Farenthold questions Comey on Clinton probe

On July 7, Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Corpus Christi), who represents the northern half of Gonzales County, attended the House Oversight Committee's hearing in which they questioned FBI Director James Comey regarding the department's clearing of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in wrongdoing in using a private email server to send classified messages.

The congressman was allowed five minutes to address Comey and the exchange was broadcast on the C-Span network.

Farenthold's questions centered on cyber security, a topic close to his heart. He was able to ask Comey six points of concern of his. He began with questions about if national security was breached by foreign actors.

“I want to talk a little bit about cyber security,” Farenthold said. “Director, you said that hostile actors successfully gained access to the commercial email accounts that Secretary Clinton regularly communicated with. During your investigation, were there people in the State Department who regularly communicated with Secretary Clinton that you can confirm were successfully hacked?”

To that, Comey replied yes.

“Were you able to conclude definitively that the hacks referenced in the IG (inspector general) report were not successful” Farenthold asked.

“We were not able to conclude that they were successful. I think that is the best way to say it,” Comey replied.

Since the FBI had concluded that there were no successful hacks in the classified emails, Farenthold wondered if any unsuccessful attempts were found. Comey said that there were but he could not say how many were found “off the top of my head.”

“Were they from foreign governments? Where did they come from?” Farenthold asked.

“I want to be careful what I say in an open setting,” Comey said. “I want to give you that information but I don't want to give you any knowledge of what foreign governments know.”

“They probably weren't American high school students fooling around,” Farenthold asked.

“Correct. It was not limited to criminal activity,” Comey replied.

The congressman asked if the hacker known as “Guccifer,” whose real name is Marcel Lehel Lazar and had claimed to have hacked the email account of a Clinton adviser and had even broken into hers, was interviewed by the FBI and if the hacker had in fact gained access to the server. Comey replied that Lazar had fabricated the story.

“At least that's good to hear,” Farenthold said.

He then asked Comey that if hostile actors had been successful in gaining access to Clinton's email, if it would have changed his mind about prosecuting her. Comey said that it was unlikely he would have but he didn't consider the question because he didn't have the facts.

Farenthold said that he wanted to take the questions back to “intent.” He said that he was a recovering attorney and it has been decades since he practiced law, but said that Clinton had to know that it was illegal to have criminal intent. He made an example of breaking the speed limit and getting a ticket even if you did not know the posted limit.

“I was always told in law school that ignorance of the law was no excuse,” Farenthold said.

“The comparison to petty offenses I don't think is useful, but the question of ignorance of law is no excuse,” Comey said. “But here's the distinction: you must have a clear criminal intent. You don't need to know what particular statute you're violating but you must be aware of the generally wrongful nature of your conduct.”

Farenthold wondered what law Congress would have to enact in order to prosecute based on negligence or gross negligence.

“That's a conversation for you all to have with the Department of Justice, but it would have to be something more than the statute enacted in 1917, because for 99 years they've been very worried about its Constitutionality,” Comey replied.

“I think that is something that this committee and Congress as a whole...will be looking at it,” Farenthold said. “I was on television this morning and I would like to relay a question that I received from a caller into that television commercial. And it's just simple: Why should any person follow the law if our leaders don't? We can argue about intent or not, but you laid out the fact that she basically broke the law but you couldn't prove intent. Maybe I'm putting words in your mouth but I do want to know why any person should follow the laws if our leaders don't have to?”

“That's a question I'm no more qualified to answer than any American citizen,” Comey said. “It's an important question. In terms of my work and my world, one of my employees would not be prosecuted for this. They would face consequences for this. So the notion that you either prosecute or you walk around smiling all day long is just not true for those people that work for the government. The broader question is one for democracy to answer, it's not for me.”

“And I guess the decision as to whether or not Mrs. Clinton works in government or not is in everybody's hands,” Farenthold concluded.