busy day, thank you for joining us. >> big news day. "the real story" starts now. this is a fox news alert. state department about to hold a briefing after fbi director called hillary clinton and her team extremely careless in their handling of highly classified information. hello, everyone, i'm kimberly guilfoyle in for gretchen carlson, and this is "the real story." fbi director james comey announced there's ample evidence hillary clinton was extremely careless in her handling of classified secrets while she was secretary of state, putting national security at risk. but he won't recommend prosecution. this after the fbi read every one of the 30,000 e-mails secretary clinton provided from her personal private server to the state department. of those, 110 e-mails and 52 e-mail chains contained classified information at the time they were sent or received. eight of those chains contained

top secret information. 36 of those chains contained secret information. and eight contained confidential information. other e-mails were later classified to confidential. in addition, there were thousands of e-mails not turned over by secretary clinton and thousands more not produced by the state department, all found through other sources. now, of those, three were classified, one secret, two confidential. no additional top secret e-mails were found and none have been up-classified. director comey explaining why, despite the weighty evidence, the fbi will not recommend criminal charges against clinton. >> although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handle of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. chief intelligence correspondent catherine herridge

joins us now with the very latest. catherine? >> reporter: thank you, kimberly. the fbi director said some of the e-mails were marked classified at the time and that a person in her position should have known based on the sensitivity of the intelligence that it should not have been outside secured channels. >> any reasonable person in secretary clinton's position or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about those matters should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. >> reporter: director comey also confirmed this morning that clinton used more than one server and they were not secured like government systems. while they found no evidence they were hacked by a third party or hostile nation, comey said they would not expect to find such information and they are operating under the belief that a third party has all the e-mails. >> catherine, what about the destruction of e-mails? i thought this was a significant point. >> reporter: the fbi director said the clinton lawyers never read the e-mails before deleting

them, instead they relied on subject heraders and keyword severan searches. >> we believe our investigation is sufficient to give us reasonable confidence there was no intentional misconduct in connection with that sorting effort. >> reporter: the director laid out the gross negligence and the handling of classified information. he said he would not recommend charges to the justice department. that statute does not require intent and it reads in part, "through grosses negligence permits the same," that's classified information, "to be proved from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or, two, having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its

proper place of custody." if there is a conviction, the fine is ten years or a fine in this case, kimberly. >> thank you, catherine. joining us, the man you've all been wait to go hear from, rudy guiliani. director comey is saying no reasonable prosecutor would recommend that this case would go forward against hillary clinton. your thoughts? >> my thoughts are that it would be unreasonable for a prosecutor not to go forward with it and almost an abdication of duty. what was just laid out is what we would call a no-brainer in the attorney's office that jim comey worked at, he was one of my assistants. it does require gross negligence. he said during his long statement that she was extremely careless. the first definition of gross negligence that comes up if you take out the legal dictionary is

being streamextremely careless. >> is this a distinction without a difference? we're both former prosecutors. why wouldn't it go forward? >> the minute you say someone is extremely careless, you are saying they're grossly negligent. that is what a judge will charge a jury. the judge will charge a jury, has the government proven that she was -- what do we mean by gross negligence? we mean extremely careless. regular carelessness is not using the proper degree of care under the circumstances. gross negligence is being extremely careless in exercising your responsibilities of this that's what jim comey found. he then just didn't come to the conclusion that it's a violation of the statute. i think that's why he walked out, there's no way to square the two things. >> isn't that interesting. he was potentially going to take questions, and he left. >> the second question is, would she pass an fbi background check

for security clearance. the answer is no. she couldn't possibly. i've read a thousand fbi background checks, maybe 2,000. this would get thrown right in the ashcan. she wouldn't be, you know, the number 35 person at the state department. we wouldn't hire her as an assistant us attorney at this record. >> she would fail the background check based on the standards that have been used for years and years. >> if you took his report and made it an fbi background check, she couldn't get any kind of sensitive job with the government of the united states. finally, and you know this, we never prove intent with direct evidence. very rarely does somebody say i'm going to trade inside information or i'm going to pay this bribe. we do it with circumstantial evidence. the circumstantial evidence here was overwhelming. he laid it all out. i thought he was going to come to the conclusion that she was going to be indicted. and here is the biggest piece of circumstantial evidence. the destruction of the 34,000 e-mails. he would have been entitled under these facts to have charged to the jury that from

