This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/08/us/politics/james-comey-fbi-testimony-hillary-clinton-emails.html

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
F.B.I. Director Testifies on Clinton Emails to Withering Criticism From G.O.P. F.B.I. Director Testifies on Clinton Emails to Withering Criticism From G.O.P.
(about 7 hours later)
WASHINGTON — Republican lawmakers on Thursday used blunt testimony from the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, to try to build a case that Hillary Clinton repeatedly lied to the public and Congress as she defended her use of a private email server during her time as secretary of state. WASHINGTON — The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey Jr., on Thursday defended the decision to end the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email system from an onslaught of criticism from House Republicans, but also provided new details that could prove damaging to her just weeks before she is to be named the Democrats’ presidential nominee.
Under withering criticism from Republicans, Mr. Comey stood his ground on his recommendation against criminal prosecution for Mrs. Clinton and her aides. But he said Mrs. Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee for president, had been “negligent” in her handling of classified material, and he said that her lawyers probably deleted classified material as they destroyed thousands of her emails. At a contentious hearing of the House oversight committee, Mr. Comey acknowledged under questioning that a number of key assertions that Mrs. Clinton made for months in defending her email system were contradicted by the F.B.I.’s investigation.
Mr. Comey — who maintained his composure except for one flash of anger when Republicans questioned his integrity — repeatedly acknowledged that the public statements by the former secretary of state, including some she delivered during a sworn appearance before Congress last year, were contradicted by the facts uncovered during the F.B.I. investigation. Mr. Comey said that Mrs. Clinton had failed to return “thousands” of work-related emails to the State Department, despite her public insistence to the contrary, and that her lawyers may have destroyed classified material that the F.B.I. was unable to recover. He also described her handling of classified material as secretary of state as “negligent” — a legal term he avoided using when he announced on Tuesday that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring a case against her.
“Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her emails, either sent or received,” Representative Trey Gowdy, Republican of South Carolina, said during several hours of testimony by Mr. Comey before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. “Was that true?” The F.B.I. director repeatedly suggested that someone in the federal government who had done what Mrs. Clinton and her aides did would probably be subject to administrative sanctions.
“That’s not true,” Mr. Comey said. Asked later about Mrs. Clinton’s assertion during congressional testimony that none of her emails had been marked “classified,” Mr. Comey said three emails bore small markings indicating that they contained classified information. Asked whether those sanctions could include firing or the loss of security clearance, Mr. Comey said that they could. While an F.B.I. employee who mishandled classified evidence in the way that Mrs. Clinton did would not be prosecuted either, he said sternly, “they would face consequences for this.”
Mr. Comey said F.B.I. investigators did not examine whether Mrs. Clinton had lied to Congress about her use of emails because the agency did not get a “referral” from the legislative branch to investigate her statements under oath. Representative Jason Chaffetz, the Republican chairman of the committee, promised that would soon change. Mr. Comey also criticized Mrs. Clinton’s lawyers for their handling of her emails. He said that they had not actually read all of her emails before destroying them, as she had suggested, and that they may have deleted classified material without her knowledge.
“You’ll have one,” Mr. Chaffetz said. “You’ll have one in the next few hours.” David Kendall, the lead lawyer on Mrs. Clinton’s team, declined to comment on this point.
The testimony from the F.B.I. director provided more ammunition for Mrs. Clinton’s political adversaries as Mr. Comey expanded on the remarks he made on Tuesday when he announced the agency’s recommendation. Mrs. Clinton’s defenders in Congress were forced to rebut the latest round of evidence rather than celebrate the dismissal of the criminal case, just a day after the Justice Department closed its criminal investigation into the email affair. But Mr. Comey, in response to Republican accusations that he had employed a “double standard” to spare Mrs. Clinton from criminal charges, insisted that she was not given special consideration by the F.B.I. nor held to a more lenient standard than a less prominent person would have been.
Aided by Democrats on the panel, who accused their Republican colleagues of conducting a partisan, political witch hunt, Mr. Comey insisted that Mrs. Clinton was not given special consideration by the F.B.I. nor held to a more lenient standard than a less prominent person would have been. He said his team of investigators had not found clear evidence that Mrs. Clinton intended to break the law governing the use of classified materials and explained that prosecutors have “grave concerns” about using the lower legal standard of “gross negligence” in their handling, and have applied it only once in the last century.
“It’s just not accurate,” said Mr. Comey, who has served both Republican and Democratic presidents. “We try very hard to apply the same standard whether you’re rich or poor, white or black, old or young, famous or not known at all.” Democrats on the House oversight committee attempted to respond to the new facts presented by Mr. Comey while accusing their Republican colleagues of conducting a partisan witch hunt in their attacks on him.
