michael. mr. mica: mr. cooper, you started the whole set up of the first server 2007 and you gave the domain e-mail address, is that correct? that was at the very beginning? mr. cooper: there was a president clinton domain set up prior to that point. it was set up in 2009. rep. mica: at some point, when she left the private capacity and came into the public, i have some information that at least two of her old mobile devices were destroyed, and you took part in that? is that correct? mr. cooper: i believe you are referring to the fbi report. i can't -- rep. mica: did you take part in destroying some of her old devices? mr. cooper: yes, at some point in time, when she was transitioning from one local device to the next, we would take the information on the old device, back it up, transfer to

the new device -- i would interface with mr. pagliano. rep. mica: did you ever talk about this acting -- the destruction of a device, did he participate in the destruction of any device? mr. cooper: no. rep. mica: are you aware of what happened to his e-mails? mr. cooper: he serviced the server. rep. mica: you set it up and you confirmed with him. set itper: mr. pagliano up and i was the interface between the users -- rep. mica: would he have had any e-mails on the servers? and you have no idea what would have happened to all of his e-mails? mr. cooper: i certainly do not.

rep. mica: you were made aware on two occasions to secret service, i think january 2011, that someone was trying to hack the system. is that correct? mr. cooper: i used that word to describe what was a series of false logins on the server. rep. mica: not once but twice. then you closed down the system briefly to deal with the situation. mr. cooper: correct. rep. mica: when were you first contacted by the fbi? mr. cooper: i believe it was august of last summer. rep. mica: was that the first time you sat down with them? or was that later? that was your first interview? how many times were you interviewed? mr. cooper: three times. rep. mica: could you give us the approximate dates? last summer was the first -- mr. cooper: last summer, subsequently in the fall, and

this spring. rep. mica: were you offered any type of immunity agreement by the department of justice? mr. cooper: i was not. rep. mica: how long have you been represented by your current counsel? mr. cooper: since my first contact with the fbi. rep. mica: and again, you have explained it was the clintons you paid for your counsel and up to that time, and the organization that was set up by the clintons. mr. cooper: i am the only person who has paid for my counsel. rep. mica: you pay for your own expenses, they have not pay for any? mr. cooper: correct. rep. mica: did you have any kind of a joint defense agreement with any other individual involved with the investigation? mr. cooper: i have no such agreement. rep. mica: finally, you stepped back from the day-to-day activities with the clintons about the time of the

transition, is that correct? as she left office? mr. cooper: yes. rep. mica: and pagliano took over. mr. cooper: yes. rep. mica: you were responsible for helping with the transfer, in fact, you walked her aide over the phone through taking information that they had in e-mails and archiving it, is that correct? mr. cooper: at one point, i assisted monica hanley in setting up a laptop computer so she could create an off-line archive of the e-mails. rep. mica: to your knowledge -- mr. cooper: i do not know the outcome. rep. mica: you do not know -- do you know, finally, whether there were attempts to delete any information that had been stored that was going to be transferred in archives? mr. cooper: i have no knowledge of that. rep. chaffetz: i recognize miss

norton. rep. norton: thank you, mr. chairman. the fbi report, the average american with a matter involving ms. clinton's e-mails to rest for the average person. it was a tough report. and yet, i want to ask you, mr. cooper, about one of those kernels. one of the most venal of the conspiracy theories to come forward out of that report follows in terms of testimony you gave and the report quotes you, and i take it you were under oath before the fbi? mr. cooper: i was not under oath. norton: where it says you advised clinton and others, and i'm quoting a report, when

they obtained a new mobile device, helping them back up the data from the old device before transferring it to the new thinking the new device with the clinton server. mr. cooper: that is correct. rep. norton: that quote is correct. the summary describes two instances, and here is where the conspiracy theories have been acted out in this house and the presidential campaign. that you recall two instances where you destroyed old mobile devices with a hammer, and mr. trump claimed who would do that if it did not have anything to hide, and representative desantis picked up that rhetoric and said it obviously shows intent to hide something. cooper, i want to directly ask you about the destruction of those blackberries.

was your purpose in destroying the old blackberry device ever to hide secretary clinton's e-mails from being saved or disclosed from federal records laws? mr. cooper: congresswoman, no, not in any way to destroy or hide any information at all. speak to what would be considered federal records. in fact, the opposite would be the case. i was going out of my way to preserve all the information on those devices, transfer them to the new devices, and make sure the server -- rep. norton: that was going to be my next question. before you destroyed them from one blackberry to another, did you transition the very same e-mails? from the old blackberry to the new one? mr. cooper: the combination of the backup procedure and activating the new device. it would have ended up on the

new device before we went and deleted, using the blackberry tools to wipe the device. you copied the content of the secretary's and loadeded it, it on a new device? mr. cooper: that is correct. rep. norton: during the course of the fbi's investigation, did you realize you still had retained extra copy of the content of those old blackberry devices on your own machine? did you provide that information to the fbi? mr. cooper: in preparing to meet with the fbi and examining my files related to the server, i did describe some files that may have contained content related to this. i turned that content over to my attorneys, who worked with the fbi and the department of justice on capturing that

material for their possession. rep. norton: i take it that was to make the case that you did not intend to destroy the blackberries to hide anything. mr. cooper: that is correct. rep. norton: now the fbi has the information that was on every thele blackberry, including last blackberry. mr. cooper: certainly they have the information for the ones i had backup files on. rep. norton: in any case, it is from one blackberry to another blackberry with nothing lost in between. mr. cooper: correct. rep. norton: thank you very much, mr. chairman. rep. chaffetz: i now recognize the gentleman from tennessee, mr. duncan. duncan: thank you, mr. chair. mr. cooper, do you consider yourself to be an expert in the i.t. field? mr. cooper: no, i do not. rep. duncan: do you think the state department should have had

someone more qualified than you to oversee and protect secretary clinton's servers from hackers? mr. cooper: i was not working for the state department. i believe the server to be used by president clinton's office. secretary clinton had a personal account on that server. i can't -- i am not in a position to discuss what role of the government is on protecting that. rep. duncan: on january 9, 2011, at 2:57 a.m., you sent an e-mail to secretary clinton's top aide , huma abedin, explaining you had to shut down her server due to someone trying to hack it. how many times did you personally have to shut down the server to prevent it from being hacked? it wasper: again, and the server that contains president clinton's office and secretary clinton's office. this was a series of failed logon attempts, which was brought to my attention on alert

