tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN July 7, 2016 9:00am-10:01am EDT
we've done some of that in talking with folks at cato to try to figure out how those standards can be appropriately met. so i think there's a tension there that we ought to through innovation and other ways kind of struggle with it. if we don't, you know, i heard randy say this at a panel a couple of weeks ago we're going
to bump up against the problem described. a legitimate interest in equality rubs up against a legitimate and important need to increase considerably substantially the diversity of the work force. one last thing i'll say now. because linda mentioned this. i got a file fold eer full of educator equity plans that i was looking at as i thought about coming here, and it is also true that the schools, the poorest schools with the highest concentration of high-needs students are as you go from state to state the schools with the least well-prepared teachers, the folks with the
least amount of experience and support, and increasingly the least diverse. it's so it's a challenge that we need to confront. so, your experience as the national teacher of the year for 2016, congratulations. >> thank you. >> talk about your experience and what you've seen in the profession. because i think there's a lot of issues out there for state leaders especially saying where does principal leadership and teacher leadership come into play and how it does it make a difference. how does mentoring help so we have teachers that join the profession out of the teacher prep program. can we keep them in the positions for five, ten, or perhaps as long as i mentioned with my father for 43 years. >> good morning. thank you for having me. as a classroom teacher, when i think about infusing the pipeline, i have to look at it as a classroom teacher. my lens is different from the policy maker and the recovery
dean. everything with me starts with my students. first of all, early exposure. as a high school teacher it pains me i ask my students what profession. and every year the number that consider teaching as a profession diminishes. i think that really -- so i ask myself what can i do about that? you know, how can i improve those numbers? and i think as teachers, first of all, we have to be purposeful in our interactions with students. every interaction. there's so much negative and inaccurate media perception surrounding this profession. so kids need to know going in teachers enjoy what they do and it is something that is a value. it's a noble profession. you know, when my students were interviewed for this teacher of the year process, they didn't talk about content. they talked about the interactions they had with me as their teacher. i would encourage the education community, you know, watch what you say. watch how you perceive this
profession. the life of a teacher of the year is very different than life of a classroom teacher. i'm here. i'm sitting here. for the last decade i fought to be heard. that's not what teachers experience. that's not what students see. another thing that i've done at my school, we've started student internships where they work alongside teachers and see the positives of the profession we've established vibrant yes, sir clubs to be engaged with teachers and the value that is in this profession. i've had to learn not to wait for things to happen but network within my community, to find resources, you know, mentorships, partnerships so that teachers feel supported in other ways. song often we wait for legislation to be passed when we have to create those opportunities for ourselves. as far as educator preparation
programs, i think one of the best things we found i visited hbc to try to talk to teachers. and some of the issues with reciprocity from state to state i can't wrap myself around why the requirements for a teacher in connecticut. we have rigorous testing, there's a literacy test are very different from the requirements for a teacher in new york. so you can't even travel from state to state as a teacher. you know, i'm the national teacher of the year but if i decided i wanted to move to -- i don't know, wisconsin, alabama i can't. i can't teach in alabama. you know, so something -- i'm not sure what that means or why that is, but, you know, we're in a room with people from all over the country. i think that's a kconversation e need to have. and those programs need to look at, i came out of college content ready. i can write a lesson, buzz words, all this stuff but lucky for me i teach in the community where i was born so i knew how to engage the community. i don't think preparation
programs do enough to teach young and developing teachers -- teaching is not just about what happens in the classroom and there's not enough emphasis put on putting teachers into communities, engaging them as partners, teaching them how to work with parents outside the classroom. and then, finally, i can't leave the stage without talking about recruiting minorities. i think that so much of our problem lies in the fact that i work in the largest -- the fourth largest urban district in connecticut. it's a majority and minority district. we have about 76% minorities. i went through my whole career as a student with all female white teachers. you know, so if you're saying so you to see it to be it, i didn't know what that meant. none of my teachers looked like me, from my culture, were from my community. when you have students that are minorities and have so many negative experiences in the classroom, why would you want to teach in that type of
environment or work or make it your life's work. so we have to, you know, think about cultural competency and letting those students see they have value as well and can add something to this profession. >> i think we ought to pause and soak in what she said. [ applause ] >> we have a lot of state leaders in the audience. one of the difficulties is the funding issues. your k-12 budget is almost 50% of what the entire state budget is. it's a big expense, and compensation comes into play. we get questions how do we change compensation for our teachers. but teacher compensations makes up a large percentage of the state appropriation. alabama had a 4% increase for teachers. south dakota had one of the largest increases in the history of their state for teachers. how, though, does compensation