He angrily denied suggestions that he had consulted with members of the White House or the Justice Department or coordinated his conclusions about Mrs. Clinton with them. His face turned red as he insisted that he had not spoken with anyone before announcing his conclusions earlier this week. In a raised voice he said that he wanted to make something very clear to anyone watching the hearing in their local cafe: “I did not coordinate that with anyone,” he said. Republicans were not mollified, and they expressed particular frustration with Mr. Comey when he said that the F.B.I. did not examine Mrs. Clinton’s statements to Congress about her email server to determine whether she had perjured herself.
But Mr. Comey’s testimony is certain to add to the political troubles for Mrs. Clinton as she pursues the presidency against Donald J. Trump this fall. Mr. Comey said to do that would have required a formal request from Congress, known as a referral.
In particular, Mr. Comey repeatedly suggested that someone who had done what Mrs. Clinton and her aides did would likely be subject to administrative sanctions. Representative Ron DeSantis, Republican of Florida, asserted that those administrative consequences could include “revocation of security clearance.” “You’ll have one in the next few hours,” responded Representative Jason Chaffetz, the Utah Republican who is the committee chairman. His office said later that the committee would probably issue the referral on Friday, a move that would ensure their scrutiny of Mrs. Clinton’s emails extends past the end of the criminal case.
“Yes,” Mr. Comey agreed. The State Department is also reopening an internal review looking at possible disciplinary action against current employees who may have been involved in the handling of Mrs. Clinton’s emails.
“It could include an ineligibility for future employment in national security positions?” Mr. DeSantis said. Republicans also pressed Mr. Comey to say whether the Clinton Foundation, the global charity started by former President Bill Clinton, had become embroiled in the investigation, as some reports have suggested. Mr. Comey — who was surprisingly forthcoming on many other issues — twice declined to answer Mr. Chaffetz on that issue.
“It could,” the F.B.I. director said. Under questioning from Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Comey said that an employee of the F.B.I. who was found to be “extremely careless” with top secret information would be exposed to potential termination from the bureau. Before the hearing, a smiling Mr. Chaffetz greeted Mr. Comey and thanked him for appearing so quickly at what was billed as an “emergency” hearing into the Clinton investigation. But less than 10 seconds into the start of the hearing, Mr. Chaffetz lit into the F.B.I. director over a decision he said that “mystified” him.
“One of my employees would not be prosecuted for this,” Mr. Comey said under questioning later in the hearing. “They would face consequences for this.” If the “average Joe” handled classified information the way that Mrs. Clinton had, “they’d be in handcuffs,” Mr. Chaffetz said. He said there was legitimate concern that “if your name isn’t Clinton or you’re not part of the powerful elite that Lady Justice will act differently.”
Top aides to Mrs. Clinton posted on Twitter throughout the hearing, describing the Republican efforts to quiz Mr. Comey as a stunt and asserting that the director’s testimony was good for Mrs. Clinton. In more than four and a half hours of testimony, Mr. Comey was for the most part calm and dispassionate in defending the F.B.I.’s work, veering at times into the roles of sober federal prosecutor and erudite law school scholar — two jobs he held before taking over the bureau two years ago.
“In his testimony today, Comey has reconciled most every apparent contradiction between his remarks Tuesday and Clinton’s public statements,” wrote Brian Fallon, a Clinton spokesman. But he showed occasional piques of anger when some Republicans suggested that he was part of a political agenda designed to clear Mrs. Clinton of criminal wrongdoing.
Later, he added: “GOP talking points falling left and right today.” Representative John Mica, Republican of Florida, told Mr. Comey that it looked as if the end of the investigation into Mrs. Clinton was choreographed, beginning with Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch’s chance meeting last week with Mr. Clinton, and continuing with the F.B.I.’s interview with Mrs. Clinton on Saturday, Mr. Comey’s announcement on Tuesday, and Mrs. Clinton’s campaign appearance with President Obama hours later.
Jennifer Palmieri, Mrs. Clinton’s communications director, wrote on Twitter that Republicans “had partisan motivations for calling it, but hearing is very helpful to us. Clarified a lot of important points.” Mr. Mica said he did not know what to tell constituents talking about the case in Florida cafes.
Mr. Comey grew red in the face, raising his voice as he answered the congressman.
“I hope what you’ll tell the folks in the cafe is: Look me in the eye and listen to what I’m about to say. I did not coordinate that with anyone,” Mr. Comey said. “The White House, the Department of Justice, nobody outside the F.B.I. family had any idea what I was about to say. I say that under oath, I stand by that. There was no coordination.”
Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign, said in a statement that Mr. Comey’s testimony “clearly knocked down a number of false Republican talking points.”
He added that “while Republicans may try to keep this issue alive, this hearing proved those efforts will only backfire.”