in my system. one of the ways to stop that was in the early operations of the server was to shut down the server for a period of time so that the attacks would cease. we would develop more sophisticated ways to filter those sorts of failed login attempts. rep. duncan: do you know whether powering down the server is the typical way in the i.t. community to protect against hacks? rep. duncan: mr. cooper: i cannoto that. rep. duncan: do you know what a brute force attack is? mr. cooper: yes, a brute force attack, from my understanding, is a series of high-frequency failed logins using a variety of usernames and passwords. rep. duncan: how many brute force attacks did you observe on the clintons' server? mr. cooper: i cannot say with

any specificity how many had happened. they happened with some frequency of the last two and a half years while she was in office, but we developed systems to tamper these down. rep. duncan: the term was "frequency." mr. cooper: some frequency. rep. duncan: i yield my remaining time back to the chairman. rep. chaffetz: mr. cooper, how many people had access to the server? mr. cooper: in terms of administrators? rep. chaffetz: i want the whole universe. administrators, users, behold it, the whole gambit. mr. cooper: there were two people who had some administrative rights. myself and mr. pagliano. i cannot tell you exactly how many users there were over the lifetime of the server. but it was less than 20 people. rep. chaffetz: was there a

remote access login available? mr. cooper: the only remote access for the server was for myself and mr. pagliano. rep. chaffetz: was it encrypted? mr. cooper: i cannot speak to that. i cannot recall. rep. chaffetz: you were running it -- mr. cooper: mr. pagliano was running it. rep. chaffetz: did it have dual authentication? mr. cooper: i do not recall dual authentication. has 20 oddtz: it people who can do it, intermingled with the clinton foundation, clinton executive services, did they also have access to that? mr. cooper: i cannot say it is intermingled with the clinton foundation. rep. chaffetz: you were being paid by them, right? there were people being paid either clinton foundation. who were accessing the system, right? mr. cooper: individuals who had multiple job responsibilities

some people did do work for the clinton foundation, yes. rep. chaffetz: did state department ever contact you or complain or issue any sort of concern? mr. cooper: they did not have any concern. mr. cooper, i understand that in order to make secretary clinton's private and secure the statertment -- department had to lower its own security settings at least temporarily to manage secretary clinton's more insecure server. did you know about the fact that she had this insecure server? mr. cooper: that is not something i specifically know about. i read accounts of that, but i have no direct knowledge. rep. chaffetz: we recognize the gentleman from massachusetts. >> thank you. thank you mr. cooper for being here.

mr. cooper, the fbi conducted a year-long investigation that they did not find clear evidence that secretary clinton or her colleagues intended to violate the law in the handling of classified information and he went on to say that he did not see evidence that is sufficient to establish that secretary clinton and with the -- those with whom she corresponded, when they did it, knew that what they did was against the law. i know you're not a computer -- in his it is year-long investigation, the fbi did have a number of technical computer experts on the team and it took about a year, and i want

.o recite their conclusion this is director komi -- comey. he said with respect to potential computer intrusion, we did not find direct evidence that secretary clinton's personal e-mail domain was successfully hacked. the fbi investigation summary similarly stated parens analysis did not find evidence confirming that clinton's e-mail server systems or compromised why cyber means. do you have any information that contradicts the fbi findings? mr. cooper: i do not. >> ok. interviewed brian kegley on a -- brian pegliano, the expert on the server.

-- when asked about the maintenance and security of the server, he stated there were no security breaches, but he was aware that there were many failed login attempts which he referred to as brute force attacks. is that statement that i just -- is that consistent with your recollection? mr. cooper: it is consistent. >> did you take any steps to protect the server when there were these failed brute force, so-called, login attempts? ano created mr. pegli a couple of ways to deal with this, including blocking ip addresses manually and automatically. >> additional steps were

described. i'm not sure if it was him who took those steps to improve the security of the server, including establishing secure socket layer certification and internet protocol filtering to block access from would-be hackers. is that consistent with your recollection? mr. cooper: that is consistent. >> that is all i have. rep. chaffetz: we now recognize the gentleman from ohio. >> i had question for the guys who are not here, that i want to walk the committee through this. we set up the slide. this is an e-mail we think either from one of those guys. i just want to read this. look at the date, a lot of things happened before august 15.

when they told us to cut the backups and have them confirm us for our records, we are starting to think this is covering up a lot of bad stuff. writingted something in because they knew they were going to get thrown under the bus. we know they change the backup structure because look at the fbi report, page 18. someoneills instructed who is redacted to modify the e-mail retention policy on clinton's clintonmail.com e-mail account. she wanted to get rid of anything after 60 days. let's walk through some history. on the fbi report. july 2014, at -- at the request of cheryl mills, remotely transferring all hillary clinton andils to cheryl mills

having atops are later bleach bit attached of them. report, page 15, during the summer of 2014, cheryl mills is giving a head -- given a heads up by the state department that there is a letter coming requesting all hillary clinton e-mails. jump forward to december. general mills requests the network change the retention policy on her account. what happened right before? what prompted this change? december 2, chairman of benghazi committee since a later -- a letter to david kendall that says we just found out about this other account. the other account that three clinton has, we would like any e-mails related to the benghazi situation from that account. of course right after that, they change the policy and platte river network is instructed to

delete anything after 60 days. to the amazing month, the one the chairman cited, march 2015. they haveimes reports this one e-mail account, this private server situation. letter, a preservation and tell them to preserve everyone -- anything that might be relevant to the investigation. march 4, a subpoena. march 9, platte river network is put on notice about a preservation order. march 10, she does her press conference. first, thoseready two days there are conference calls with clinton and her lawyers and platte river network and on the 31st of that month, is when they take bleach bit to the hold on thing and they get rid of everything -- the whole

darn thing and they get rid of everything. now we have three guys one on helped mr. cooper get it set up and took the fifth and got immunity and now we have two guys on the tail end. they did not work for the government, they take the fifth and at least one gets immunity. go back to the date. august 2015. his guys are wondering we don't have anything in writing. we have been given all these instructions to change the backup, delete things and the race things -- and the race things. -- erase things. that is why it is appropriate for the chairman to see if they would come in here to answer somebody questions.

they will talk to the people who can put them in jail, but they won't talk to congress. they will talk to the justice department. they won't talk to us. we can't put them in jail. we just want to get answers for the american people and they won't talk to us. i've never seen anything like this. no regular american can get away with a kind of behavior secretary clinton gets away with. two standards and this is what is so wrong and this is why the hearings you are having and the investigation we are doing is entirely appropriate. rep. chaffetz: we now recognize the gentleman from texas. >> thank you and thank you mr. cooper for being here and testifying before us. i'm pretty geeky, so i will ask some geek questions.

