House GOP wants explanation from FBI chief on Clinton emails

House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., and Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., spearheaded the campaign, according to a committee press release issued Monday evening.

“Secretary Clinton clearly placed our nation’s secrets in peril and your decision to not refer the case for prosecution has created a cloud over our nation’s justice system,” the letter states. “No one is above the law and the American people deserve a more robust explanation for your decision to not recommend criminal charges against the former secretary.”

The lawmakers asked Comey what the difference was between “gross negligence” and actions performed “extremely carelessly,” and how Clinton’s relying on private email servers and subsequently lying about it made her innocent in the eyes of the law.

House Republicans asked Comey eight questions, all aimed at uncovering any ulterior motives into the agency’s decision not to indict Clinton.

1. As a former prosecutor, please explain your understanding of the legal difference between actions performed with “gross negligence” and those done “extremely carelessly.” How did you determine that “extreme carelessness” did not equate to “gross negligence?”
2. You said that no reasonable prosecutor would decide to prosecute the Clinton case on the evidence found by FBI agents during the bureau’s investigation over the past year. We have multiple former prosecutors in Congress, and it is not far-fetched for many of us to envision a successful prosecution of someone for doing far less than that which was committed by Secretary Clinton. Is your statement not an indictment and prejudgment against any assistant United States atorney who is now tasked with reviewing the evidence you presented Tuesday? In your judgment, does it not follow that you would think that a prosecutor who moved forward with the instant prosecution of Secretary Clinton would be “unreasonable?”
3. Are you aware of any internal opinions by FBI agents or management who were intimately aware of the Clinton investigation which differed from your eventual decision to not recommend the case for prosecution?
4. You mentioned that Top Secret Special Access Programs (SAPs) were included in emails sent and received by Secretary Clinton. SAP material is some of the most highly classified and controlled material of the U.S. government. If an agency of the U.S. government were to encounter similar information from a foreign adversary, it would be extremely valuable data for us to exploit. Did the FBI assess how SAP information, due to its controlled nature, ever made it onto unclassified systems that were not air-gapped or physically blocked from outside Internet access? Is it not “gross negligence” to permit such SAP data to leave the confines of the most protective and secure governmental enclaves? Or even “intentional” conduct that allowed that to happen?
5. You mentioned that this investigation stemmed from a referral from the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community to determine whether classified information had been transmitted on an unclassified personal system. Following your investigation, it is clear that Secretary Clinton transmitted classified information on an unclassified system. Secretary Clinton on multiple occasions has said that she did not send or receive classified information or information marked as classified. In light of your decision to also not refer a false statements charge under 18 U.S.C. 1001 for prosecution, we can only presume that Secretary Clinton admitted during her interview with your agents that she, in fact, sent and received emails containing classified information. Please confirm.
6. Are you aware of whether any deleted emails which the FBI was able to forensically recover from Secretary Clinton’s servers pertained to the Clinton Foundation?
7. You stated Tuesday, “Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal email account.” Is the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division still involved in determining the level of damage related to possible exploitation of Secretary Clinton’s or her associates’ email accounts and other communications?
8. If the FBI performed a background check on an applicant for employment with the FBI or elsewhere in the U.S. government, and that applicant engaged in conduct committed by Secretary Clinton, would a security clearance ever be granted to that person?

The committee has asked for a response from Comey as soon as possible.