come into play. is it one of the factors to change some of the pipeline issues? >> definitely teacher compensation comes into play. jeremy, you mentioned it's a large part of the school budget. one would wish it was an even larger part of the school budget. one of the things you can learn by looking at the numbers, interestingly enough about private schools and public schools. somehow private schools have been able to keep administrative costs much more contained than public schools. there are a lot of reasons for that. they don't have to run a bus service and other things. those need to be part of the explanation but it should be a conscious goal to keep administrative costs within
reaso reason. i think if you're looking at working conditions, one is definitely pay. before you pick up, ken, there was a report from the state of new york put out two years ago that says, actually, if you look at the academic achievement of people coming into prepare to be teachers in the state of new york, it actually has increased in the last four or five years compared with a period before that. which was a very interesting finding. i think a number of people didn't understand why that was happening. and the authors of that study said it was because of policy
initiatives in the state of new york to encourage people to go with the teaching and to try to reward that field. it's not all that bleak. >> i think there are a number of things states can do. this is another area for innovation in our community. while i, too, think we ought to figure out how to put more money in the system, there are also things we can do in the system we have to create markets that help us pursue some of the goals we have. both for the size and composition of the pipeline. there's no reason we couldn't
negotiate reciprocity agreements. when you enter into agreements with states, you're using up common standards across the country. those could be -- in some places they are to the licensing and certification requirements across states. so that there's less variation in those markets. the common salary schedule is another area for real innovation. right now the money is predictably in the back end of the schedule. if you're going to improve the pipeline we're going to need to move some of the money to the front end. and we have to figure out how a teacher progresses over the course of their career. we might need to acknowledge
that careers are changing anyway and people don't stay in any given occupation for 30 or 40 years. that's not the growing pattern. so it has huge implications for the structure and nature of the compensation system. you know, in terms of getting the mix -- i was on the school board for eight years. i'm still recovering from that, too. but we had a very interesting policy discussions about what's the nature of the work force we wanted in our community. we got quickly to talking about does our salary schedule actually work toward that mix for or against it. i think there's opportunity for innovation here. you know, that isn't rocket science. we can figure some of these
things out. >> i think when we talk about compensation it's a simplistic target because, first of all, teachers are not doing it for the compensation. if i got paid dollar for dollar, hour for hour, i would have a very different life. i would have a very different life. absolutely! so, i mean, yes we like to be valued. we want to be respected and paid what we believe we're worth. when we talk about working within the system, there are so many opportunities for engaging other stakeholders to partner with it. it doesn't have to be isolated -- we have 52 teachers of the year here as a result of scholastic who said we think it's important you're here, and we will support this. so there are lots of very different -- [ applause ] you know, i think that everyone is owning the problem as opposed to collaborating our resources, working together, everyone taking responsibility for the
part that belongs to them and fixing the problem in a very holistic way. this very isolated approach as everybody has a piece of we have to figure out all the components of the issue about compensation. no. how do we work together? the program that i started at my school was as a result of me securing a $75,000 grant from my state, you know, to get this program off the ground. my school district said we don't have the money to do that. i thought if my students came to me my same problem my response would be figure it out. ening my response today is figure it out. [ applause ] >> we are going to open up to questions for the audience. we'll have mike runners out there. if you have a question, please raise your hand and we'll come and find you. one of the questions i'll get back to is the reciprocity issues. we've heard that from states and many chiefs. i think the requirements for certification were put in place
for what, at the time, was the right reasons, it was thought of. it was quality, different areas of expertise they wanted. without the reciprocity i think some of the states are realizing it's hard to recruit from other states or bring in teachers for hard-to-fill positions like language, special education, or arts. talk about the areas you think it need to be looked at differently. reciprocity is pretty easy in other areas. you can work in the medical field in multiple states. >> it's silly. my kids in connecticut deserve the same high-quality education as kids in california, alaska, minnesota, alabama, every state in the country. it's silly to say the quality of the teacher should vary from state to state. i was just in kentucky -- literally i was in standing in kentucky and indiana but at the same time but the requirements in the two states are very
different. so that is something that just seems silly. >> you want to speak to that? >> one, there is an organization that is into at least sharing information about what the requirements are from state to state. i think one of the issues is you need to move to a higher political level to get agreement on the kinds of issues that you're talking about. i want to mention a special concern of mine about this area. that is the interstate sharing of information is really very important. but it is very difficult because you immediately run into privacy issues. so they're working on a kind of pilot project so they can at least share information about criminal records and things like that that are important when you're moving people from one state to another. but there are a lot of important things about the experiences a
