Skip to main content

tv   Donald Trump Campaigns in Ashville North Carolina  CSPAN  September 12, 2016 10:55pm-11:45pm EDT

10:55 pm
the documents to people and he has the same clearances any congress that is not on the committee and the reason he has not been able to get them is because his own party leadership has not voted to give him this clarence. , as i understand it the fbi produced a small subset of these e-mails only to the intelligence committee and according to house roles, the intelligence has a jurisdiction over certain agencies and these agencies are important to the intelligence committee. place anda process in for any member and not on the committee to see these documents. they need to send a letter to the committee which the chairman did and i have his letter from september 2 and i request
10:56 pm
unanimous consent to place it into the record. >> without objection. roe: maloney so he said theyand -- rep. maloney: need to take about. i understand they have not scheduled a vote to us the chairman to see these documents. just feel that a lot of this is your playing politics as usual and stirring up a hornets nest over documents he cannot see that are being withheld by his own party. wantems that they do not to open up jurisdiction at this this is nothing more than
10:57 pm
a partisan, election-bashing exercise stating the e-mails cannot be seen because those cannot see it. i say it is politics as usual and them disturbed about it. this is a charade. these documents are not being withheld from the chairman because of anything, any of these things that are are done, they are being withheld by the republican chairman of the intelligence committee. so i respect to lisa guest to my therman that we bring in chairman of the intelligence committee and ask why he does not have a vote to release the it is up to the
10:58 pm
-- to see who has withheld these documents. >> will be gentlewoman yield? rep. maloney: i most certainly will. >> have you made reductions on personal identifiable commission to the intel committee? mr. higgins? how about you? mr. higgins: no, we have not. >> ms. walsh? knowledge.not to my >> mr. samuel question mr. samuel: no mr. chairman. >> mr. -- >> no. not to my knowledge. >> can you release these documents the public, and of so what would happen? what happens if we release these e-mails on hillary clinton's server?
10:59 pm
what happens? confirmhairman, i can the they made a classification with due process and i would be happy to provide. we do not feel it is appropriate for public. >> do these materials include sources invested? >> mr. chairman, i would prefer to discuss matters regarding classification in closed session. >> the gentlewoman's time is expired. forve for -- thank you yielding. >> i reclaim my time. you took all my time. i think the chairman can of all the time he wants. i just ask for a second that our committee is engaged in a is nothing but a partisan attack on sec. clinton.
11:00 pm
in effort to harm or undermine her presidential campaign. that is all it is. get the chairman of the intelligence committee to release the documents to you. no one is withholding it. hasintelligence committee jurisdiction over agencies, including the fbi. they release their information. they have a process. you have a appeal to that process. ask him why he is not taking a vote to give you access to these documents. you're making it look like there is some conspiracy or terrible thing happening, but it is really nothing but a partisan attack on sec. clinton. >> i think the gentlewoman. where i have a problem is when they redact information that is deemed unclassified. i do not understand that. it makes no sense.
11:01 pm
and, classification of one issue, but when they redact information that has already been designated unclassified, i believe congress should be privy to that. >> may i respond? in the hearings we have had, the witnesses have testified that the personal information that to been redacted has been protect the privacy of people and personal information. that is on record. but in the classified section we can have more of this. >> i recognize the gentleman from ohio, mr. jordan. let me start were the chairman was. so did the f yard make the reduction? >> we did. said, wean: you have don't have all of the 302's, we do not have the will file.
11:02 pm
and what you did give us had lots of reductions. the chairman invited you to a briefing last week in a classified setting which you said in your opening remarks you would like to discuss this. so who told you not to come to the briefing? determine was there, i was there, every single republican member was sitting there waiting anxiously for you to come do what you just said you wanted to do. so wide it you not show up? to be clear.i want as far as what we have provided there are a lot of 302's. we designate upfront what we call the most important one so those are the ones we gave. >> and we are working on the other. >> frankly, you could've told us we told is just there last wednesday. but you did not come. why didn't you come?
