Chairman Goodlatte's Statement at Hearing with Attorney General Lynch

Chairman Goodlatte: Welcome, Attorney General Lynch, to your second appearance before the House Judiciary Committee. The flags over the Capitol are flying at half-mast in recognition of the five Dallas police officers murdered in cold blood last week.  This was not an arrest gone wrong.  The person who carried out this appalling act of terror and hate stalked and murdered five police officers, and injured seven others and two civilians, ostensibly in retaliation for recent police shootings, including the tragic and fatal shootings in Minnesota and Louisiana last week. We all mourn those tragedies.  The divisiveness between our police and our communities must end. I ask that we observe a moment of silence for all those who have lost their lives in these tragedies. We must not give in to hate and let emotion replace reason.  We must bridge the divide that separates us and embrace one another as Americans.  And we must have faith that the institutions that have sustained our Republic for the last 240 years will deliver fair, impartial justice to victims of crime, and punish the guilty. I look forward to your thoughts on this important matter. The American people also expect government officials to abide by the law just like everyone else; and to be reprimanded when they break the law.  That is not the case for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Last week, FBI Director James Comey announced that he would not recommend criminal charges against Secretary Clinton for her use of a private email server while at the State Department and the mishandling of classified information. The timing of and circumstances surrounding this announcement are particularly troubling. On Monday, June 27, Attorney General Lynch, you met privately with former President Bill Clinton aboard your plane on the tarmac of the Phoenix airport, despite the fact that his wife was the target of an ongoing criminal investigation.  This encounter is even more troubling if the FBI is also investigating improper donations to the Clinton Foundation, which was founded by former President Clinton, a member of the foundation’s board of directors. Five days later, the FBI held its first and only interview with Secretary Clinton after a year-long investigation.  Three days later, and on the first day back from a holiday weekend, Director Comey publicly announced that he was not recommending charges against Secretary Clinton. And, a mere 24 hours later, Attorney General Lynch, you issued a press release announcing that no charges would be brought against Secretary Clinton. While Director Comey may have refused to criminally indict Hillary Clinton, his public pronouncement and subsequent congressional testimony is nonetheless a public indictment of her conduct and character.  Though Director Comey declined to recommend charges, he laid out sufficient facts to warrant a referral to the Justice Department.  That forces one to confront the question of whether someone who was not in Secretary Clinton’s position would have fared as well with the FBI as she did. Secretary Clinton stated repeatedly that no classified information was contained within her private email system.  This is not true.  The FBI found 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains containing classified information at the time they were sent or received. Secretary Clinton stated repeatedly that no information in her emails was marked classified.  This is not true.  The FBI found that some of these emails were marked classified.  Secretary Clinton said all relevant emails were returned to the State Department. This is not true.  The FBI found thousands of work-related emails that were not returned. But all of this evidence, according to Director Comey, amounted only to “extreme carelessness” by Secretary Clinton and her staff.  And although the Director admitted that “there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information,” he went so far as to publicly declare that “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.” This defies logic and the law. Contrary to Director Comey’s assertions, the law does not require evidence that a person intended to harm the United States in order to be criminally liable for the mishandling of classified information.  To be sure, Congress has set forth a variety of statutes on this subject, with different intent requirements and penalties. Were a rank-and-file federal employee to do what Secretary Clinton did, they would face severe punishment, including termination, revocation of security clearances, or criminal prosecution.  Even Director Comey acknowledged this fact at a recent congressional hearing. But Secretary Clinton is not facing prosecution for her actions. This has now become an issue for Congress in that it appears Secretary Clinton testified falsely when appearing under oath before the Select Committee on Benghazi. Yesterday, I and Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Chaffetz asked the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia to investigate Secretary Clinton’s testimony before Congress. Secretary Clinton’s “extreme carelessness” possibly jeopardized the safety and security of our citizens and nation.  Her “extreme carelessness” suggests she cannot be trusted with the nation’s most sensitive secrets if she is nevertheless elected president. Frankly, the FBI’s conclusion leaves many more questions than answers. We hope, Madam Attorney General, to get answers to these questions today. For more on today’s hearing, click here. ###