teacher had or the credential the teacher has that would be important for hiring and important for making a decision whether the credentials the teacher has are the same that our state requires. and it's very difficult to get states to agree to share that type of information because of priest issues. i'm convinced and maybe i'm crazy over it, there could be a technical fix that would make it possible for the data to be in a warehouse someplace that nobody actually has access to but they could allow links to be made and then you get the result of it in a way that would predict privacy. i think that's a beg challenge and i know the data quality campaign is working on that. >> if you're a teaching, i have friend who have been teaching for 15 or 20 years and they're saying i'm not going to be pay more money or be retested. so they leave the position and
do something in education but not specifically teaching because the loop -- the hoops they have to jump through to continue to be certified are very different. and i think that we -- like you said, people move, people transition. we're a very different world. you can't expect -- people are not expected to stay in one place in their whole life anymore. i think if you want different results we have to do things a little bit differently. >> if we can use the electronic records in medicine and big exchanges use personal data every day to make sure that f-- those claims get paid everywhere in the country. >> any questions from the audience for our panel? we got one up here. >> senator stephenson.
i'm thinking of the comments on high-needs schools, and the previous talk on getting the shoes to fit the right kids. and that equity issue. many of our lea that have one side of the district that have high needs schools and the other side of the district is higher income and yet through accounting side of hand the district reports that the spending is greater in the title i schools the with the additional funding. but what they use is the average teacher salary of the entire district, and so the lower experienced teachers in the high needs schools are -- you're spending less money in the high needs schools than you are in the other side of the district. this is an issue thattic exists in all of our states. for the legislators in the room,
can you tell us, has there been research done on this? because it seems to me that if we had the money actually spent in those high needs schools we would have the staffing ratios better and the kind of experienced teachers there in those schools rather than the slight of hand accounting of averages of teacher salaries. i don't know if that is understood, but i think it's happening in all of our states in those districts where you have half the district with high need and half the district with not high need. >> i'm not sure the question was for anybody up here, but i do think it's happening. to say it differently, you know, the intradistrict variations might be as great or greater than the variations between
districts. we studied it in philly. we were sort of looking at it across the south as we peer into resource-equity issues. you know, the other way to get at this i think you're right as a practical matter all that is going on is that the folks who make more money, you know, tend to be concentrated in certain kinds of schools. okay. it's a working conditions issue. some teachers enjoy working in places where it's easier, you know, to work. if we created incentives for our really competent teachers and committed to work in the schools with the greatest need, that
would begin to solve the problem or make a big difference in it. you know, there were attempts at a point along the way in the national board and for professional teaching standards to run an experiment of creating incentives to sort of concentrate highly qualified teachers in such schools. i was at mdrc in new york and we prepared to evaluate that. if it happened. i just read an article on a plane coming here studying the performance-based pay system in denver, which has a long history. and what the article reveals is that the incentives that to which teachers responded to an earlier point you made had actually more to do with showing up in high need schools.
and in being in settings with a group performance. so i think it is reality, but it's also a dynamic that we could impact if we wanted to. >> in an earlier life i was in the u.s. department of education necs. i can assure you this issue has been studied and studied and studied and studied. it is, as kent says, true. it's also a hot political issue. it falls under the maintenance of effort, but as a part of the elementary and secondary education act, i believe i believe the secondary of education tried to write regulations that changed that phenomena. he was called on the carpet by senator alexander in the united states senate for going beyond the regulations authority that he had for that act. so talk with your congressman or
your senator about handling that issue. it's a real issue. it has been in place since 1964. >> okay. so, if it's been studied and studied and studied and we know it to be true and it's what's best for kids -- >> right -- >> -- why aren't we doing it? [ applause ] why aren't we doing it? i mean, we have people from all over the country here. i feel like -- i think from a classroom teacher you look at things through a different lens, you know, if something is not working you don't continue to do it. you step back, reflect, evaluate. i'm just saying. right. i'm just saying. if we know this is an issue that is not working and we're discussing the problem, i almost feel like we're admiring the problem. if we know where we need to go and the route that we're taking to get there doesn't -- i'm just
saying. >> you're going to have a very fun year as the national teacher of the year. >> i'm just saying. figure it out. >> and it's issue at the federal level and states level. we're getting close on time. i want to give each of you a chance to quickly say if there's one policy you think needs to be looked at the closest in states. dealing with teacher pipeline issues. what would you recommend? i mean, is it around compensation or reciprocity? is it around mentoring? is it about perception issues with the profession itself. >> i would like to start with the working conditions that teacher face when they're in the school. it seems to me that the research tells us over and over again that when people leave frequently when they mention is pay but also the conditions of working and how professionally rewarding it is and the ability to work with colleagues and to be supported.