11:03 pm
mr. herring: not would like to address that in a classified session if i could. >> did someone tell you not to come? mr. herring: a conversation between me and the staff. >> no, you were invited, we were waiting. we are going to ask about the reduction in a classified setting which is what you prefer, what you want, what you said today he won up. and someone told you not to come. who told you not to come? mr. herring: know as might decision. >> you decided all by yourself? mr. herring: i consulted with the director. >> and the director said it was up to you? really? mr. herring: i think there was some confusion at least on my part about the expectations and in some of my conversations with staff last week. >> did you have any other discussions question mark just you and director comey talked?
11:04 pm
did you talk to anyone else? mr. herring: in the department of justice, there are number of people -- -- the acting on director. is this different? mr. herring: this case is different in a lot of ways. why.n you give me reasons i know it is different. how about this difference? whereu ever have a case the subject of your investigation's husband meet with the attorney general a couple days before you are going to interview that individual? have you ever had that happen your 17 years question mark that is different, isn't it? have you ever had a case in your 17 years, where the attorney general announces publicly that she is going to follow the recommendation of the fbi even know she has no idea what those recommendations are going to be? have you ever had that happen your 17 years? mr. herring: now.
11:05 pm
don't think it ever has, the attorney general tells me she hasn't done that. have you ever had a director of the ei do a big press all thece, walk-through wrongdoings of the person of the investigation? have you ever had that happen before with a big announcement? normally, the fbi announces whether they're going to prosecute or not, right? thaterring: not quite like one. >> have you ever had this? maybe this happened but mr. cummings said in his opening statement that republicans did not like the answers mr. mr. comey gave. but based on what he did last week where he sent a memo to you and all of the colleagues, some fbi agents that were former and current, they did not like the answers they got from this
11:06 pm
investigation. have you ever seen that before? he says in his letter, i i am okd in my alarms if they don't agree. maybe they are republicans like mr. cummings said, maybe not. like thateen anything before? mr. herring: we get them is on a variety of things. >> he thinks it is important to send a memo on two months later to say, hey i better fill you in on some things why we did what we did. ever have that happen to months mr. herring: he wants employees to understand what is going on with a full level of transparency inside and outside. >> here is the problem. it is not supposed to be different. everyone is supposed to be treated equally under the law. and i know you know that. don't you?
11:07 pm
everyone is supposed to be treated the same in and in this case, this individual was treated different. and everyone in this country knows it and that is why we're having this hearing and that is why we would like the information a little sooner than tonight will we go into the cause fight session. mr. herring: it is important for us to be apolitical as an organization and follow the facts wherever it takes us and we have followed that. mr. komi made -- director comey makes the determination of prosecution for the department doesn't. >> wait a minute, he said he was going to take his recommendation. >> the gentleman's time is expired. now we recognized and one from mr. -- from massachusetts mr. lynch. rep. lynch: first of all, thank you for your service. i need to apologize for the way you are being treated here today.
11:08 pm
a number of unit past and we appreciate your service as a country and unlike some folks here, i recognize the separation of powers. while i do agree that congress has a very wide jurisdiction for i also know that we are not a law enforcement agency. we are not a trial agency. there is separation of powers in this country. it is not consistent with the constitution for the legislative branch to overturn a decision, especially on an investigation in a potentially criminal investigation that we've decided not to prosecute. it is completely out-of-bounds for congress to overturn a decision of the court on one specific case and i want to go
11:09 pm
back to the beginning. the notice of this hearing. it was supposed to be closed and so i apologize that you are being lambasted and denigrated in public when you are asked closed to come here to a hearing. and all this is happening out-of-bounds and totally inconsistent with the chairman's letter that this would be a closed hearing. >> there is a relevant case law and mr. herring, i would say that there is constitutional language that would prohibit what is going on here today requiring you to divulge the names of individuals that have been rejected during the investigation and that constitutional language is in the bill of rights. , the fifthy
11:10 pm
amendment. i want to go back to the case called watkins versus the united states. this was a matter brought forth by senator joe mccarthy in the house committee on un-american activities. ,nd watkins was brought forward he was subpoenaed to testify before the house committee on un-american activities and chief justice warren delivered the opinion of the court in that case antes said, there is no general authority to expose the private affairs of individuals without justification in terms of the function of congress. nora's congress or law enforcement. these are the functions of the executive judicial the permits of government. no inquiry is in and in itself. it must be relatable to legitimate acts of congress and investigations conducted solely for the personal investigation or's are indefensible.