had,erver the clintons this was not just a personal computer that everybody had. this is a computer running business class software that delivered and forwarded and stored e-mail for dozens of people, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> are you familiar with the people who have this type of equipment in their homes? mr. cooper: that is correct. >> do you know anyone that might have a server like that at home? mr. cooper: i know some people. >> it is pretty rare. are you familiar with what e-mail software was running on the server? mr. cooper: i do not recall specifically. >> he told the chairman that it was set up to do e-mails forwarding to mrs. clinton's blackberry. there were two

servers that we are speaking about, and apple server in use for approximately -- from approximately june 2008 until march 2009. that server was originally set up for president clinton's office staff had some software running on it. one was an e-mail client and the other was a tool that was supposed to interface with library -- with blackberry. does it forward like the verizon blackberry j way? mr. cooper: i cannot speak to the software. the focus was transitioning her e-mail address. she was simply receiving the messages in, not retaining them

on that server. the later server functioned more like what you are probably used to in your day today, where there was a mailbox on that server that could be accessed. >> was it opened up to where you could get your e-mail from that server through a web client? mr. cooper: i do not recall. i think depending on the user, we were customized, brian would help to customize what ports were open based on how that user was accessing. >> did you require that users picking up their mail remotely use a secure client? mr. cooper: i don't recall of the protocols were. -- what the protocols were. >> it could have potentially been in clear text. --

mr. cooper: i did not turn those over to the fbi. there was an instance where we shared some logs with the secret service when we first experienced failed login attempts. >> you got a notice when there was a failed login attempts, but someone doing this brute force attack just entered a username and through random passwords right,nd if they got it you would not have gotten a notice, would you? mr. cooper: i don't want to suppose. >> you only get notices of failed login attempts. you are notified every time somebody actually login. mr. cooper: correct. >> so somebody could have gotten in and you would not have known it. was there -- was there a firewall between the internet and this server, a piece of hardware between the server and the internet? mr. cooper: i believe there was. >> was there one with the apple

server? mr. cooper: i do not recall. >> we talked a little bit about mrs. clinton going through a variety of blackberries. were they all the same or did when the newp -- one came out that you want the latest and greatest? mr. cooper: it is a little difficult for me to do a time warp into the sequences but blackberry was releasing new models quite frequently. time, she would move to a newer device with her older device may have been a little bit older or failing. mr. cooper: do you know security patches were regularly put on these servers. having kept a server in my house for a while, i gave it up

and moved over to an online hosting because it is next to impossible to keep up with the pace of security fixtures. rep. chaffetz: we recognize the gentlewoman from wyoming. >> i'm glad that we had a geek out because i cannot do that. i have a rancher. i'm not as familiar with these technologies. i do know this as an average american, when it comes to technology. we do know that the chinese government hires people to hack by day and that those same hackers hack for hire at night. there are people who are innding every single day china, probably russia, other countries, trying to hack into

the computers of the u.s. government officials. security is a constant problem in this country, especially for highlighted officials or appointed officials -- high elected officials or appointed officials. i do know that encryption can be used to help prevent that. dual authentication, processes used to help prevent that kind of hacking. me cooper, are you telling there was no dual authentication, no encryption, hadthe secretary of state no protection of our secrets when we all know that efforts are being made to hack people just like her in government? i cannot provide you

with the details of what specific security functions were on the server. i know there were security functions and they called over time, essentially as technology evolved over time. i would agree that this is something we should all be concerned with, and i saw this again as there is a need to protect the privacy of individuals and their personal lives using their e-mail. >> we also know that as members of congress, if we travel to a foreign country and we have a device with us, especially in russia, they tell you to wrap the devices in aluminum foil, so there is no transmission, and ofe seen televised examples

secretary of state clinton using her electronic devices to communicate while she is all over the world, and now that we know that these servers and devices were scattered around in her home, and that there was some sort of management of colorado, how can people like me assure the american people that the information that was on those e-mails, some of which has been destroyed and is not available to us is not being sifted through, even as we speak by chinese hackers and russian hackers? what security does our country have by virtue of what looks to

me like some pretty lackadaisical attitudes toward sensitive data, top-secret data, confidential data? mr. cooper: i am not an expert in computer security. i understand some of the concerns you have expressed, but i have no expertise in that area. second, i had no knowledge of the content and cannot verify that what the content was on this equipment and third, i have no specific knowledge of which countries secretary clinton chose or chose not to use her device. >> i yield back. rep. chaffetz: before you yield back,, you'll to me for a second. >> i yield to you. rep. chaffetz: you get huge brownie points for the committee for showing up and answering questions. i am grateful for your candid nature and expressing the idea

that you don't have the expertise to even answer those questions as thoroughly as possible. the problem i have, again, i believe you are doing the best you can. problem is, it is you, with no experience, no dual authentication, no encryption up against the chinese and the russians. that is what scares us. the cavalier nature in which this was set up, and some of the nation's most sensitive and secure information, that is the concern. i will now recognize the derailment from -- the gentleman from vermont. >> thank you very much. i have a few questions and a bit of a statement. mr. chairman, you are a good chairman, that i disagree about the excessive focus on hillary clinton.

i want to give a little perspective. it is a legitimate investigation, but we had the omey who has a unimpeachable record as a prosecutor. he went through every single thing and e-mail and came to the conclusion that there was no criminal conduct that there was no evidence that the e-mail had been hacked, and he said it is not even a close call. whether that e-mail should have been set up, the private server, whether that was a mistake, there is a legitimate basis to inquire as to what happened, but we've done it in the fbi has i have a feeling that a little bit of this has to do with something other than the

e-mails and it may have to do with something that is looming in november. one of the issues that i have as i listened to many of the questions of my colleagues is that they are essentially asking what -- witnesses to disprove a negative. my friend from wyoming was asking about the russian and the chinese trying to get into the e-mail. they are trying -- they probably are trying to get into every department we have, the white house, the joint states of -- the joint chiefs of staff. that apprehension is well-founded, but there is no way any of us can disprove or prove that they have ever gotten into the e-mail of the secretary of defense or state, or the white house, or any of the house accounts. questionstion of the that raises the apprehension that the chinese or the russians are making this determined

effort to hack into accounts and focusing it all on hillary clinton acts as though that intentionality of the russians and the chinese does not apply across the board to anybody and everybody that has been government or may have access to information they want. talking about mr. cooper having the guts to come in here, thank you, but you can't prove or disprove any more than anyone else can whether the russians successfully penetrated anyone's e-mail account, let alone secretary clinton's. repetitionere is a of an initial assertion that somehow, someway, not only did secretary clinton make a mistake by having a private server, but ist in -- the insinuation is that she actually jeopardized secrets and there is a memory gap here because this committee

omey inone that had mr. c here and he sat here i don't know how many hours, but he answered every question that we had. it was that exhaustive information -- investigation that he had and demonstrated at the fbi -- that there was no evidence of criminal violation and he saw no evidence that the e-mails had been penetrated. whichs the basis upon many of us leave this committee, all of us are proud to serve on role that is beyond oversight and investigation. it is kind of at -- advocate -- advocacy. do you have any indication, mr.

