tv Mike Pemce Delivers Remarks at Reagan Library CSPAN September 14, 2016 12:13am-1:17am EDT
you do not know -- do you know whether there were attempts to delete any information that had been stored that was going to be transferred? >> i have no knowledge of that. chairman.ou, mr. , the averaget american with a matter involving ms. clinton's e-mails to rest for the average person. , i want to ask you, mr. most venal of the the conspiracy theories to come forward out of that report
follows in terms of testimony you gave and the report quotes you and i take it you were under a? -- under aoth? oath? >> i was not under oath. >> when they obtained a new mobile device, helping them back up the data from the old device before transforming it -- transferring it to the new device. correct.s >> that quote is correct. the summary describes two instances and here is where the conspiracy theories have been acted out in this house and the presidential campaign. two instances where you destroyed old mobile devices
with a hammer and mr. trump claimed who would do that if it did not have anything to hide and representative desantis picked up that rhetoric and said it shows an attempt to hide something. i want to directly ask you about the destruction of those blackberries. to hide purpose ever secretary clinton's e-mails from being saved or disclosed from federal records? >> no, not in any way to destroy or hide any man -- any information at all. the opposite would be the case. i was going out of my way to preserve all the information on those devices, transfer them to the new devices?
themfore you destroyed from one blackberry to another, did you transition the very same e-mails? backupmbination of the procedure and activating the new device. it would have ended up on the new device. >> you copied the content -- save did and loaded it on a new device? >> that is correct. course of the fbi's investigation, did you realize you still have -- still had retained extra copy of the content of those old blackberry devices on your own machine? did you provide that information
to the fbi? >> in preparing to meet with the fbi and examining my files related to the server, i did describe some files that may have contained content related to this. i turned that content over to my attorneys who worked with the unit -- the fbi and the department of justice. was to make that the case that you did not intend to hide anything. the fbi has the information that was on every single blackberry. >> they have the information for the ones i had backup files on. >> from one blackberry to another blackberry with nothing lost in between. >> correct. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman.
mr. cooper, do you consider yourself to be an expert in the i.t. field? >> no, i do not. >> do you think the state department should have had someone more qualified than you to oversee and protect secretary clinton's servers from hackers? >> i was not working for the state department. i believe the server to be used office.dent clinton's secretary clinton had a personal account on that server. on january 9, 2011, at 2:57 a.m., you sent an e-mail to secretary clinton's top aide explaining you had to shut down
her server due to someone trying to hack it. how many times did you personally have to shut down the server to prevent it from being hacked? containsrver that president clinton's office and secretary clinton's office. this was a series of failed logon attempts which was brought to my attention on alert in my system. one of the ways to stop that was to shut down the server for a period of time said the attacks would cease. we would develop more sophisticated ways to filter those sorts of failed login attempts. >> do you know whether powering down the server is the typical way in the i.t. community to protect against hacks? >> i cannot speak to that.
>> do you know what a brute force attack is? high-frequency variety ofns using a usernames and passwords. >> how many brute force attacks did you observe on the clintons server? >> i cannot say with any specificity. we developed systems to tamper these down. some frequency. >> high-yield my remaining time -- i yield my remaining time back to the chairman. access toy people had
the server? access to the server? >> administrators? >> i want the whole universe. had someople who administrative rights. i cannot tell you exactly how many users there were over the lifetime of the server. less than 20 people. >> was there a remote access login available? >> it was for myself and mr. pedley on oh. -- pagliano. encrypted? did it have dual authentication? >> i do not recall dual authentication. people can do it, intermingled with the clinton foundation, clinton executive
services, did they also have access to that? >> i cannot say it is intermingled with the clinton foundation. >> people being paid either clinton foundation. >> individuals who had multiple job responsibilities for multiple entities within the clinton world. department ever contact you or complain or issue any sort of concern? >> no, no concern. >> i have one more question. i understand in order to make secretary clinton's private and secure e-mail server connect with the state department much more secure server, the state department had to lower its own security settings temporarily to match her more insecure security
server. do you know about that? the fact that she had this insecure server. >> i have read accounts of that in the media but i have no direct knowledge of that. >> i recognize the german for massachusetts. -- the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. cooper, the fbi conducted a year-long investigation that concluded that -- and i will use the director's own statement. we did not find clear evidence that secretary clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information. i do not see evidence that is sufficient to establish that secretary clinton talked about classified information on e-mail
. i know you are not a computer expert and that is probably more appropriate line of questioning for mr. pagliano. the fbi did have a number of technical computer experts on a team and they took a year and i conclusion.te their this is director cohen me again -- comey again. with respect to potential computer intrusion, we did not find direct evidence that secretary clinton's personal e-mail domain was the s successfully hacked. friend the analysis did not find evidence -- forensic analysis did not find evidence they were
intruded by ciber means. --er means the fbi also interviewed brian pagliano. asked about the maintenance and security of the server system, you stated there were no security breaches but he was aware there were many failed login attempts which he referred to as brute force attacks. statement that i just , is thatt quote consistent with your recollection? >> that is consistent with my recollection.