11:11 pm
now, the notice of the hearing says that number one the purpose reduction.w the to review the reductions, omissions, and circumstances surrounding your investigation. before mr. said herring, in bringing witnesses forward to get them to cooperate with the fbi, look at it this way. if the law is correct in the way that sam and my republican colleague are looking at, here is what we could do. this committee could identify somebody, refer somebody for investigation by you, our secret lease, the f the eye.
11:12 pm
you could go out and investigate all of these people. in then we would have the ability to publicly embarrass them by removing any reductions put in place. that is the world we could create here. thing when this exercise is over with? investigatingare democratic nominee for president. a couple of months before the election. that is when this is going on. this is terrible. this is absolutely terrible. this is a miscarriage of justice againstright of people unreasonable search and seizures, the right of the
11:13 pm
witnesses, this is a 12-month investigation. in earlier testimony you said you did three years of work in 12 months. and pulled in all of these people. so anybody at all that is mentioned in these by witnessing mentions another person, that andon will suffer the glare their lives will be turned upside down because of what this committee wants to do. and that is a violation of our constitution and the individual rights of those individuals just from having been mentioned or being approached in an fbi investigation. mr. chairman, i think this is going in the totally wrong direction. this is a sad day in the history of this committee, i have to tell you. this is a sad god damn day that we're doing. >> the gentleman's time is
11:14 pm
expired. i think the last comment was a bit inappropriate. i will now recognize the gentleman from florida, mr. mike. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. herring, we do have an important responsibility as members of this committee unlike any other committee in congress. we're the investigations and oversight committee. the chairman went through the history of the committee and some of the investigations. this particular case we're talking to dealing with secretary clinton's e-mails, the case was declared closed by the director. is that correct? >> yes. >> and that came after -- and i pointed this out the day he was here. just an unprecedented series of events. mr. jordan, i think, relayed
11:15 pm
some of the timetable on friday, july 1st. the attorney general said she would take whatever recommendations fbi came up with. on saturday, the 2nd of july, the vans pull up and they interviewed the witness for, what, four hours was it? >> something like that. >> something like that. i asked the questions if it was record ed recorded and did he participate in it, the director. no. then we found out that there were the 302s that were taken.
11:16 pm
>> yes. and on july 5th -- the 4th was a monday -- it was announced by the director there would be no prosecution or case closed by basically the attorney general the next day. that's pretty much the sequence. isn't it? >> i think he made that recommendation. >> and the case is closed. now, i've been on the committee longer than anyone here. i can never remember an instance -- and the chairman went back to before the teapot dome scandal when even during some of these investigations we have always had access to information, and that has been the case, hasn't it, that we've always had access, unfettered access, the committee? again the chairman cited time after time.
11:17 pm
>> i don't know about unfettered access before my time. >> but before we've gotten the information. again, i'd like it made part of the record, mr. chairman, the report that you have. >> without objection, so ordered. >> and we do know that the secretary used a private server which had e-mails that contained classified information. is that not right, ms. walsh or all this community would agree on that? >> about her use of a private server, sir? >> the secretary used a private server and on it -- in going through the server was classified information. everybody, unless you're on anotherplanet, knows that, including these -- they're all shaking their head affirmatively. the director when he was here said he didn't know if there was a possibility that it could have been hacked, that information could have been made public. that is really a national security issue here too that congress in its responsibility to investigate is now being
11:18 pm
denied the information about what really took place. you're participating in keeping that information from us, mr. herring. >> if i could just say a couple things? one, on the personal identifiable information, obviously i have a subpoena here for that now. i engaged chairman's staff about
11:19 pm
the compromise. >> we're going to get the 302's one way or another, but you have not given us all of the 302's. >> no. they've been prioritized. >> we want the information. we're entitled to the information. we're the investigative branch. collectively, we represent the american people.