cooper, that any secret information has been taken by the russians, the chinese or any other actor? mr. cooper: i have no indication. >> in all your discussions with your colleagues, has anyone else indicated that they had a shred of evidence that any national security information of the -- united states was penetrated as a result of the clinton e-mails? mr. cooper: i don't think i have had any conversations to that effect. >> is it a big deal for people to change their devices? mr. cooper: i think it is rather commonplace. >> i thank you and yield back my time. rep. chaffetz: before the gentleman yields back. i appreciate the comments. let's remember, we have multiple people pleading the fifth, afraid of criminal wrongdoing. we also have the fbi director, what are the questions was did you look at what secretary

clinton said under oath? there are other equities we have in the destruction of documents and he said he did not look at any of that. he did not even look at that part. gentleman andhe his yielding. we now recognize the gentleman from north carolina. >> thank you for your answers, mr. cooper, as we look into this further. you set up a server for the sole relates to miss clinton, so that she could use a domain name and have those s, is thatmail correct? mr. cooper: we set up just go servers, oath with the primary -- both with the primary purpose of servicing president clinton

staff. >> you put her domain name on service e-mails on that server. use -- i havenot a device that has a domain name that i own that i get e-mails that, and it is much cheaper for me just to have a server that does that. why would you not have done that? we had the solution in place, so it was certainly an option. i think there were some appeals to this, in that the data was contained in one place. it was physically in a secure location, and i think that some of the tools that you or i may employ today, even with a personalized domain were not available at that time. >> in 2009 they were because i was using them. what you are saying is the

reason to not have another -- you're getting advice from your counsel, will you hold the clock for a second? the other aspect of this is you made a conscious decision to put her e-mail address on this server to keep it from being viewed by other people that might have a server. is that your testimony? mr. cooper: i was not the decision-maker. >> who was? here is that whom aberdeen said she would prefer to have ms. clinton's e-mail on a private server versus a server that would actually -- was actually managed by somebody else. mr. cooper: that was communicated to me.

>> that is eliminating because of that it -- illuminating case, -- that is the mr. cooper: this was a server that was already in existence for the use of president clinton's office and it provided a convenient and what was intended to be a reliable solution for her personal e-mails. >> how many e-mail addresses did she have? mr. cooper: she primarily used one at a time. >> how many did she have? they have numbers behind it and everything else. mr. cooper: if you count her at&t e-mail address, that is one and then two others on the clinton domain. >> as you are managing this, i guess the other concern that i have aave is did you blackberry exchange server on your server? mr. cooper: there was.

>> you had the push technology on your server. mr. cooper: correct. betweenthe discussion attorneyser and the and all of that happened in march, were you part of that discussion to clean and erase some of those e-mails from the servers? mr. cooper: i was not part of those discussion. s. >> is a commonplace when you have discussions about the racing e-mails to have an attorney on a discussion with a client? is that common? i was in business a long time and that never happened with me. mr. cooper: that is not something i could comment on. >> you have the ability to, your choosing not to -- you are choosing not to. mr. cooper: have you ever been -- you the conversation

personally? mr. cooper: i personally have had no experience there. said that you are paying for your attorneys fees here. have you ever been reimbursed or have you ever had any potential reimbursement for fees for attorneys from anyone other than your own personal accounts mr. cooper:? -- accounts? mr. cooper: no. >> do you anticipate any reimbursements? mr. cooper: now. -- no. i want to begin by saying how shameful it is that so many of our witnesses are no longer here .

frankly, the appearance that they could care less about our national security and are less concerned about defending our country than they are in either being absent or pleading the fifth and it was brought up earlier that they are willing to meet with and talk with others, those who have the potential of prosecuting them. who knows what possible deals have been made in some of those discussions, but they refused to meet with us and it begs the question what in the world are they hiding. i want to thank you, mr. cooper for your willingness to be here with us and to provide some answers. did secretary clinton at any time have more than one device e? mr. cooper: i don't recall her having more than one e-mail device. i have come to learn that at some points, she had some ipad devices that she may have used simultaneously. >> there is a possibility she

had more than one device at a time? mr. cooper: it is possible. you have referred to yourself as not being an i.t. expert. at any time, did you consult cyber security experts when you were setting up the initial server? mr. cooper: we consulted with apple and their business solutions program to set up the first server. later, we consulted -- consulted with mr. pegliano. consult with any agency or department within the government? mr. cooper: i did not. >> when you referred earlier to some of the hacks that were , did you report those hacks or potential hacks to the fbi or the secret service? mr. cooper: as i mentioned earlier when we first

experienced some of the repeated failed login attempts, they referred them to the secret service. do you know if anything was done when it was reported? did they come to investigate or search anything out? mr. cooper: the secret service reviewed some of the logs from the server and made some recommendations about the possible origins of those failed logins and some techniques you might use. >> did any of the agencies or other cyber security experts express any concern over this being a private server? mr. cooper: not directly to me. >> so even when they came and did some investigation and

research, that question was never brought up to you. mr. cooper: correct. how does bleach network? -- bleach bit work? are you familiar with that? mr. cooper: i am not. >> it seems to me, everyone in this room and everyone in the country, we know how dangerous it is of information getting into the hands of our adversaries. you have related that that possibility exists. y was right when he said this is an 8 -- this was extremely careless, what has taken place, and unfortunately, you are right in the middle of that. as the chairman brought up, we have nations coming up after us -- coming after us and we have andstanding up as defense

the words of the director had be directed to you as well, it has been extremely careless what has taken place. your handling of the i.t. admitsructure, even in -- mr.xperience chairman, i am grateful for your continued commitment to pursue and try to get to this and those who refuse to answer our questions and plead the fifth to protect their own hide as opposed to protecting our national security is shameful. i thank you for pursuing this and i yield back. rep. chaffetz: we now recognize the gentleman from texas. >> thank you. mr. cooper, thank you for being here. you have said many times you are not an expert in computer

security, so i won't try to get to detailed. have you ever worked in the federal government before? mr. cooper: i worked in the white house in 2001. >> were you involved in handling classified information? mr. cooper: no. pagliano work for you? >> can you clarify? >> you were responsible for setting up the servers, correct? mr. cooper: i oversaw the setup of these servers. >> who was your boss? mr. cooper: president clinton. >> when you set up the servers, pagreached out to mr. liano. was he a consultant? mr. cooper: yes. >> was he working at the state department at the time? mr. cooper: not at the time.

