tv Federal Officials Testify on the FB Is Investigation of Hillary Clinton CSPAN September 12, 2016 9:06pm-10:44pm EDT
vote. until that happens, congressional black caucus has an urgent issue that we need to deal with. for the communities that we represent, in african-american or latino neighborhoods, but for all americans. the other thing i'll point out and ask my colleagues to perhaps react to, is that what i found fascinating here in terms of common ground, the opportunity to uplift everyone through the mission and the work of the congressional black caucus, is the fact that when you look at persistently poor counties in america, counties that will be defined as 20% or more of the population living below the poverty line for 30 or more years, persistently poor counties, a majority of those counties are represented
by republicans in the house of representatives and not by democrats. so when jim clyburn, for instance, presents things like 10-20-30, a funding formula where 10% of any funding allocation will be given to communities where 20% or more of the county has been living below the poverty line for 30 or more years, it would actually benefit republican represented counties more that it would be democrat -- democratly represented counties. because the congressional black caucus really is interested in uplifting the polite of all americans -- plight of all americans who have been left behind. we're hoping that we can find some bipartisan cooperation in that area as well. let me yield to representative joyce beatty. mrs. beatty: thank you so much.
doctor thank you so much, congressman jeffries, for mentioning the 10-20-30 plan. you're absolutely right. it would benefit republican districts and their constituents more than many of our constituents. but i think that's because when we think of poverty, we think of children and families lives in poverty. not democrats, not republicans. our mission here, mr. speaker, is to make this place a better place through our legislation for everyone. so i think that's just one example. you mentioned a lot about our history and how far we've come and the roles of other presidents. i think it's important, mr. speaker, for us to also share that we come here tonight almost with a proposition to say to you, we want to work with you on those issues that
we've highlighted. because so often when we come here, we'll hear colleagues say, we can't work together, we don't work together, or why don't you just come and work with us? so i don't want us to leave tonight without leaving the message that we have a lot of work that still needs to be done. i can remember reading back in 1971, congressman jeffries, when richard nixon was giving his first inaugural address and he refused to meet with the members of the congressional black caucus. they stood up for something. they left the floor and did not stay for his address to the nation. mixed ay that with feelings, because i say that to make the point of how strongly
we believe in what we do. you mentioned the 10-20-30 plan. we had speaker ryan come to the congressional black caucus and hear the plan and to get a commitment from him because he represents all of us. and he gave us the nod, as you will remember, on that plan. for i say tonight, let us reflect on all the things that my colleague and the co-anchor of this special order hour, because that's what it is, it is our hour to address you, mr. speaker, and the nation about so many of the issues that we want to make sure that when we leave here we're not leaving with just promises. we're leaving with progress. thank you, congressman jeffries. mr. jeffries: thank you for those very thoughtful observations and perhaps i'll end by talking for a moment or
so about the progress that we've made under a former member of the congressional black caucus who was a senator rom illinois here in the capitol for a few years before he was elected to be the 44th president of the united states of america. we're proud that he came hrough the c.b.c. on his way to 1600 pennsylvania avenue. on his election, there was the view that perhaps we were entering into a phase of a postracial society. i think we understand that that was probably irrationally optimistic, those who made that observation. because of the long history that we've detailed here of what the african-american journey has been in america. but i find it interesting that so many people to this day
refuse to give this president credit for the progress that as been made under his watch over the last eight years. more than 75 or so consecutive months of private sector job creation under this president. more than 14 million private sector jobs have been created under this president, paraphernalia thetically, i'll -- i'll make the observation that under eight years of george bush, the country lost 50,000 jobs. but we want to talk about a sluggish recovery. we lost 650,000 jobs under supply side economic policies of george w. bush. we've gained more than 14 million jobs under progressive policies of barack obama. he deficit has been reduced.
by over 5ds00 million. the stock market, -- $500 million. the stock market, when the president came in, was at 6,000. now the over 18,000. of course more than 20 million previously uninsured americans now have health coverage under he presidency of barack obama. he came in under a lot of promise and i'm proud there's been a lot of progress that has been made. the united states of america as a whole, certainly for african-american communities. but as the president himself observed, the problems that we have to confront in america won't be resolved by one
president during one term or even during an entire tenure. long, we're on this necessary and majestic march toward a more perfect union. the hope is that each time a president steps up and congress is there to represent the will of the people working on behalf of our constituents, that we can make meaningful progress on dealing with the economic and social justice issues of the day. fundamentally, that's what the congressional black caucus is all about. that was the vision that was founders. y those 13 speaking truth to power. representing the interests of the african-american
communities that they were elected to serve and everyone lse, regardless of race, who's entitled to the fiercest possible representation in this democracy. in the first institution, here in the house, we take that particularly seriously in terms of what our obligations and responsibilities are. so it's with great pride that representative beatty and i stand here as representatives of the coppingsal black caucus, standing on the shoulder of the 13 founding members under the leadership of representative butterfield, representing the journey both here in congress and in this great country, confident that despite the
obstacles that will be erected, that as we have demonstrated over time, we will make congress, we will translate promise into action and we will continue the journey of perfecting a more perfect union in the united states of america. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015, the chair recognizes, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, for 30 minutes.
california state university los ngeles recently debuted seeing regrated, a move to protect them from microdecisions. cal state l.a. wrote a letter to the university president outlining a series of demands including the quote, creation and financial support of a csla housing space delegated for black students and full-time resident director who can indicateer to the needs of black students. many students cannot afford to live or the surrounding area without the high prices of rent. the space would provide a cheaper alternative housing solution for black students. this space would serve as a safe
space for black cs lmp a students to connect and learn from each other, unquote, the letter stated. sperson saidhe spoke the demand for housing had been met saying that the schools knew that the living community quote focuses on academic excellence and learning experience that are inclusive and nondiscriminatory. hat seems to be a bit -- lopez said the black housing stupid is within the complexes on campus. the college noted that other universities including the university of california davis, university of california berkley
and university of connecticut offers similar housing arrangements. seems like we are going backwards with that kind of thing. my colleagues mentioned the great dream -- part of the great dream of martin luther king junior, an ordained christian minister as i heard a black minister explain recently. he was first and fover most above all, a christian minister. his belief in the bible and his leff in jesus christ was his driving force which brought him to the place that jesus brought his disciples to and apostle paul was brought to abankruptly
and that jesus did not discriminate against anyone and we who believe as christians should follow those teesks and treat people equally regardless of skin color and that would help fulfill that part of dr. king's dream that people would be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. wever, california has did he gressed to the point that nor longer they are making progress toward racial harmony, they are going the other direction and saying what we need is to segregate like that great democrat, george wallace believed. so it's unbelievable.