>> did you take any steps to protect the server when there were these failed brute force login attempts? >> overtime, we developed a few different solutions that allowed us to manage them in a different -- in different ways. >> the fbi summary explains some additional steps that were described. including establishing secure socket players layer certification. is that consistent with your recollection? >> that is consistent with my recollection. >> thank you. that is all i have, mr. chairman. >> we recognize the gentleman from ohio.
>> we can put up the slide. when mr. thorton was here, this is an e-mail from one of those , look at the date, august 2015. us to cut the backup and have them confirm it for our records, starting to think this whole thing is covering up a lot of bad stuff. something in writing because they knew they were going to get thrown under the bus. we know they changed the backup structure because look at the fbi report. page 18, cheryl mills instructed someone to modify the e-mail retention policy on clinton
e-mail account. she wanted to get rid of anything after 60 days. we know they were instructed. let's walk through some history. from the fbi report, july 2014, at the request of cheryl mills, it remotely transfers all hillary clinton e-mail to sure am mills -- cheryl mills. these laptops have bleach applied to them and stuff is deleted. what happened just before july of 2014? page 15 of the report, cheryl mills is given a heads up by the state department that there will be a letter coming requesting all hillary rodham clintons e-mails. request, cheryl mills she changed the e-mail policy on her account. what prompted this change?
december 2, chairman of the .enghazi committee we just found about this other account. we would like the information from that account. right after that, they changed the policy. delete anything after 60 days. we move forward to the amazing month. march 2015. new york time reports, she has just this one e-mail account. .arch 3, a preservation letter march 4, there is a subpoena. march 9, the network is put on notice about the preservation order. march 10, the press conference.
march 25 and march 31, those today are conference calls with clinton, bill clinton's lawyers and hillary clinton's lawyers and, of course, on the 31st of that month is when they take bleach fit to the holder in everything. they get rid of everything. now we have to guys, three guys one on the front and mr. pagliano who helped mr. cooper set it up and now we have to guys on the tail end, right? and mr. thorton, the do not work for the government, and they take the fifth. get some unity. these guys are starting to wonder we do not have anything in writing, we have been giving all the best given all these
instructions, all these instructions to change the backup, delete things, erase things, bleach things, take -- hammers two things, we might be in trouble. guess what, they are. that is the story and that is for thes appropriate chairman to invite him in here they would answer somebody's question. he is exactly right. they will talk to the people who but theyim in jail will not cut -- talk to congress. they will not chat to us. we cannot put them in jail. we just want to get answers were the american people and they will not talk to us. like this,anything mr. chairman where you get as we talked about yesterday, no regular american can get away with the kind of behavior secretary clinton gets away with.
two standards and this is what is so wrong and this is why the hearings you're having and the investigation we are doing is entirely appropriate. i yield back. chair: i recognize the gentleman from texas. >> thank you for being here and having the kurds to testify before us and getting to the truth. i want to take a they step bath. -- back. the server the clintons had, this was not a personal computer that everybody has that they pick up their e-mail. i have people say -- they think there computer was a server. are you familiar with the many people who have this type of equipment in their home, it is typically something that is it in an office. do you know anyone who has a server at their home besides maybe me? mr. cooper i am aware of some.