so i want to start there. i think i want to conclude by saying instead of viewing this as a current crisis to be dealt with in 10 minutes and moved on, i think it's an opportunity to think about things like teacher pay and teacher working conditions and the connections between state policies and what we're asking of colleges. >> we have a problem of perspective and narrative that you can't spend a decade mostly seeing bad things about public education. and then expect rash tell me -- rational people to flock. [ applause ] it may be the single most important public enterprise in
the country. we used to think about it as we grow and develop and nurture and support an economy. and our debate has been reduced to notions of markets and competition and that, you know, the success in the classroom is strictly a function of an individual teacher. right. i think we've got to stop talking about teaching as if we were staffing factories. as if teachers were widgets. if we could shift that perspective to one of professionalism and address the iss issues raised about our sort of current orientation toward compliance and control and start
thinking in terms of professional responsibility and judgment me would come to the question of how to grow and fill the pipeline very differently. that's what i would encourage us to do. [ applause ] >> i think all of those things are very important. it's a combination of everything mentioned in the slide. compensation, working conditions, autonomy, supportive administrators, but i think mentoring programs are very important. i think that we have to look at education very differently. when teachers come into schools, they need to feel sport -- supported. they need to be invested in the communities where they teach. it's easy to walk away from a community you don't care about. it teachers are not seeing what is going on in their naibltds, learning the looifs of their
students, learning, you know, u what happened here connect to the outside community and then working together collaboratively, you know, so i think we have to look at education very differently, you know, it's not just what happens inside the building. and that's going to happen through partnerships and mentoring and bringing all of those people together. >> this is a very important issue and one we continue to hear from the states often. i think it's one we're going to see a lot of states as there's changes in people in different positions of power. legislative chairs, chiefs, governors that they're going to be grappling with for the next few years. please join me in thanking our panel for their insights and sharing. [ applause ] we transition to the last session of concurrence which is down stairs in the lincoln rooms again. we're going to meet back here at 11:00 for dana goldstein, the author of the book "moving beyond the teacher wars" and we'll have our closing session officially at 11:00 a.m. thank you very much!
the 1964 democratic convention in atlantic city with lyndon johnson. richard nixon at 1972 republican convention in miami beach. 1980 democratic convention with jimmy carter in new york city. the 1984 republican convention in dallas with ronald reagan. george h.w. bush in the 1992 republican convention in houston. bill clinton in chicago for the 1996 democratic convention.
the 2004 republican convention in new york city with george w. bush. past republican and democratic national conventions saturday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. on american history tv on c-span3 saturday afternoon at 1:50 eastern. >> memoirs you have to be weary of because not only are memoirs just bound to be self-serving to a disagree, but the -- the also most of these people did not want to disclose too much. in some cases it may actually dissemble and try to mislead people. >> historians talk about the techniques used by the cia and russian foreign intelligence service to gather intelligence dating back to the cold war and how it changed since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. and post civil war memphis.