we've got supposed liberals in california, not pursuing the dream of dr. king where people be judged by the content of their character, rather than the color of their skin, but we have these california universities that are now fulfilling the dream of the democratic party candidate, george wallace, who felt like segregation in all things was the far better way to go. so congratulations to the university of california system for helping fulfill the dream of george wallace. what a wonderful combination we have. not a progressive as they may claim the name, but of regressives, who are going back and claiming the dream not of party g, but of democrat
activate george wallace. congratulations. you make a great pair. california university system and george wallace's dream. wow. wow. we also, as i mentioned tonight, of efforts toward what some call sentencing reform. i was honored back in 2007 to get a call from a man that i think the world of, former attorney general ed meese and apparently he heard of my concerns of some of the federal criminal laws that needed to be changed, that wre had too many people in america who were being harassed and their lives or
their families destroyed by federal criminal law that llowed people to be prosecuted for violating not a law that congress had passed, but some regulation that some cubicle holder had decided would be a good thing to do. unelected bureaucrats in washington decided, we'll make this a regulation and since congress passed a law saying you have to follow all the laws and rules regarding this issue, we fall under the rules and regulations. therefore, they can go to prison r failing to do what we as unelected bureaucrats in washington decided that someone
somewhere we never been, must do. so i was greatly in favor and encouraged to hear the interest from the heritage foundation and former attorney general ed meese to pursue criminal justice reform. we had difficulty moving that forward and i greatly appreciate the leadership of judiciary committee chairman, bob goodlatte. we have been able to get through some criminal justice reforms that i have been hoping to see passed since 2007. at times, we made strange bedfellows, politically speaking, i guess, when we had ed meese and others from the heritage foundation and members
from the aclu who had similar concerns like we did and we were trying to correct great injustices within the criminal justice laws. fortunately, the president probably inspired by meantors like george sorrows, they see see efore -- soros, they that before criminal justice reforms, you have to pass sentencing reforms. the obama administration wants that to be a major part of the obama legacy. and when you see how many people re being completely failed and harmed by obamacare, i can certainly understand yes
president obama would rather have his legacy be that in the criminal justice area rather than obamacare. without -- and i got to say this is certainly it's damaged in a bipartisan fashion, people across america, although there are people who have been helped by having government pay a good -- of their health care look at the bottom line, especially from the people i have heard from all over east exas, we have vast numbers complaining they've lost their insurance they liked. they lost the doctor that was keeping them healthy or had gotten them cured and now they
were back in trouble. they lost the doctor to the insurance company. they lost the hospital they wanted to go to, all because of that around 2,500-page monstrosity that is normally referred to as obamacare. easily to call it obamacare than the affordable care act because it's not affordable. it's cost some people everything. so we've heard from people that are clammering for a change. isn't there some way to get back the insurance we had before 2010e when the president and every democrat without a single republican vote rammed through against the majority will of the american public this monstrosity
where the government took over their health care insurance, dictated requirements that would put many out of business, dictated requirements of doctors that has caused many to retire, as they've advised me. and i continue to hear. and we continue to lose hospitals, especially in rural areas. t when you hear uncaring big-city folks that we don't really care. just tell them to move to the city. really? move to chicago where their chances of being murdered goes up and where their standard of living can't be where it is now. do you despise these people and
you would want to sentence them to such brutality. how about if we just let america be free again and we follow what so many having talked about. and it certainly appeared -- that's why i had the bill drafted back in 2009 and c.b.o. director elmendorf, no matter what he asked, i complied and they refused to score my bill. newt gingrich said back in 2009, you could get it in bill form and get it scored. won't have a chance of passing obamacare. it appeared the best numbers we could get back from 2008, may well be cheaper to offer seniors, all right, you want medicare, you can have it. on the other hand, if you would like the very best health
insurance policy that money can buy, we'll buy it for you, but we'll go ahead and set a high deductible. e were talking about $5,000 or $7,500 or $10,000. we will have a high deductible but we will have the best deductible that money can buy. and to cover the deductible, we will give you a health savings account and put the cash in there. and i made this proposal to a couple of folks that i invited to come out and listen to the oposal from aarp, since they cared about retired folks, they will love this. they will never have to buy another wrap-around or supplemental policy again. this is going to be unbelievable. and so for medicare and medicaid, this will be fantastic
and we will give each one of them a health savings account debit card and newt gingrich sent out some folks to meet with me that knew about the different issues and encouraged some different things to be in the bill. any way, this was going to be great for seniors. and i was shocked when aarp folks said we will have to get back to you. and i said how can you not be sure? you care about retired people? my mother in law and father-in-law they were struggling to pay for a supplemental policy and this will be a fantastic help. i was so naive. . . i didn't know, a, a -- aarp was making hundreds of millions of dollars off the sale of supplemental health shurengs, so naturally they couldn't sign on to that bill. it was going to be so good for
seniors, aarp would never be making those hundreds of millions and billions of dollars that they'd be able to make under obamacare. of course they signed on to obamacare. it was in their monetary best interest. just like it's been in the clinton's best interest to have secretary clinton have a husband out there raking in the money while providing access to those who may have wanted a favor in the administration. ccess was the favor. so, we have had people across , as money, hocked as we were told, it's not the root of all evil, but the love f money is a root of all evil. not necessarily the, but a root
of evil. and when we see what has happened to people's health re all over money and power, to we see what has happened the agreed of entities that were just supposed to help the seniors, just help -- supposed , help those less fortunate well, they're making a fortune. when we look at what has , pened to health care hospitals out of business, doctors retired, people that can't get the help they used to to , it's heartbreaking those who are actually paying attention.
