Ratcliffe Grills AG Loretta Lynch on Clinton Email Investigation Decision

General Lynch, after your meeting with Bill Clinton, you were asked in an interview about the appearance of impropriety and said, no matter how I view it, I understand how people view it, it has now cast a shadow over how this case may be received. Do you remember saying that? That was a few days afterwards in an interview, yes, sir. We know that you made the decision at that point not to recuse yourself from this investigation. Two days after you made that statement about casting a shadow on the integrity of the Department of Justice, the New York Times reported that, quote, Democrats close to Mrs. Clinton say that she may decide to retain Ms. Lynch, the nation's first black woman, to be Attorney General, end quote. Did the timing of that, right after the Bill Clinton meeting, give rise to any thought in your mind of reconsidering whether or not recusal in the light of appearance of impropriety might be appropriate? Congressman, I have no knowledge of the source of that statement, nor have I had any conversations about that, and my view was that I needed to discuss the conversations I had with the former president to clarify my role in the investigation. So I don't want to impugn your integrity by asking you whether the prospect of future employment as Attorney General in the Hillary Clinton administration influenced your decision whether or not to recuse yourself or influenced your final decision regarding prosecution. But now that you've already made that decision and closed the matter, will you consider serving as an Attorney General in the Hillary Clinton administration? Congressman, my focus is on serving as Attorney General in this administration. No, I don't care about your focus. What I want to know is will you rule it out? That is my focus now. You won't rule it out. It is working on the issues before the Department of Justice. That matter is not before me. Well, I got to tell you, that shadow that you cast on the Department of Justice just got a whole lot bigger. Because if you're not willing to rule out future employment in the Hillary Clinton administration, what that means is the American people have every right to wonder whether or not you looked at this through a fair and impartial lens. Because your answer tells the American people that after the FBI director told you that Ms. Clinton had been extremely careless, with at least 110 emails marked as top secret, secret, or classified, and may have jeopardized the lives of actual Americans, and told you that she made numerous false public statements about sending, receiving, or turning over classified materials, you might want to apply for a job with her? Your answer, not ruling out employment with her, means that as much of the free world is wondering whether or not Hillary Clinton should have been prosecuted and possibly sent to prison for being extremely careless, as the FBI director said, with hundreds of top secret, secret, and classified emails, you're telling the American people watching today that instead of going to jail, faced with the prospect of possible future employment, you think she should go to the other end of the spectrum and be eligible to be the person with greater access and greater control over America's most sensitive and trusted national security information than anyone else on the planet? I've got to tell you, utter shock is an understatement with respect to what I just heard you say, so let me ask you this question. My time is limited and the clock is moving. Based upon your unwillingness to rule out future employment, in light of the fact that you and your husband had a 30-minute conversation with the spouse of a pending federal investigation, the subject or target of a pending federal investigation, and with a person who would be the subject or target of the federal investigation, if there is one into the Clinton Foundation, would you at least agree with me that if there is such an investigation, you'll have to recuse yourself from that one? Congressman, with respect to other matters before this committee or any other, or before the Department of Justice, they'll be reviewed like any other. I will take all the appropriate action that I would need to take in that instance, and Congressman, as I've indicated to your colleague, just as I will not comment on the statements of candidates or the candidacy of anyone, either side, I would not comment on the candidacy of the other one. Let me move on. On July 5th, one week after your meeting with Bill Clinton, FBI Director made an unprecedented, extraordinary public recommendation not to indict, but his statement was just a recommendation. You said, I made the decision, and in his statement to the press, he said that what that decision would include would be, quote, considerations like the strength of evidence, especially regarding intent. He said also that a responsible decision would consider the context of a person's actions. My question to you is, as you made the decision, did your final decision weigh the strength of the evidence and the context of Hillary Clinton's actions? I will tell you, Congressman, that that was part of what the team that was presenting to me was focused on, and it certainly encompassed those issues as well as all of the other issues that I've indicated before that would be in that. It would be contained within their entire recommendation to me. That was reflected in your two-sentence statement that starts out, Late this afternoon, I met with FBI Director Jim Comey and career prosecutors. By the way, how long did that meeting last? I don't recall. Hours? I don't recall, and I wouldn't be providing that information. More than hours? I don't recall, and would not be providing that information. Well, it says late in the afternoon. I assume it was in one day? It's clear from the statement when the meeting occurred. Okay. So it happened the day after, and apparently within a matter of hours if it happened in one day. So you just told us that after a year-long investigation involving 150 FBI agents working around the clock, involving more than 30,000 emails, tens of thousands of man-hours, that your thoughtful, careful weighing and strength of the evidence took you an afternoon, cup of coffee with the FBI Director, that your decision in this case for charges relating to a person who, according to the FBI Director, said was extremely careless handling America's most sensitive national security matters and is seeking to be a candidate in charge of America's most sensitive national security matters, took the better part of an afternoon. It didn't last weeks. It didn't last months. It didn't take days. You weighed that evidence, determined her intent and gross negligence in a matter of hours. Will you at least tell the American people whether or not you at least reviewed the 110 top-secret, secret, and classified emails that we know that she sent and received on an unsecure, unauthorized server? Will you at least answer that? As I have indicated — Time of the gentleman has expired. The witness is permitted to answer the question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I've indicated, I received a recommendation after a briefing from the team, which included the career lawyers as well as the FBI Director. I received a full and thorough briefing. We reviewed and discussed the matter, and I accepted their recommendation. And as I've indicated earlier, again, just to be clear, the reason I do not go into these internal meetings is because the teams of prosecutors and agents who work on every matter need to be able to provide their full and unfettered advice, counsel, discussion, without the fear of political overtones, without the fear of that kind of — But you didn't answer that question. I'll give you a preview that I'll ask Director Comey that when he's in front of Homeland next week. And let me just close then, summarize by saying, Celeste, after a week after you met privately with the spouse of a target of a federal investigation, a target with whom you haven't ruled out applying for a job, you didn't recuse yourself and instead spent a grand total of a few hours reaching a decision regarding tens of thousands of documents involving our national security, and you can't seem to understand why the American people, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents are outraged at your action. If you thought the meeting that you had on the tarmac with Bill Clinton cast a shadow over the integrity of the Department of Justice, what I've heard today from you made the size of that shadow something that I will tell you that as far as casting shadows that the American people pay attention to, Punxsutawney Phil's got nothing on you. I yield back.