the destruction of the e-mails you can infer guilty knowledge. >> consciousness of guilt. >> consciousness of guilt. like, you know, the instruction on fleeing. if someone flees, you get a charge that is evidence of guilty knowledge. if someone destroys records that are possibly relevant, and these records have to be possible relevant, they actually found some of these records to be relevant, he would have gotten that charge to the jury. so jim has kind of around. a reasonable prosecutor would have brought this case no doubt. and i don't know how he ever, ever is going to be able to charge anybody in the cia or the fbi that is extremely careless with top secret information, if he isn't charging hillary clinton. i mean, this is the special exception for the clintons. >> because the bar is so high now in terms of the requisite level of proof, because he's saying no reasonable prosecutor would bring this forward. i found that language to be very

specific and -- >> reasonable prosecutors would bring this, and certainly under 18 usc section 793, that would be the conservative way to go. the more challenging way to go would be to take all of this evidence of what she was doing, her destruction of e-mails, and use it as evidence of guilty knowledge. i'm pretty sure that's the way i would do it. i don't have any doubt i could win this case in front of an injur jury. >> there you go. something else interesting to me, he talked about her attorneys, and the counsel that in fact removed, deleted some of these e-mails. they weren't able to get access to them. and then they were not recoverable because they said they purged and cleaned their devices in a way that they're no longer able to get them. >> giving these documents to them, by the way, was in violation of 793. >> just that in and of itself?

>> in and of itself, a violation. i worked in the justice department, for four or five of those years i had a high security clearance. i would approve applications for national security. i never left the justice department wing, i stayed until 4:00 a.m. and locked them in the safe. if i had done something like this, there is no doubt in my mind the next justice department -- i would have been indicted. i would have been indicted for it. it is so discouraging to someone who loves the justice department to see a decision like this. >> you fought your whole life for justice. >> i'm to disappointed in this. i brought cases against the teamsters union during the 1988 election when it did serious damage to the republican party. gosh almighty. you just put that out of your mind, you put all that stuff out of your mind. she violated 18 usc section 793. the interesting thing is, the

statute of limitations will not have run on this. and if trump should win and appoint an attorney general who has got the courage to do it, they could bring this indictment. >> that's a significant point that nobody has made today. that's why the world has been wait to go hear from you for sure on this. a lot of people upset saying, look at the different standard applying, because david petraeus, the trouble he got into. >> she should at least resign as a candidate on the grounds that if she can't pass a top security clearance, she can't be president of the united states. >> now the american people will decide. director comey said clinton and her team were careless in their handling of classified material. let's take a listen. >> although we did not find clear evidence that secretary clinton and her colleagues disintegrated to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

>> joining us is chief counsel for the american center of law and justice. you just heard rudy guiliani weighing in with his analysis. what is your take? >> i did the same thing that rudy guiliani did. i looked at the words "extremely careless" in the legal dictionaries and looked at the case law. extremely careless is gross negligence. i have a lot of respect for jim comey. but i'll tell you something, the fix was in on this from the beginning. we saw the beginning of it last week when bill clinton entered loretta lynch's airplane. i have no idea what took place in there, maybe it was, get your wife in, we're wrapping this thing up, because gross negligence is extreme carelessness, that is just faxed. jim comey said there was a crime here, he just decided not to prosecute it. but he was clear, kim, he said there was in fact without any doubt gross negligence, his

wording, extreme carelessness, that is gross negligence under the law. that's a violation. that's a crime. this frankly is absurd and the american people have had one pulled on them. >> a lot of people tweeting, including republican nominee donald trump, saying that this is an example of a rigged system. how can you reconcile for the viewers at home, and especially when the fbi can make a recommendation, he said he wanted to be transparent and in fact state what his recommendation was to loretta lynch and preface it with "no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges in this case." >> yes. >> sounds like judge and jury. >> what a waste for the taxpayer's money that it took a year for them to determine that, them one. number two, if intent was all they were focusing on, they should have interviewed her a year ago, that would have been helpful. number three, it's the wrong standard. and it's something else here that i think is upsetting to the american people. look, at the end of the day, loretta lynch was going to have to make this call one way or the other. when we know those e-mails from hillary clinton went to barack

obama, that case was never being prosecuted. it was a faux investigation from the start. it concluded as a faux investigation. jim comey ran out of that room. why? because some reporter was going to ask him, excuse me, mr. director, but isn't extreme carelessness gross negligence under the statute? and the answer to that of course would be yes. and that would be the violation of law. he didn't want to answer any questions. so they're trying to put this away politically. but again, the american people have been the ones duped here. but i think the american people understand exactly what's at play. and where donald trump is right is the fix was in on this. it's not just a rigged system. it's a system that has a complete disregard for the rule of law and that doesn't bode well for america. >> we've got concurrence here between jay sekulo and rudy guiliani. thanks for joining us. isis attacks rocking several different countries in just days. what the massacres tell us about the islamic state and where its next target could be. ♪

