rayburn building. as i understand it, your testimony today is that you have not brought criminal charges against hillary clinton in part because you feel you can't prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and in part because she didn't understand the laws with regard to e-mails and servers and that sort of thing. question for you. when she erased these e-mails -- or i digress for a second. you however did say that if somebody did this under you, there would be consequences. if somebody did exactly what mrs. clinton did but was one of your lieutenants or one of the lieutenants under the cia or some other agency that deals with top secret documents, what would you do to those underlings? >> i would make sure they are adjudicated under a security proceeding to figure out all the

circumstances and what punishment is appropriate, that could range from being terminated to being reprimanded, to a whole spectrum in between, suspension, loss of clearance, a bunch of different options. >> let's say tomorrow, one of your top two or three lieutenants, you find out they have this separate server out there, they're keeping secret documents, flipping them around. do you think they should be fired? not criminally charged, but fired? >> yeah, i don't think it's appropriate to say. i think it should go through -- we have a very robust process. there ought to be a very intense suitability review of that person. maybe there's something that we're miss that go would mitigate the punishment we would impose. but it would have to go through our system. >> okay. next question. just for the listening audience here. at first, when i hear about erase the e-mails, i think it's a like on my own phone where i might erase a home insurance solicitation. but there was a much greater

effort made to make sure these e-mails would never be recovered. do you want to comment on what was done to erase the e-mails? >> i think what you're referring to is, after her lawyers -- her lawyers say, although i'm not able to verify this, there were 60,000 or so left at the end of 2014. they went through them in a way i described in my statement two days ago. and then they produced the ones that were work-related. and then they erased from their system the ones that were not work-related. that was done using technical tools, basically, to remove them from the lawyers, from the servers, to wipe them away. >> so it wasn't that mrs. clinton or somebody else went delete, delete, delete. they went above that so that your top technical experts could not get these e-mails, correct? >> correct, not fully. >> you recovered a few. >> we could go through the lawyers' laptops and see some traces but not fully recover them.

>> the information i have, you can correct me if i'm wrong, implies these erasures were done in 2014. did you ever come across why these e-mails were allowed to sit out there even for years after she stopped being secretary of state but all of a sudden, as these other scandals began to bubble up, she felt or her lawyers felt that she had to erase them? >> i think the way the process worked is, she had e-mails that were just on her system. she actually had deleted some i think over time, as an ordinary user would. then the state department contacted her and other former secretaries and said, we have gaps in our records, we need you to look and see about it you can give them back. she then asked her lawyers and was asked by her lawyers at the end, do you want us to keep the personal e-mails. she said, i have no use for them

anymore. it's then that they issued the direction that the technical people delete them. >> do you think mrs. clinton knew that the technical people were erasing these e-mails so that even your top technical experts could recover them? >> based on my sense now for technical sophistication, i don't think so. >> you don't think the lawyers told her that's what they were doing, erasing all these e-mails that everybody on this committee wanted to look at? >> and i'm sure we've asked this. >> a lawyer wouldn't tell their client they were doing that. >> i don't think -- i think our evidence, our investigation is they did not, that they asked her do you want to keep them, they said no, and they said, wipe them away. >> okay. as i understand it, the goal was just to erase personal e-mails. but you recovered e-mails that wouldn't be considered personal e-mails at all. >> correct. >> okay. i don't know that you didn't recover them, but based upon the e-mails that you recovered, presumably her lawyers or somebody was going well beyond

personal e-mails. is it possible we'll never be able to recover e-mails that dealt with the clinton foundation or dealt with the benghazi scandal? is it possible because of what her lawyers did that they were erasing things that were incriminating, maybe involving items that you yourself were not particularly investigating, but that these have now been destroyed forever? >> is it possible? as i said in my statement on tuesday, we did not find evidence to indicate that they did the erasure to conceal things of any sort. but it's possible, as i said on tuesday, that there are work-related e-mails that were in the batch that were deleted. >> i'm sorry. when you go to this length to make sure you can never recover the e-mails that are erased, wouldn't you think the intent is to make sure nobody looks at them again? why otherwise -- >> i thank the gentlemen. we'll give the director time if he wants to respond. >> i guess it's a bit circular.

you delete what you want to delete. we didn't find any evidence of evil intent or intent to obstruct justice to. >> you wouldn't have been able to. >> i thank the gentleman. we'll now recognize mr. russell of oklahoma for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. director comey, thank you for your long service and your long suffering. i think we're toward the end of the line here. i want to state for the record, with regard to national security, i sleep a little easier at night knowing that you're at the helm of the fbi. thank you for your dedicated service and your integrity. you have stated in your statement and also multiple times here that there should be consequences for the mishandling of state secrets. if i held a top secret sci in the bureau and i did hold one when i was in the united states army, in a career of service, i've handled classified

information here. but if i held that in the fbi, and you discovered that i mishandled state secrets on a private server in my basement, would i be trusted by the bureau to further handle top secret sci information? >> maybe not. you would go immediately through a security process to review whether you should continue working for us, and if you do, what clearances you should retain. >> if i violated the handling of state secrets in the fbi, would you consider me the best suitable candidate for promotion and higher responsibility? >> it would be a serious concern. we would stare at it very hard in a suitability review. >> although you have recommended to the department of justice that no criminal charges be brought to bear, are you recommending to the department of justice that there be no consequences for the mishandling of state secrets? >> no. my recommendation was solely with respect to criminal charges.