11:20 pm
we have had to file with you, mr. crasdick, a referral. do you have the referrals? >> we have the letter from the chairman. >> what's the timetable? >> i can't give you a timetable. we've referred it. it's been review inged. i can't give you a timetable of information. >> you are again withholding information that this committee legitimately requested, and he promised that he would provide us. that's not acceptable. >> gentleman's time has expired. >> yield for just one second. mr. mike answered a question that sparked my interest. you said you're having discussions with the republican my staff involved in that, those discussions? i'm just curious. >> not as of today. >> not as of today? >> i had a conversation with the chairman earlier today. >> is that your normal course of doing things? we do represent 700,000 people each other here. you are from congress, right? >> yes, sir. >> all right. >> i now recognize the gentleman from virginia for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, there's an article that appeared today in "newsweek" magazine. i would ask that the article be entered into the record. >> without objection, so ordered. >> let me read a little bit from this article. clinton's e-mails look positively transparent when compared to the george w. bush administration.
11:21 pm
between 2003 and 2009, the bush white house lost 22 million e-mails. 22 million. this correspondence included millions of e-mails written during the darkest period of america's recent history when the bush administration was ginning up support for what turned out to be a disastrous war in iraq. like clinton, the bush white house used a private e-mail server. it was owned by the republican national committee, and the bush administration failed to store its e-mails as required by law and then refused to comply with the congressional subpoena seeking some of those e-mails. the chairman mentioned that abraham lincoln was a member of this committee. abraham lincoln -- maybe that wasn't auspicious, mr. chairman, because he only served one term and couldn't get elected back home. he was a whig at the time. he spent his time worried about things like the wilmont proviso,
11:22 pm
trying to end the slave traffic in washington, d.c., the nation's capital, and fighting the slaveocracy in trying to move this country to limit and ultimately abolish this practice. that's what we spent our time doing. we're spending our time trying to pillory somebody about how she managed, handled her e-mails while she was traveling the world on behalf of this country trying to restore u.s. creditability and foreign policy after the incredible damage in done eight years with the previous administration. i guess if i were in my friend'' situation, i'd grasp at this straw too. mr. herring, my friend mr. jordan tried to suggest that you, the fbi, have handled this case very differently than the normal course of justice to an american citizen. i guess because the high profile nature you handled it very carefully. is that correct?
11:23 pm
>> yes, it is. >> it was different in that sense, but we had director comey who was, by the way, a registered republican until very recently, we had him before the committee and i asked him under oath did the witness involved, the primary witness involving these e-mails, did she lie? no. did she deceive? no. did she evade? did she obfuscate? no. did she deliberately keep or withhold information request from the fbi? no. is that your understanding as well? mr. herring: i would refer to director comey's comments. rep. connolly: somebody said the case is closed and you affirmed that. mr. herring: yes. rep. connolly: why is your case : closed?
11:24 pm
what's your understanding of that, mr. herring? connolly: -- mr. herring: the decision was made at the highest level. rep. connolly: you said you read the newspapers. the director of the fbi said it wasn't even a close call. is that your answering? mr. herring: correct. connolly: correct. wasn't special treatment here. it wasn't even a close call. this is political theater. 302s, could you tell us what 302s are? my friend mr. gowdy knows what they are, but not all of us do. mr. herring: 302's are simply forms in which we summarize an
11:25 pm
interview. how often do you provide 302's to congress? mr. herring: rarely. rep. connolly: rarely? why? mr. herring: usually we don't share the investigative files outside of -- rep. connolly: so our request is unusual. is that correct? you said you don't do it very often. mr. herring correct, in some : sense it is. we don't get that request often and we don't provide them very often.