, we have an me investigation by the f.b.i. of all this money, tens millions, hundreds of millions of dollars flowing into the when foundation, and people heard f.b.i. director james comey stand up and basically spell out a lay-down case against hillary clinton for violating the law, that ultimately came to the conclusion that there's nothing ehind this curtain, so no good prosecutor would consider prosecuting this case, he failed to talk to good
prosecutors who were prosecuting cases in which they had much less to go on than what had already been admitted. heard as shocked when we that hillary clinton was going to be interviewed for three hours and some people expected the f.b.i. to give a statement, opinion about the case the next week. i said, that won't happen. because traditionally the f.b.i., they would get that statement, they would review sentence by sentence to see if there was anything that was false that was provided to them , and if she had a three-hour interview, it will take time to go sentence by sentence through what she said, there's no way they're coming back that next week. little did i know that, you know, you're left with the
impression, what happened out here on the tarmac when this clandestined meeting between the attorney general, loretta lynch, and former president bill clinton met, it was before the statement was made, and as i pointed out, basically even to the attorney general, it when it look like president clinton and attorney general lynch got together it was, look, just tell your wife all we got to do is check the box, we had a lengthy period of questioning and we won't even put her under oath, we won't even record it, so there's no way we can really effectively prosecute her, because we won't have an accurate statement of what she said, just tell her to come in, we'll check the box, we can come out a few days later and announce there's
nothing here, look the other way. i mean, it sounded like, wink and nod, and oh, by the way, hillary says she'd like to keep you on as attorney general, great, let's get her in, get the statement so we can drop the case. that's basically what sounds ke happened because of the way it unfolded. that's not the way the f.b.i. normally works. and there are so many incredible criminal investigators in our f.b.i., despite all the good ones that director muller ran off, because he wanted new investigators, not any of the people that had been around and had wisdom and experience. but the new ones, they're there for proper reasons, they want
to see justice done. and so people were shocked when the announcement came, you know, hey, there's -- laid out the elements of the case, obviously sounded like they were proven. and then says, so, no good prosecutor in effect would pursue this. o evidence of intent, when omebody has a software program that is actually purchased with the sole purpose of destroying any way to get back to the emails that we now -- know it appears were destroyed after they were requested, after they were subpoenaed, after they were being sought. so obviously that's a laydown case for intent right there. and then we find out that
phones were bashed perhaps with a hammer. i don't know. maybe if you're in some area of the country trying to prosecute where people are just going to quit no matter what happens, ok, maybe, yeah, prosecutor there might not pursue. in most of this god blessed country if you show somebody that there was actual destruction with a hammer of cell phones to prevent anybody from ever finding out what was on there, you show them that software was actually purchased that would completely bleach, destroy any ability to go back most those emails, normal people would have no
problem whatsoever finding an intent to deceive there. and have no problem finding lies that were made. but we heard over and over, gee, f.b.i. director comey ould never do anything but absolutely perfectly above board. but then this article in september that came out, i was shocked. it said, a review of f.b.i. director james comey's professional history and relationship shows that the obama cabinet leader now under fire for his handling of the investigation of hillary clinton is deeply entrenched in the big money cronyism culture of washington, d.c. his personal and professional relationships, all undisclosed as he announced the bureau would not prosecute clinton,
reinforced bipartisan concerns that he may have politicized the criminal probe. these concerns focus on millions of dollars that comey accepted from a clinton foundation defense contractor, comey's former membership on a clinton foundation corporate partners board, had no idea. and his surprising financial relationship with his brother, peter comey, who works at the law firm that does the clinton foundation taxes. who knew? wow. direct ties here with f.b.i. -- comey, mes yome family, and the clinton foundation. just amazing. i don't hold anybody's former employer against them, fine. you're employed hopefully by somebody. so i wouldn't hold that against them. certainly hank, well, i don't
even want to say his name. you but he used to be the secretary of the treasury -- his name. but he used to be the secretaryy of the treasury. yeah, he deserves to be in the congressional record yet again. hank paulson, former chairman of goldman sachs, he certainly did every favor he possibly could to goldman sachs and hey're still going on. here's some holdings, hsbc holdings in the article mentioned, 2013 comey became a board member, a director and a financial system vulnerabilities committee member of the london bank hsbc holdings, quote, mr. comey's appointment will be for an initial three-year term, subject to re-election by shareholders, will expire at the conclusion of the 2016 annual meeting, general meeting, according to hsbc
company records. hsbc holdings and its various philanthropic branches routinely partner with the clinton foundation. for example, hsbc holdings has partnered with deutch bank through the clinton foundation to, quote, retrofit 1,500 to 2,500 housing units, primarily in the low to moderate income sector in new york city. anyway, goes on to talk about peter comey. when our source called the chinatown offices of d.c. law firm dla -- d.l.a. piper and asked for peter comey, a receptionist immediately hut him through to comey's direct line but peter comey is not featured on the d.l.a. piper website. peter comey serves as senior director of real estate operations for the americas, for d.l.a. piper. james comey was not questioned about his relationship with peter comey in his confirmation hearing. d.l.a. piper is the firm that performed the independent audit of the clinton foundation in
ovember during the big first -- or first big push to put the email scandal behind them. d.l.a. piper's employees taken as a whole represent a major hillary clinton 2016 campaign donation block and clinton foundation donation base. piper ranks number five of clinton's all-contributor list just ahead of goldman sachs. peter comby has a mortgage on his house. peter comey's financial records obtained by bry bart news showed he bought a house in vienna, virginia in june, 2008. and needed a mortgage from the first mortgage corporation. but on january 31, 2011, james
comey and his wife stepped in to become private party lenders and granted a mortgage for $711,000. any way, it is rather interesting who had any idea that the comey family had such ideas to the clinton foundation. peter comey redesigned the f.b.i. building. well, that's interesting. james comey grew up in new jersey with his brother peter. any way, interesting. but how about that. peter comey redesigned the f.b.i. building. according to the article, the list includes f.b.i. headquarters washington, d.c.,. so what did the consulting group headquarters. i. they provided strategic management for over 11,000
personnel into one high security facility and goes on. as the article ends, it says this is not going to end well. well fortunately for hillary clinton, the investigation with the clinton foundation ties to the f.b.i. director has ended well for her. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. does the gentleman have a motion? mr. gohmert: i move that we adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it and the motion is adopted. the house is adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow for morning hour debate.