>> many whites thought this is it. it's happening. a full-scale black uprising. they panicked. mobs of white men armed with pistols and clubs formed responde respondent usely downtown, marched to the scene of the shoot out, and began shoot i shooting/beating every black person they could find. >> the 1866 riot that resulted in the massacre of dozens of african-american african-americans. and the role of u.s. federal color troops stationed near the city. and an argument on america's national character. >> his view that small businesses and start ups would be the backbone of the new economy. and indeed one of the things that his group did is they made a set of rules for how to be a
good start up entrepreneur and innovator. >> and sunday morning at 10:00 monroe to the white house rewind. >> and in the music of our children, we're told everything there is a season and a time to every purpose under heaven. and for america the time has come at last. >> you know that every politician's promise has a price. the taxpayer pays the bill. the american people are not going to be taken in by any scheme where government gives money with one hand and takes it away with the other. >> the 1972 republican and democratic national conventions with richard nixon accepting the gop nomination for a second term, and south dakota senator accepting the democratic nomination. for our complete schedule, go to c-span.org.
isaac is joining ounce the phone. thank you very much for being with us. >> thank you. >> let me begin with the testimony by the fbi director before the house oversight committee. what questions should he expect? >> caller: probably along the lines of the questions in senator johnson's letter from yesterday asking for more details about the investigation and especially the conclusion that comey reached, for example, what is different between extremely careless, which is how director comey characterized secretary clinton's conduct and gross negligence, which is the legal standard for bringing charges. >> let he share with the audience what you and your colleagues wrote at politico.com. the reaction from the house committee calling the decision by the fbi director in his words
surprising and confusing adding he thinks secretary clinton did violate the law. can you elaborate on that? >> caller: well, i think a lot of people were surprised by, you know, if you listen to the first 15 minutes of director comey's speech you got a different impression from the last three minutes. i spoke with a lot of former prosecutors who actually sort of anticipated based on how negative he was being in describing the evidence that that was going to lead to not recommending charges because if you're going to indict someone you wouldn't want to be that prejudice l. the inintention, as they thought, is be as transparent as possible. not pull any punches, not shy away from anything. and, also, preempt any leaks. not have anyone wondering what was the evidence and talking about trying to cover stuff. but then make clear the legal
hurdle, you know, if you're going to bring criminal charges, can you prove it's not a criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt and to show the difference between the conduct he described and that actual legal standard. >> and the attorney general has said she would follow the decision by the career prosecutors. it's highly unlikely that the justice department would seek any charges against the former secretary of state, the presumptive democratic nominee. do house republicans have any course of action? >> caller: well, i mean, they're going to bring director comey over tomorrow and they can certainly have more hearings or congressional investigation and, you know, they want to drag it out. they want to create more opportunities for director comey to say things like he said yesterday to get him on tape disparaging clinton's judgment and conduct and, you know, that feeds directly into attack ads i'm sure we're going to be
seeing later this fall. >> and the political equation was my other question. the headline today in politico's noo newspaper reaction to the fbi the clrules are different for t clintons. >> caller: that seems to be the republican and trump messaging on this. that the clintons are above the law. that they don't face the same accountability that other people would face. it's really not what director comey said yesterday. he talked about comparing this case to all the similar cases that have happened before and the absence of an aggravating factor in this case, like there were in the other charges. but, you know, that's the way that the republicans want voters to see this as, you know, the system being rigged an unfair and the clintons getting away with things that they shouldn't. >> isaac arnsdorf is following
this. his work available online at politico.com. thank you for being with us. i appreciate it. >> caller: thank you. good morning. i'm here to give you an update on the fbi's investigation of secretary clinton's use of a personal e-mail system during her time as secretary of state. after a tremendous amount of work over the last year, the fbi is completing its investigation and referring the matter to the department of justice for a prosecutive decision. what i want to do today is three things. i want to tell you what we did, i want to tell you what we found, and i want to tell you what we're recommending to the department of justice.