>> what would you recommend? >> i don't think it's for me to recommend. >> but you do -- you've been very open and even stated why you felt that these were unique sets of circumstances that called for greater transparency. you do make recommendations routinely, as you've stated here tod today. we're talking about top secret sci information that's been mishandled. you would take a dim view to that if i were an agent. what consequences -- this is what the american people feel exasperated about. there seems to be no consequence. so in a case like this, if it's not going to be criminal charges recommended, what are the american people to do to hold their officials accountable if maybe they shouldn't be trusted for further promotion and higher responsibility? >> and what i meant earlier is,

that's not a question that the american people should put to the fbi director. i can answer about the fingers within my remit. but -- i understand the question, but it's not one for me to answer in my role. >> well, i hope it's one that the american people answer in the future, because we do have a choice about those that would mishandle information. and while we're all fallible human beings and we all make mistakes, in the case like this, for decades of my service in the army infantry in handling top secret sci information and then as a member of congress, we know those responsibilities. is it your view and others that have interviewed mrs. clinton that she would not have known what those responsibilities were? >> no, i think in the way you would expect, she understood the importance of protecting classified information. >> i would agree with that. and there's been a breach. and i think the american people demand a consequence, that they

demand an accountability. and i think it's important to uphold the form of our republican government that we have a consequence. and with that, thank you for your appearance here today. and i would like to yield the remainder of my typically to chairman chaffetz. >> i think if you yield back, through mutual agreement, mr. cummings and i have agreed, i do have couple of dozen quick followup questions. you've been most generous with your time. we'll do so with equal time. how did the department of justice or how did the fbi view the incident in which hillary clinton instructed jake sullivan to take the markings off of a document that was to be sent to her? >> we looked at that pretty closely. there was some problem with their secure fax machine. there is an e-mail in which she says in substance, take the

headers off it and send it as a non-paper. there is one view that is reasonable that a non-paper in state department parlance means a document that contains things we could pass to another government. so essentially take out what's classified and send it to me. it turned out we found the classified fax was then sent. but that's our best understanding of what that was about. >> so this was a classified fax? >> correct. >> so hillary clinton sends to jake sullivan -- let me go back. jake sullivan says they say they had issues sending secure fax, they're working on it. hillary clinton sends to jake sullivan, if they can't, turn into non-paper with no identifying heading and send nonsecure. so you're telling me it's a classified piece of information. she's taking off the header and she's instructing them to send it in a non-secure format. is that not intent?

>> that actually caught my attention when i first saw it. what she explained to us in her interview was, and other witnesses did as well, what she meant by that is make it into a non-classified document, that's what a non-paper is in their world, and send it to us, because i don't need the classified stuff. >> nun wthen why take off the heading? >> i assume because it would be non-classified anymore. so you wouldn't have a classified header on it. >> she wanted to be technically correct, is that what you're saying? >> no, i think what she said during the interview is, i was telling him in essence send me an unclassified document. take the head aer off, turn it into a non-paper, which is a term i've never heard before, but i'm told by people i credit that in diplomatic circles means something i can pass to another government. >> you're very generous in your accepting of that. did uncleared individuals

receive classified information over hillary clinton's server? >> any uncleared people receive classified information? i don't think any of the correspondence on the classified e-mails were uncleared people. these were all people with clearances working -- doing state department business on the unclass system. >> did mr. pagliano have the requisite security clearance? >> as i sit here today, i can't remember. he was not a participant on the classified e-mail exchanges, though. >> he was running the server. he set it up. >> that's a different question. i'm sorry, i misunderstood your question, then. there's no question that uncleared people had access to the server who were private sector folks. >> so there are hundreds of classified documents on these servers. how many people without a

security clearance had access to that server? >> i don't know the exact number as i sit here. it's probably more than two, less than ten. >> i appreciate your willingness to follow up with this. did secretary clinton's attorneys have the security clearances needed? >> they did not. >> does that concern you? >> oh, yeah. sure. >> is there any consequence to an attorney rifling through secretary clinton's, hillary clinton's e-mails without a security clearance? >> not criminal consequences. but there's a great deal of concern about an uncleared person not subject to the requirements we talked about about in the read-in documents potentially having access. that's why it's very, very important for us to recover everything we can back from attorneys. >> so what's the consequence? i mean, hillary clinton gave direction to her attorneys without a security clearance to

