tv Federal Officials Testify on the FB Is Investigation of Hillary Clinton CSPAN September 13, 2016 6:03am-7:01am EDT
did in the investigation, how we came to the conclusion we did that by releasing the summary and the 302s. >> thank you. >> some of the 302s, and when you don't show up at a meeting that we ask behind closed doors, you lose that opportunity. we're going to recognize the gentleman from south carolina, mr. goudy. >> did the fbi interview the center that contained all sender of all of the e-mails that contained all classified information? >> you know, i don't know the answer to that question, only because i am a legislative affairs guy. >> you would agree it would be important, you want to interview the person that sent the classified information. >> certainly. >> because the recipient thought the c was just a third letter in the alphabet. you might be curious whether or not the sender also was clueless in the way he or she viewed classified information, would you not? >> that would be a logical investigative step. >> can you find out whether you interviewed the sender. >> certainly. >> do you know if the sender of
any of the classified e-mails knew that the information was classified at the time? >> i don't personally know that. i wasn't part of the team. >> can you find out? >> certainly. >> can you find out for me? >> there are folks wondering how information gets from a classified sorts into an e-mail. did your investigation shed any light on how classified information could get from a classified system into an unclassified e-mail to even be sent? i'm not even talking about the receiving of it. i'm talking about the sending of it.
>> i'm sure they did look at that. that would be a logical question you would ask as an investigator in a case like that. >> that's what i thought. >> but my legislative affairs capacity, i don't have that -- >> you used to be an agent, right? you're still an agent? you know what you're doing. did the fbi grant immunity to anyone during the course of this investigation? >> for immunity questions, i would have to defer to the department of justice for that. it wouldn't be an agent. >> did the bureau recommend granting of immunity. >> i do not know. >> i do not know. >> do you know whether the department of justice granted immunity to any witnesses? >> i know i saw some articles last week. >> surely you have better sources than the media, don't you? you can ask the guy sitting two down from you. >> i would have to defer to the department of justice, sir. >> do you know if any witnesses asserted any privileges while being interviewed? >> i don't know. >> but the bureau would know that, right? because they would have asserted the privilege while you were in there. >> i'm sorry? >> the bureau would know that, right? because that privilege would have been asserted perhaps while you were in there.
conducting the interview. >> what kind of privilege, attorney/client privilege. >> a bunch of privileges, priest penatent, attorney client privilege, again, there have been media reports that one came up. >> i don't know the answer to those questions. >> have you ever heard -- had the attorney/client privilege come up during your investigations? >> certainly. >> who does the privilege belong to? >> the client. >> so the client can waive it, right. >> can. >> do you understand why congress might want to know whether the attorney/client privilege was brought up and who the client was. >> i can certainly imagine. >> yeah, me too. that's why we want to see the file, agent. you say it is unprecedented. mr. cummings used to be a criminal defense attorney. he got to see all your 302s. ken buck used to be an sas assistant united states attorney. he got to see all your 302s. probation officers get to see
all your 302s. why can't congress? >> sir, think we -- we have tried to provide the information in a way that is understandable. i think the investigative summary tells the story and i think that the 302s that we provided are the important ones. >> let me ask you this. if those summaries were all anyone ever needed, why don't you just introduce those in trial? why actually call the witness? >> certainly we were trying to make your life easier. >> but see, i don't want my made being made easier. i don't want that. i want to know what was said in the 302s. because the 302s itself is a summary of an interview. it is not a verbatim transcript. >> that's correct. >> you've given me the summary of a summary of an interview. and i'm not asking for ver baits tim transcript, because you
don't have one. certainly. >> i am just asking for the 302. i don't have to read your summary. i may read the 302 differently from the way you read it. so why not? >> i think we've given you the relevant ones. >> relevant according to whom. i am taelgelling you, i don't think you have. >> the remainder will come out through the foia process. >> but since when did congress have to go through foia to obtain 302s from an investigation that is not even resulting in any pros kugss prosecutions. since when do we have to go through foia. >> i think the 302s we've provided, i think we made a principle decision about what to provide. it was certainly made at the highest levels of my agency. >> all right, i'm out of town, that's what that knocking sound is. with all due respect, you don't get to decide what we think is relevant. i do say that respectfully. the dedpensfense attorneys get it all. congress should get it all.