11:26 pm
rep. connolly: and to protect people? mr. herring: yes. rep. connolly: from raw entities? is that correct? mr. herring: to protect people from -- i'm sorry. rep. connolly: from raw material from an interview? mr. herring: certainly. rep. connolly: redactions, how unusual are redactions? this is unique to this case. is that correct? mr. herring: no, we do redactions from time to time. really as far as -- people do have privacy interests. anytime we release documents outside of the fbi, if it's another avenue, you have to review those. rep. connolly: if the chairman will indulge me one more question and then i'll cease and desist --
11:27 pm
>> gladly. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. herring, were you told any time before this hearing or at any other time during this process that this is highly political and you should cover up, obfuscate, evade, deceive, or not provide information to protect somebody from our scrutiny? >> no, not at all. >> we have votes on the floor that are ten minutes away. we have members that still haven't asked questions. plus, we need to do a recorded vote. >> i appreciate the chairman's indulgence. >> the chairman from north carolina, mr. meadows, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. herring, would you say the fbi's investigation and delivery of documents have been very systematic and principled? >> yes, as far as delivery of -- >> so there's no haphazard method of delivering documents? >> the documents we provided to congress, sir? >> yes. >> yes. >> no, i think it's been thoughtful and deliberative. >> can you tell me why you didn't deliver the documents that the chairman asked for on july 11th to the committee? you didn't deliver them to the committee. you actually delivered them to another entity, did you not? >> that's correct. >> why did you not deliver it to the committee? >> well, because those documents contained classified and other sensitive materials. needed to be sure they were
11:28 pm
handled appropriate. >> are you willing to deliver all the unclassified documents to this committee? >> so i think that -- >> yes or no. it is a very simple question. because you can't have the first statement without the second statement. if the reason you sent it there was because it was classified, are you willing to give all the unclassified documents to this committee?because you can't havt >> so we've given certain documents to the committee already. >> yes or no. it's a real simple question. will you give all the unclassified documents to this committee since the reason that you gave them tosomebody else was that there was classified documents? >> so the documents -- >> yes or no. >> the documents have restrictions on them. >> yes or no. who placed the restrictions, you? >> no. >> no. >> fbi? >> yes. >> so the answer is you placed restrictions so you're not going to give the unclassified documents to this committee. >> so we've given committee access to all the documents through -- >> that's not the question. that's a great answer to a question i didn't ask. are you willing to give the unclassified documents to this committee? >> all i can do is tell you i'll take it back. >> let me ask you another question because you said it was systematic.
11:29 pm
i went to the classified room. and there's two big binders there. one binder had some documents. the second binder that we got from the fbi had more documents than the first binder and yet they were supposed to be identical. would you say that was -- >> i would like to address this in a classified setting, if i could. >> was that an oversight? >> i think the details are important of what the differences are. >> but we just asked for a second copy. so would that not be haphazard? it does not seem to methodical, because when we went page for page, they didn't match up. so who made the decision to give us a different set? >> i would like to address that in a closed session, please. >> let me just say this. there was 27 new e-mails. there was a number of different types of information that didn't seem to go -- and i don't to share anything classified. so you admit that the first set and the second set were not identical. >> they were not identical. there were some differences. >> what were the nonclassification agency equity that prevented the initial disclosure of the 27 e-mails we got in the second batch? >> again, classified session -- >> were they all from one
11:30 pm
agency? >> i would prefer to address it outside this session. >> i understand that all of those were from one agency. is that correct? thehe whole issue is handling of classified information. >> what was the agency? mr. herring: i don't want to get into that here in this setting. i'm happy to answer your question. >> well, i have one of the e-mails that was withheld that said that it was later marked unclassified/cia use only. so was that your justification for withholding it? mr. herring: i'm sorry. i'm not sure i understand. well, it said unclassified/cia only. so mr. higgins, let me come to you. did you read those e-mails in the second batch? mr. higgins: i would prefer to theer any questions about classification review in a
11:31 pm
classified setting. mr. meadows: all right. i understand you're asking for those documents back. is that correct? that's not classified. are you asking for them back? >> sir, i would prefer in a closed session. >> did mr. brennan talk to you about that mr. higgins? >> again, sir, i would prefer to answer those questions -- >> i can see where this is leading. let me finish by saying you have finished all the redaction, mr. herring, is that correct, on the information you gave us in the unclassified documents? are the redactions done? mr. herring: for the ones that you all have, yes. >> all right. will you comply with federal law to release those in 20 days according to foia law? >> what was the gentleman's answer? what was your answer to that question? >> the redactions are completed for the ones that are here with congress, the ones that we have released. we're working on the remaining 302s, the pii redactions for the remaining 302s.