go through documents that were classified. >> i think that's what happened in fact. whether that was the direction is a question i can't answer sitting here. >> you're parsing that one a little bit for me. >> no, you were just asking me -- >> what's the consequence? they don't work for the government. we can't fire them. >> right. >> is there no criminal prosecution of those attorneys? should she lothey lose their ba license? >> if they acted with criminal intent or malintent. >> what you're telling us is, it doesn't matter if they have a security clearance or not, i'm not trying to give it to the chinese or the russians, i'm just trying to help her. so there's no intent? it doesn't matter if these people have security clearances? >> of course it matters. that's why i said -- >> but there's no consequence, director. there's no consequence. >> well, i don't know what consequence you have in mind. >> prosecute 'em.

>> an attorney for receiving from his client information that ends up being classified? >> i asked you at the very beginning. does hillary clinton -- is there reasonable expectation that hillary clinton would send and receive hourly, if not daily, classified information? that's reasonable to think, that the secretary of state would get classified information every moment. she's not the head of fish and wildlife. so the idea that she would turn over her e-mails, her system, her server, to what it sounds like, up to ten people without security clearances, and there's no consequence. so why not do it again? >> that's a question i don't think you should put to me. i'm talking about my criminal investigation. >> but how can that -- there's no intent there? does she not understand that these people don't have security clearances?

>> surely she understands at least some of them don't have security clearances. >> so she understands they don't have security clearances and it's reasonable to think she's going to be having classified information. so it's okay to provide nonclassified people with classified information? >> you're mixing it up -- mixing me up, sorry, it's not your fault -- that someone who is maintaining your server is reading your e-mails. in fact i don't think that's the case here. there's a separate thing, that had she's engaging counsel to comply with a state department request, are lawyers exposed to information that may be on there that's classified. >> did they see any classified information? did hillary clinton's attorneys without security clearances see classified information? >> as i sit here, i don't know the answer to that. >> it has to be yes, director. you came across 110 and they said they -- >> they didn't read them all.

they looked at headers. >> their excuse is we saw the e-mails but we didn't read them? >> no, i think i said this in my statement on tuesday. they sorted the e-mails by using headers and search terms to try and find work-related e-mails. we read them all. >> i know that you read them all. do you think it's reasonable or unreasonable to think that her attorneys under her direction did or did not read those e-mails? because -- let me go back to this. yes or no. were there or were there not classified e-mails that her -- that hillary clinton's attorneys read? >> i don't know whether they read them at the time. >> did hillary clinton give non-cleared people access to classified information? >> yes. >> what do you think her intent was? >> i think it was to get good

legal representation and to make the production to the state department. i think it would be a very tall order in that circumstance, i don't see the evidence to make a case that she was acting with criminal intent in her engagement with her lawyers. >> i guess i read criminal intent as the idea that you allow somebody without a security clearance access to classified information. everybody knows that, director. everybody knows that. i've gone way past my time. let me recognize mr. cummings for an equal amount of time. >> director, thank you for your patience. i want to clear up some things. i want to make sure i understand exactly what you testified to on the issue of whether secretary clinton sent or received e-mails that were marked as classified. on tuesday, you stated, and i quote, only a very small number

of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings. and i emphasize, bore markings indicating the presence of classified information, end of quote. republicans have pounced on this statement as evidence that secretary clinton lied. but today, we learn some significant new facts. and i hope the press listens to this. first, you clarified that you were talking about only three e-mails out of 30,000. your office reviewed; is that right? >> three, yes. >> three out of 30,000, is that right? >> yes, at least 30,000. >> at least 30,000. second, you confirmed that these three e-mails were not properly marked as classified at the time based on federal guidelines and manuals. they did not have a classification header.

they did not list the original classifier. the agency, office of origin, reason for classification, or date for declassification. instead, these e-mails included only a single, quote, "c," parenthesis, end parenthesis, then end of quotation mark, for confidential, in one paragraph lower down in the text, is that right? >> correct. >> third, you testified that based on these facts, it would have been a, quote, reasonable inference for secretary clinton to, quote, immediately, end of quote, conclude that these e-mails were not in fact classified. so that was also critical new information. but there is one more critical

fa fact, and that is this, director. and to the press. these e-mails were not in fact classified. the state department explained to us yesterday they reported that these e-mails are not classified, including the little "c" on these e-mails was a result of a human error. the bottom line is that those little "c"'s should not have been on those documents because they were not in fact classified. when representative watson coleman asked you a few minutes ago about this, you testified that you had not been informed. and i understand that. i'm not beating up on you, i promise you. but can you tell us why, director comey, because the republicans are pouncing, saying that the secretary lied. i want to make sure we're clear on this. can you tell us why, director comey, did you consult -- and we're just curious, did you consult with the state department about these three

e-mails out of the more than 30,000, did this just not come up? what happened there? >> i'm not remembering for sure while i'm here. i'm highly confident we consulted with them and got their view on it. i don't know about what happened yesterday. it may be their view has changed or they found things out that we didn't know. i'm highly confident we consulted with them about it. >> so this is totally different than what we understood yesterday. today we learned these e-mails were not in fact classified, she should not have been included -- they should have not included those stray markings, they were not properly marked as classified, and the director of the fbi believes it was reasonable for secretary clinton to assume that these documents were not classified. mr. chairman, you raised a question about whether secretary clinton's attorneys had security clearances. it is my understanding that they did. we can double-check that. but that is my understanding.