>> now miss maloney for five minutes. >> well, thank you mr. chairman. i'm going to reserve my questions to the closed session. but i would like to clear up some misconceptions. i would say that the campaign season is upon us. and the accusations and the charges and the attacks are almost out of control. i just spent, i won't get into it. but any way, for several weeks, the chairman has been appearing on national television, saying that the reason that he cannot see these e-mails is because the fbi produced to congress because they are such a highly sensitive classified high level. and for example, he stated that these materials were, and i would like to put his quote in the record, so secure and sensitive that even i as the chairman of the oversight committee did not have the proper clearance to see it.
but in fact, as i understand it, mr. herring, chairman chavitz has not been able to view these documents, the reason he hasn't been able to see them, is because the republican chairman of the intelligence committee has not allowed him to do so. the documents were produced and given to the intelligence committee, and the intelligence committee has a process by which they release the documents to people, and he has the same clearance as any other member of congress who is not on the intelligence committee, and so the reason he hasn't been able to get them is the reason he hasn't been able to get them is because his own party's leadership has not voted to give him this clearance. now, as i understand it, the fbi produced a small subset of these e-mails only to the intelligence committee.
and according to house rules, the intelligence committee has the jurisdiction over certain agencies, and these agencies report to the intelligence committee. so it has a process in place. and for any member who's not on the intelligence committee to see these documents, they need to send a letter to the committee, which chairman chavitz did. >> without objection, so ordered. >> he sent this letter saying he'd like to see them and ask permission and the intelligence committee needs to take a vote. as i understand it, the chairman of the committee has not scheduled a vote that would allow the chairman to see these documents. now i just feel a lot of this is just pure plain politics as usual. stirring up a hornet's nest over documents he can't see, which are being withheld by his own
party. it seems that they do not want to open up the intelligence committee's jurisdiction at this point. i don't know why they're not taking the vote that would allow him to see these documents, but what our committee's engaged in is nothing more than a partisan election bashing exercise of stating that these e-mails can't be seen when they can be seen if his own party votes to let him see it. so i just say that it's politics as usual, and i'm disturbed about it. there is a problem with the classification system. we all saw that in the last hearing. let's work together to correct it.
but this whole charade is just that, a charade. these documents are not being withheld from the chairman because of anything any of these witnesses have done. they are being withheld by the republican chairman of the intelligence committee, so i respectful suggest to my chairman that we bring in the chairman of the intelligence committee and ask him why he doesn't have a vote and release the documents to you. it is not the fbi, but the house select committee on intelligence who is withholding these documents. >> will the gentlewoman yield? >> i most certainly will. >> any one of the four people from the intelligence committee can help answer this. have you made redactions on personal, identifiable information to the intel committee? mr. higgins, how about you?
>> no, we have not. >> there's no redactions. ms. walsh? >> not to my knowledge. >> mr. samuel? >> no, mr. chairman. not to my knowledge. >> no, not to my knowledge. >> can you release these e-mails into the public and if so, what would happen? mr. higgins, what happens if we release these e-mails that are -- on hillary clinton's unsecured server? what happens? >> mr. chairman, i can confirm that cia participated in a classification review process, and i would be happy to talk about that process in closed session. some of the materials contain classified materials that is not appropriate for public release.