>> it is pretty rare. are you aware of what e-mail software was running on the server? >> i do not recall what the software was running. >> you told it was set up to do and it forwarded it to mrs. clinton's blackberry. did you keep it on the server? servers we were speaking about. there was an apple server in use for approximately june 2008 2009.march that server which is set up for president clinton's office staff had some software, i do not recall the name of the software package was. one was a mail client and one was a tool that was supposed to interface with blackberry but it was not blackberry's own product. >> was it secure or did it use
the verizon blackberry gateway? >> i cannot speak to the security of what that was but in the cases secretary clinton because she was not going to be accessing that e-mail and the focus was transitioning her e-mail address over, they were simply receiving messages in, not retaining them on that server and having them forward to her. server, did it do the same thing? >> on the later server it functioned like what you are used to where there was a mailbox on that server that could be accessed. >> was it opened up the way you could get your e-mail through that server, the pop3 or web client? >> i do not specifically recall. --ding on the user we would customize which ports were often based on how that user was accessing. >> did you require that users picking up their mail remotely
would use a secure client or would they come over clear text over the standard smpt port? >> i do not recall the protocols. >> you do not know if there was a requirement to login with ssl. did you turn over the logs that you received to the fbi? of the brute force attacks? >> i did not. over to thern those fbi. there was an instance where we shared odds with the secret service when we were first experiencing that login attempt. >> you got a notice when there was a failed login attempt but if somebody doing this brute force attack where they used the username and throw random passwords at it, if they had gotten it right you would not have been notified, would you? you would have thought it was mrs. clinton or some legitimate user getting in. >> i do not want to suppose but
-- >> you only get notices a failed logins. you were not notified every time someone login although there might have been a lot count. someone could have gotten in and you would not have known it. was there a firewall between the internet and this piece of hardware between the server and the internet? >> i believe there was a firewall. >> was the one with the apple server? >> i do not recall. >> and then we talked a little bit about mrs. clinton going through a variety of blackberries, were they all the same version of blackberries or did she migrate up between when the new blackberry came out, did she want the latest and greatest but very? >> it is difficult for me at least, there is a time warp and these sequences, blackberry was leasing models with different interfaces, trackballs and
tracking wheels and pads. >> it went through that nightmare myself. >> over time she would move to a newer device when her older device might have been a little bit older, a little bit failing. >> do you know if this security patch is worth on all the servers? >> i feel fairly confident that the patches were updated by mr. hagley on oh -- pagliano. overgave it up and moved to online hosting because it is next to impossible to keep up with the pace of the security fixes that are coming out. i see i am out of time. i yield back. we recognize the chairwoman from wyoming. >> i cannot do a geek count, i am a rancher. i'm not his family with these technologies but i do know this, just as an average american when it comes to technology.
we do know that the chinese government hires people to hack by day. those same hackers hack for higher at night -- hire at nig ht. therapist before spending every single day -- there are people who are spending every single day in russia, china, trying to hack in to the computers of the u.s. government officials. security is a constant problem in this country, especially for highly did officials or appointed officials. encryptionow this, can be used to help prevent 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, hadthe secretary of state no protection of our secrets when we all know that efforts are being made to hack people just like her and government -- in government? cooper: i unfortunately cannot provide you with the details of the specific security options on the same on -- server. they evolved over time. essentially as technology evolved over time and there were different things that were available and considered different junctures. -- at different junctures. i would certainly agree that this is something we should all be concerned with. i saw this again as this is -- there is a need to, yes, protect the privacy of individuals and their personal lives using their e-mail. membersso know that as
of congress we just know that if we travel to a foreign country, and we have a device with us, especially in russia they tell our devices in aluminum foil so there is no transmission. televised examples of the secretary of state clinton using her electronic devices to communicate while she is running all over the world. and now that we know that these servers and devices were scattered around in her home, of that there was some sort management of documents in colorado, how can people like me assure the american people that
the information that was on those e-mails and some of which has been destroyed and is not is not beingus sifted through even as we speak by chinese hackers and russian security does our country have by virtue of what looks to me like some pretty lackadaisical attitudes toward secret data,a, top secret data, confidential data? an expert in computer security. i understand some of the concerns you have expressed by have no expertise in that area. second, i have no content and cy what the content was on this equipment. third, i also have no specific knowledge in which countries