11:32 pm
>> what i believe mr. meadows is asking is under foia there's a 20-day requirement to respond to a foia request. now that we know they're all done, will you release those within the 20-daytime frame? >> i'm not a foia guy. they're not all completed for the other 302s. >> are there any that are completed? >> i don't the status. >> we'll go into that tomorrow. we have gone past our time. let's recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. stern, i want to give you a better chance to answer some of my colleague mr. meadow's questions. first of all, your title is you are the acting assistant director for congressional affairs of the fbi. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> that's correct. >> and you're in that post for how long? >> about a month. >> did you say you used to work for mr. goodlot? >> i did a detail to the hill,
11:33 pm
to judiciary, for about 15 months. >> ok. was that reporting to mr. goodlot? >> certainly did. i was actually technically assigned to the crime subcommittee. he was the chair of that. >> and the goodlot we're talking about is the republican chairman of the house judiciary committee. is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> now you just were hammered with all of these yes or no questions, and i could see you having trouble with them. the trouble you were having, mr. herring, did not stem from your lifelong ambition to protect secretary clinton, did it? >> no, sir. rep. cartwright: all right. in fact, the pointed question that my good friend mr. meadows was going over and over about was will you turn over certain documents, yes or no. you're unable to say yes or no because that's not your call. you have to take it back to the office and take it up the chain
11:34 pm
of instruction, don't you? mr. herring: yes, sir. rep. cartwright: that's why you couldn't answer yes or no. mr. herring certainly. rep. cartwright: well, how fair was it for anybody to hit you with that kind of yes-or-no question when you couldn't give a yes-or-no answer. how fair was that? mr. herring: i'm here to answer the questions as best i can. rep. cartwright: yeah. and i wonder how fair it is to second guess the fbi, officers who were sworn to uphold and protect our constitution and not caring where the political chips may fall. when director comey came in and testified, up until the time he decided not to prosecute, he was universally applauded on both sides of the aisle, particularly on the republican side of the aisle for his judgment, for his service, for his patriotism in this nation.
11:35 pm
and then when it was recommendation -- which he now says was not even close not to prosecute secretary clinton for the way she handled her e-mail, all of a sudden he is reviled and all of his decisions up and down are being second guessed by the republicans of this committee. i agree with my colleagues. this is nothing but a show trial. it is nothing but political theater. and the only reason, the exceptional reason, that this is happening is that a couple of months from now people are going to have to decide to vote for secretary clinton for president. i'm sorry you and the other witnesses are being put in this awkward position today. the chairman invited you to a classified hearing, but he is now springing this on you. i will withhold most of my questions to the classified bit of this, but we have to talk
11:36 pm
about the marking of classified documents. i mean, it's being bandied about that documents can't be produced because they're highly classified. well, to be classified, according to the manual, which follows executive order 13526, a document has to have something that identifies who originally classified it. it has to identify the agency and office of origin of classification. it must identify the reason for the classification. it must identify the date of the classification. and they typically also have a banner, both across the top and the bottom, stating the level of classification. top secret, confidential, eyes only, whatever it is. ambassador kennedy testified that none of the e-mails provided to congress had any of these indicators and that our hearing we asked ambassador kennedy about three documents, 3 out of 30,000, that included a small c in parentheses.