[announcer] is it a force of nature? or a sales event? the summer of audi sales event is here. ugh. heartburn.g ]

sorry ma'am. no burning here. try new alka-seltzer heartburn relief gummies. they work fast and don't taste chalky. mmmm. incredible. looks tasty. you don't have heartburn. new alka-seltzer heartburn relief gummies. enjoy the relief.

hillary clinton's campaign responding to the fbi's announcement. a campaign spokesperson saying they were glad the e-mail investigation is now resolved. clinton hasn't personally reacted to the news yet but she is set to campaign with president obama in north carolina about 30 minutes from now. jennifer griffin is live in charlotte. jennifer, what has been the reaction to this from the clinton campaign? >> reporter: well, we've just received the reaction from her spokesman, brian fallon, who issued the following statement. "we are pleased the career officials handling this case have determined no further action by the department is appropriate. as the secretary has long said, it was a mistake to use her

personal e-mail and she would not do it again. we are glad that this matter is now resolved." we also have just heard from josh earnest on board the plane with those reporters traveling with secretary clinton and the president. he said the white house had no idea that director comey planned to speak today or what he was going to say. remember that it did leak out, however, after secretary clinton met with the fbi for three and a half hours on saturday, that they did not expect an indictment. so it certainly is interesting that when the government opens for business on tuesday, director comey already had made a decision about what his recommendation would be after that meeting with -- after his investigators medicine with clinton over the weekend. back to you. >> quite a crowd back there. i want to ask you, do you think the political calendar played any role in the timing of this announcement? >> reporter: well, you would have to suspend her disbelief to

think that it didn't. i know that the campaign and others certainly wanted to have this fbi case resolved before going into the party convention. and certainly the fbi didn't want it hanging over the party convention. the fbi does not want to be seen as being involved in politics. but it certainly was convenient for the president to be able to come down to north carolina today with secretary clinton, with this apparently wrapped up, because it would have been a little bit awkward if they had arrived here and the president has been very anxious to begin campaigning against donald trump. they were supposed to begin back in wisconsin but then the orlando shooting got in the way of that. this all worked very nicely. but again, those who have been involved, director comey and the white house, now saying that there was no political consideration in terms of the timing of the announcement today. >> it worked out very well indeed. good luck today, jennifer, thanks so much.

now, donald trump of course responding to all of this. we'll have that for you coming up next. you don't let anything keep you sidelined. that's why you drink ensure. with 9 grams of protein and 26 vitamins and minerals. for the strength and energy to get back to doing... ...what you love. ensure. always be you.

you do all this research on a perfect car, then smash it into a tree. your insurance company raises your rates... maybe you should've done more research on them. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. liberty mutual insurance. is happening now at red lobster. summerfest and if you love lobster and shrimp, ...check out all these new entrees. like new coastal lobster and shrimp... ...with summer ale barbeque sauce,

...and new lobster and shrimp overboard. overboard? nah, ...it's just right. so hurry in.

you probably guessed it, because donald trump was quick to respond to the fbi's announcement, trump tweeting out that the system is rigged. he's campaigning today in the swing state of north carolina. chief political correspondent carl cameron is live with more. carl, does this amount to a setback for trump and early christmas for the clintons? >> reporter: no. obviously the trump campaign and republicans across the country would have loved to have seen hillary clinton be indicted and be determined by the fbi director as unfit for the presidency. but this doesn't slow them down

at all. trump has been saying that crooked hillary has rigged the system. that's clearly the situation they're going to continue on. tonight he'll be campaigning with bob corker, a possible vice presidential pick. tomorrow newt gingrich will take that role. kimberly? the state department is reacting to the allegations. let's listen. >> we're always looking for ways to improve. we're going to continue to look for ways to improve. but we don't share the broad assessment made of our institution, that there's a lax culture when it comes to protecting classified information. we take it very, very seriously. >> reporter: i'm sorry. you don't share the assessment that when the former head of the agency had thousands of e-mails that you had to upgrade, including hundreds that were -- over a hundred that were classified at the time, that that doesn't amount to a lax approach to classified