we'll double-check that. going on, let me move to the next topic. you explained on tuesday that you were providing, quote, an update on the fbi's investigation of secretary clinton's use of a personal e-mail system during her time as secretary of state. you explained that you received a referral on this matter from the inspector general of the intelligence community on july 26, 2016, is that right? >> yes. >> today, tens of thousands of af probably available on state department's website. and our staff have been reviewing the e-mails that were retroactively determined to include classified information. based on this review, it appears that these e-mails included more than 1,000 individuals who sentt is now redacted as classified. let me make that clear. about 1,000 people sent or

received the same information that was contained in secretary clinton's e-mails and retroactively classified. were you aware of that? >> no. the number doesn't surprise me, though. >> why not? >> because this was -- they were doing the business of the state department on this e-mail system. so i don't know how many thousands of people work at the state department, but it doesn't surprise me there would be lots of people on these chains. >> and would you agree that there's something that needs to be done with regard to this classification stuff? because things are classified, then they're not classified, then they are retroactively classified. i mean, does that go into your consideration when looking at a case like this? >> yeah, i don't pay attention to the up-classified stuff, because we're focused on intent. if someone classifies it later, it's impossible that you formed intent with regard to that

because it wasn't classified at the time. i don't spend a lot of time focused on it in the course of a criminal investigation. >> i understand. we also reviewed who these people are, and they include a host of very experienced career diplomats with many years of experience. so let me ask you this. when you receive this referral from the inspector general about secretary clinton's e-mails, did you also receive any referrals for any of the other 1,000 people who sent and received those e-mails? did you? >> no. >> i understand -- >> well, i should stop there. within the scope of our investigation was a group of people closer to the secretary. we looked at their conduct. i forgot what the number is, four or five of them. but the hundreds of others who may have been on the chains were not the subjects of the investigation. >> i have 30 more seconds. i understand that secretary clinton is the only one running for president, but it does not make sense that she was singled

out for referral to the fbi, do you agree with that? >> i don't think i agree with that. >> okay. so -- let's go back to colin powell. do you think you ought to look at his situation? or condoleeza rice? >> there's been no referral on them. i know only say superficial level those circumstances. this case strikes me as different from those and not an appropriate referral from the attorney general. >> i thank the gentleman. who was hillary clinton e-mailing that was hacked? >> i don't want to say in an open forum. we can get you that information. again, i don't want to give hostile adversaries insight into what we figure out. >> fair enough. >> i know the name. >> i understand. was there evidence of hillary clinton attempting to avoid compliance with the freedom of information act? >> it was not the subject of our

criminal investigation. so i can't answer that sitting here. >> it's a violation of law, is it not? >> yes. my understanding is there are civil statutes that apply to that. >> let's put the boundaries on what you didn't look at. you didn't look at whether there is intention or reality with noncompliance of freedom of information act? >> correct. >> you did not look at testimony that hillary clinton gave in the congress, both house and senate? >> to see if it was per jurious? >> correct. >> we did not. >> so -- okay. and this is an important point, because i think those of us in congress, knowing that you got a criminal referral from an inspector general, thought that

you were also looking at whether or not hillary clinton had provided false testimony, which is a crime, to the congress. but you didn't look at that. >> correct. as i said, i'm confident my folks looked at the substance of the statements to try and understand the circumstances around the entire situation. >> can you confirm that? >> yes, we'll confirm that. also, again, maybe i'm missing this, but i don't think we got a referral from congressional committees, a perjury referral. >> no, it was the inspector general that initiated this. did the -- the fact that hillary clinton refused to be interviewed by the inspector general, what did that say to you about intent? >> not -- at least for our criminal investigation, not particularly germane. >> are you familiar -- you're familiar, there is a website, lots of government agencies have

websites. the state department has a website, state.gov. and they have a youtube site. videos that are uploaded to a youtube site, would those be considered federal records? >> i don't know. >> so they're paid for by federal dollars. they're maintained by federal employees. would that not be a federal record? >> yeah, i just don't know. i'm sure there's an expert who could answer that in two seconds. but i'm not that expert. >> we've kept you here a long time. i want to follow up on that. is the fbi still investigating hillary clinton's aides? >> no is the answer. the department of justice declined on all of those who were subjects communicating with her through that e-mail system. >> what recommendations did you make about her aides? >> same. same. we didn't recommend that anybody be prosecuted on those facts. >> and if you can help us understand who precisely has