secretary clinton chose her did not choose to use her devices. >> mr. chairman, i yield back. i yield to the chairman. chair: you get huge brownie points for showing up and having the guts to actually answer questions. we are very grateful. i am grateful for your candid nation -- nature in expressing the idea that you do not have -- topertise to even answer those questions as thoroughly as possible. again, iem i have believe you are doing the best you can at least based on the testimony i have heard thus far, here's the problem. was noou, mr. cooper, experience, no dual authentication, no encryption of against the chinese and the issians, who do you think going to win that one? that is what scares the living daylights out of us because the cavalier nature in which this was set up in some of the nations most sensitive insecure
information, that is the concern . i'm going to recognize the german from vermont. -- gentleman from vermont for five minutes. >> thank you. i have a few questions and a bit of a statement. mr. chairman, you are a good chairman, doing a great job but i disagree with you about the excessive in my view focus on hillary clinton. i want to give a little perspective here. fbi, we had mr. komi -- comey who has an unimpeachable record of vigilance as a prosecutor, who calls them as he sees them, he went to every single thing, every single e-mail and he came to the conclusion that there was no criminal conduct, there is no evidence of that in fact of the secretary's e-mail had been said it is the -- he
not even a close call. the e-mail should have been set up, that was a mistake, the secretary has acknowledged, there is a racist to inquire as to what happened but we have done it. and the fbi has done it. a feeling that a little bit of this has to do something with other than e-mail. it may have to do with something that is looming in november. have as of the issues i i listen to the questions of my colleagues is they are asking the witnesses to disprove a negative. my friend from wyoming was asking about the russian and the chinese trying to get into that e-mail. they probably are. they're trying to get into every department we have probably come a tried to get into the white house, the department of defense and the joint chiefs of staff. so that apprehension is well-founded but there is no way
or prove can disprove that they have or have not gotten into the e-mail of the secretary of defense or the secretary of state, or the white of the house accounts. the repetition of the questions that raises the apprehension that the chinese are the russians are making this determined effort to hack into accounts and focusing it on hillary clinton act as though that intentionality, of the russians and the chinese does not apply across the board to anybody and everybody that is in government or may have access to some information that they would want. so talking about mr. cooper having the guts to come in here, thank you, mr. cooper. but you cannot prove or disprove any more than anyone else can weather the russians have successfully penetrated anyone's e-mail accounts, let alone secretary clinton's. the whole issue here is a
repetition of an initial assertion that somehow, someway, not only did the secretary clinton make a mistake by having a private server, but that the insinuation is that she actually jeopardized secrets. and there is a memory gap here because this committee is the herthat had mr. comey in for i don't know how many hours and answered every single question every member had, the exhaustive investigation that mr. comey and the fbi did demonstrated that there was no evidence of either criminal violation and he found no evidence that the e-mails had been penetrated. so that is the basis upon which a lot of us believe that this committee, this great committee
that we are all proud to serve that is playing a role beyond oversight investigation. it is kind of advocacy in creating a sense of alarm among the american people as to we whether valuable information has been taken. do you have any information that information has been taken by the russians or the chinese or any other actor? >> i have no indication. i would refer to the fbi report and their findings. >> and all of your discussions does anybody else indicate they had a shred of evidence that any national security information of the united states was penetrated as a result of the clinton e-mails? >> i do not think i have had conversations to that effect. peoplet a big deal for to change their devices, ipads, blackberries that -- is that
somehow a big deal? >> i think it is rather commonplace these days. >> all right. i thank you and i yield back. can appreciate the kind comments. but remember we got multiple people pleading the fifth, afraid of criminal wrongdoing, we also have the fbi director, one of the questions was, did you what -- look at what secretary clinton said under oath, their other equities we the destruction of documents and he said he did not look at any of that and so that was part of his testimony, he did not even look at that part of it. that is the imperative for us to do our jobs but i appreciate the gentleman you think. recognizing the derailment from north carolina. mr. meadows: thank you for your answers, mr. cooper. as we look into this further. you set up a server for the sole
reason as it relates to ms. clinton so that she could use a domain name and have those private e-mails at heard him a name served on the server, is that correct western mark -- correct? servers for the primary purpose of servicing president clinton's office. >> in servicing ms. clinton you heard him a name to service e-mails on those servers. >> yes. >> why did you not use another any of the other servers that are out there, why would you not use those? i have a device that has a domain name that i own that i get e-mails at. it is much cheaper for me just to have a server that does that. why would you not have done that? we had this solution in place, it was certainly an option and considering other options, i think there were some
appeals to this in that data was contained in one place, 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. >> in 2009 a word because i was using them. and so they were available then. what you are saying is the --son to not have another you're getting advice from your will we hold the clock, i guess you are wanting to talk. the other aspect of this, mr. cooper, is you made a conscious decision to put her e-mail address on this server to keep it from being viewed by other people that might have a server or anybody else?