information? how many hundreds would you need for it to be lax in your opinion? >> what i'm saying, brad, is that as a cultural assessment that we have a lax culture here, we don't share that assessment. as the director said himself, that wasn't part of their investigation or the findings and representations they made inside that investigation. >> reporter: so it's not -- it's true that it was not the scope of their investigation, but in looking at her e-mails and the number of officials that were e-mailing her about classified information, that's where they came to the determination that there was a lax culture. so i mean, i guess you would to employee and see what their treatment of e-mails was to determine if there's a lax culture. but clearly the fbi found enough, umm, secretary clinton's intent or whatever notwithstanding, that generally there were a lot of officials

that they came across in the scope of this investigation which led them to believe that the culture is not taking it as seriously as they could be. >> i'll let the fbi director speak to their findings and recommendations, as he should. the question was do i share, do we share the assessment of the culture at the institution of the state department to be lax, and we do not share that assessment. we take it very seriously. >> clearly he found it in the previous term. are you saying maybe there was a lax culture that doesn't exist anymore? >> no, i'm not saying that. i'm not saying that at all, at least. i'm not passing worparsing word here. i'm saying that the statement department has in the past and does today take the treatment of classified information very seriously. >> reporter: so it was just a few people that did not take enough care? >> i'm not going to speak to --

any more specifically about the findings and recommendations that the fbi announced today. all i can tell you is that we don't share a broad assessment that there's a lax culture here at the state department when it comes to dealing with classified information. we take it very clearly. >> reporter: i have one more. the fbi director said that had some of those people still been in office, they would have been subject or could have been subject to administrative penalties. is anybody that's currently employed by the state department going to have any notes in their files as a result of anything that their e-mail has uncovered in terms of their communications? and then also, some of the previous employees that worked for secretary clinton that were found to have exchanged what is now believed to be classified information, are they going to have kind of posthumous notes put in their file should they ever seek to be employed by the u.s. government again?

and does the state department do that or does the fbi do that? and is that through opm? what's the process there? >> so let me answer it this way, and i think i alluded to this at the top. we're going to determine the appropriate next steps following a decision by the department of justice. and that's where this really lays right now. we have, as you know, and i've said, we have an administrative process to evaluate cases where information may have been mishandled. as i've said previously, at the request of the fbi, we didn't move forward with that process, so as not to interfere with their investigation. we also don't believe that it's appropriate at this time, given that there are -- that the matter is now before the department of justice to determine their next step, to make decisions or not to make decisions. we don't think it's appropriate for us to move forward on that at this time. so i just don't have an update for you on any possible timing or scope of that review process.

>> what would be the -- once the department of justice makes their recommendation, then you would determine what administrative processes you want to move forward with? >> i think we need to wait to see what the justice department decides to do now in the wake of the fbi investigation before we move forward one way or the other. and we want to allow the proper time and space for that, before we decide anything further with respect to those issues. >> reporter: i have a couple of detailed questions on this, and if you don't have the answers, if you could understand to take them. as i understand, there are two separate processes that can be undertaken here, one is an administrative process and the other is a security clearance related process. as has been explained to me, but i would like to confirm, the administrative process governs solely people who are currently

employed by the department of state. so can you confirm that that's the case, that administrative processes or sanctions don't apply to people who are no longer employed by state? second, as it has been explained to me, it is possible for people who are no longer employed at state but who retain a security clearance to be subject to a security clearance process and perhaps sanction. is that your understanding as well? and then a couple of other specific things. are any -- is -- does former secretary clinton or any of her senior aides, specifically cheryl mills, jake sullivan, huma abedin, continue to have security clearances provided by the state department, and if so, is it theoretically possible

that you would then review those security clearances in the light of whatever is ultimately the justice department prosecutorial decision and the fbi's investigative material? >> there's an awful lot there. let me see if i can dissect it. i'm certainly not going to get ahead of what is still an ongoing process now at the justice department or speculate one way or the other about which way this will go. i don't know, i'm happy to ask the question, your question about administrative processes, i don't know if there is a technical definition for administrative and whether that applies in broad scope to only current employees or former employees. i'll have to take that. on the security clearance process or review, all i can tell you generally speaking is that if there is a need, and i'm speaking broadly, not to this,