>> do some of these materials include sources and methods? >> mr. chairman, i'd prefer to discuss any further matters relating to classification in closed session. >> gentlewoman's time is expired, but thank you so much for yielding to me. >> i get to close in my time. you took all my time. i think the chairman can have all the time he wants. i just ask for a second, just a second. what our committee is engaged in is something but a partisan attack on secretary clinton with an effort to harm or undermine her presidential campaign. that's all it is. get the chairman of the intelligence committee to release the documents to you. no one is withholding it. the intelligence committee has jurisdiction over agencies,
including the fbi. they released their information. they have a process. you have appealed to that process. let's wait for that process. ask him why he's not taking a vote to give you access to these documents. you're making it look like there's some conspiracy or some terrible thing happening when it's really nothing but a partisan attack on secretary clinton. >> i thank the gentlewoman and with some indulgence, where i have a problem is where they redact information that is deemed unclassifyied. i don't understand that. it makes no sense. classification is one issue. but when they redact information that's already been designated as unclassified, i believe congress should be able to see that. >> mr. chairman, may i respond? >> sure. >> in the hearings that we've had, the witnesses have testified that that personal information that has been
redacted has been to protect the privacy of people and personal information. that's on record. but in the classified section we can have more of this clarified. >> and i appreciate the dialogue back and forth. i recognize the gentleman from ohio for five minutes. >> let me just follow up where the chairman was. did the fbi make the redactions dealing with personal, identifiable information? >> we did, yes. >> that's what i figured. mr. herring, you've said we don't have all the 302s. we don't have the whole file, and what you did give us, as you just pointed out, had lots of redactions. >> yes, sir. >> and the chairman invited you to a briefing last week in a classified setting, which you said in your opening remarks, where you'd like to discuss this information. who told you not to come to the briefing, because the chairman was there, i was there? in fact, every single republican member was sitting there waiting
for you to come to do what you said you would do. why didn't you show up? >> as far as the 302s or what we haven't provided, there are a lot of 302s. there are dozens of them. >> you have got them all, don't you? >> and we're working on the others. >> you can get the paper. you can give it to us. or you could have told us that last wednesday, but you didn't come. why didn't you come? >> i want to address it in a classified setting, if i could. >> someone tell you not to come, mr. herring? >> there were conversations between me and some of the committee staff about what the briefing was going to be about. >> did someone tell you not to come? you were invited.
we were all waiting. we don't have all the 302s. we don't have the whole file. we were going to do it in a classified setting. someone told you not to come. who told not not to come? >> it was my decision. >> you decided on your own -- you didn't consult with anyone else? >> i certainly consulted with the director's office. >> and the director said it's up to you, mr. herring. you're going to decide. >> a lot has to do with what the discussion was going to be in the classified briefing. i think there was some confusion, at least on my part, about what the expectations were in some of my conversations with committee staff last week. >> did you have any other discussions? did you talk with anyone else? >> our general council's office, our department of justice. >> mr. herring, was this case different? you said you've been around the fbi for 15 years. was this case different? >> i believe this case is different in a lot of ways. >> a lot of ways. >> i do.
>> can you give me some -- why? i know it's different in a lot of ways. how about this difference? have you ever had a case in your 16 years where the subject of your investigation's husband met meets with attorney general days before the investigation? >> no. >> that's certainly different, isn't it? >> yes. >> in your 17 years -- and we appreciate your service -- in your 17 years, have you ever had a case that the attorney general announces publicly she's going to follow the recommendations of the fbi? ever had that happen in your 17 years? >> not in one of the cases i was assigned. >> in your 17 years, you ever have a director of the fbi, ever have them do a big press conference, walk through all the wrongdoings of the person under investigation?
ever have that happen before or normally the fbi announces whether they're going to prosecute or not? ever seen that before? >> not quite like that one. >> not quite like that one. that's exactly right. have you ever had this? maybe this happens. mr. cummings said in his opening statement republicans didn't like the answers mr. comey gave. that may be true, but based on what mr. comey did last week where he sent a memo to you and all your colleagues, looks to me like a lot of former fbi agents and some current ones didn't like some of the answers they got from this investigation. have you ever seen that before? mr. comey says in this letter, i explained to our alums i'm ok if folks have a different view of this investigation. there's obviously some folks who used to work in the justice department that didn't like the outcome. they may be republicans. they may not be. i've never seen that before. >> frequently, we get messages from the director on a variety of things.