>> later in the week, legislation making it easier. also, congress may take up a resolution seeking the impeachment of irs commissioner john klotz can and. >> joining us from capitol hill is representative john fleming of louisiana, a member of the house freedom caucus. you were going to offer this resolution to impeach the irs commissioner. earlier this year it reads, impeaching john andrew hoskin and for high crimes and misdemeanors. what are those?
>> i won't bore you with all the dates and times, but it is saying right after john cost can then was confirmed by the senate to be the head of the irs, he received a subpoena to protect inns taken into custody all information, all evidence of -- involved with lois lerner. , well, within three weeks, he either destroyed or allowed to be destroyed 24,000 e-mails a end 422 tapes. even after promising congress he would protect them. later, after they were destroyed he lied to congress agents said they were protect it and preserved.
that,e came back in said something happened and they were gone. when in fact they were not on. but he did not know about it. the inspector general found it later. he did not tell us about that, we found out on our own. ton cost can and lied congress, was not responsive to subpoenas, and it was clear that either he destroyed evidence or allowed it to happen on his so as a result of that, we have found he is not that ford duty. should be released from office. >> this is the second time around for you. >> what have you found out? >> we adjourned before the two
legislative days happen. we will be here for at least two legislative days. leadership will be forced to bring this up for some sort of vote. onceottom line is that this resolution is moved forward there will have to be a vote on it. >> have you heard anything signal from leadership? from mccarthy on how they might move forward? speaker made a comment saying he would leave it to the well of congress and i think that is exactly what we should do. to exactly how this is going be a direct vote on impeachment or a vote on whether to table committee,o move the any vote to other the and moving forward with impeachment would be viewed by the public and rightly so as "no" on impeachment.
this resolution in a similar form has been in print for well over nine months. the chairman of the committee in inof course but when july. we have failed to move forward on the impeachment hearing so it is clear that nothing is going to happen unless someone like me -- unless i move forward with a andlution to require both every member insert to his or her constituents as to why we should allow high-level officials the privilege of getting by with doing things potentiallyawful, terminal, and not being held accountable for their behavior. , why asked all the time are there two standards. everydayd for
americans into the average taxpayer and one for a high officialsishers -- like john cosco men. he does not have to respond to subpoenas in the same sort of things we as taxpayers do. and others like air holder. >> what about the standard of moving through the judiciary committee. we understand mr. cusk and in's attorneys have filed a memo mr. kos can then's attorneys have filed a memo. committee about the while ago. why not let the process play out ? >> the leadership has failed to begin that process. they had double time, months. there is no new expiration here. they did everything they needed. it is clear they are simply not going to do it and the american people believe congress should act.
many notable people, george will just came out with an op-ed. another constitutional attorney says we should move forward. and many others are saying that congress has become irrelevant if we do not do our jobs, in this case to hold high-level officials in the executive branch accountable for their behavior. >> i understand there is a meeting this week. yourve a sales job to colleagues about your argument? >> the evidence as self-evident. i'm not going to try to persuade anyone to vote john cost can and out of office. --s is a conscience vote koskinen.
we should have the opportunity to vote. i would say to every member of congress, you're going to have to go back and face your decision. if you vote to protect a high-level government official who has lied to congress and ignored subpoenas and two as allowed abstraction of justice, then you are going to have to answer to your constituents. i know what i am going to say to my constituents. i was there for them. tracks the political headline that said the irs chief tried to stave off impeachment with members on the republican side, did you yourself try to meet with the commissioner before any house for votes? >> he has not asked to meet with me. i do not see what the relevance of the meeting is. he has had plenty of opportunities to come up on the hill and be sworn in and give testimony under oath about these
questions and he has not been willing to do that. >> does it matter to you that this could be the first ever subcabinet level official impeached? >> it does not bother me a end here is why. i cannot recall a time in the past where we had such blatant act remedy that ignored the will of the american people. which had the power to check on other ranches of government. we would not have to do this if the executive branch were to problems,of its own in this case lois lerner was targeting people for their ideological and political believes. skinen waser ko
brought in to clean that up. alloweded the -- he justice to be obstructed or he objected at himself. she pled the fifth and now he apparently once to get eye without having toc answer for his act remedies as well. we have got hillary clinton and the e-mail scandal we have got eric holder fast and furious. the american people are over the top with all of the high-level officials getting away without even a slap on the wrist. when we don't hear from the f ei, we don't hear from the attorney general's office, they act onply not willing to those who break laws into defied the american people. >> thank you for joining us, congressman john fleming.