11:37 pm
even though the documents did not have any of these other indicators for classified documents, the state department spokesman john kirby said the markings on those e-mails were in error and they were not necessary or appropriate at the time they were sent as an actual e-mail, and ambassador kennedy agreed. we asked him about one of those e-mails dated august 2nd, 2012, and he confirmed that the c in parentheses in that e-mail was a mistake. he also confirmed that every paragraph in that e-mail was also marked sensitive, but unclassified. we asked ambassador kennedy whether the fbi consulted with the state department about the classification status of this particular e-mail and he said he'd get back to us. my question to you is, do you know the status of that , ms. frye field?
11:38 pm
felt -- ms. frifield? field: -- ms. frifield: i believe he's going to get you the answer in the next day or so. >> i think in the next day or two. >> i thank you and i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. it is the intent of the chair to exhaust the questioning appropriate to an open session. i move that part of the remainder of the hearing be closed to all persons other than the members of the house, staff of the committee, with appropriate security clearances, the official reporter and the witnesses and their councils with the appropriate security clearances. testimony may include material designated as classified. this is not a debatable motion. pursuant to the house rules, the motion must be approved by a recorded vote. again, it's the intention of the chair to allow members to ask further messages in the unclassified setting and then go into the classified setting. the clerk on the question, the question is on the remaining hearing of the public. clerk will call the roll. >> mr. turner votes yes. mr.
11:39 pm
duncan? mr. jordan? mr. walberg? mr. walberg votes yes. mr. homage? he votes yet. mr. goes are? mr. goes are both yes. mr. gowdy? mr. gowdy votes yes. mr. fairfield? >> yes. >> mr. thomas moshe. mr. massey? mr. massey votes yes. mr. meadows? mr. meadows votes yes. mr. buck? mr. walker? mr. blum? mr. blum votes yes. mr. hise? he votes yes. mr. russell? mr. russell both yes. mr. carter?
11:40 pm
mr. grothman? mr. heard? mr. heard votes yes. as to palmer? mr. palmer burgess. this maloney? mr. clay? mr. clay vote just. mr. lynch? mr. lynch vote just. mr. cooper? mr. connolly? mr. connolly ventures. mr. carly? mr. connelly vote just. ms. kelly? miss lawrence? mr. lou? watson coleman? miss watson coleman vote just. ?r. desaulnier mr. boyle? mr. welch? >> the court will report the tally.
11:41 pm
clerk: on this vote there are 25 yeas and 0 nays. >> the motion is adopted. it is the intention of the chair to reconvene here at 7:30. then we'll close out the remaining of the unclassified questions. we will then at the appropriate time depart for the capitol visitors center as it's been prepared for a closed hearing of the committee. only members of the committee, designated committee staff, the witnesses, and the reporter may be present. we stand in recess until 7:30.
11:42 pm
>> the forum will reserve. we now recognize the gentleman from georgia. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it seems that the state department initially requested an exemption. is that correct? sir, i was not in position at the time they were doing that so
11:43 pm
i'm not -- i am not sure what exemptions they claim. are you talking about the reductions? >> right. ok. it is my understanding the fbi overruled that. do you have awareness of that decision? >> we don't typically -- we are an investigative agency. when it comes to matters of classification, we typically defer to the owners of the information. >> okay, let me go to you. why were state trying to use this extremely broad exemption? >> i'm not responsible for foia at all. i don't have an answer to that. >> you are not familiar with the b-5 exemption? >> i know what it is. i'm not actively involved in that process or making rdactions.
11:44 pm
>> you don't have any idea who made that decision? >> that is done through our administrative bureau, so i assume someone there would do it as a normal course of action. >> as a normal course of action given that exemption, would anyone outside of state department been consulted? a no given that exemption, would anyone outside of state department been consulted? >> we normally do in some cases if there's interagencies -- then try to agree on it. >> so, it would be your assumption, then, that probably there was some consultation? >> i don't know. >> you don't know that, but that would not be uncommon from your understanding? >> fri my understands, my limited understanding of how the process works. >> that particular exemption is among many people known as withhold because you want to


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on