the way it typically works, as i understand it, is the department issues a security clearance. if it's determined that that clearance need to be reviewed for whatever reason, it's up to that -- it's up to the department that issued it to review it, regardless of whether the employee is still at the -- is still employed by the agency. the agency has that responsibility, unless of course that employee went to a different federal agency and got it renewed there. does that make sense? i'm not going to speculate one way or the other about the degree to which this is even part of it. the fbi director was very careful, i'm going to be very careful. these are now decisions that have to be discussed, the findings and recommendations now have to be absorbed by the department of justice and then they make -- they'll make decisions or not, going forward. and then on your last question about the individuals, we do not

discuss the security clearance of individuals as a matter of policy. we just don't discuss it. >> these are former officials. >> we don't -- we do not discuss. >> one of them, jake sullivan, in the transcript of his deposition in the civil lawsuit in which he was deposed as part of discovery, his lawyer said that his security clearance was restored so that he would have the ability to look at some of the material that was classified, that they wanted to talk to him about. so it's at least in the public domain in that one instance, according to his lawyer, that he had as of that date, a week ago, a security clearance. why can't you talk about whether former officials have security clearances? >> because that's our policy. and it's been a long standing policy. we do not discuss the security

clearance levels or access of individuals, current or former. that's our policy and -- >> reporter: a state department policy or government-wide policy? >> i know it's at least a state department policy. >> reporter: there have been instances, whether it's general petraeus or sandy berger or otherwise, that when there was prunetive acti tivtiv tivtive p, they did discuss -- >> i'm just not going to do it. i refer you to the individuals in question. if they're represented by others, they'll speak to that, but i won't do that. [ inaudible ] -- disagree with the assessment that the state department has' culture of being lax in the protection of classified information, why is it that the highest state department

official was allowed to establish and use a private e-mail server with, as i understand it, no government-provided security for e-mails that contain information that as the fbi director said this morning, some of which was classified at the time it was sent and received? i mean, if it's not lax, how can the top official of the department go off and set up their own system that isn't subject to the normal procedures here? >> look, i'm not going to relitigate the investigation. as i said, i'm not going to speak to the findings and recommendations. the fbi director spoke to that earlier today, and to what they found in terms of the practices

back then and how those practices were followed. what i'll just tell you broadly speaking, we don't share the assessment that as an institution, an entire institution, that the state department has in the past or does today take lightly the issue of sensitive and classified information. we absolutely don't. >> reporter: the reason i ask it is that you look at -- as i understand it, every level of potential check or balance here, right, the assistant secretaries for ds, the undersecretary for management. according to the inspector general's report, these people were not asked and did not voice an opinion on the use of this system. the person on the seventh floor

who was charged with these kinds of issues, at least according to the report, told two people not to talk to anybody about it. so even if the quibble is with the word "laxity," do you feel that your systems were sufficient to safeguard classified information sent by or to the secretary of state? >> again, i think the fbi director addressed that as well, as part of their investigation. i am simply not going to discuss or comment on their findings and recommendations with respect to this case. wait a second, elise. wait. and to your question, and as he said himself, his assessment of the state department's culture was not part of his investigation. that's why i'm comfortable

addressing that, that as a whole, in the main, we absolutely do not share the broad assessment that the entire culture here at the state department is lacks when it comes to protecting sensitive and classified information. and what i'm base that ing that brad, is the longstanding, and i don't just mean recently, but longstanding training and indoctrination that one goes through before you get employed here. and the periodic reviews of the training and sensitive information handling that you have to go through, all the time. i've been here a little more than a year, i've had to go through it several times myself, that we have two networks for e-mail traffic that are deliberately set up to handle various degrees of sensitive information.

and that the work of diplomats all around the world is by its very nature sensitive, but it's also outward-facing and has to be. and there's a role here at the state department to be communicative, to have dialogue, to foster communication. that's a big part of who we are. and i can tell you that everybody involved in that understands the risks and the opportunities of it, it takes it very seriously. to say that the culture here is lax, that's a pretty broad brush, and again, we wouldn't use it, we don't believe it. >> reporter: the problem is this indoctrination that you speak of obviously didn't work when it came to the past secretary or the hundred or so officials who all contacted her during the course of her tenure or the dozens of officials who would

have known that she wasn't using a state.gov address or would have known that information that was at least on the borderline was going to a non-government account. so that failed across the board, right? >> i'm not going to make -- >> reporter: the ig report said as much. >> the ig spoke as well to this. i'm not going to talk about the findings and recommendations of this investigation. there is a difference, brad, between an assessment of e-mail practices under secretary clinton's tenure and how they were implemented, and saying that the culture here at the state department is lax. >> reporter: no, no, hold on. sorry. you can't separate the head of the agency and everybody who worked around her at a senior level in this agency. >> right, and i'm not trying to. >> reporter: well, there was

