News

Do As I Say, Not As I Do: FBI Director James Comey Testifies On Hillary Clinton’s Emails

Published on: July 7, 2016 at 6:48 PM
By Becky Padilla

The investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email debacle has been going on for over a year. Yesterday, FBI Director James Comey shared the ruling they did not find enough criminal evidence to bring charges against Hillary, and today testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee about the investigation and how the FBI got to their decision.

His Own Words

Nobody tells it better than FBI Director James Comey. Following is part of the transcript of his attempt to be “ transparent ” to the American people and share the decision that was made, along with emphasis added and questions in brackets that much of the general public and the Committee already asked.

“Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information. For example, seven email chains concerned matters that were classified at the Top Secret Special Access Program at the time they were sent and received. Those chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending emails about those matters and receiving emails about those same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about those matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.

“In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community, at the time it was discussed on email. That is excluding any later up-classified emails. None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these emails were housed on unclassified personal servers, not even supported by full-time security staff like those found at agencies and departments of the United States government, or even with a commercial email service like gmail. [Even “ gmail has full-time security staff …in a way that was not present here,” Comey later stated.]

“I think it’s also important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the emails here containing classified information wore markings that indicated the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked classified in an email, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it. And while not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department, in general and with respect to the use of unclassified systems, in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information that’s found elsewhere in the U.S. Government.

“With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal email domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was hacked successfully. But given the nature of the system, and of the actors potentially involved, we assess we will be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. [Due to her mishandling of classified information, Speaker Paul Ryan requested Hillary Clinton not have access to any during the remainder of the campaign.]

“We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal email domain was both known by a large number of people, and readily apparent. She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal email account.

“So that’s what we found. Finally, with respect to our recommendation to the Department of Justice…Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case…”

Comey explained that they take into consideration the “strength of the evidence, the context of actions, intent” [such as covering up what she knew to be wrong by lying both in public and under oath] and how similar situations have been handled in the past. Director Comey stated the Petraeus case was worse than Clinton’s emails. [Is legality established by comparing cases to former cases, or by comparing cases to actual rules and laws on the books?]

“In looking back at our investigations into the mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of clearly intentional and willful mishandling of confidential information, or vast quantities of information exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct, or indications of disloyalty to the United States, or efforts to obstruct justice [which again brings into question Hillary Clinton’s lying under oath]. We do not see those things here.

“To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. [Rep. Will Hurd addressed this double-standard during Comey’s testifying.] To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions but that’s not what we’re deciding now [Who does and when?]. As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case. [This sets a legal, federal government precedent that can and will be used at some future time by somebody who gets into trouble for doing the same thing.]

In response to Rep. Will Hurd’s questioning today at the Committee hearing about obvious double standards and setting a precedent for no consequences for the mishandling of classified, “Top Secret – Sensitive Compartmented Information” which requires at least an extensive background check, interviews, and a polygraph to obtain, Comey responded:

“I only am responsible for the FBI but I want people to understand that there will be discipline from termination to reprimand and everything in between for people who mishandle classified information.” People who aren’t Hillary Clinton. And because of this precedent he just set, legally and federally, on record, “people” can come forward in the future and use this legal argument that Hillary did it and there was no legal, federal government consequence or sanction for the mishandling of classified information for her, so there shouldn’t be for anybody else.

After FBI Director James Comey’s testimony about Hillary Clinton’s emails, and the “fact path” laid out by him, even if they did not find enough evidence to meet criminal legal requirements, it seems reasonable that at the very least severe sanctions be imposed, or access to classified information be denied to Hillary for the remainder of the campaign, as Paul Ryan requested, but was denied. One thing that’s for certain is that both public and government backlash will continue.

[Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images]

TAGGED:
Share This Article