>> he sends out a memo to all his employees saying i better fill you in on some things. ever have that happen two months after the fact? >> often times he once the employees to understand what is going on. 36,000 or so employees. >> this case was different. here's the problem, mr. herring. it's not supposed to be. it's not supposed to be different. everyone is supposed to be treated equally under the law. in this case, this individual was treated different and everyone in this country knows it. that's why we're having this hearing. that's why we would have liked you there last week to give us the information a little sooner than later tonight when we go into a classified setting. >> sir, can i answer that? i think it is important for us as an agency to be apolitical, to follow the facts in any case
where it takes us. i do believe we followed the facts in this case. director comey made a very difficult decision, but ultimatelyultimate ultimately it is the department of justice that makes the determination of prosecution. >> not in this case, because she said she was going to take his recommendation. >> the gentleman's time is expired. we're going to recognize the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first of all, i want to thank you for your service. i need to apologize for the way that you're being treated here today. i know we have worked with a number of you in the past. i appreciate your service to the country. unlike some folks here, i recognize there's a separation of powers. while i do agree that congress has a very wide jurisdiction for investigation, i also know that we are not a law enforcement agency.
we are not a trial agency. under the separation of powers in this country, it's not consistent with the constitution for the legislative branch to overturn a decision, especially on an investigation and a potentially criminal investigation and you've decided not to prosecute -- it is completely out of bounds of congress to overturn a decision of the court on one specific case, and i want to go back right to the beginning. the notice of this hearing, which was supposed to be closed, so i apologize you're being lambasted and denigrated in public when you were asked to come here to a closed hearing and all this is happening out of bounds and totally inconsistent
with the chairman's letter that this would be a closed hearing. there is a relevant case law. mr. herring, i would say that there is constitutional language that would prohibit what's going on here today in requiring you to divulge the names of individuals that have been redacted during your investigation. and that constitutional language is in the bill of rights, particularly the fifth amendment. i want to go back to a case called watkins versus the united states. this was a matter brought forth by senator joe mccarthy in the house committee on un-american activities. and watkins was brought forward -- he was subpoenaed to testify before the house committee on un-american activities. chief justice warren delivered
the opinion of the court in that case. he said there's no general authority to expose the private affairs of individuals without justifications in terms of the functions of congress nor is the congress a law enforcement or trial agency. these are the functions of the executive and judicial departments of government. no inquiry is an end of itself. it must be relled to and in furtherance of a task of congress. now, the notice for this hearing says that, number one, the purpose is to review the redactions that were made by the fbi during their investigation. excuse me, to review the redactions, omissions, and circumstances surrounding your
investigation. now, as you said before, mr. herring, in bringing witnesses forward to get them to cooperate with the fbi -- well, look at it this way. if the law is correct the way the chairman and my republican colleagues are looking at this, here's what we could do. this committee could identify somebody. we could refer somebody for investigation by you, our secret police, the fbi. you could go out and investigate all these people, and then we would have the ability to publicly embarrass them by removing any redactions that you put in place.
that's the world that we can create here. and what is the one instance when this exercise is overreach of power is being administered? it's when we're investigating the democratic nominee for president a couple of months before the election. that's when this is going on. this is terrible. this is absolutely terrible. this is a miscarriage of justice, and the right of people against unreasonable search and seizures, the right of the witnesses that you investigated -- and i understand this is a 12-month investigation. earlier testimony, you said that it took -- you did three years of work in about 12 months and pulled in all these people. if anybody at all is mentioned in any of these by a witness who mentions another person, that person will suffer the glare and
their lives will be turned upside down because of what this committee wants to do. and that is a violation of our constitution and the individual rights of those individuals just from having been mentioned or being approached in an fbi investigation. mr. chairman, i think this is going in the totally wrong direction. this is a sad day in the history of this committee, i have to tell you. this is a sad god damn day that we're doing. >> the gentleman's time is expired. i think the last comment was a bit inappropriate. i will now recognize the gentleman from florida, mr. mike. >> thank you, mr. chairman.
we do have an important responsibility as members of this committee unlike any other committee in congress. we're the investigations and oversight committee. the chairman went through the history of the committee and some of the investigations. this particular case we're talking to dealing with secretary clinton's e-mails, the case was declared closed by the director. is that correct? >> yes. >> and that came after -- and i pointed this out the day he was here. just an unprecedented series of events. mr. jordan, i think, relayed some of the timetable on friday, july 1st. the attorney general said she would take whatever recommendations fbi came up with. on saturday, the 2nd of july, the vans pull up and they interviewed the witness for, what, four hours was it?