announcer: the washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that affect you. willg up, a congressman join us to discuss his latest priorities. state as a key battleground state in campaign 2016. also, democratic congressman brendan boyle will discuss his role with the oversight committee and the scheduled hearings looking at hillary clinton juice of heaven e-mail server. boston globebe reporter james kendall, he will review the new hampshire primary. reelection.le for be sure to watch beginning live in some :00 eastern on tuesday morning. discussion. >> coming up on c-span, we will show you the first of a couple house oversight to many hearings this week looking into the fbi investigation to the e-mail setup at the state department
when hillary clinton was secretary of the state. over the weekend it was revealed hillary clinton is suffering from pneumonia and further reports from people magazine reported the entire clinton campaign is apparently battling pneumonia. spoke anonymously with people and explained at the end of august, at least six senior staffers allegedly fell ill including campaign manager robert books. i'm another was taken to an urgent care center for a respiratory infection in still another advisor was rushed to the er after collapsing from severe dehydration. because of hillary clinton's medical issues over the weekend, bill clinton stepped into a couple fundraisers on the west coast. angeles, one in las vegas. after the house oversight committee this evening will look at her road to the white house coverage and donald trump on the
road to the white house trail international, north carolina. and james lucius said to be the senior trump advisor to the campaign announced today by the trump campaign. on the agenda, a briefing of the state department with secretary of state john kerry. he talked about the cease-fire deal in syria and the stipulations that syria did not stick to the seas fire. here is some of what he had to say. tracks i emphasize that every action is based on reciprocal actions. not simply the promises made. it is the actions that define whether this will come together. if there is no compliance with the cessation of hostilities and no fulfillment of the principle of humanitarian access, then this rangment, including the joint implementation center, will not go forward.
i want to be clear, as well, that for all the doubts that exist, and we know there are many, there will be challenges in days to come. we expect that. i expect that. i think everybody does. but despite that, this plan has a chance to work. e know that russia has stood up. the person of the foreign minister has said that our side has agreed to this plan. they have obviously joined us in accepting responsibility for trying to put this into place. d we know that in syria, the desire for an end to the suffering and killing is widespread. there are a lot of people who ill welcome and heed the gift, the moment of moving back from the daily destruction and
inhumanity that has characterized syria for the last five years. we know that the international community, including arab countries, turkey, iran, russia, europe, and the united states together have all come together on a set of principles aimed at reducing the violence and making possible a syrian-led political transition. we know that the cessation of hostilities that went into unite fect last february did provide a glimpse of what a better future could look like. people returned to the streets for a while, went to cafes. they were able to demonstrate on occasion. they were able to go to work and attend school without fear. until people resorted back to the habits we're trying to end. over the weekend i read a story that referred to the u.s.-russia plan as, "flawed and full of caveats" and i have to say to all of you, sure.
this is less than perfect. this is perhaps one of the most complicated places in the world. let me ask you. flawed compared to what? compared to nothing? compared to daily violence that absolutely guarantees a future of even more violence and possible sectarian explosion in the region? what we have been seeing in syria day after day, week after week, month after month is a lot worse than flawed. and it has been and remains a profound human tragedy and a stain on the international communities' ability to bring people to the table to try to negotiate outcomes for something that everybody knows there is no military solution. there's just escalation. if kinetic is the route people
choose to go. i've been in public life more than four decades now and i've never seen a more complicated or entangled military and political sectarian somewhat religiously overtoned issue than what exists in syria today. there are a bunch of wars going on, a bunch of different tensions between people. and you can cite them whether t's kurd or turkey and kurd or suny shia or assad versus or others versus assad or countries that don't get along with each other in the region. this is a very toxic mix of interests. and of agenda. >> secretary kerry saying of the deal, sure, this is less than perfect and some agreement here in the headline at "the washington post".com an associated press report syrian rebels have misgivings about truce plan saying more than a dozen syrian rebel groups have harshly criticized the u.s. and russian agreement aimed at
reducing the violence but did not reject the cease fire that went into effect at sun down. just a reminder that briefing with secretary kerry and all of our c-span coverage available online any time at c-span.org. >> now, the house oversight committee hearing on the f.b.i.'s investigation into hillary clinton's use of a private e-mail soiver while secretary of state. congressional liaisons from the f.b.i., the office of the director of national intelligence, and other agencies who reviewed the e-mails testified before the committee. the seer -- this is a series the committee is holding on the investigation.
>> come to order. this is an important hearing today. appreciate you all being here. i got to tell you i wish i didn't have to compel you all to be here. we asked you as legislative liaisons to come participate with us and which you refused. the committee on oversight will come to order, authorize today declare a recess at any time. we have a coup goals for the hearing. in our investigation and our need to do our constitutional duty. one the f.b.i. needs to produce its full investigative file to the united states congress. i mean the full file not just the part the f.b.i. deemed relevant. right now we only have the 302's hand picked by the f.b.i. we decide what's relevant not the department of justice, not the f.b.i. we are entitled to the full file. two, all unclassified portions of the file should be released to the public as quickly as possible.
