Mr Gowdy, Eight Years discussed on C-SPAN


More more to be determined on that were to be determined but they the time proximity as mr gowdy pointed out is significant grech correct in fact there are these other text messages in a roughly the same time period you were an assistant united states attorney for eight years is that correct in that time did you ever charge any espionage case or a case under section seventy nine seven ninety three f i did not i'm trying to understand more about the seeming need for intent in the statute of course as some have noted people never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence so some ports have stated that willful blindness satisfies the requirement of knowledge for example this happens in cases where i defended is transporting a package containing narcotics courts have never allowed the defendant to claim he didn't know what was in the package because he should've known and exercised criminal recklessness by failing to determine what was in the package in your opinion as a former prosecutor isn't a similar analysis appropriate here i'm going to what i would have done as a prosecutor my views is a former prosecutor i will say what was explained to us in terms of intent was actually really knowledge the focus was largely on the fact that these documents that were classified weren't clearly marked as classified didn't mrs clinton as secretary of state having the authority not only to read all levels of classified documents but also to classify documents herself didn't she have a duty to determine whether the unclassified server she used to transact all official business was moving classified information i think it's fair to say there's a responsibility on senior officials to understand and know what classified information may be present wasn't that the least amount of care we should have expected from her with information that could cause serious harm to our national security i think i'm gonna rely on the evidence that we had here in our review which was to look at what the prosecutors made as an assessment and as we describe here their view was unless it was marked unless it was clear knowledge they believed that would it would be inconsistent with past practice and how they would look at this provision and therefore not charging following the twenty sixteen election many of my democratic colleagues called for the resignation or termination of former fbi director james comey for his mishandling of the clinton investigation curiously these same colleagues cried foul when president trump upon the recommendation of department of justice deputy attorney general rosenstein did in fact terminate komi for instance on november fourteen twenty sixteen one of our democratic judiciary committee colleagues told cnn chris cuomo that komi should be fired immediately and the president trump president trump to initiate an investigation into his actions conversely on may nine twenty seventeen that same democrat made a complete uturn and stated that quote the firing of fbi director comey by president trump is a terrifying signal of this administration's continued abuse of power on so many levels and quote additionally following the two thousand sixteen election another of our democratic colleagues insisted that komi should pack his things and go however a year later the same person insisted that james comey's firing suggests an attempt to squelch an investigation in an effort to cover up wrongdoing lastly on october thirty one twenty sixteen eight third judiciary committee democrats stated that commes actions make it clear he should resign immediately for the good of the fbi and the justice department fast forward a year and the same democrat is then advocating for director komi to receive get this the profiles in courage award following his termination so to clear up the apparent confusion among my colleagues do you believe the termination of former fbi director james comey was justified following your recent findings that describe komi as insubordinate in his handling of hillary clinton's email investigation mr chairman as inspector general my responsibilities to get the evidence and the facts and it is then up to others to decide what the appropriate penalty or adjudication should be that so i'm gonna for the reasons that we found here that people should stay in their roles and responsibilities and understand those i'm gonna you would agree however that insubordination in the in the matters that you outlined in your report is a serious matter.

Coming up next