>> something like that. >> something like that. i asked the questions if it was record ed recorded and did he participate in it, the director. no. then we found out that there were the 302s that were taken. is that correct? the summaries, the summaries were taken? >> a 302 for ms. clinton? >> yes. and on july 5th -- the 4th was a monday -- it was announced by the director there would be no prosecution or case closed by basically the attorney general the next day. that's pretty much the sequence. isn't it? >> i think he made that recommendation. >> and the case is closed. now, i've been on the committee longer than anyone here.
i can never remember an instance -- and the chairman went back to before the teapot dome scandal when even during some of these investigations we have always had access to information, and that has been the case, hasn't it, that we've always had access, unfettered access, the committee? again the chairman cited time after time. >> i don't know about unfettered access before my time. >> but before we've gotten the information. again, i'd like it made part of the record, mr. chairman, the report that you have. >> without objection, so ordered. >> and we do know that the secretary used a private server which had e-mails that contained classified information. is that not right, ms. walsh or all this community would agree on that? >> about her use of a private server, sir? >> the secretary used a private server and on it -- in going through the server was classified information. everybody, unless you're on anotherplanet, knows that, including these -- they're all shaking their head affirmatively. the director when he was here said he didn't know if there was a possibility that it could have been hacked, that information could have been made public. that is really a national security issue here too that congress in its responsibility to investigate is now being denied the information about what really took place. you're participating in keeping that information from us, mr. herring.
>> if i could just say a couple things? one, on the personal identifiable information, obviously i have a subpoena here for that now. i engaged the chairman's staff about the compromise. >> we're going to get the 302s one way or another, but you have not given us all of the 302s. >> no. they've been prioritized. >> we want the information. we're entitled to the information. we're the investigative branch. collectively, we represent the american people. wehave had to file with you, mr. crasdick, a referral. do you have the referrals? >> we have the letter from the chairman. >> what's the timetable? >> i can't give you a timetable. we've referred it. it's been review inged. i can't give you a timetable of information. >> you are again
withholding information that this committee legitimately requested, and he promised that he would provide us. that's not acceptable. >> gentleman's time has expired. >> yield for just one second. mr. mica answered a question that sparked my interest. you said you're having discussions with the republican staff. is my staff involved in that, those discussions? i'm just curious. >> not as of today. >> not as of today? >> i had a conversation with the chairman earlier today. >> is that your normal course of doing things? we do represent 700,000 people each over here. you are from congress, right? >> yes, sir. >> all right. >> i now recognize the gentleman from virginia for five minutes.
>> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, there's an article that appeared today in "newsweek" magazine. i would ask that the article be entered into the record. >> without objection, so ordered. >> let me read a little bit from this article. clinton's e-mails look positively transparent when compared to the george w. bush administration. between 2003 and 2009, the bush white house lost 22 million e-mails. 22 million. this correspondence included millions of e-mails written during the darkest period of america's recent history when the bush administration was ginning up support for what turned out to be a disastrous war in iraq.
house used a private e-mail server. it was owned by the republican national committee, and the bush administration failed to store its e-mails as required by law and then refused to comply with the congressional subpoena seeking some of those e-mails. the chairman mentioned that abraham lincoln was a member of this committee. abraham lincoln -- maybe that wasn't auspicious, mr. chairman, because he only served one term and couldn't get elected back home. he was a whig at the time. he spent his time worried about things like the wilmont proviso, china and the slave traffic in washington, d.c., the nation's capital, and fighting the slaveocracy in trying to move this country to limit and ultimately abolish this practice.
we're spending this time trying to pillory somebody about how she managed, handled her e-mails while she was traveling the world on behalf of this country trying to restore u.s. creditability and foreign policy after the incredible damage in done eight years with the previous administration. i guess if i were in my friend'' situation, i'd grasp at this straw too. mr. herring, my friend mr. jordan tried to suggest that you, the fbi, have handled this case very differently than the normal course of justice to an american citizen.