it has been more than 20 days since i'm sure the very first request was put out there and by law that should be out there. i want to commend the f.b.i. for already releasing its investigative summary report and secretary clinton's 302 interview summary to the public. we do appreciate that and it is duly noted. there are still a number of 302's left for the f.b.i. to release. we were surprised to learn the 302's shall the so-called investigative files provided to the united states congress, to the security officer, were only a portion of them not all of them. and, three, all members of congress should be a ibble to review the entire file right now unless you're part of the intel committee ks oversight committee, the judiciary committee, and the appropriations committee, if you're a member, you have to be on those committees in order to view what is currently in the -- it is unclear how a member of f.b.i. can prevent a member of congress from seeing what we are already allowed to see by
law yet it appears they have done so. even the unclassified information. that's what is mystifying to me. even the unclassified information preventing members of congress from seeing. but we do believe we should be able to see the file and the whole file. it is disappointing we are here today. we have a number of questions about the redaxs, classifications. i thought a number of those things would best be answered in a briefing. you know? elijah cummings, the ranking member here, has made a point on several occasions that rather than just going right into a hearing let's go to a briefing. we had legitimate questions. we did have this plan for last week. we did have more than 12 members of the congress show up to have that briefing, and none of you showed up. that's inexcuseable. you're the congressional affairs officers. it's your job to talk to congress. and for some of you i had to threaten to send a subpoena
just to get you to appear today. we did some math. we got 70 of you sitting here. between your compensation and your benefits package you make more than a million dollars. the taxpayers are paying you seven more than a million dollars. and you won't even come talk to congress. what do you do all day if you don't talk to congress? that's your job. we're going to do that today. and the irony here is we're trying to protect the classified information. i didn't create this mess. hillary clinton created this mess. there are years of federal records. some of it so classified none of us in this room should probably see them. most of it's unclassified. we have a duty and an obligation to protect that information. i believe that's probably the same goal that you have. but we're going to have to have a reality check here. she is the one that took the records from the state
department, gave access to people who don't have security clearances, the case is closed. there is no consequences. nobody being held accountable. but we also have had an f.b.i. director come and testify he never looked at her testimony under oath. and somehow we have a classified system and we have a nonclassified system and somehow information was going from the classified system into a nonclassified system. so it's ironic that you don't want to appear before this committee out of a concern for protecting classified information when hillary clinton walked around with a blackberry full of classified information and gave access to sensitive federal records to folks without security clearances at all. i want to understand from each of you what it is that you think congress should not see. i bleeve passionately in the role of congress. i believe passionately in the
oversight of the committee. we are founded in 1814. every expenditure and everything we do is supposed to be overseen by us. we can investigate anything and at any time. that's what is different about the united states of america. we're different because we are self-critical. we do go look under the hood. we do hold people accountable. that's why when abraham lincoln joined the united states congress he was on this committee. and he peppered the president because he didn't believe that the mexican american war started as the president said it was. and there's been a rich history of that throughout generations. we can't do that when each of the agencies that you all represent decide that, well, we're just going to show you the relevant information. we're not even going to answer your questions. you can't see those documents. that's the way a banana republic acts not the way the united states of america acts. we expect better. and we expect you to be
responsive. and i don't expect to have to issue a subpoena to see unclassified information. we can't be certain what is under each of the redactions within the document. as far as we can tell they're covering information commonly given to congress such as names of key fact witnesses, titles and positions of government employees at the state department, and g-mail accounts. there's nothing classified about that information. i understand there's an argument to withhold information under the privacy act or the freedom of information act. neither of those apply to congress or any other committee. as i understand it the f.b.i. is not withholding any information based on the privacy act. instead, they just don't want to give us the information. so there's really no legal basis for these reed actions. the f.b.i. also chose to redact
any information in the report classified above secret. this also makes no sense. as a member of congress we routinely receive documents and briefings from the intelligence community at the highest levels of classification with the exception of sources, methods, with the exception of the s.a.p. material. any redactions have to be based on classification and have to be removed. we have to be able to see that information. we also have questions on what the f.b.i. file contains. oddly enough the copies of the file provided to us by the f.b.i. are different. we are very grateful that they provided the first set on a tuesday. i believe it was august 16. the next day we got a second set. the problem is the second set had 27 e-mails more than the other one. which we are grateful for. it was an improving file. only to have the f.b.i. try to come back and recover those. not because it was s.a.p. material. because it's embarrassing. that's why. it was embarrassing.
but we should have had it in the first round. we should have had it at the very beginning. i also want to put this request in context because it's far from the first time congress or even this committee has requested an investigative file from the f.b.i. or the department of justice. congressional committees are routinely provided investigative materials by the department of justice and the f.b.i.. i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the 2007 c.r.s. report. this was done when things were going on with the dismissal of the u.s. attorney. i'm going to read, a little bit long, but this is as good a summary as why congress should be able to see this as anything. i've got to read a few sentences here. from the c.r.s. a review of the historical experience and legal rulings pertinent to congressional access to information regarding the law enforcement activities of the department of justice indicates in the last 85 years congress has consistently sought and obtained deliberative prosecutorial
memoranda and the testimony of line attorneys, f.b.i. field agents, and other subordinate agency employees regarding the conduct of open-and-closed cases in the course of innumerable investigations of the department of justice activities. these investigations have encompassed virtually every component of the department of justice and its official's employees from the attorneys general down to the subordinate level personnel. it appears that the fact that an agency such as the justice department has determined for its own internal purposes that a particular item should not be disclosed or that the information sought should come from one of the committees or sub committees does not prevent either the house of congress or its committees or sub committees from obtaining or publishing information it considers essential for the proper performance of its constitutional function. there appears to be no court precedent that impresses the threshold burden on committees to demonstrate for example, "a substantial reason to believe wrongdoing occurred."
before jurisdictional committee may seek disclosure with respect to the conduct of the specific open and closed criminal and civil cases. indeed, the case law is quite the contrary. an inquiring committee need only show the information sought is within the broad spectrum of the matter of its authorized jurisdiction, is in aid of a legitimate legislative function and is pertinent to the area of concern. and it goes on for page after page after page. of precedent here. basically, there is no legal reason why you should withhold any of this information from the united states congress. this goes back from the tea party dome bribery scandal to what was done by chairman waxman when he requested the f.b.i. 302's for president bush, vice president cheney, karl rove and several other senior advisers. i have two other things i'd like to enter into the record
and ask unanimous consent to enter the c.r.s. report as well as the december 3, 2007 letter from chairman waxman to attorney general mccasy in the record. without objection. so ordered. i'd also ask unanimous consent to order the september 10, 2007 letter from chairman conyers to attorney general gonzalez into the record. without objection. so ordered. finally i want to commend the f.b.i. for making its summary report and 302 secretary clinton published. i do appreciate that. it is a good start. it's a good start. but it's time we be candid and honest with the american people. we allow congress to do its job. i didn't pick this timeline. hillary clinton picked this timeline. i don't care about the election. what time it is. we're going to keep going at this full speed ahead. it is far, far too important. with that i will now recognize the ranking member mr. cummings for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. to be witnesses i hope you listen to the chairman.
cases he k that the has cited, previous cases involving, for example, the u.s. attorneys are distinguishable from what's happening here today i'd just like to know. he makes a very good point. other than the fact that i guess in some of those cases at least the justice department was accused of doing something wrong. but i'd like to know exactly where you all stand on that. i think he makes a very good point. well, here we are again. another day in the oversight committee. another emergency hearing about hillary clinton. today is the second hearing about secretary clinton. we have held in three business days. tomorrow we will have a third. for the record, mr. chairman, i thank you and i want the american public to know you have agreed to schedule a
hearing which affects so many of our constituents because that, too, is an emergency situation for the constituents of every member who sits here in this chamber right now. as far as i can tell, the only emergency is that the election is less than two months away. the real reason for today's hearing is the f.b.i. director refused to be summoned before this committee yet again. he refused. the director has already bent over backward, departed from long standing law enforcement precedent, and provided our committee with an unmatched level of transparency about his internal decision making regarding this investigation. first, he announced the results of his investigation publicly.
