News on Youtube Oct 30 2017

The FBI is investigating whether anyone

in Clinton's operation broke the law as

a result of setting up or using the

personal email server that was kept in

her New York home.

So what I struggled with in the spring of last year was

how do we credibly complete the investigation of Hillary Clinton's

emails if we conclude there's no case there.

We were at the point where we had

refused to confirm the existence as we typically do of an investigation for

months, and it was getting to a place where that looked silly because the

campaigns were talking about interacting with the FBI in the course

of our work.

The Clinton campaign at the time was

using all kinds of euphemisms —

security review, matters, things like that

for what was going on.

We were getting to a place where the Attorney General

and I were both gonna have to testify and talk publicly about it and I wanted to know was

she gonna authorize us to confirm we had an investigation. And she said yes, but

don't call it that call it a matter.

And I said why would I do that and she said

just call it a matter.

Now again I don't know whether it was intentional or not

but it gave the impression that the Attorney General was looking to align the way we

talked about our work with the way political campaign was describing the

same activity, which was inaccurate we had a criminal investigation open.

The FBI had found a troubling email among the ones the Russians hacked from

Democrat operatives. The email reportedly provided assurances that Attorney

General Lynch would protect Secretary Clinton by making sure the FBI

investigation, "Didn't go too far."

Then two and a half months later on May the 3rd, his second interview he made a

180-degree turn when I was at the Department of Justice your reward for

lying to federal agents was in 18 USC 1001 charge or potential obstruction of

justice charge. It wasn't immunity.

It depends on where you're trying to go with

the investigation. It's a low-level guy you're trying to

move up in the chain you might think about it differently.

And I struggled as we got closer to the end of it with — a number of things had

gone on some of which I can't talk about yet that made me worry that the department

leadership could not credibly complete the investigation and decline

prosecution without grievous damage to the American people's confidence in the

justice system.

New questions are swirling after word got out that

former President Bill Clinton met privately with US Attorney General Loretta Lynch

on Monday.

In a statement, her campaign said the former first lady met with

federal investigators at FBI headquarters

in Washington, D.C. on Saturday.

And then the capper was, I'm not picking on the the Attorney General

Loretta Lynch who I like very much,

but her meeting with President Clinton on

that airplane was the capper for me.

And I then said you know what the department

cannot by itself credibly end this

the best chance we have is a justice system

is if I do something I never imagined before step away from them and tell the

American people look here's what the FBI did, here's what we found, here's what we

think, and that that offered us the best chance of the American people believing

in the system that it was done in a credible way.

That was a hard call for me to

make to call the Attorney General that morning and say I'm about to do a press

conference I'm not gonna tell you what I'm gonna say.

In this case, given the

importance of the matter I think unusual transparency is in order.

Although there

is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of

classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would

bring such a case.

As a result, although the Department of Justice

makes final

decisions on matters like this we are expressing to justice our view that no

charges are appropriate in this case.

If there was ever any possibility that

something Hillary Clinton might have said on July 2nd could possibly resulted

in criminal charges that might possibly resulted in a trial against her relating

to this — to me the only way that an interview takes place with the two

central witnesses and the subject of the investigation

is if the decision has

already been made that all three people in that room are not going to be charged.

Can I respond?

Yes please.

I know in our political life sometimes people casually

accuse each other being dishonest

but if colleagues of ours believe I am lying about when I made this decision

please urge them to contact me privately so we can have a conversation about this.

All I can do is tell you again,

the decision was made after that because I

didn't know what was gonna happen in that interview. She maybe lied during the

interview in a way we could prove — let me finish

I would also urge you to tell me

what tools we have as prosecutors and investigators to kick out of an

interview someone that the subject says is their lawyer.

you