i guess because the high profile nature you handled it very carefully. is that correct? >> yes, it is. >> it was different in that sense, but we had director comey who was, by the way, a registered republican until very recently, we had him before the committee and i asked him under oath did the witness involved, the primary witness involving these e-mails, did she lie? no. did she deceive? no. did she evade? did she obfuscate? no. is that your understanding as well? >> i would refer to director comey's comments. >> somebody said the case is closed and you affirmed that. >> yes. >> why is your case closed? what's your understanding of that, mr. herring? >> the decision made at the highest level. >> you said you read the newspapers. the director of the fbi said it wasn't even a close call.
is that your understanding? >> correct. >> correct. wasn't special treatment here. it wasn't even a close call. this is political theater. 302s, could you tell us what 302s are? my friendmr. gowdy knows what they are, but not all of us do. >> 302s is simply a form which we summarize an interview. >> how often do you provide 302s to congress? >> rarely. >> rarely? why? >> usually we don't share the investigative files outside of -- >> so our request is unusual. is that correct? you said you don't do it very often. >> correct, in some sense it is. we don't get that request often and we don't provide them very often. >> and to protect people? >> yes. >> yes. >> from raw entities? is that correct? >> to protect people from -- i'm sorry. >> from raw material from an interview?
>> certainly. >> redactions, how unusual are redactions? this is unique to this case. is that correct? >> no, we do redactions from time to time. >> why? >> really as far as -- people do have privacy interests. anytime we release documents outside of the fbi, if it's another avenue, you have to review those. >> if the chairman will indulge me one more question and then i'll cease and desist -- >> gladly. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. herring, were you told any time before this hearing or at any other time during this process that this is highly political and you should cover up, obfuscate, evade, deceive, or not provide information to protect somebody from our scrutiny? >> no, not at all. >> we have votes on the floor that are ten minutes away. we have members that still haven't asked questions. plus, we need to do a recorded vote. so we're going to have to leave
it here. >> i appreciate the chairman's indulgence indulgence. >> the chairman from north carolina, mr. meadows, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. herring, would you say the fbi's investigation and delivery of documents have been very systematic and principled? >> yes, as far as delivery of -- >> so there's no haphazard method of delivering documents? >> the documents we provided to congress, sir? >> yes. >> yes. >> no, i think it's been thoughtful and deliberative. >> can you tell me why you didn't deliver the documents that the chairman asked for on july 11th to the committee? you didn't deliver them to the committee. you actually delivered them to another entity, did you not?
>> that's correct. >> why did you not deliver it to the committee? >> well, because those documents contained classified and other sensitive materials. needed to be sure they were handled appropriate. >> are you willing to deliver all the unclassified documents to this committee? >> so i think that -- >> yes or no. because you can't have the first statement without the second statement. if the reason you sent it there was because it was classified, are you willing to give all the unclassified documents to this committee? >> so the documents that -- >> yes or no. >> so we've given certain documents to the committee already. >> yes or no. it's a real simple question. will you give all the unclassified documents to this committee since the reason that you gave them to somebody else was that there was classified documents? >> so the documents -- >> yes or no. >> the documents have restrictions on them. >> yes or no. who placed the restrictions, you? >> no.
>> fbi? >> yes. >> so the answer is you placed restrictions so you're not going to give the unclassified documents to this committee. >> so we've given committee access to all the documents through -- >> that's not the question. that's a great answer to a question i didn't ask. are you willing to give the unclassified documents to this committee? >> all i can do is tell you i'll take it back. >> let me ask you another question because you said it was systematic. i went to the classified room. and there's two big binders there. one binder had some documents. the second binder that we got from the fbi had more documents than the first binder and yet they were supposed to be identical. would you say that was -- >> i would like to address this in a classified setting, if i could. >> was that an oversight? >> i think the details are important of what the differences are. >> but we just asked for a second copy. so would that not be haphazard? because when we went page for page, they didn't match up.
so who made the decision to give us a different set? >> i would like to address that in a closed session, please. >> let me just say this. there was 27 new e-mails. there was a number of different types of information that didn't seem to go -- and i don't to share anything classified. so you admit that the first set and the second set were not identical. >> they were not identical. there were some differences. >> what were the nonclassification agency equity is that prevented the initial disclosure of the 27 e-mails we got in the second batch? >> again, classified session -- >> were they all from one agency? >> i would prefer to address it outside this session. >> all were from one agency, is that correct? what was the agency? >> i don't want to get into that here in this setting. i'm happy to answer your question.
