the fifth to protect their own hide as opposed to protecting our National Security again is shameful but i thank you for pursuing this mr. Chairman and i yield back. Gentleman yields back. I now recognize the gentleman from texas. Mr. Heard. Thank you for being here. I know that you said many times youre not an expert in Computer Security so i wont try to get too detailed. My first question is have you ever worked in the federal government before . Yes, i worked in the white house from 2000 to 2001. Were you involved in handling classified information . No. Did mr. Pa fwrksgliano work you . Im sorry. Can you clarify . So you were responsible for setting up the servers; is that correct . I oversaw the set up of these servers. So who was your boss . President clinton was my boss. And when you set up the servers, did you have reached out to the services of mr. Pagliano at some point. Was he your consultant . Yes. He was working at state department at the time . At the initial set up he was not working for state department. While he was working at the state department was he involved in providing services to your organization . Yes. Is that normal . I have no basis to judge that. So as the person responsible for setting up the servers, did you ever engage a third party by technical vulnerability assessments. I left that responsibility to mr. Pagliano. And he was responsible for the servers from the beginning of the creation of the server . He was not. He was responsible for the transition of the apple serve tore what we call the pagliano server. So that was backed up to an external hard drive between may 2009 and june 2011. Is that correct . My understanding. And we have a report from the fbi that states that you would periodically delete these records as the space ran out; is that correct . I have no knowledge of how that procedure operated. So you werent responsible for that part . Correct. Who was . Mr. Pagliano. So when the decision was made to set up an independent server were you involved in that conversation . You were talking about this briefly with my colleague from north carolina. Yes. And why was the decision made to not use a commercial Service Versus doing something yourself. Again the initial set up of both servers was in a consideration of a small group of users from president chin on thes office. This was a solution that we felt was an appropriate solution as you can tell by the fact that we transitioned pretty quickly from the apple system to another system and were moving to a more robust piece of equipment. At some point did you say i dont have the Technical Expertise to do this . I was never in a position to be the technical expert on either server. So theres a lot of conversation about whether or not the system has been hacked and brute force, you name it, has the fbi to your knowledge investigated whether there was indeed and was there a forensic investigation on the server to see whether there was evidence of an attack . I would refer you to the fbi for that. Were you ever asked questions about this . Did yall do an exhaustive review of whether or not you had records of data leaving the network . Were you monitoring whether data was leaving the network . I would refer you to the fbi for that. Were you ever told or did you ever suspect classified information was being emailed to and from the secretary. No. Nobody ever brought that up with you or expressed a concern. No. Interesting. Do you think that common practices cyber hygiene must be used in the development of these servers. Im not familiar with what common practices are but i believe some common practices were used. Who were you using for guidance on what was good digital System Hygiene . Mr. Pagliano. And apple in the original device. Now you said apple a few times. Is this like you went into the help desk at the mall . We had an agreement with app aels Business Service program at the time that the equipment that we were going to use and set up the system and installed it. Mr. Chairman. I hanukkah the gentleman. Were now going to go to the gentleman from alabama for five minutes. Thank you mr. Chairman. And they indicated the whereabouts of clinton devices would become unknown once she transitioned to a new device. What about these other devices . Did you make any inquiry about any of the missing devices to make sure that they were properly secured and the data properly recorded . I can say with some certainty whenever there was a transfer from one device to the next there was always the goal and the process to transfer all the data from the previous device to the new device. Youre specifically asking about what happened to the devices that i know that i personally did not dispose of. I cant speak to that. I believe and i may have asked those that are in the process of doing that for secretary clinton to also properly dispose of them by rendering them. So you were responsible for setting up the servers and these devices . He set up the transfer to a new blackberry device, it simply requires someone to tell the server that theres a limited period of time for a user to log in with a onetime password. But when you transition from one device to another, what did you have any responsibility in handling the device that was no longer being used. What did you do with that . We understand you did something with some device. On occasion, i was the person who made the transfer, when i was complete with backing up the information and ensuring it was on the new device, wiping the old device, i rendered them unusable in other matters, yes. Are you aware that theres a missing laptop and external storage device . Im aware of that based upon reading the report. Did you know that the report was that it was lost in the mail . Thats as much as i know. Do you know who mailed it . I have no details about that. If you dont know who mailed it, you dont know who it was sent to. Your as it was pointed out, aware mr. Clintons use of personal server and her handling of classified material is extremely careless. You were aware that he said that, you read the fbi report . Yes, im aware of the report. In your handling of mrs. Clintons servers, did you have any concerns of her use of out dated technology on her cell phone might be a problem . I viewed her use as personal use of a blackberry and of the server that we kept up to date over a period of time. Youve been around the clintons for a pretty good period of time, havent you . Yes. And youre aware of the highly sensitive material that mrs. Clinton, as secretary of state, was handling that would pass through her Communications Devices and her servers through