i'm going to include the detail of the process. and, second, i've not coordinated the statement or reviewed it in any way with the department of justice or any part of the government. they do not know what i'm about to say. but i want to start by thanking the fbi employees who did remarkable work in this case. once you have a better sense of how much we have done, you will understand why i'm so grateful and so proud of their work. in connection with clinton's use of personal e-mail server during her time of secretary of state. our investigation looked at whether there is evidence that
classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system in violation of a federal statute that makes it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way. or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities. in consistent with our counter intelligence responsibilities, we have also investigated to determine if there is evidence of computer intrusion by nation states or by hostile actors of any kind. i have so far used the singular term e-mail server in describing the referral that began our investigation. it turns out to have been more complicated than that. secretary clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years as the state department. and she also used numerous mobile devices to send and to read e-mail on that personal do
main. as new servers and equipment were employed, older servers were taken out of service, stored, and decommissioned in various ways. piecing all of that back together to gain as full an understanding as possible in the ways in which personal e-mail was used for government work has been a pain staking undertaking requiring thousands of hours of effort. for example, when one of secretary clinton's servers was decommissioned in 2013, the e-mail software was removed. that didn't remove the e-mail content, but it was like removing the frame from a huge unfinished jigsaw puzzle and dumping all the pieces on the floor. the effect was that millions of e-mail fragments ended up in the server's unused or slack space. we searched through all of it to understand what was there and what parts of the puzzle we could put back together again. fbi investigators also read all
of the approximately 30,000 e-mails that secretary clinton provided to the state department in 2014. where an e-mail was assessed as possibly containing classified information. the fbi referred that e-mail to any government agency that might be an owner of that information. so that agency could make a determination as to whether the e-mail contained classified information at the time it was sent or received, or whether there was to classify it now even if the content had
not been classified when it was first sent to receive. that's the process of referred to as upclassifying. from the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the state department in 2014, 110 e-mails and 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. eight of those chains contained
information that was top secret at the time they were sent. 36 of those chains contained secret information at the time, and eight contained confidential information at the time. that's the lowest level of classification. separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were upclassified to make them confidential. those e-mails had not been classified at the time that they were sent or received. the fbi also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not among the group of 30,000 e-mails returned by
secretary clinton to state in 2014. we found those e-mails in a variety of ways. some had been deleted over the years and we found strtraces of them on servers or devices that have been connected to the private e-mail do main. others we found by reviewing the archive government accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as secretary clinton.
including high-ranking officials at other agencies. folks with whom secretary of state might normally correspondent. this helped us recover work-related e-mails that were not among the 30,000. still others we recovered from the pain staking reviews of millions of e-mail fragments dumped into the slack space of the server that was decommissioned in 2014. with respect to the thousands of e-mails we found not among those produced to the state department, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one of the secret level and two at the confidential level. there were no additional top-secret e-mails found, and, finally, none of those we found have since been up classified. i should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related
e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them in some way. our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, secretary
clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from her system when devices were changed. because she was not using a government account or even a commercial account like g-mail, there was no archiving at all of her e-mails. it's not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on secretary clinton's system in 2014 when she produced those 30,000 some e-mails to state. it could also be that some of the additional work-related e-mails that we've recovered were among those deleted as personal by her lawyers when they reviewed and sorted her e-mails for production in late 2014. the lawyers doing the sorting for secretary clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails as we did for those available to us. instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to find all work-related e-mails among of the reportedly more than 60,000 that were remaining on her system at the
end of 2014. it's highly likely that their search missed some work-related e-mails and we later found them. for example, in the mailboxes of other officials, or in the slack space of a server. it's also likely that there are other work-related e-mails they did not produce to state and that we did not find elsewhere and that are now gone. because they deleted all e-mails they did not produce to state and the lawyers then cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery. we have conducted interviews and done technical examination to attempt to understand exactly how that sorting was done by her attorneys. all though we don't have complete visibility, because we're not able to fully reconstruct the electronic record of that sorting, we believe our investigation has been sufficient to give us reasonable confidence there was no intentional misconduct includes wi-- in connection wit that sorting effort.
we interviewed many people from those involved in setting up the personal e-mail system and maintaining the various iterations of secretary clinton's server, to staff members with whom she corp. corresponde corresponded on e-mail. and last, we have done extensive work to understand what implications there might be of comprise by hostile actors in connection with the personal e-mail system. so that's what we've done. now let me tell you what we found. all though we did not find clear evidence that secretary clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing of handling of classified information, there is
evidence they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive highly classified information. for example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the top secret special access program at the time they were sent and
received. those chains involve secretary clinton both sending e mails about those matters and receiving e-mails about those same matters. there is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in secretary clinton's position or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about those matters should have known an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. in addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as secret by the u.s. intelligence community at the time it was discussed on e-mail. that is excludeing any later up classified e-mails. none of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system. their presence is concerning because all of these e-mails were housed in unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff like those found at agencies and departments of the united states government or even with a commercial e-mail service like g-mail.
i think it's also important to say something about the marking of classified information. only a very small number of the e-mails here containing classified information or markings that indicated the presence of classified information but even if information is not marked classified in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it. while not the focus of our investigation, we developed evidence that the security culture of the state department in general and with respect to the use of unclassified systems in particular was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information that is found elsewhere in the u.s. government. with respect potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that secretary clinton's personal e-mail do main in the various configurations since 2009 was hacked successfully.