>> it was not the decision-maker. >> who was, was a hillary clinton? >> [indiscernible] she said she would prefer to have her e-mail on a private server versus a server that was actually managed by someone else. that is your testimony. >> that was communicated to me. illuminating. if that is the case, what would be the potential reason for having it where you could see it and someone else could not see it? thatis is again a server was already in existence for the use of president clinton's office. i think it provided a convenient and what was intended to be a reliable cert -- solution for her personal e-mail. >>, and e-mail addresses did she have? >> she used one e-mail address at a time. >> how many did she have? i notice they have numbers
behind it. count her at&t e-mail address as one and then to others on the clinton domain than i am aware of. >> ok. and so as you were managing this, i guess the other concerned that i would have is, did you have a blackberry exchange server on your server? >> yes, there was. >> you had the push technology actually on your server. >> correct. >> so when the discussion river and the attorneys and all of that happened in march, were you part of that discussion to clean and erase some of those e-mails from the servers? >> i was not all -- at all part of this discussion. >> was it commonplace when you have a discussion about erasing e-mails and archived e-mails to
have an attorney on a discussion with the client, is that common? i was in business a long time and it never happened with me. >> that is something that i do not have an ability to comment on. i have no opinion on that. >> have you ever been part of the conversation to erase e-mails where there has been an advise you on to the advisability of that, have you personally, yes or no? >> i have no experience. >> let me finish. you said that you are 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 from anyone other than your own personal accounts? >> note. next he you anticipate any reimbursement? >> no. >> i yield back.
will go to the gentleman from georgia. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i will say what i think is the today, in this committee just how shameful it is that so many of our witnesses are no longer here. frankly, the appearance is the could care less about our national security and less concerned about defending our country than they are either being absent or pleading the fifth, and as was brought up earlier, they are willing to meet with and talk with others, those who 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 it begs the question, what in the world are they hiding? so i want to thank you for your
courage and willingness to be here with us today and provide some answers, it means a great deal to us. clinton ask any time -- at any time have more than one device? i do not recall specifically her having more than one e-mail device. i have come to learn that at some point she had some ipad devices that she may have used simultaneously with the blackberries. >> there is a possibility she had more than one device at a time. >> it is possible. yourselfve referred many times as not being an i.t. expert. and any time to do consult cyber security experts when you are setting up the initial server? >> the initial server we consulted with apple and the business services program to set that server and later we consulted with mr. pagliano. for any department or agency
in the department, did you consult with at all? >> no [inaudible] >> when you referred earlier to some of the hacks that were taking place, the [inaudible] and so forth with some degree of regularity, 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 some of the repeated login attempts i reported them to the secret service. >> ok. the -- do you know if anything was done when it was reported, did they come to investigate or search anything out? >> the secret service reviewed some of the log from the server and made some recommendations to mr. pagliano about the possible somens of those logins and
techniques he might use to mitigate that problem. ordid any of the agencies any cyber-security experts express any concern over this being a private server or use of private e-mails? >> not logically to me. >> even when -- not directly to me. >> even when they did research that question was never brought up to you. >> correct. >> how does bleach [indiscernible] work, are you familiar with that? >> i am not familiar with that. mr. chairman that everyone in this room, we know how absolutely dangerous it is am a of dangerous information getting in the hands of our adversaries. and you have related that that possibility exists genetically.
director comey was right when he said, i thought he was bein ve polite when he this extremelyareless, what has taken place, and uortutely, mr. cooper, you are 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 them being leaked out to professionals and countries, the words of director comey have to be directed to you as well. this has been externally careless what has taken place. and you are handling -- your handling of the i.t. even in there, midst of admittedly not being an expert in this field to me shows absolute disregard for our national security. mr. chairman, i am grateful for your continued commitment to pursue and to try to get to this and those who refuse to answer our questions 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 and i yield back. chair: that recognizing the gentleman from texas. >> thank you. mr. cooper, thank you for being here. you said many times you are not an expert on computer security so i will not try to get too detailed. my first question is, have you ever worked in the federal government before? >> i worked in the white house in 2000-2001. >> were you involved in handling classified information? >> no. >> did mr. pagliano work for you?