>> did he provide consulting his services to your organization? mr. cooper: yes. >> is that normal? mr. cooper: i have no basis to judge that. as the person responsible was setting up these servers, did you ever engage a third party to do stuff like technical owner ability assessment? mr. cooper: i left that responsibility with mr. pagl iano. >> and he was responsible from the beginning? mr. cooper: he was not responsible for the apple server, he was responsible for the transition to what we call the pagliano server. >> that server was backed up to an external hard drive from may 2011 to june 2012, is that correct? mr. cooper: as i understand it. >> we have a report from the fbi that you would periodically

delete these e-mails from the backup. mr. cooper: i have no knowledge of how that proceeded. >> who was responsible? mr. cooper: mr. pagliano. >> when the decision was made to make a separate server, or you part of that conversation? mr. cooper: yes. >> why was the decision made to not use a commercial service versus doing something yourself? setup ofr: the initial both servers was in consideration of a small group of users from president clinton's office. this was a solution we felt was as youopriate solution can tell at a fact that we transition quickly from the apple system to another system. we were moving to a more robust piece of equipment. at someaid yourself point, did you say you do not

have the technical expertise? mr. cooper: i was not in a position to be the technical expert on either server. >> there is a conversation about whether or not the server had been hacked, brute force, you name it. has the fbi to your knowledge investigated whether there was indeed -- was there a forensic investigation on the servers to see whether there was evidence of an attack? mr. cooper: i would refer to the fbi for that. >> were you ever asked questions about that? were you monitoring whether data left the network? mr. cooper: i would referred to the fbi for that. you ever suspect classified information was being e-mailed to them from the secretary clinton -- from the secretary? mr. cooper: now.

-- no. >> do you think that common for good cyber hygiene was used in the development of these servers? mr. cooper: i'm not familiar with what common practices are but i believe some were likely used. >> who were you using for guidance from what was good digital system hiking? pagliano andr apple the first time. >> you have said apple a few times, did you like use their service center at the mall? >> i yield back.

i thank thez: gentleman. we now go to the gentleman from alabama. >> thank you mr. chairman. it was indicated that the location of clinton devices would frequently become unknown as she transitioned to new devices. did you make any inquiry about any of the missing devices to make sure they were properly secured and the data was properly recorded? mr. cooper: i can say with some certainty that when there was a transfer, there was always the goal in process to transfer all the data from the previous device to the new device. you are specifically asking about what happened to the devices that i know i personally did not dispose of. i cannot speak to that.

i may have asked those in the process of doing that for secretary clinton to also properly dispose of the. >> you were responsible for setting up the servers and these devices. setupoper: mr. pagliano the server. for someone to transfer to a new blackberry device for wires someone to tell the server there is a limited time for a user to login with a one-time. when your: -- >> transfer from one device to another, did you have any responsibility in handling the device that was no longer being used? on occasion, i was the person who gave the transfer and ensuring that it was on the new device, wiping the old device. i render them unusual -- unusable. >> are you aware that there is a

missing laptop and external storage device? mr. cooper: based on the reading of the fbi report, im. you know that the report was that it was lost in the mail. mr. cooper: that is as much as i know. >> do you know who mailed it? mr. cooper: i have no details on that. >> you are aware that the director described secretary clinton's use of a private e-mail server as extremely careless. you read the fbi report. mr. cooper: i am aware of the report. >> in your handling of the servers, did you have any concerns that her use of a personal server or the use of outdated technology might be a problem? i viewed her use as

a personal use of a blackberry and a server that we kept up-to-date. >> you have been around the clintons for a pretty good time, haven't you? mr. cooper: yes. aware of the highly sensitive material that mrs. clinton as secretary of state was handling, that would pass through her communications devices and her services -- servers. that therebe aware was sensitive information. mr. cooper: if i was generally aware that secretary clinton encountered sensitive information, how that was transferred to her was not something i was aware of. >> in your disposal of these devices that you said you made sure they were wiped and you took other measures to dispose

of them. did you receive any instructions making sureabout that the data on those systems were properly recorded? did anyone talk to you about that? mr. cooper: i had no significant -- specific instructions about that. >> when you consider your handling of these devices as possibly careless russian mark -- possibly careless? i think you have been a good witness and i appreciate the fact that you have stayed. listening to the questions and your lack of knowledge of some of the cyber technology, of the cyber protection technology, things like that. my concern is, it is almost an atmosphere of indifference.

i really hope that is not the case, because although some of our colleagues try to make this about her candidacy, it is really about our national security, and how we handle things going forward. that is the great concern that this committee has, is that we make sure that we don't put our national security at risk, that we don't put our intelligence officers at risk. that is my concern, particularly with this missing laptop that apparently nobody has made an effort to recover. rep. chaffetz: we now recognize the dome and from north carolina -- we recognize the gentleman from north carolina. >> i would like to start by making a couple of statements. thatnd it interesting

calix to my right have not necessarily been truthful in the accusations they have made. when otherhat members talked about this was some kind of relentless pursuit by republicans to damage present -- secretary clinton's presidential hopes and others that only this is some kind of photo up. let me remind everybody of what director komi sai -- director comey said. this is an investigation not caused by congress, but by the inspector general based on the intelligence we have been able together. this is not republican driven. another thing they tried to make a case for was that this was some sort of republican witchhunt. i specifically asked director comey if he felt this way and he said it did not. theremocratic friends say is no evidence that the e-mails were hacked. january 9, 2011, you became

aware of an attempt to hack hillary clinton's private e-mail server. is that correct? mr. cooper: i believe you are referring to an e-mail and the i said that i was , but what itd hack was was a series of failed login attempts. the way we manage to put an end to them was to put a shut -- was to shut down the server or a brief period of time. >> do you agree that there is no evidence that the server could have been hacked? the best of my knowledge is to refer to the fbi report. >> you don't have a take on it. mr. cooper: i have no knowledge that there was a successful hack. chineseere aware of the and russians trying to attack us. mr. cooper: i was not aware.