the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assessed we'll be unlikely to see such direct evidence. we do asays that hostile actorss gained access to the private e-mail accounts of people to woman secretary clinton was in regular contact from her personal e-mail account. it was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. she also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the united states including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. we expect it is possible that hostile actors gained access to secretary clinton's personal e-mail account. finally with respect to our recommendation to the department of justice, in our system, the prosecutors make the decisions
about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence that the fbi helps collect. although we don't normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate given the ed. in this case, given the importance of the matter, i believe 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. prosecutors weigh a number of factors before deciding whether to bring charges. especially regarding intent, responsible decisions also consider the context of a person's actions and how similar situations have been handled in the past. in looking back at our investigations into the mishandling or removal of classified information, we
cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. all the cases prosecuted involved some combination of clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information or vast quantities of information exposed in such a way to support an inference of intentional misconductor efforts to obstruct justice. we do not see those things here. to be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. to the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions, but that's not what we're deciding now. 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. i know there will be intense
public debate in the wake of this recommendation as there was throughout the investigation. what i can assure the american people is that this investigation was done honestly, competently and independently. no outside influence of any kind was brought to bear. i know there were many opinions expressed by people not part of the investigation, including people in government. but none of that mattered to us. opinions are irrelevant and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation because we did our investigation the right way. only facts mattered. and the fbi found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way. i couldn't be provider to be part of this organization. thank you very much. >> and updating the story, late yesterday, the justice department formally announced they would not prosecute hillary clinton for use of a private
e-mail server. mitch mcconnell called for the fbi to release transcripts of their interview with hillary clinton. and the hill has this story today about all of this. a multi-pronged attack against the fbi and hillary clinton. total of five congressional committees will hold hearings over the next week or have already begun inquiries into the fbi about its investigation of the former secretary of state. you can read more about this at thehill.com. and the house oversight committee holding the first of these hearings this morning. live picture here. the committee called fbi director comey just yesterday to give his testimony today. we spoke with a reporter covering the hearing this morning to give us a sense of what we will see today.
>> tell us how this hearing came about. why so quickly, two days after the director says he will not recommend charges? >> yeah, you're right. this was extremely quickly. it was just on thursday fbi director james comey said he's not going to recommend charges for hillary clinton. just last night, the attorney general loretta lynch said that she's agreeing with those charges. almost immediately as soon as comey spoke on tuesday, there was backlash among republicans on capitol hill. a lot of people say that despite all of these criticisms that the fbi director laid out a lot of new revelations about hillary clinton's personal e-mail server including for instance the fact that more than 100 e-mails contained information that should have been classified at
the time. they're still not going to press charges. the legal standard here is for gross negligence and director comey said that they did not meet that legal standard, but that hillary clinton and her aides were extremely careless. i think there's a lot of concern, a lot of questions, about what the difference between extreme carelessness and gross negligence are. there's a finite amount of time if lawmakers want to have their voices heard, so they're really moving pretty quickly. i think director comey recognizes the political weight and significance of his announcement earlier this week. he's been on the phone with a number of lawmakers, including the oversight committee before whom he'll be testifying this morning. and i think he has some incentive and motivation to try to get out there as much as possible and explain his rationale.
we should note an extremely rare event, the fbi never really talks about investigations that don't end up going to prosecution. james comey has said that this is unusual. in order to quell further political furor, he wants to lay out why they arrived at the decisions they did. despite allegation from many republicans that she should have violated the law and that charges should have been filed against her. >> and live pictures of the room where this hearing is just about to get under way. committee members slowly making their way into the room. eric tucker and matthew daily of the associated press are covering this today. it says, director comey will be fielding questions today about an fbi announcement that disbursed the threat of critical charges by also revived public
scrutiny of hillary clinton. loretta lynch said yesterday that she accepted the recommendations and the findings of the fbi director and her career prosecutors and would not file charges against hillary clinton. attorney lynch likely to face questions of her own next week. director comey's decision and the way he delivered it infuriated republicans in his televised statement on tuesday laid out a sufficient basis for prosecution. there seems to be a double standard said the committee chair. if the average joe had gone through that, they'd probably have handcuffs on him and probably he would be in jail. this committee hearing just about to get under way. this is live coverage on cspan3.