>> i'm sorry, can you clarify -- >> so, you were responsible for setting up these servers, is that correct? >> i oversaw the setup of these servers. >> so, who was your boss when you were setting up the servers? >> president clinton was my boss. >> and when you set up the servers, did -- you've reached out to the services of mr. pagliano at some point, is that correct? and so, was he your consultant? >> yes, he was a consultant. >> was he working at state department at the time? >> at the initial setup, he was not working at the state department. >> while he was working at the state department, was he involved in providing consultative services to your organization? >> yes. >> is that normal? >> i have no basis to judge that. >> so, as the person responsible for setting up these servers, did you ever engage a third party to do stuff like technical vulnerability assessments or penetration testing? >> i left that responsibility to mr. pagliano. >> and mr. pagliano was responsible for these servers from the beginning of the
creation of these servers? >> he was not responsible for the apple server. he was responsible from the transition of the apple server to what we call the pagliano server, and through the duration of the pagliano server. >> so, the pagliano server was backed up to an external hard drive between may 2009 and june 2011, is that correct? >> my understanding. >> and we had a report from the fbi that states that you would periodically delete these records, maintaining the backup as disc space ran out, is that correct? >> i have no knowledge of how that procedure operated. >> so you weren't 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? i know 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 setup of both servers was in consideration of a small group of users from president clinton's office. as the fbi to your knowledge investigated? the serverstion on to see whether there was evidence of an attack? greg's i would refer to the of the eye about that. do an were you -- did you
exhaustive review of whether or not you had records. were you monitoring that? i would refer to mr. pug leon o or the fbi about that. >> did you ever suspect classified information was being e-mailed to and from the secretary? >> no. >> no never brought that up to or express concern? >> no. >> interesting. do you think that common cyber hygienegood was used in the development of these servers? >> i am not totally familiar with what common act this is our but i can tell you i believe some common practices were likely used. >> are you familiar with what is
good digital system hygiene mr. pantano? >> you said apple a few times. it is like you went to the help desk at the mall? what? an agreement with apple's business service program at the time for the equipment we were going to use, said the system up and installed it. >> excellent. mr. chairman, i guilt back. >> i think the gentleman. we now go to the gentleman from alabama, mr. palmer, 45 minutes. >> thank you. it was indicated the whereabouts of the devices would frequently become unknown. when she transition to a new device, what about these other devices? did you make any inquiry about the missing devices to make sure they were properly secured?
recorded?ta properly >> i can say with certainty whenever there was a transfer from one to another, the goal was always to transfer the information from one device to another. you are specifically asking what happened to those devices. i know i personally did not dispose of them. i cannot speak to that. i may have asked those who were in the process to also properly dispose of them i rendering them -- >> so you were responsible for setting up the services in devices? >> mr. pug leon o set up the pug pagliano set up the pagliano device. cracks when you transfer from one device to another, did you
have any responsibility in handling the device that was no longer being used? do with that? >> on occasion, i was the person who made the transfer and ensuring it was on the new device.wiping the old i rendered them unusual and other manners, it yes. >> are you aware there is a laptop and internal storage device? >> i am aware based on reading the report. >> so you did not know about it? it knew the report was that was lost in the mail? >> that is as much as i know. writers do you know who mailed it? >> i have no details. >> you do not know who mailed it or who was sent to. are aware that my director
said mrs. clinton and her use of wasg personal server extremely careless. you're aware of that. you read the report? yes. >> and your handling of her servers, did you have any concerns that her use of her server and her use of outdated technology on her cell phones might he a problem? >> i used her -- i viewed her use as personal. we kept the blackberry up-to-date over time. >> you've been around the clintons for a pretty good period of time, haven't you? >> yes. >> and you're aware of the highly sensitive material that mrs. clinton as secretary of state was handling. that would pass through her communications devices and servers through her e-mail. 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 that's not something i was specifically aware of. >> but in your disposal of these devices -- and you said you were made sure they were wiped and you took other measures to dispose of them -- did you receive any instructions or any training about making sure that the data on those systems were properly recorded? did anyone talk to you about that? >> i had no specific instructions around that. >> would you consider your handling of these devices as possibly careless? and i ask you that -- and i think you've been a good witness.