it is interesting that if it wasn't what you consider maybe a hack sadness -- hacked sad -- hacked status -- mr. cooper: i believe the e-mail was to miss aberdeen. aware that more of the e-mail services might be off-line. >> how many times did you send an e-mail that was the same reference? mr. cooper: i do not recall sending a great line of those e-mails. i cannot say it was the first time. >> pretty rare, though? you are now describing that the hack was probably not the best description of it. but you were concerned? mr. cooper: i was mostly making her aware that i was shutting down the e-mail. >> were there any other times

are attacked you were aware of that the server was in a vulnerable position? mr. cooper: as there was an increase in the failed login attempts, we made the secret service aware, and they reviewed the logs and made some recommendations. >> do you have a rough number? how many times it might have happened? mr. cooper: i cannot give you a specific number. >> less than a thousand? mr. cooper: yes. >> you might have mentioned this earlier. again, how youme were compensated? can you tell me who compensated you for all this? mr. cooper: i worked for the clintons for 15 years and was compensated in a number of ways

depending on what my activities were. helping president clinton write his memoirs and subsequent books. i traveled the world to support the foundation. i had varying sorts of income. >> a little gray area. when you say you were compensated in a variety of ways , does that include being paid with cash? mr. cooper: now. -- no. >> so you were paid. mr. cooper: yes, taxable, i was a full employee. >> what was the title? there were multiple payrolls, there was a clinton house payroll, a clinton -- a clinton executive services payroll. >> they were checks. mr. cooper: they were through a employer services can -- company. rep. chaffetz: we now recognize the gentleman from oklahoma. >> thank you.

thank you, mr. cooper for your patience and also your answers you have provided. alerted folks to possible breach attempts and were concerned about the security as we have heard in your testimony. in january 2013 according to the a user logged into a staffer of president clinton's account and browsed e-mails and folders of that person's account. were you aware of that breach? mr. cooper: i was not aware of that breach. >> did it cause you concern? once i read it, sure. >> in the spring of 2013,

according to the fbi, sidney blumenthal's aol account was clinton's e-mail exchange with mr. blumenthal was made public. were you aware of that? mr. cooper: i was. >> what was your response? mr. cooper: at that point, i was transitioning out of the role or responsibility with the servers. various teams were selecting a network to take over the e-mail services and i don't know that i had any direct response. mr. cooper: did you book -- >> did you believe there was sensitive information that would qualify as very private, being at the position that clinton held? mr. cooper: certainly private information. the fbi reported finding

e-mails marked secret on a prn server and you assisted with the transfer of data to the prn server. mr. cooper: i did not actually assist with the transition, nor was i -- >> even with the missing laptop that you did not lose but apparently got lost after prn received it? mr. cooper: i had no knowledge of that. >> you did have knowledge of providing the laptop. cooper, you conveyed to mr. meadows and we appreciate the insight you have given us that when allassisted it -- of this was being set up. create or did aberdeen

or cheryl mills or jacob sullivan have a user account on the private server? mr. cooper: aberdeen had one. >> are you aware that in the fbi report, it states on page 10 that mrs. clinton's immediate aids to include aberdeen, cheryl mills and jacob sullivan told the fbi that they had no knowledge of the existence of a private server until after mrs. clinton's 10 year -- tenure at state? that would not have been true, would it? mr. cooper: i cannot speculate on whether comments were. >> but you just stated that miss aberdeen knew of the server, she had an account on the server, so how is it possible that she could not have known about it server while mrs. clinton was at state? mr. cooper: i cannot speak to her recollection. >> that would be contrary to the facts, wouldn't it? mr. cooper: i can just tell you

that i know she had an account on the server and that she was using it. >> at the time that mrs. clinton was at stake. thank you for establishing those facts for us. we know there were preferences on functions and systems going back and forth, a lot of different devices, and we also know there was a lot of black -- there were blackberries that were provided by the senate with the warning these could all be freedom of information act, so they elected not to use that blackberry. there were others use associated with the server, how are they obtained? were they third-party obtained? obviously they were not through state. mr. cooper: i cannot speak to them being obtained by the state department. >> for the obtained through third-party? -- were they obtained through third-party?

they were not obtained by third-party like ebay, amazon. mr. cooper: not to my knowledge. >> with that, my time has expired. was ansaid that there e-mail marked secret and we wanted to know what that was because we never saw that. rep. chaffetz: i will let you work that out. we now recognize the gentleman from wisconsin. >> i want to nail down a little bit more follow-up on what representative walker said. withirst became involved then-president clinton in 1999. mr. cooper: yes. an at the time, you were in

aide. >> in 1999, i was still an intern. mr. cooper: what being an intern will lead to. when president clinton left office, from then until today, you say you worked for the clintons. was it the clintons, personally, was the foundation, who was cutting the checks come time to time? mr. cooper: the organization evolved over a. of time -- evolved over a period of time. officen the transition of the first six months out of office. tohen worked for clinton write his memoirs. >> so then it was bill,

personally? mr. cooper: a combination of bill and his publisher. was on the household payroll for a series of years. >> list? i want to see where your involved in the thing if it is not too much bother. from one bill clinton left office to today, who we working for. see what i'm saying? we getting w-2s or 1099s? mr. cooper: i can get my attorneys to give it to you. >> i would like that. when you interacted with the clintons, did you usually hear from bill directly, hillary directly? who was the person usually heard from? mr. cooper: i primarily work for president clinton and work with him on a daily basis. >> did you ever get e-mails from

uma or hillary? mr. cooper: maybe once a month. >> did you have any coronation with the foundation? mr. cooper: yes. there?wish or contact contact?s your bill again? primarily my role at the foundation was supporting president clinton's activities with the foundation. >> did you ever hear from huma or hillary about the foundation? mr. cooper: at various times. >> when did the foundation kick in? mr. cooper: officially, the foundation was launched as we were leaving the white house in support of the presidential

library. >> before it became the charitable institution it became. mr. cooper: correct. did you receive e-mails from secretary clinton or whom aberdeen as to the state department business? mr. cooper: not that i recall. >> usually when they contact you , is it personal business or foundation business? mr. cooper: personal business. example?u give me an mr. cooper: asking where the president was. i will yield my remaining time to the chair. i would like to see a chronology of we've got the w-2s from an 2002 to 2003, 2004.

one more question. was it usually just one person cutting the check each month? where there months in which you got a check from bill personally and the foundation? mr. cooper: it varied over time. mr. cooper, who were you employed by now? mr. cooper: i have my own consulting firm. i have a variety of clients i work with to help them with their thought leadership, to identify -- >> does that include any array of clinton entities? mr. cooper: it does not involve any current clinton entities. >> or persons? it is not involve any of the clintons. >> we now recognize the gentleman from new york. york.tlewoman from new >> i would like to begin by quoting from bernie sanders.