>> well, i have one of the e-mails that was withheld that said that it was later marked unclassified/cia use only. so was that your justification for withholding it? >> i'm sorry. i'm not sure i understand. >> well, it said unclassified/cia only. mr. higgins, may i come to you. did you read those e-mails that were in the second batch. >> i would prefer to ask my attorney questions about the classification review in a classified setting. >> all right. i understand you're asking for those documents back. is that correct? that's not classified. are you asking for them back? >> sir, i would prefer in a closed session. >> did director brennan talk to you about that mr.
higgins? >> again, sir, i would prefer to answer those questions -- >> i can see where this is leading. let me finish by saying you have finished all the redaction, mr. herring, is that correct, on the information you gave us in the unclassified documents? are the redactions done? >> for the ones that you all have, yes. >> all right. will you comply with federal law to release those in 20 days according to foia law? >> what was the gentleman's answer? what was your answer to that question? >> the redactions are completed for the ones that are here with congress, the ones that we have released. we're working on the remaining 302s, the pii redactions for the remaining 302s. >> what i believe mr. meadows is asking is under foia there's a 20-day requirement to respond to a foia request. now that we know they're all done, will you release those within the 20-daytime frame? >> i'm not a foia guy. they're not all completed for the other 302s.
>> are there any that are completed? >> i don't the status. >> we'll go into that tomorrow. let's recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. herring, i want to give you a better chance to answer some of my colleague mr. meadow's questions. first of all, your title is you are the acting assistant director for congressional affairs of the fbi. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> and you're in that post for how long? >> about a month. >> did you say you used to work for mr. goodlot? >> i did a detail to the hill, to judiciary, for about 15 months. >> ok. was that reporting to mr. goodlot? >> certainly did. i was actually technically assigned to the crime subcommittee. >> and the goodlot we're talking about is the republican chairman of the house judiciary committee. is that correct? >> yes, sir.
>> now you just were hammered with all of these yes or no questions, and i could see you having trouble with them. the trouble you were having, mr. herring, did not stem from your lifelong ambition to protect secretary clinton, did it? >> no, sir. >> all right. in fact, the pointed question that my good friend mr. meadows was going over and over about was will you turn over certain documents, yes or no. you're unable to say yes or no because that's not your call. you have to take it back to the office and take it up the chain of instruction, don't you? >> yes, sir. >> that's why you couldn't answer yes or no. >> certainly. >> well, how fair was it for anybody to hit you with that kind of yes-or-no question when you couldn't give a yes-or-no answer.
how fair was that? >> i'm here to answer the questions as best i can. >> yeah. and i wonder how fair it is to second guess the fbi, officers who were sworn to uphold and protect our constitution and not caring where the political chips may fall. when director comey came in and testified, up until the time he decided not to prosecute, he was universally applauded on both sides of the aisle, particularly on the republican side of the aisle for his judgment, for his service, for his patriotism in this nation. and then when it was his recommendation -- which he now says was not even close not to prosecute secretary clinton for the way she handled her e-mail, all of a sudden he is reviled and all of his decisions up and down are being second guessed by the republicans of this committee.
i agree with my colleagues. this is nothing but a show trial. it is nothing but political theater. and the only reason, the exceptional reason, that this is happening is that a couple of months from now people are going to have to decide to vote for secretary clinton for president. i'm sorry you and the other witnesses are being put in this awkward position today. the chairman invited you to a classified hearing, but he is now springing this on you. i will withhold most of my questions to the classified bit of this, but we have to talk about the marking of classified documents. i mean, it's being bandied about that documents can't be produced because they're highly classified. well, to be classified,
according to the manual, which follows executive order 13526, a document has to have something that identifies who originally classified it. it has to identify the agency and office of origin of the classification. it must identify the reason for the classification. it must identify the date of the classification. and they typically also have a banner, both across the top and the bottom, stating the level of classification. top secret, confidential, eyes only, whatever it is. ambassador kennedy testified that none of the e-mails provided to congress had any of these indicators and that our hearing we asked ambassador kennedy about three documents, 3 out of 30,000, that included a small c in parentheses. state department spokesman john kirby said the markings on those e-mails were in error and they were not necessary or appropriate at the time they were sent as an actual e-mail, and ambassador kennedy agreed.