i appreciate the fact that you , but in 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 is that it's almost an atmosphere of indifference. and i really hope that's 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, it's really about our national security and how we handle things going forward and i think that's the prevailing concern this committee has is that we make sure we don't put our national security at risk, we don't put our intelligence officers at risk. that's my big concern,
particularly with this missing laptop that apparently no one has made an effort to recover. i thank you, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman, i recognize the gentleman from north carolina, mr. walker, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> a lot of times we're hearing back and forth of who to believe so i found it interesting, i believe there's three different times today that 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 pursuit of republicans trying to damage secretary clinton's presidential chances or hopes. at the same time this is some kind of photo-op. let me remind everybody if we could just pause for a moment and remember what director comey said. he said this was an investigation not caused by congress but rather the inspector general from the intelligence they were able to gather. so let me put that on the record making sure this has not been
republican-driven. this was inspector general of the fbi. another thing they've tried to make a case for is this is some kind of republican witch-hunt. i specifically asked director comey did he feel this way, he said no, he did not. in fact he said it was not a witch-hunt. and then today we hear our democrat friends say there was no evidence the e-mails were hacked. well, on january 9, 2011 mr. cooper you became aware of an attempt to hack hillary clinton's private e-mail server, is that correct? >> i believe you're referring to an e-mail that was in the fbi report and as -- you may not have been here earlier, i said i was using the word "hacked" colloquially so i thought people would understand, what this was was a series of failed log in attempts and one of the earliest occurrences of this, the way we managed to put an end was to shut down the server for very
brief periods of time. >> i was here earlier and heard you share a little bit about that. do you agree that there is no evidence that this server could have been hacked? >> i can to the best of my knowledge refer you to the fbi report who did the forensic analysis on this. >> but you don't kind of a take on it. >> i have no knowledge that there was successful hack. >> are you aware of how many times the russians and chinese tried to attack us on a daily basis? >> i'm not aware of it. >> this was on her private server? not a state department or government-protected server, is that correct? >> correct, this is a private server. >> it's interesting that if it was not what you would consider maybe a hack status, you e-mailed her twice that day. how often did you normally e-mail mrs. clinton in a given day? >> i believe the e-mail was to ms. abedin. again, this was one of the first or second occurrences that something like this was happening. i was just making her aware more
than the e-mail services might be off line for a few moments. >> in the weeks before, how many times did you send an e-mail in the same reference? >> i don't recall ever sending a great volume of those e-mails. >> so this was the first time you ever sent something like that. >> i can't say specifically it was the first time. >> pretty rare, though, you would think? >> yes. >> yet at the same point you're describing the hack was not the best description of it? >> correct. >> but you were concerned? >> i was mostly in the e-mail making her away i was shutting down the server for a brief period of time. >> were there any other times or attacks that you were aware of that you felt like -- put the server in a vulnerable position of which mrs. clinton was in possession of this server? >> as there was an increase in the failed log in eded log in attempts we made the secret service aware and they reviewed the logs and made a recommendation. >> do you have a number roughly
of how many times that might have happened on these failed e-mail attempts? >> i can't give you a specific number. >> less than a thousand? more than a thousand? >> less. >> in just closing and i'll yield back the rest of my time, you might have mentioned this earlier as well but can you remind me how you were compensated? can you go into that? who compensated you for all this? >> i worked for the clintons for 15 years and was compensated in a variety of ways depending on what my activities were. for president clinton helping him write his memoirs, i traveled the world with him, at points i supported the foundation, so i had varying sorts of income. >> a little gray 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. >> ok. >> so this was just like personal check from bill clinton here you go? >> yes, taxable -- i was a full employee of bill clinton. >> what was the title on -- how were you getting paid with that? did it say "bill and hillary"?
i mean, how was that? >> there were multiple payrolls, there was a clinton household payroll, later there was a clinton executive services corporation payroll. >> but they were personal checks as well? >> they were through an employer services company that managed the payroll. >> all right, thank you, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, mr. cooper, for your patience and also your answers that you've provided by the panel today. you alerted folks to possible breach attempts and were concerned obviously about security as we've heard in your testimony today. in january, 2013, according to the fbi reports a tor user
logged into a staffer of president clinton's account on the pagliano server and browsed e-mail and folders of that person's account. were you aware of that sfwlaech -- breach? that is a little different than what was just stated to mr. walker. >> i was not aware of that breach until i read in the the same account where you read it. >> did it cause you concern? >> once i read it? sure. >> in the spring of 2013, which would have been approximate to this same thing, according to the fbi, sidney blumenthal's aol account was hacked by goosifer and mrs. clinton's e-mail exchange with mr. blumenthal was made public. were you aware of that breach? >> i was aware of that. >> what was your response to these breaches? >> at that point in time i was transitioning out of any role or responsibility with the server as various teams were selecting ultimately flave