normally, the f.b.i. does not discuss itsen ternl decision making but director comey did so in this case. second, he agreed to testify in an emergency hearing before our committee 48 hours after his announcement. he's the f.b.i. director. he sat right there in that witness chair and he testified about the evidence they obtained, the law they applied, and the decision making process they employed. described how, "an all star team" of career f.b.i. investigators came to the unanimous conclusion and how it wasn't even close. but republicans did not like
the answers director comey gave so they demanded copies of the f.b.i.'s internal investigative files. again, in a break from past precedent the f.b.i. director agreed to share documents from the investigation in an effort to put this question to rest. but again, that was not enough for the republicans so they demanded the public release of these documents. yet again, director comey broke from precedent. he released the f.b.i.'s internal investigative memo and the notes from the interview with secretary clinton. let me say the obvious here. no matter what director comey does, it will never be enough for the republicans. they are demanding that he bring criminal charges against secretary clinton despite the
fact that the evidence simply is not there. that is something nobody with integrity would ever do. we sat here and we listened to director comey say there were two things that matter most to him in his life. he said, his family and his reputation. last week the republicans wanted director comey to come up here one more time. this time he said, enough is enough. he spoke with chairman chaffetz personally, and he told him, nough is enough. in response to this the chairman called today's emergency hearing and passed out letters as late as thursday night threatening even more subpoenas. the problem is that he invited the wrong people. the witnesses here today are the legislative affairs staffers from the f.b.i. and
other agencies. they did not make the decisions the chairman is upset about. those decisions were made by none other than director comey. the chairman has a problem with director comey, he should take it up with him not beat up on legislative affairs staffers because the f.b.i. director wants no part of any partisan charade. the f.b.i.'s legislative affairs staffers have been in his job for just a few weeks and is currently serving in an acting capacity. he's been very responsive with our committee and makes no sense to hammer him just because he's following directives of his boss director comey. the whole hearing is a bait and switch. i have the invitation letters
right here. the chairman says this hearing will be held in a classified session. i ask unanimous consent to put them in the record, your letters about this hearing. >> without objection so ordered. >> thank you. so that is what these witnesses prepared for. i don't know whether they spent their weekends preparing for a classified hearing or not. but i assume they did. they did not prepare to answer questions in an open session. so what are we doing here? in the last minute the chairman decided to hold this hearing in open session to try to generate more headlines rather than obtain the classified information he claims to seek. it is fundamentally unfair and irresponsible to force these witnesses to answer questions about this issue in open session.
as we've all heard the classification level of these documents has changed repeatedly. and dozens of highly trained diplomats did not think many of them were classified. these witnesses should not be forced to make on-the-spot determinations about what they can and cannot say in an open session. after all, we've had debates for the last several months about what is classified and what isn't classified. so not only is this unfair, but it risks the inadvertent disclosure of classified information. we should hold this hearing in a closed session like the chairman said he would in his letter rather than gather the information and then review the written transcript to determine what can be released publicly and what cannot. that is how a responsible approach would look.
that is not what is happening here. i guess this is what happens when you try to schedule a public attack against hillary clinton for every day of the week. you get frantic. you swap substantive discussions, set up hearings and democrats on this committee have serious questions. by the way, republicans have serious questions. not just the democrats. about our broken classification system. even the chairman agreed with me last week that the system is broken and we need to work together to do something about it. we all have, i think, concerns about why so many of these documents were retroactively classified long after they were sent. the only way to have that productive, substantive discussions to go into closed session as the chairman's letter stated. the only reason for the hearing
today is open because the republicans know a closed hearing won't be on camera. so with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. and thank you. >> i thank the gentleman. with some indulgence the ranking member knows it is a requirement in house rules to go into a nonclassified setting to an open session prior to going to a classified setting. we have set up in the house visitors' center the classified room that will be closed to the public and the press. we are prepared to go into that setting but we're required by house rules to first come into this open session first. it does require a vote of the committee. >> mr. chairman, yield? >> sure? >> mr. chairman, i guess it would have been helpful if you had laid that out from the beginning because as i said to you and on the floor of the house one of my concerns was that i don't want, if we're going to -- we need to know what the ground rules are because when i look at it if we're going to be discussing documents that were classified,
trying to, i don't know how far we can even get in an open session without, you know, we're crossing that line. i'm not trying to -- >> sure. >> i just want to make sure we don't create another situation where people are accusing us of violating the law. >> as the gentleman knows, there is a lot of classified information in hillary clinton's e-mails that should never, ever see the light of day. that's why there is so much concern. that's why we're prepared to go into classified setting. that's why we believe we have the right witnesses here and, also, to clarify the record, i never had a conversation with director comey where i asked him to come again and he refused. that just never happened. i asked him some specific questions in a personal phone call that i had with him. if we have all the 302's. i was surprised to learn we had them. i asked him a couple other questions. he didn't know the answer. and that we should work with his staff. the staff that the f.b.i. has
provided to us to work with is the legislative liaison. that's how we work with each of the agencies is primarily with the legislative liaison. that's why we're here. and when we asked them to come a briefing, in the skiff in closed doors, it is an embarrassment to this congress that they wouldn't show up and answer those questions. >> so how will we proceed today? >> so we will allow them to give opening statements. we will ask questions on this dais in the unclassified. if we want to get into the heart of what is under a certain thing and we want to get into classified we'll have to do that in the classified portion but we're going to do the unclassified first. then we'll excuse and go to the house visitors center and ask things in a secure facility. >> thank you. >> all right. it is highly recommended. it is part of our committee rules that you are to submit testimony 24 hours prior.