her email, you certainly had to be aware that there was sensitive information. If i was generally aware that secretary clinton encountered sensitive information, sure, how that was transmitted to her was not something i was specifically aware of. But in your disposal of these devices and you said you made sure they were right. Did you receive any instructions or any training about making sure that the date data on those systems were properly recorded . Did anyone talk to you about that . I had no specific instructions around that. Would you consider handing of the devices was possibly careless . And i ask you that i think youve been a good witness. I appreciate the fact that you st stayed that listening to the questions and your lack of knowledge of some of the cyber technology, the Cyber Protection technology and things like that, my concern is that, its almost an atmosphere of indifference. And i really hope thats not the case, because this is not although some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle try to make this about her candidacy, its really about our National Security and how we handle things Going Forward and thats the great concern, i think, really the prevailing concern that this committee has is that we make sure that our that we dont put our National Security at risk, we dont put our Intelligence Officers at risk. Thats my big concern. And with this missing laptop that apparently no one has made an effort to recover. I thank you mr. Chairman, i yield back. Well recognize mr. Walker for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Id like to start just by making a couple of statements. A lot of times were hearing back and forth of who to believe. I find it interesting to believe theres three different times a day our friends to my right have not been necessarily truthful in some of the accusations they have made. Number one, i believe that one of the members talked about this as some kind of relentless pursu pursuit, theyre trying to damage the president ial chances or hopes. At the same time, this is some kind of photo op. Let me remind everybody, and remember what director said, he said this was an investigation, not caused by congress, but rather the Inspector General from the intelligence that were able to gather. Let me put that on the record, make sure this has not been republican driven, this was Inspector General, fbi. Another thing theyve tried to make a case for this is some kind of republican witch hunt, i asked him if he felt this way. He said it was not a witchhunt. Then today, we here dremocratic friends say there were no evidence that emails were hacked. You became aware of an attempt to hack Hillary Clintons private email server; is that correct . I believe youre referring to the email in the report. I said i was using the word hack co this was a series of failed login attempts. One of the earliest occurrence of this, the way that we put an end was to such down the server for brief periods of time. I was here earlier. Do you agree that there is no evidence that this server could have been hacked . Best of my knowledge, defer to the airport report who did the forensic analysis on this . You have no take on it . I have no knowledge that there was a successful hack on it. Are you aware on how many times the russians and chinese try to attack us on a daily basis . Im not aware of this. This was on her server private server. If it wasnt to what you consider maybe hack status, you emailed her twice a day. How often did you normally email mrs. Clinton in a given day . I believe the email was to ms. Aberdeen. This was one of the first or second occurrences that Something Like this was happening. I was just making her aware, more that the email services might be off line for a few moments. Sure. In the weeks before how many times did you send an email that was in the same reference. I dont recall ever sending a great line with those emails. This was the first time that you had ever sent Something Like that. I cant say specifically it was the first time. Pretty rare . Youre now describing it that the hack was probably not the best description of it. Correct. You were concerned. I was making her aware that i was shutting down the server for a brief period of time. Were there any times of tacks that you were aware that you felt like the server in a vulnerable position when ms. Clinton was in possession of the server, any other times. As there was an increase in the failed login attempts we made secret Service Aware and they reviewed the logs and made some recommendations. Youve got a number, about, roughly . How many times it might have been happened on these on these failed email attempts or log in attempts. Less than a thousand, more than a thousand . Less than a thousand. In closing, here and ill yield back the rest of my time here, you might have mentioned this earlier in having doing some questioning right outside here, can you remind me, again, how you were compensated, can you go into that to tell me what direction, who compensated you for all of this. I was worked with the clintons for 15 years and compensated variety of ways over a period time or for president clinton helping him make his memoirs. I traveled the world with him at points i supported the foundation, i had varying sorts of income. A little grey area there, if i may be so bold. When you say you were compensated in a variety of ways, did that include being paid with cash . No. This was just like paid personal check from bill clinton, here you go . Yes i was a full employee. What was the title how were you getting paid with that . Did it say, bill and hillary . Yes, there were multiple payroll. There was a clinton household payroll. There was a clinton executives. But there were personal checks as well . They were through Employer Services company that managed the payroll, yes. Thank you, mr. Chairman, i yield back. Well now recognize the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. Russell, for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And thank you, mr. Cooper for you patience and also your answers that youve provided the panel to date. You alerted folks to possible breach attempts and were concerned, obviously, about the security as weve heard in your testimony today. In january 2013, according to fbi reports, tour user logged in to president clintons account and browsed email and folders of that persons account. Were you aware of that breach . Thats a little different than what what was just stated to mr. Walker. I was not aware of that breach until i read it in the same account. Did it cause you concern. Once i read it