somebody out there following the rules. so the culture was okay? >> it's more than somebody, brad. >> reporter: well, i don't know. show me an ig report that shows me all the adherence. secondly, you're making the case of how the state department is an outward-looking agency. >> yes. >> reporter: none of these e-mails from secretary clinton were outward focused. they were all about internal messaging. they were all about her and her aides consulting on matters that weren't meant for public consumption. >> sure. >> reporter: there's even messages about not wanting things out for public consumption. i fail to see that that's an argument that shows why somehow this is distinct or excusable. >> it's a valid argument when you're talking about the entire institution, brad, and not an individual. >> all right. as you just saw moments ago, we'll break away for a second from the state department briefing by john kirby, and you saw president obama accompanied by the democratic nominee, hillary clinton, this coming just on the heels of the announcement by fbi director

comey recommending no prosecution in this case. and for more on this i'm joined by a former adviser to four u.s. ambassador to the u.n., and a fox news contributor. let's get your reaction. >> kimberly, now that the legal case is over for hillary clinton, there is a whole bunch of administrative and political problems that she's going to have to deal with. first of all, on the administrative side, i can tell you from personal experience that there are administrative ways to punish someone who is reckless with classified information. so first of all, administratively speaking, hillary clinton should lose her top secret security clearance for a period of time. and that should be up to the state department to figure out. but it's an absolute. she has to lose her security clearance if you're going to follow the rules. whether or not it's three months, six years, a year, two careers, or permanently, those

are the choices that the state department and administrative folks have to take up. now, one problem is that pat kennedy, who is at the state department, is going to be the official that's going to have to look at this and make some determination. and that's going to be problematic because he's already testified in this fbi case and knew about the server and didn't act. so i think that's going to be a problem. >> conflict of interest as well. >> separately from that, kimberly, you have all of the staff members. we know jake sullivan has had his top secret security clearance revoked for a period of time. but now we have cheryl mills and huma and a number of other officials. you look at those e-mail chains. and i disagree with the state department spokesman. they have a real problem at the state department. when you look at the e-mail chai a number of senior u.s. officials who are on those leaked chains with hillary clinton, who fully knew that she wasn't using the state.gov

system or a classified system. there was classified information that they were part of. so the culture there is to not question the secretary of state, because in your yearly review, you may not get an appointment to a european capital if you speak out. so the culture there is protecting the rule breakers. i think they've got to clean it up. they're going to have to make some very tough administrative decisions here. and let me say lastly, is that the senate has a big role to play. the senate foreign relations committee and all of the members of the senate need to immediately step up and work with the state department, because right now the public does not trust the state department, nor john kerry, to give the administrative hand slaps, if you will, the punishments for these individuals who clearly were reckless with classified information and national security. >> you brought up the same point that rudy guiliani made, which i think is a significant one, that

she could potentially lose and should just based on the statements that director comey made, her security clearance. wouldn't that by its very nature disqualify her from running for commander in chief, president of this country? >> yeah, i mean, if you think about that, first of all, the fbi director made clear that there were hundreds of e-mails she sent that had classified markings. hillary clinton said she didn't send any. the fbi director called her a liar. that is not true. what we found out is there were hundreds of instances. so now the state department must revoke her top secret security clearance. and therefore, as you point out, as rudy guiliani points out, you do not want to have even a democratic nominee making decisions about national security without being able to look at all of the blue papers, all of the details, all of our intelligence officers who are out in the field gathering information. there are instances where

secretary clinton, hillary clinton, wouldn't be able to review the information before making a decision. and that is critical. >> and you see the optics right there, the political ramifications, hours after this happens, you see president obama already on the campaign trail with hillary clinton. and that is what's giving some of the viewers at home pause, to reconcile the two. rick, thank you so much for joining us on "the real story." simon rosenberg is a former clinton campaign adviser. larry o'connor is host of "mornings on the mall" on wmal in washington and editor at large for hotair.com. gentlemen, thanks for joining me. simon, your reaction to all of this today. >> it's been quite a day. but i think here's what we know, right? hillary clinton is not going to be indicted before the election. she and donald trump will be facing each other in the fall election. right now she's up by a few points and the democratic party is getting its act together and