been ruled out for prosecution, that would be -- >> sure. >> did you look at the clinton foundation? >> i'm not going to comment on the existence or nonexistence of any other investigation, sir. >> was the clinton foundation tied into this investigation? >> i'm not going to answer that. >> the server that was set up in her home was originally set up by, you said, former president bill clinton. >> correct. >> do you know who paid for that? >> i don't, sitting here. >> okay. i'll allow some equal time now for my colleague and friend, mr. cummings. >> i'm going to yield two minutes of my 3.43 to mr. lynch. >> thank you, mr. director. we're talking about hacking. and so on this committee, we

were very much interested in cyber security. and we review a lot of it major hacks that are going on. so just recently, and i would say in the last 18 months, we've had a major hack, february of 2016, at the department of homeland security and the fbi. we had a hacking group, the site intelligence group reported that a group called crackers with attitude had hacked 9,000 employees' data from the department of homeland security, including names, e-mail addresses, locations, telephone numbers. also 20,000 fbi workers. we had another hack, direct evidence, obviously, of those. another hack at opm of 4.2 million current and former federal government employees,

their information had been stolen, including social security numbers, which are not redacted. we had irs in may 2015, millions -- i'm sorry, 200,000 attempted and 100,000 were successf successful. we had state department announced a breach of its computer systems after an infiltration forced the agency to temporarily shut down its classification system. we had united states postal service, 2.9 million customers, the white house, "washington post" reported back in 2014, that the white house computer was hacked. national oceanic atmospheric administration, we had -- i'm on

the committee for financial services. we had verizon, thousands and thousands and thousands of employees. anthem health care, sony pictures, staples, home depot, jpmorgan. it gets into the millions. community health systems. target, tjx. all these we have direct evidence, millions and millions and millions of people, their accounts being hacked. any direct evidence that hillary clinton's e-mails were hacked? >> no. >> okay. i have no further questions. i yield back. >> mr. director, we are about at the end. i'm going to do a concluding statement and then i think the chairman will. i want to first of all go back to something that ms. watson-coleman said earlier. as an african-american man in this country, 66 years old,

moving towards the twilight of my life, we cannot allow black men to continue to be slaughtered. this morning i woke up to my wife literally crying, watching the tape of this guy anton sterling in baton rouge. then she looked at the one for philando castile near minneapolis. and i hope you watched them. there's something wrong with this picture. and don't get me wrong, i am all for, i've supported police, i am a lawyer and i know how important police are, and i know there are so many great folks. but mr. director, if you do nothing else in your 2,000 plus days left, you have got to help us get ahold of this situation. it is so painful.

i can't even begin to tell you. and so i don't want -- i've been fortunate in my life. i've been very fortunate that i have not been harmed by the police. but i've been stopped 50 million tim times. now, with regard to this hearing, i want to thank you again. as i listen to you, you said something that i will never forget. and for some reason, it gave me a chill. you said there are two things that are most important to me, two things. you said, my family, and my reputation. my family and my reputation. and i don't know whether your family is watching this. but i hope that they are as proud of you as i am.

because you are the epitomy of what a public servant is all about. sacrificing over and over and over again, trying to do the right thing, sometimes coming under ridicule, yet still doing the right thing. so i hope that they are proud of you. the second thing is that no matter what has happened in this hearing, i hope that you know that your reputation is still intact. and so i conclude by summarizing that i think some of our key findings today, first, the director testified that his entire team of 15 to 20 fbi investigators and analysts unanimously agree on the recommendation not to prosecute secretary clinton.

second, director comey made crystal clear that republican claims, some of the talking heads' claims of bias are completely false. he testified that he would treat john doe the same way he would treat hillary clinton, that he was very forceful on that point. third, on the claim that secretary clinton sent or received e-mails that were marked as classified, that claim has now been significantly undercut. those documents were not classified, and those markings were not proper. finally, republicans have repeatedly cried foul about a double standard when it comes to secretary clinton's e-mails. but director comey testified that the real double standard would have been to prosecute her with this completely inadequate evidence. again, director, i thank you.

but i thank somebody else. i thank -- and having practiced law for many years and having dealt with the fbi on many cases, i want to thank the people who work with you. because it's not just -- this is not just about you. this is not just about secretary clinton. when we are addressing you, there's a whole cadre of people who give their blood, their sweat, and their tears to protect us as americans. and i just want to thank them. because sometimes i think they are forgotten, unseen, unnoticed, unappreciated, and unapplauded. but today i applaud them and i thank you. thank you very much. and i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. and i concur with the idea that every fbi agent i have ever met has just been above reproach. and they make us proud. and they work hard.

