[youtube_sc url= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC1Mc6-RDyQ&w=560&h=315]
Transcript of James Comey’s testimony in the form of answers to Trey Gowdy’s questions
Trey Gowdy GRILLS James Comey On Hillary Clinton Emails 7/7/16
Mr. Gowdy [G] Going to Director Comey. Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her private email. Was that true?|
FBI Director Comey [C] Our investigation found that there ‘was’ classified information sent.
[G] So it was ‘not’ true.
[C] That’s what I said.
[G] Okay. Well I’m looking for a little shorter answer so you and I are not here quite so long.
[G] Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her emails either sent or received was that true?
[C] That’s not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents.
[G] Secretary Clinton said “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is ‘no’ classified material.” Was that true?
[C] There was classified material emailed.
[G] Secretary Clinton said she used just one device. Was that true?
[C] She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State.
[G] Secretary Clinton said all work-related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?
[C] No. We found work-related emails, thousands that were not returned.
[G] Secretary Clinton said neither she nor anyone else deleted work-related emails from her personal account. Was that true?
[C] That’s a harder one to answer. We found traces of work-related emails in, on devices or in slack space. Whether they were deleted or whether when the server was changed out something happened to them. There’s no doubt that the work-related emails were removed electronically from the email system.
[G] Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails, and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually?
[C] No.
[G] In the interest of time, and because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon, I’m not going to go through any more of the false statements but I’m going to ask you to put on your old. False exculpatory statements they are used for what?
[C] Either for the substantive prosecution or for evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.
[G] Exactly! Intent and consciousness of guilt, right? Is that right?
[C] Right.
[G] Consciousness of guilt and intent. In your old job you would prove intent, as you just referenced by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record, and you would be arguing in addition to concealment, the destruction that you and I just talked about or surely the failure to preserve. You would argue all of that under the heading of intent. You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of this scheme when it started, when it ended, and the number of emails whether they were originally classified or up classified. You would argue all of that under the heading of intent. You would also probably under common scheme or plan, argue the burn bags of daily calendar entries or the missing daily calendar entries as a common scheme or plan to conceal.
Two days ago, Director you said ‘A reasonable person in her position should have known a private email was no place to send and receive classified information.” You’re right. An average person does know not to do that. This is no average person. This is a former First Lady, a former United States Senator, and a former Secretary of State that the President ‘now’ contends is the most competent, qualified person to be President since Jefferson! He didn’t say that no way, but he says it now. She affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account. She kept these private emails for almost two years and only turned them over to Congress because we found out she had a private email account.
So you have a rogue email system set up before she took the oath of office, thousands of what we now know to be classified emails, some of which classified at the time. One of her more frequent email comrades was in fact hacked, and you don’t know whether or not she was. And this scheme took place over a long period of time and resulted in the destruction of public records and yet you say there is insufficient evidence of intent. You say she was extremely careless but not intentionally so. You and I both know that intent is really difficult to prove. Very rarely do defendants announce ‘On this day I intend to break this Criminal Code Section, just to put everyone on notice I am going to break the law on this day.” It never happens that way! You have to do it with circumstantial evidence or if you’re Congress, and you realize how difficult it is to prove specific intent, you will formulate a statute that allows for gross negligence. My time is out but this is really important.
You mentioned there’s no precedent for criminal prosecution. My fear is there still isn’t, and my real fear is this. This is what the Chairman touched upon. This double track justice system that is rightly or wrongly perceived in this country that if you are a private in the army and you email yourself classified information you will be kicked out but if you are Hillary Clinton and you seek a promotion to Commander In Chief you will not be.
So what I hope you can do today is help the average person, the reasonable person you made reference to, the reasonable person understand, why she appears to be treated differently than the rest of us would be. With that I would yield back.