pulling together and the republicans are still struggling to get around their nominee. i don't think much has changed today. >> what about the questions of the specific statements that director comey made suggesting that these are security violations that could result in a revocation of security clearance? >> listen, it's very early in this. there's going to be a lot of debate, i already heard a lot today. i'm not a lawyer, so i don't want to speak to these kind of matters. i'm not expert in this. what i will say is that, you know, we've come -- there was a big -- there's a big change in the race today, right? we know that hillary clinton is going to be the democratic nominee. there is no question about that any longer. we know that donald trump is going to be the republican nominee. we're going to get on with the election. and there's going to be a lot more, i'm sure we're going to be talking about this a lot, kimberly, i'm happy to come back every week and talk about the next set of revelations. but we're moving on now to a different phase in the campaign. >> speaking of moving on, you see the presidential motorcade along with the woman who would seek to be the next president

and commander in chief. larry, tell me your thoughts on the timing of this. >> well, listen, i'm thoroughly disgusted by everything that i'm seeing and hearing and what i saw from admiral kirby in the state department. i live in the beltway bubble but i'm not from here. i talk to people on talk radio from across the country. you have to understand, people across the nation right now are flowing their pillows at their flat screen televisions in disgust and frustration because everything that they've believed about this town, this government, has just been made true, that there are two sets of rules. for those that govern us, those that don't have to play by the same rules, you don't have to follow the same laws. they have no repercussions when they brake those laws. and for the rest of us who actually pay our taxes, work hard every day and try to just live our lives outside of the government's heavy thumb on their backs. for democrats to be excited about this and celebrating i find to be reprehensible. they have nominated a woman who has been reckless with state secrets, who has lied about it from day one. director comey may not have said

there will be an indictment, but director comey said she lied about sending classified information. she lied about saying that republicans have just made trumped up charges. she lied about saying that these state secrets were never vulnerable to an a cyber attack. the lies continue. they were exposed today. this turns my stomach. >> what about, we know last minute she was interviewed by the fbi, they say three and a half hours, and that very evening she's seen on selfies tweeting and sending outer pictures from "hamilton" in new york on broadway? >> listen, she's -- her image has already taken an enormous hit. we've been talking about this since march of last year. this is not news. i don't think that anything that fbi director comey said today was additional to what we understood. and larry, i think this was -- we could debate this a lot, i'm sure we will, i don't think there was any additional info s

information today. i think the american peeplople e already cast their judgment on this. they're angry at her, she's paid a terrible price. she has said repeatedly that what she did as wrong. >> she's the nominee of your party. >> i understand, understand, la >> don't tell me she's paid the price. she flew on air force one, not paying the price. >> the public has lost a great deal of confidence in her over the last 15, 16 months. so i don't know that -- i'm making a political judgment now, i'm not making moral judgment or anything else, i'm giving you my political judgment that at the end of the day i don't know this is going to add a lot more information for people i think who have already made up their mind that what she did was wrong and bad but wasn't illegal. >> that's why the throw pillows are going at the television right now. the american people don't make political judgment. the american people are a very moral people. we just celebrated 240 years of our independence and know what our founding fathers were like.

this woman wants to sit in the same desk as george washington and have the same title and same honors as george washington. we're a very moral people and do look at it morally, not politically. that's why the american people are as frustrated as they are today. you're right, kimberly for saying there is a crisis in confidence in the united states government and this does nothing to help it. it hurts it, ten fold. >> thank you for joining us. we're going to bring in the host of special report joining us now for reaction on this very busy news day. hi, brett. >> we have rudy giuliani on earlier talking about the statute, specific statements by director comey and director comey is someone who previously worked under rudy giuliani and he was quite shocked this could be brought forth saying no reasonable prosecutor would bring this case forward to trial.

>> i think it's interesting, there's two sides, the legal side and political side. the legal side is comey's recommendation and the prosecutor whether to move forward and obviously lynch and the prosecutors will take the fbi recommendation but the political side, if you dissect what jim comey said, it is directly counter to what hillary clinton has said about this investigation all along. you know, the 110 e-mails that were classified at the time of their sending, you know, goes straight against what the clintons and the clinton campaign have been saying all along the seven e-mails that were top secret, sap, chain there and extreme carelessness. there's a difference between extremely careless and grossly knowledge. it's an interesting thought. >> the interesting thing is someone who wants to be commander in chief of the united states and at the same time this