they put their lives on the line. they serve overseas. they serve domestically. can't thank them enough for what they do. i hope that is part of the message we carry back. i cannot thank you personally enough. you on a personal level, for your accessibility, your ability to get on the phone with me, the same day that you make your announcement, and then in rapid fire, when i said to you, what day is best, we're going to have to do this, which day is best, you said thursday, and here we are doing it. i can't thank you enough. i wish all of the government employees would have that attitude and approach. and i really do. and i can't thank you enough. i look forward to working with you and your staff as we moved forward in getting this documentation, things that you can't share publicly, and others. it is the intention of the committee to -- i had told mr. cummings here that we would come back after votes. votes have been pushed back now a bit. so what i would like to do is to

go into recess for five minutes and then we will start with our second panel. the committee stands in recess until five minutes from now. thank you again, director comey. >> good afternoon. we have been listening to this hearing live on capitol hill for the last four hours and 40 minutes. fbi director james comey getting grilled on the hillary clinton e-mail and server investigation by lawmakers on both sides of the aisle who say his decision not to recommend charges, at least the republicans say this, that simply doesn't add up. hello, everyone, i'm heather nauert and this is "the real story." comey clearly getting frustrated with his critics today who suggested his concluding statement may have been orchestrated. we have live fox coverage from the nation's capital. blake berman has the latest from donald trump who is also in washington today for some significant meetings on capitol hill. let's first begin with our chief intelligence correspondent catherine herridge, who is live

with more on today's hearing. catherine? >> reporter: thank you, heather. really until the last 20 minutes we've heard quite an extraordinary exchange from the fbi director and the republican chairman of the committee, jason chaffetz. every security clearance holder knows that you just cannot share classified information with someone else who doesn't have a need to know and doesn't have a security clearance at the inappropria appropriate level. but what the director just testified to is that hillary clinton did give access to classified information to people who did not have the clearance to read it. >> let me come back to this. yes or no, were there or were there not classified e-mails that her -- that hillary clinton's attorneys read? >> i don't know whether they read them at the time. >> did hillary clinton give

non-cleared people access to classified information? >> yes. >> reporter: what came out of that exchange at the end was a question about whether there would be any consequences for clinton aides who received this classified information and didn't have an appropriate clearance or more specifically, for her lawyers, and at this point the director said there would be no consequence, heather. >> no consequence for that. certainly a big deal. catherine, you've been watching this for all of the hours now, and this investigation as it's unfolded for years now, what is the other big headline coming out of this? >> reporter: well, the main headline out of the hearing today is that the hillary clinton e-mails is certainly not a settled matter. the republican chairman of the committee said that he will make a formal referral to the fbi to investigate whether hillary clinton lied to congress under oath during the benghazi hearings last year about her use of e-mail and her personal server. >> lying under oath is a crime,

is it not? >> yes. >> what's the penalty on that? that's considered perjury, right? >> it's a felony. i forget the exact -- it's potential years in prison. >> reporter: and how they will determine whether mrs. clinton lied under oath is assess her statements to congress and compare to to what her statements were to the fbi on saturday during that three and a half hour question period. >> catherine, what did we learn about intent and how that factored into the decision? >> reporter: well, what the fbi director said consistently today is that mrs. clinton did not have the technical sophistication to necessarily understand that classified information was being held in an unsecure way or was being transmitted in an unsecure way. this raises real questions over whether she would have the sophistication to really seek a promotion from secretary of state to commander in chief. here is that exchange with a former cia covert officer who became so emotional about the

fact that sensitive information was at risk. >> that person mishandling the most sensitive information that this government can collect is not fair, it's not fair to punish someone who did that? >> not on these facts. if that person worked for me, it would be fair to have a robust disciplinary proceedings. it's not fair to prosecute that person on these facts. >> reporter: this was the one moment in the hearing where the fbi director seemed to move away from the facts and give his own personal judgment over whether it would have been fair or not to bring a prosecution with this set of facts, heather. >> catherine herridge live on capitol hill, thanks for keeping an eye on this for us. a passionate response from one republican at today's hearing. you saw a clip of him a moment ago. here he is again. >> i'm offended by my friends on the other side of the political aisle saying this is political theater. this is not political theater. for me, this is serious. i spent nine and a half years as

an undercover officer in the cia. i was the guy in the back alleys collecting intelligence, passing it to lawmakers. i've seen my friends killed. i've seen assets put themselves in harms way. and this is about protecting information, the most sensitive information the american government has. and i wish my colleagues would take this a little bit more seriously. >> that right there, texas republican congressman will hurd joins me now. congressman hurd, thank you for joining us. did you get the answers you were looking for from the fbi today? >> i think the whole thing was frustrating. and to me, this is about just -- it's more than just one conversation. this is how we prevent a culture that allows the mishandling of classified information. i don't think we achieved that today. but it's still hard for me to realize that, you know, this is someone who had an unauthorized server, those are the director of the fbi's words, in her basement. it was barely protected.