he famously said in one of the debates, he said enough of these e-mails. i think that those of us with sets of this hearing today can say the same. we are seeing a predictable pattern from the republican party where they, out and make all kinds of accusations that i believe are politically motivated. they make all kinds of accusations against secretary clinton. onesmake really reckless that are criminal accusations and then they call for an investigation. then the investigation happens and what comes out of investigation does not support the accusation. then they move on to the next e-mail "attack" that they put forward.

we saw this with the discredited and ghazi hearings and accusations and reviews. where the fbi and other independent investigators found no evidence, none whatsoever, of a crime with the e-mails. what do we have again? another accusation of claiming e-mail criminal activity. the latest one is that secretary orderedand her top aide the destruction of e-mails to conceal these e-mails from investigators. example, my good friend, and he really is my good friend, representative meadows, i heard him on national television where he claimed that the e-mails were deleted as a result of "a directive from the clinton campaign."

there is no evidence to support this accusation. fitz made aafe similar claim on september 6, claiming that secretary clinton's attorneys issued to ons order during a call march 2015. these claims were already andstigated by the fbi guess what? there was not any evidence to support these claims. explains thaty after secretary clinton's attorneys finished perusing her work-related e-mails, she no longer needed her remaining personal e-mails. the fbi is there for a reason. investigate,e to

make determinations and to come forward with conclusions. they have concluded that there is no evidence. so why are we here? why are we trying to contradict what the fbi found? the bottom line is that the fbi, based on the reviews, based on the professionals that they have looking at this, they came forward and said, the director said it before this committee, we do not find any evidence of evil intent and intent to instruct -- obstruct justice. this is the head of the fbi relying on a complete investigation of his personnel on the issue. he also said and i am quoting him. we did not find evidence to indicate that they did anything to try to erase or conceal anything of any sort. the fbi has artie made their

determination. i one question to you mr. cooper. in all of your work and understanding, did you see anything that contradicts the conclusions of the fbi professionals and director ey who testified before this congress who saw no criminal activity. he's a no abuse of justice. to you see anything to contradict this conclusion? mr. cooper: to the best my knowledge, no. >> ok. i want to remind everyone that the fbi, we are here for one day. they conducted a year-long thattigation and concluded no charges were appropriate. they had, i would say, an

all-star team. we have very good investigators, but i would say year-long investigation by the fbi with , they arestar teams professionals, trained professionals, they came forward and said that there were no charges -- that no charges were appropriate. i want to join bernie sanders and saying enough is enough. we have had investigation after investigation, accusation after accusation, now we have another accusation after the investigation was completed by an unmatchedh has record in protecting our citizens, preserving the law this country and preserving the integrity of government. i rest my case.

>> the time is expired. >> i was just warming up mr. chairman. [laughter] >> we will now recognize the gentleman mr. smith, the chairman of the science and technology committee. we are thankful for the close working relationship with the community. -- committee. tothank you for inviting me attend today's hearing to examine the security of's former secretary clinton's private server. and e-mailserver arrangement is of particular importance to your committee and to the science, space and technology committee. the science committee has a whichsibility to examine branches and agencies and private entities can improve practices. security as part of the science committee's ongoing investigation, i have issued

questions to three different companies that perform maintenance work. two of the companies received lawfully issued subpoenas for work they performed. flat river networks and second produceave refused to documents. both companies have purposely misinterpreted the plain language of the subpoena. both have stated that they do -- thee response materials. which is demonstrably false. these companies decision to obstruct the committee's investigation and if i a lawfully issued subpoena continues the clinton habit of secret rather than -- secrecy rather than transparency. this may be of interest to the , theewoman from new york council confirmed to my staff that the clintons prime it -- private llc is directly engaged

in instruction to congressional subpoenas. this is a clear obstruction of justice. americans deserve to know the truth, which is now being blocked by the clinton organization. providehe companies did responsive materials to the subpoena. these documents have shed light on the unique arrangement undertaken by secretary clinton to set up a private server. this includes the lack of even basic cyber security measures applying to the information stored on the server such as encryption. it is inconceivable that a secretary of state who was entrusted with our national security secrets would not take every available step to safeguard our nations classified information. throughrmation sought the investigation of the science committee, oversight government reform committee and senator ron johnson in the senate, homeland security and government affairs

committee is crucial in determining the degree in which our national security was unprotected and perhaps in danger. i look forward to continuing to work forward -- work with you mr. chairman. if it is all right, as a couple of questions. mr. cooper. first of all, thank you for being here today and being willing to answer questions. you deserve credit for being willing to do that. that compares to those who refuse to come here today and answer questions. let me ask my first question which is, you heard me say a minute ago, this morning, -- have said the clinton executive service corporation is in effect obstructing my committees investigation. is a standard practice for the clinton executive services corporation?

in aooper: i'm not position to comment or have any knowledge of that. >> have you seen any other have triedhere they to prevent information from getting to a committee? mr. cooper: i am not aware at all. >> many of the documents provided include indications of flat river networks. should they have information in his -- in its possession about the work related to hillary clinton server? mr. cooper: my interaction with them was handling -- handing over usernames and passwords. that is my totality of interactions. i've not had information with them beyond that. likelyd you save their or not to have that information? what information you had over to them? mr. cooper: i handed over some usernames and passwords at the beginning of the transitional process. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

that completes my questions. thank you, chairman. we do appreciate it. i will recognize the gentleman from georgia, mr. carter. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you mr. cooper for being here. in secretary clinton's new york homes, didton d.c. she have a desktop computer? mr. cooper: there were apple imacs in the homes. >> had you know that? i had the: opportunity to work out of those rooms. >> who was able to open them? mr. cooper: they were there for the purpose of staff visiting the home or the staff at work in the home. >> was it ever less -- left unsecured?

left out for some of to get to it. mr. cooper: these were personal computers in their homes secured by the secret service. >> who had access to it? mr. cooper: the clinton family and their staff. you about two occasions in 2011 where you were concerned that someone was trying to hack into hillary clinton's private e-mail server. would made you concerned that someone was trying to hack in as described in the e-mail you sent? mr. cooper: my concern at the time was i was colloquially using the term hack to describe what was a multiple failed login attempt on the server. what was really conveying to her was the concern of that activity and more so that we were dealing with it by shutting down the server for an amount of time. >> so later on that day you e-mailed her and said there was

a second attempt. you said we were hacked again so i shut the server down for a few minutes. help me out. when i think the hack on a computer, i think of someone who is trying to get in. mr. cooper: i was using very colloquial language. >> so that is not what you meant when you said attack -- hack? mr. cooper: these were multiple failed login attempts on the server. >> wing to describe that as someone who is trying to get an unauthorized? mr. cooper: i would describe it is that yes. >> was it the same attempt as the previous one? mr. cooper: i cannot recall if it was the same or being able to determine that. >> did you shut the server down on the day in january? mr. cooper: to the best of my recollection based on the e-mails you have, yes. >> what good would that have done?