we asked him about one of these e-mailed dated august 2nd, 2012, and he confirmed that the c in parentheses in that e-mail was a mistake. he also confirmed that every paragraph in that e-mail was also marked sensitive, but unclassified. we asked ambassador kennedy whether the fbi consulted with the state department about the classification status of this particular e-mail and he said he'd get back to us. my question to you is, do you know the status of that question, ms. frifield? >> i believe he's going to get you the answer in the next day or so. >> i think in the next day or two. >> i thank you and i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. it is the intent of the chair to exhaust the questioning appropriate to an open session. but pursuant to house really 11, two g2, i move that part of the
remainder of the hearing be closed to all persons other than the members of the house, staff of the committee, with appropriate security clearances, the official reporter and the witnesses and their councils with the appropriate security clearances. testimony may include material designated as classified. i would like to remind members that this is not a debatable motion. pursuant to the house rules, the motion must be approved by a recorded vote. the question is on closing part of the remainder of the hearing to the public. again, it's the intention of the chair to allow members to ask further messages in the unclassified setting and then go into the classified setting. the clerk on the question, the question is on the remaining hearing of the public. clerk will call the roll. >> mr. japheth. mr. chapin spoke shut. mr. mica? mr. mica bunches. duncan? mr. jordan? mr. wahlberg? mr. wahlberg votes yes. mr. homage?
mr. gaucher? mr. gaucher votes yes. mr. gowdy? mr. gowdy budget is. as jim? mr. massey but just. mr. meadows? mr. is votes yes. mr. buck? mr. walker? mr. blum? mr. blum vote just. mr. hice? mr. hice vote yes mr. russell? mr. russell vote just mr. carter? mr. gossman question mark mr. russman votes yes. mr. heard? easter heard votes yes. mr. palmer question mark mr. palmer bunches. mr. cummings? mr. cummings but just. mr. malone -- miss maloney. clay? mr. clay vote just.
at the appropriate time we will depart for the capital visitors center as it has been prepared for a closed hearing of the committee. only members of the committee. the witnesses and counsel me be present. the clerk has been directed only to allow these persons to enter at that appropriate time. at recess until 7:30. announcer: the house oversight committee is holding hearings this week related to the of the eye investigation into hillary
clinton plus it use of a private e-mail server while she was secretary of state. today they looked at what committee leadership calls the department's failure to preserve federal records. see it live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. ticket-but software allows scalpers to purchase large quantities of to consumers at much higher license. today i subcommittee investigates the practice live at 2:38 -- p.m. eastern on c-span3. c-span radio app makes it easy to follow the 2016 the election where ever you are. it is free from google play or the apple. information for c-span radio or television plus podcast time for popular public affair books and history program. on all thedate
election coverage. see's pimp was radio app means you always have c-span on-the-go. >> live today on c-span, washington journal is next. but to an :00 a.m. eastern, the u.s. house returns for work on bills related to veterans benefits, education, and tax allowances for medical expenses. >> coming up and 45 minutes, republican congressman keith rothfuss of pennsylvania on campaign 2016. he will discuss his state's role as a battleground state and the upcoming battleground to fund deficit. then, representative brendan boyle. and a discussion on hillary clinton's use of a private e-mail server while secretary of
state. a.m., james penn dell of the boston lobe discusses the primary,, who is facing a challenge for reelection. ♪ primariese and senate take place in three states today. new hampshire, rhode island, and delaware. former president george w. bush will attend two fundraisers for senator marco rubio. mike pence visits house republicans, reportedly together support for the trump campaign today. and speaking of ice presidential nominees, with recent -- vice , hillaryial nominees clinton and scrutiny over running mates ability to perform if they find themselves commander-in-chief. your thoughts on