and it passed classified information at the top secret level. and how that is not a violation of law. and the director of the fbi is saying it's because she didn't know the difference between unclassified information and classified information? >> director comey a short while ago indicated that a private gmail server, we all know what that is, or gmail account, could actually be more secure than what she used. what was your reaction when you heard that? >> absolutely. this is about her own server. you're supposed to have somebody running it. if you're using a commercial e-mail device, then you have hundreds of millions of dollars providing security, you have probably thousands of people involved in security for that company. this was someone -- and director comey didn't even realize how many people are protecting it. he basically said not very many. and to me, this is not about political theater. this is about how do we make sure that the senior executive of our national intelligence

infrastructure didn't know the difference between unclassified and classified information? what people need to realize is that even though the informs may not have been marked classified, the information itself is classified. and she should have known better. >> let me ask you about that. because you worked as a cia intelligence officer behind the scenes overseas for us. was the expectation that you as a cia officer, just like her as the head of the state department, would be expected to know what is classified even if it's not marked? >> absolutely, 100%. there's no way that you can misunderstand that. this is a secretary of state, one of the key members of the president's cabinet. this is someone that should understand this. and this is what's incredibly frustrating. and i think for the american people to hear, this is the equivalent of saying, you know, the speed limit is 75, i'm going 85, i don't know that i'm going 85, and i shouldn't be able to get a ticket for that. i think everybody knows how that would end up.

>> congressman, some democrats are saying this is all political, that republicans should drop this. what is your reaction to that? >> my reaction to that is that's outrageous. this is about making sure that this culture doesn't continue. do we need to pass existing laws to deal with this issue of intent? you know, because the former secretary of state didn't know the difference between unclassified and classified information, that therefore she shouldn't be prosecuted, do we have to change that for senior executive positions? i think the answer is yes. and we can't let this happen. the reality is there are thousands of men and women putting themselves in harm's way every day to keep us safe. there are people risking their lives to keep us protected. if we're going to create a culture that the people at the top of these organizations that doesn't -- and realize that that's important, we have a problem to be able to defend our nation and to defend our people. >> sir, finally, you serve on one of the subcommittees of that

committee that focuses on technology, information technology. what does it tell you that the fbi, the best and brightest forensics investigators, were not able to get to all of the e-mails that were wiped or deleted from her server? >> well, to me, i think that could possibly lead to intent, that you use such techniques to completely wipe clean these type of devices. it takes a takes a certain levef sophistication. the other thing that scares me is many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't understand how classified information should be handled or how it's used. it was obvious, based on the questions we heard today. >> congressman, served our country for the cia. thank you for your service tower country and thank youor joining us. hillary clinton's campaign firing back, raises questions about who halt access to classified information on the private e-mail senior. mike emanuel is live in washington. mike, what are some of the

points that clinton aide are trying to make after this hearing? >> reporter: it's been a rung commentary on social media, from clinton campaign press secretary brian fallon. he said to be clear the lawyers who sorted through christianton's e-mail had top secret clearance. earlier tweeted, call me on the hack theory, the idea that foreign hackers may have gotten into her system there is, quote no direct evidence of an intrusion. earlier brian fallon noted director comey affirms from everything he can tell clinton's reason for setting up her personal e-mail system was convenience. sorry, g.o.p. then fall kwon tweeted, house g.o.p. clearly treating fbi director comey as a hostile witness. #overreach. no surprise the team at clinton's headquarters has been watching the entering with intent interest. >> mike emanuel, thank you.

hundreds of republican lawmakers meeting with our party's presumptive nominee today. donald trump working to unify the g.o.p. on capitol hill. with less than two weeks to go until the convention, let's check in with blake burman. how did it go for trump today? >> reporter: it was a very big day for donald trump here in washington, dc. two meetings throughout the day. the first earlier this morning, just down the road from me over at the capitol hill club, where trump met with 200 plus republican members of the house of representatives. that scene was described to me as a jam-packed rom. he spoke about an hour and took questions and then he made the trip about half mile down the tried where i'm standing now over at the national republican senatorial committee and did the same relating to republican senators. keep in mind, for many this was the first time that had face-to-face encounter with their presumptive nominee for

president, and after those meetings, many republicans were preaching party unity. listen here. >> we had a great meeting. our members enjoyed. this was the first time just about every one of our members had a chance to actually meet and engage with donald trump. >> in the mountains of western north carolina. when you learn them, you like them. >> reporter: of note here, when donald trump left the nrsc, five to ten minutes after, so,, too, did senator ted cruz. so it's possible they had their ferret feys to face meet in the last few months. not aways on board for party ewany. after the meeting, the republican senator from nebraska sent out a statement saying he had a gracious exchange with trump, as he described it, but his staff -- i'm quoting -- continues to believe our country