you are the legislative lee aceons. you know this. you're supposed to know this. none of you have provided testimony. but i'm happy to recognize each of you and along the way. let me do this. dd we'll hole the record open for five days for any witness who would like to submit a written statement. if any of you have opening statements we're happy to hear those. we'll ask the unclassified questions and then we will go into the session. introduce mr. jason hering, act the assistant internal affairs,
mr. higgins at the central and test -- central mr. samuel, agency, junior. and mr. soule. we thank you for being here pursuant to committee roles all witnesses will be sworn in. these rising and raise your right hand. >> do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? thank you. let the record reflect the witnesses all answered in the affirmative. we would appreciate it if you would limit your questions or
comments to five minutes. i'm not sure who has an opening statement or who does not. do you have any opening comments? >> no, i do not have an opening statement but i would not for the record that i was not compelled to be here, i came voluntarily. >> let you record reflect in terms of the subpoena, in require to get to the point where i signed subpoenas and presented those subpoenas that all of the witnesses here today ultimately came here voluntarily. i appreciate you highlighting that. >> i'm not sure those subpoenas produced. >> and mr. kaz nick was not presented with one. you askt to clarify, for clarifications on what you are looking for because it
seemed uncertain 20 you asked to be herem happy and try to answer your questions as best i can. mr. hering: i do have a few .pening remarks to make chairman, mr. cummings, members of the committee for the opportunity to present how we produced documents in this highly intensive case. i am the acting assistant director for the fbi office of special affairs. july, director comb he appeared before this committee to answer questions him as five hours. he explained the investigation and conclusion regarding the e-mail matter. at every opportunity since then, director coming has promised the fbi would eat as forthcoming as
we could responsibly be. 16, theend, on august fbi presented a number of investigative documents. including the investigative summary of the factual investigation and recovery. interviewnt fbi reports and the e-mails determined to contain classified information. androduced these documents satisfied the conduct in the investigation. this was unprecedented and made with extraordinary's read. we did a because we felt it was important to help understand how we reached our conclusion in the light of intense public investigation. i am not here to answer questions except for the process questions. conversations with
committee staff last week i believe i have an understanding of some of the questions and would like to address those head-on and up front as best i can. need to be do that i in a closed, classified setting. i reserve the rest of my remarks for when we go to a closed, classified setting. >> thank you. statement. brief mr. chairman, ricky member cummings, my name is deirdre walsh. james hopper.tor i'm here in response to the request and answer questions by the fbi to congress relating to former secretary clinton's e-mail. with regard to these documents, my staff used the icg separate from my office.
accordingly, i cannot speak on committee.he with regard to the documents and subject of this hearing, og and i was not involved. i can answer questions you may have. i am joined by mike colleagues from the central intelligence agency and the national security agency in response to the committee request. even the classification of the underlining material, we look forward to discussing sensitive matters in the closed portion of the hearing. >> thank you, it is my walsh'snding that ms. statement reflect the icy eyes. -- mr. hering, which information to believe the congress does not have the right to see?
>> what does congress not have the right to see? there is more to it in a simple answer i think each case is specific to its own set of facts i think director call me tried to be -- director komi comey. minute, what is it you believe we do not have a right to see? see, this is the way our government works.
we get to do oversight. that is why since 1814 this committee has been doing this. there is executive privilege. has this president evoke executive privilege in this case. the answer is no. -- here any other situation it mr. herring: when it comes to executive order, not all the information we have in our files belongs to us. it is other agencies classified information. >> but you are the one that what reductions unclassifiable information, correct? where the confirmation -- constitution does it say cannot see that? mr. herring: it does not say that in the constitution. >> can you cite any president since as congress cannot look at identifiable information? mr. herring: no legal case.
congress ishere the exempt from the privacy act? strand: i am. >> does the fbi treat the -- will the fbi provide congress all of the information? the 302's,: all of you of one set provided already, the rest are coming through. >> wait. i have to fill out a request? mr. herring: it is not necessary. >> ok, here is the problem. you handpicked the 302's to give to us. appreciate your accessibility with the staff. you have been good, and you are new. for your first time hearing, this is a tough one but the reality is you should give us all of the 302 pause. mr. herring: i think the director made decisions about
what to say to congress and went to provide to congress. >> where do i find that? everybody int government decide based on their own individual principle? but verify is how it works. decide what i to get to see. i get to see at all. i was did by the people to get to come to gone worse and see information. congress and see information. i was elected chairman of this committee. that is the way this constitution works. will the fbi provide the full file with no reductions? mr. herring: then i'm going to issue a subpoena right now. i sign this subpoena, we want all of the 302's and we would like a full file.
you can accept this on behalf of the fbi. you are hereby served. we have a duty and you can cite no precedents nothing in the constitution no legal precedents. important to is us. you now have your subpoena. we would all like to see this information. i have gone past my time, i now recognize the drinking member. >> you have been in town for and you used to work for a republican, is that right? save most of my questions for the classified section but i do want to address the reduction issue briefly. when you got produced these, the cover letter quoted, the fbi has read back that personally
identifiable information as appropriate and of quote. publicly announcement was that the fbi lifted these reductions. you stated and i quote, we're going to call on the f ei next week to see. to give a version where there is the unclassified material and classified material redacted so that the -- out there in the public. ". the problem is there is no legitimate basis for the demand. it has already been provided and unprecedented level of interference in the fbi investigation. i want to stop there for a moment. you said yourself, i think at been twice that there has unprecedented discovery here. what did you mean by that? correct me if i'm wrong.
mr. herring: we don't typically make our case files available. there is a lot of sensitive information in there. unclassified is sensitive to a certain deal. decision only for those individuals who are not already in the public domain. u.s., why did you do that? from my perspective, any investigation including an investigation like this one or any other, is critical for us as fbi agents to obtain cooperation from members of the public. as we go out, we need the public be subject toto the process. their initial reaction is, i don't want to get involved. as an agent when you talk to somebody you try to protect them as best you can. sometimes just call them as a witness t