New York Times: The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey Jr., defended himself Thursday against an onslaught of Republican criticism for ending the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails, but he also provided new details that could prove damaging to her just weeks before she is to be named the Democrats’ presidential nominee.
At a contentious hearing of the House oversight committee, Mr. Comey acknowledged under questioning that a number of key assertions that Mrs. Clinton made for months in defending her email system were contradicted by the F.B.I.’s investigation.
Mr. Comey said that Mrs. Clinton had failed to return “thousands” of work-related emails to the State Department, despite her public insistence to the contrary, and that her lawyers may have destroyed classified material that the F.B.I. was unable to recover. He also described her handling of classified material as secretary of state as “negligent” — a legal term he avoided using when he announced on Tuesday that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring a case against her.
The F.B.I. director repeatedly suggested that someone in the federal government who had done what Mrs. Clinton and her aides did would probably be subject to administrative sanctions.
Asked whether those sanctions could include firing or the loss of security clearance, Mr. Comey said that they could. While an F.B.I. employee who mishandled classified evidence in the way that Mrs. Clinton did would not be prosecuted either, he said sternly, “they would face consequences for this.”
Mr. Comey also criticized Mrs. Clinton’s lawyers for their handling of her emails. He said that they had not actually read all of her emails before destroying them, as she had suggested, and that they may have deleted classified material without her knowledge.
David Kendall, the lead lawyer on Mrs. Clinton’s team, declined to comment on this point.
But Mr. Comey, in response to Republican accusations that he had employed a “double standard” to spare Mrs. Clinton from criminal charges, insisted that she was not given special consideration by the F.B.I. nor held to a more lenient standard than a less prominent person would have been.
He said his team of investigators had not found clear evidence that Mrs. Clinton intended to break the law governing the use of classified materials and explained that prosecutors have “grave concerns” about using the lower legal standard of “gross negligence” in their handling, and have applied it only once in the last century.
Democrats on the House oversight committee attempted to respond to the new facts presented by Mr. Comey while accusing their Republican colleagues of conducting a partisan witch hunt in their attacks on him.
Republicans were not mollified, and they expressed particular frustration with Mr. Comey when he said that the F.B.I. did not examine Mrs. Clinton’s statements to Congress about her email server to determine whether she had perjured herself.
Mr. Comey said to do that would have required a formal request from Congress, known as a referral.
“You’ll have one in the next few hours,” responded Representative Jason Chaffetz, the Utah Republican who is the committee chairman. His office said later that the committee would probably issue the referral on Friday, a move that would ensure their scrutiny of Mrs. Clinton’s emails extends past the end of the criminal case.
The State Department is also reopening an internal review looking at possible disciplinary action against current employees who may have been involved in the handling of Mrs. Clinton’s emails.
Republicans also pressed Mr. Comey to say whether the Clinton Foundation, the global charity started by former President Bill Clinton, had become embroiled in the investigation, as some reports have suggested. Mr. Comey — who was surprisingly forthcoming on many other issues — twice declined to answer Mr. Chaffetz on that issue.
Before the hearing, a smiling Mr. Chaffetz greeted Mr. Comey and thanked him for appearing so quickly at what was billed as an “emergency” hearing into the Clinton investigation. But less than 10 seconds into the start of the hearing, Mr. Chaffetz lit into the F.B.I. director over a decision he said that “mystified” him.
If the “average Joe” handled classified information the way that Mrs. Clinton had, “they’d be in handcuffs,” Mr. Chaffetz said. He said there was legitimate concern that “if your name isn’t Clinton or you’re not part of the powerful elite that Lady Justice will act differently.”
In more than four and a half hours of testimony, Mr. Comey was for the most part calm and dispassionate in defending the F.B.I.’s work, veering at times into the roles of sober federal prosecutor and erudite law school scholar — two jobs he held before taking over the bureau two years ago.
But he showed occasional piques of anger when some Republicans suggested that he was part of a political agenda designed to clear Mrs. Clinton of criminal wrongdoing.
Representative John Mica, Republican of Florida, told Mr. Comey that it looked as if the end of the investigation into Mrs. Clinton was choreographed, beginning with Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch’s chance meeting last week with Mr. Clinton, and continuing with the F.B.I.’s interview with Mrs. Clinton on Saturday, Mr. Comey’s announcement on Tuesday, and Mrs. Clinton’s campaign appearance with President Obama hours later.
Mr. Mica said he did not know what to tell constituents talking about the case in Florida cafes.
Mr. Comey grew red in the face, raising his voice as he answered the congressman.
“I hope what you’ll tell the folks in the cafe is: Look me in the eye and listen to what I’m about to say. I did not coordinate that with anyone,” Mr. Comey said. “The White House, the Department of Justice, nobody outside the F.B.I. family had any idea what I was about to say. I say that under oath, I stand by that. There was no coordination.”
Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign, said in a statement that Mr. Comey’s testimony “clearly knocked down a number of false Republican talking points.”
He added that “while Republicans may try to keep this issue alive, this hearing proved those efforts will only backfire.”
