Gowdy to Comey: Clinton’s False Exculpatory Statements Prove Criminal Intent

GOWDY: "For this reason intent is awfully hard to prove. Very rarely do defendants announce ahead of time 'I intend to commit this crime on this date. Go ahead and check the code section, I’m going to do it.' That rarely happens. So you have to prove it by circumstantial evidence such as whether or not the person intended to set up an e-mail system outside the State Department, such as whether or not the person knew or should have known that his or her job involved handling classified information, whether or not the person was truthful about the use of multiple devices, whether or not the person knew that a frequent e-mailer to her had been hacked, and whether she took any remedial steps after being put on notice that your e-mail or someone who’s been e-mailing with you prolifically had been hacked, and whether or not — and I think you would agree with this, Director — false exculpatory statements are gold in a courtroom. I would rather have a false exculpatory statement than a confession. I would rather have someone lie about something and it be provable that that is a lie, such as that I neither sent nor received classified information. Such as that I turned over all of my work related e-mails. All of that to me goes to the issue of intent. So I got two more questions, then I will be out of time. For those who may have to prosecute these cases in the future, what would she have had to do to warrant your recommendation of a prosecution? If all of that was not enough, because all of that’s what she did, if all of that’s not enough, surely you cannot be arguing that you have to have an intent to harm the United States to be subject to this prosecution. I mean, that’s treason. That’s not a violation of the statute."