what was the purpose in doing that? mr. cooper: my understanding was these were automated attempts and once they did not ping a server on the other side, they would stop. >> we had reports and we read numerous reports that mr. o was -- no. cooper: mr. paglia on was letting me know about failed login attempts. >> what is the difference between a failed login attempts and a hack? mr. cooper: a failed login attempt is when someone tries to log into the server and fails. >> what is an attack? define an attack for me?

>> the word attack is colloquial. >> describe what you would define it as. mr. cooper: multiple failed login attempts trying different usernames in no specific pattern. >> would you agree that most people attack it asthma something much more than that -- as something much more than that? mr. cooper: i would agree. we have discovered that hillary clinton's old phones were destroyed with a hammer. were these phones connected to the private e-mail server in question? mr. cooper: i described earlier that when the transition from one device to the next, we take the old device, back it up, make sure all the content was transferred to the new device, linked to the server, then once that was completed, on occasion

i render them unusual. >> why would use that kind of method? it seems kind of barbaric. mr. cooper: i think it is practical to not just throw a whole device into some sort of garbage receptacle where someone might pick it up out of curiosity and try to use it. here we are, with all due respect, the definition of an attack that you have and the definition that i have and most people have are completely different. we are taking an old phone and destroy it with a hammer. where you instructed to do that? mr. cooper: that was not something i was instructed to do. >> was that normal procedure? mr. cooper: i felt it was a good practice. >> ok. i yield my time. >> a few other questions as we

conclude here. i give you great credit for being here and answering the questions. imagese there no backup prior to june 23, 2013 made available to the fbi as part of their criminal investigation? mr. cooper: that is not something i have knowledge or insight into. mr. pagliano were running the ship. why were there no backups? mr. cooper: technically he handled that component of the server. i was not managing to backups. thatt their report states that server was backed up to an external hard drive between may of 20 -- 2009 and june of 2011. is that your understanding? mr. cooper: it is my understanding from reading the same report. >> the report states you would

periodically delete the records and maintain the backup as disk space ran out? mr. cooper: i was not responsible for those deletions. >> you didn't do any of those? mr. cooper: no. >> was there any consideration to get a backup or external hard drives? mr. cooper: at one point we upgraded the backup system attached to the server. >> so rather than backing this stuff up, you deleted it? mr. cooper: i was not the one responsible for doing any deletion. fbi was unable to locate or procure any of the 13 mobile devices used by secretary clinton during your tenure. are you aware of any of the locations of these devices? mr. cooper: i am not aware. >> did secretary clinton ever use the computer use -- set up for? mr. cooper: the computer's in her homes? >> yes. did she know how to use it?

mr. cooper: i don't know that she did or use those computers? >> so you bought a computer, set it up, you never saw her use it? mr. cooper: i don't believe i ever saw our use it. >> who had access? mr. cooper: she had household staff in each home and i believe her personal aide who would come to her house before travel who would predominantly use those to print off clips and briefing material. >> they could access that when it became a skip? mr. cooper: i am not aware. it when theyer use were in the skiff? mr. cooper: i do not recall using it when it was a skiff. e-mail?d printer mr. cooper: i cannot say if it would. i don't know if it printed her e-mail.

>> did you ever see the computer in her skiff? mr. cooper: i have seen the skiff and i know the computer was in there. >> you put a little qualifier there. you are telling you for four years, you never went in that room? mr. cooper: i can't say a specific occasion i walked in that room. >> so you're talking to the secretary chu walks in that room, you stop at the door? mr. cooper: i don't recall a situation of that type. >> do you know how tight the skiff was secured? mr. cooper: i was there when it was set up and i believe it locks on the doors. >> what happened when the fbi showed up? today sees things? -- did they seize things?

were you there? mr. cooper: no. >> are you aware that they seized anything? mr. cooper: i am not aware. the very same day that hillary clinton started her senate confirmation was the very same day you registered clinton e-mail.com and evidently set up the server. correct? mr. cooper: that was the day we registered clinton e-mail.com. i'm not sure it was the same day we set up the server. >> what was she doing three days before that? mr. cooper: i have no recollection of where she or i were three days before that. >> why not set up a gmail account? mr. cooper: the consideration was there was an executive -- existing server that allowed her to maintain a personal e-mail address.

she was using at&t blackberry address before that which had limited ability to retain e-mails or view them in any other way decides on the blackberry. -- besides on the blackberry. >> i want to reiterate how much here,eciate your being subject news of the questions before congress. i'm sure is not something you set out early in life to do. you are here and you have answered. for that, we are very much appreciative. we are very grateful of that. but we recognize before we recess here mr. cummings. >> a lot of times we have these

, a lot of people don't seem to realize that there is life after the hearing. do your family? -- do you have a family? mr. cooper: i do not. i also want to thank you for your testimony. i think you have been very straightforward. thank you for your cooperation with the fbi. your testimony has been very helpful. having practiced law for many , it is painful and short of have to pay legal bills.

-- i'm sure to pay legal bills. it is money you can probably be doing some other things with. i'm sorry you have to go through all this. life.ct is, it is part of i just want to thank you very much. i can understand based on the testimony why director call me came to the conclusion they did, particularly with regard to you. intention of the chair to recess the hearing to reconvene at a later date, will provide ample notice of the date and time. the committee stands and rita -- recess.

>> coming up next on c-span, washington journal. the house returns to work on a va bill. there's also a possible of a democratic protest for a vote on gun control. --ing up in 45 minutes, mike senator mike rounds joins us. efforts to fight the zika virus and the latest on campaign 2016. then, texas congressman beto

overwork talks about changes to the veterans bill. after that, gideon rose discusses military changing to the changing field. ♪ host: good morning. is wednesday, september 14, 2016. the senate scheduled to reconvene today at 9:00 a.m. the house begins its day with the two usual morning hour at -- with its usual morning hour at 10:00 a.m. a sharp increase in household the steepest decline in the with poverty rate in nearly 50 years. we want to hear whether yo