is in a bad place and with these two candidates this election is a dumpster fire. nothing has changed. sasse still on the never-trump band wagon. >> he said it was gracious meeting and then called it a dumpster fire. doesn't quite square. so what is safe will be key to winning the presidency in 2016 and which ones are leans left and which ones are leaning right? today we debut or fox news electoral map projections. the mops show our current evaluation of the electoral landscape. this is huge. a candidate needs -- you may remember this -- 270 electoral votes to win the presidency. so let's dig in with aaron shaw, critical science professor at the university of texas and a fox news pollster, a member of our election night team. we'll be hearing a lot from you on election night. let's look at the first screen. what is significant? >> this is an overall map that

show companies current status of different state us. what you want to keep in mind historically the republican does well when they control the republican l, from the up are rockie mountain states to the southwest ask then east to the atlantic ocean. reagan, bush, effective republican candidates in the past have carried almost all of this states. democrats have to flip a couple of them in order to get to 270. >> which ones do democrats have to flip and how are they looking? >> we have classified as base democratic states, pacific northwest, washington, oregon, california, those are part of hillary's base. >> this has not changed. no the last time -- washington, orb, were theoretically battleground states in 00 and '04, and they didn't actually turn out very promising for bush. but that was the latime they were on the radar screen if don't think they're in play this time around. trump has talked at bit about oregon.

then the other coast, this is a bicoastal thing. in the mid-atlantic and new england states you see that hillary has base in all states, so from new york, up to maine, and then all the states that hang in the northeast part of the country, with the lone exception of new hampshire, the one holdout, and then the democrats have done well in upper midwest states. that's a real change over the last three or four election cycles. states liking some and wisconsin checks used to be toss-up states pretty much go democratic all the time -- >> but on the other hand, donald trump's message could be resonating with some folks in those states. >> absolutely. which is why we have the leaning. for exactly the reason you mentioned. the appeal to blue collar whites. >> trait. >> union members in those two states might bring them into play. so we have them on a watch list. >> the next one, republicans in the states leaning republican right now.

>> this republican l? you got a couple of glaring holes, where colorado and 1/2 da are, which tossups. new mexico, which is democratic. then a couple of these lean stating going to cause concern, areas hillary will make a play, arizona,more. >> is that because of the african-american votes and latinos, not leaning towards republican. >> core democratic cob stilts tunes in arizona, hispanics, that are moving the state in a more competetive direction but might be particularly mobilized against donald trump this cycle. >> then our final one. what do we have here. >> the pure tossup states where the election is going to come down to. you go west, east, nevada, colorado, iowa, ohio, always there. pennsylvania. this is a little controversial but we see a lot of evidence right now that despite the fact that democrats have won it

consistently over the past six election cycles, pennsylvania seems to be in play for the reasons you mexed earlier. new hampshire, the one hold-out. the atlantic tates, virginia, north carolina, and of course, our fan favorite, florida. so we have collectively 120 electoral votes in tossup states and have hillary hat 227, so she needs 43. we have trump at 191. so he need 79. out of the states in order to get to 2 to 70. >> we have a final one that looks at the republican and the democrats. explain that. >> this is if you take the tossup states and let's admit how. we seem to know about politics this cycle. let's add in the states that are leaping, add to the tossup states wisconsin anding some could be targets for trump. and the states the republican thing that have. arizona, missouri, georgia. if you want a more expansive map this will do the job.

>> interesting how much the demographics have changed. states like virginia, north carolina, used to be republican states them demographics have changed. >> i think to a let e. extent the upper midwest states which have aging populations, where the minority groups have either kind of solidified but haven't grown much or declining and losing some people. those states may come into play, but the sun belt states, more diverse, dynamic young populations, they're moving in a more competitive direction. >> we have 30 seconds left. your headline for all of this. >> if think what you get -- when you look at this stuff and put it together, hillary clinton has an advantage. be 30 more votes in her base. 40 more, actually, if you do the math. compared to trump, but as always, if you look at the tossup states, it's going to be much more competitive than a lot of us thought. >> much more competitive than a lot of us thought. thank you so much, darrin shaw. we'll be seeing you on election

night. thank you for joining us today on "the real story." we are going to head it over to shepard smith who will be digesting all of this. >> it's 3:00 on the east coast, 2:00 p.m. in both minneapolis and baton rouge. each city, the scene of anger after the week's police shootings. in minnesota, you see he heartbreaking reaction from the whom who watched her boyfriend die next to her. >> the police done -- for no reason. they took his life for no reason. >> you'll see the video of the aftermath. she is now speak about threat camera did not capture. from louisiana, new video today. a new angle that shows exactly what went down during the confrontation at a convenience store. today the investigation, the accusation, and what is sure to happen next. plus,on