is a serious security clearance problem where it could be rev e revoked given the circumstances and states that we heard from fbi director comey. >> anyone in a position will probably get their security clearance revoked. if she wins the presidency, the president has the ultimate classification. i don't think that would be a problem. she probably doesn't have a problem in court but has a problem in the court of public opinion after all that was said by director comey. i think this will be spliced up by either donald trump's campaign or some super pac into a lot of different ads. >> it sounds like they have the fiesta music tuned up there in charlotte, north carolina. real quick, i want to get your thoughts on the optics of this. when you see director comey come out and make that no prosecution, no case recommendation to loretta lynch

and then on the heels of that, you see president obama campaigning with hillary clinton and we saw that, the two of them coming out together, given the president's schedule, how is it they couldn't have any idea? i don't think you would be seeing them walk out today if the outcome was prosecution -- >> you would believe director comey at his word, what he was saying no one in the government knew at the start of the press conference but the optics are tough to stomach. you have the meeting between bill clinton and loretta lynch on the tarmac and president campaigning with hillary clinton on the same day the fbi director said she did a lot of bad things but not recommending prosecution. i think anybody can see that that's potentially a problem. we'll see how the clinton campaign handles it. she'll be asked a lot of

different questions about this for a long time. you can see that by the state briefing where kirby is getting hammered by questions. >> stand by a second. i'll going to bring in dr. s sebatian. >> admiral comey was defending indefensible narrative. the situation is a very sad one. i agree with larry o'connor, this is not the republic founded by the founding fathers. everybody is equal above in front of the law except clearly hillary clinton. this is stunning. >> let's talk about this because it's a security clearance issue that also would need to be dealt with on state department at the administrative level between their own investigation and the ig was doing that investigation.

if someone compromised security clearance as we've heard from our guests like rudy giuliani, how is it that person could be in charge of running the country, commander in chief and working with these other countries especially in light of the national security issues and problems we have going ford and the conflict in the middle east? >> this is where politics gets in the way as well. remember, if you win an election as president you get your security clearance. president obama did some things in an earlier life, drug usage or hanging out with people who were members of terrorist organizations that would have meant he shouldn't have got a security clearance if he was a gs-7 or 10 in government. they give him the football and he's in charge of our news. on paper, she should recuse herself from running from any public office because we're talking about gross negligence in the handling of classified

material. >> there should be awe high standard for that as leader of the free world and commander in chief of this country. i want to thank you for being with us and brett, you can catch special report at 6:00 p.m. eastern. thanks for joining us. p for as long as i can. new patented ensure enlive has hmb plus 20 grams of protein to help rebuild muscle. for the strength and energy to do what you love. new ensure enlive. always be you.

i want my blood sugar i to stay in control.ck. so i asked about tresiba®. ♪ tresiba® ready ♪ tresiba® is a once-daily, long-acting insulin that lasts even longer than 24 hours. i want to trim my a1c. ♪ tresiba® ready ♪ tresiba® provides powerful a1c reduction.

releases slow and steady. works like your body's insulin. when my schedule changes... i want something that delivers. ♪ tresiba® ready ♪ i can take tresiba® any time of day. so if i miss or delay a dose, i take it when i remember, as long as there's at least 8 hours between doses. once in use, it lasts 8 weeks without refrigeration... twice as long as lantus®, which lasts 4 weeks. tresiba® is used to control high blood sugar in adults with diabetes. don't use tresiba® to treat diabetic ketoacidosis, during episodes of low blood sugar, or if you are allergic to any of its ingredients. don't share needles or insulin pens. don't reuse needles. the most common side effect is low blood sugar, which may cause dizziness, sweating, confusion, and headache. check your blood sugar. low blood sugar can be serious and may be life-threatening. injection site reactions may occur. tell your doctor about all medicines you take and all your medical conditions. taking tzds with insulins, like tresiba®, may cause serious side effects like heart failure. your insulin dose shouldn't be changed without asking your doctor. get medical help right away if you have trouble breathing...

fast heartbeat, extreme drowsiness, swelling of your face, tongue, or throat, dizziness, or confusion. ask your doctor if you're tresiba® ready. ♪ tresiba® ready ♪ . we're awaiting hillary clinton this after the fbi says it will not recommend criminal charges against her. that's a live look at charlotte, north carolina. president obama set to make his first campaign appearance with the presumptive democratic nominee on what a day this has been. we'll bring it to you live when it starts in charlotte. this comes now only hours after the fbi director james comey said he will not recommend charges against clinton over her use of a private e-mail system. that was extensive. that during her time as secretary of state. he says the fbi did not find evidence she mishandled classified information but that she was quote, e