HH: I’m joined now by Congressman Mike Pompeo from Kansas’ 4th Congressional District, a member of the House Intelligence Committee. First of all, Congressman Pompeo, your reaction to Director Comey’s revelations yesterday?
MP: Well, good morning, Hugh. Well, look, Director Comey’s statement was both remarkable and completely unexplainable, how you lay out the predicate for a crime with great detail, with greatly, you present the evidence to the American people then stand on your head to determine that there’s no crime that has been committed, is unfathomable. I look forward to today’s hearings so we can get a little bit more detail. But what we know is that Secretary Clinton did violate national statutes in the way she handled national security information. And more importantly, she put American lives at risk in the way that she did so.
HH: Why did she do that? Why did she put American lives at risk
MP: Well, I can’t explain. She’s going to have to account for the reason she intentionally set up a system to put this information in a place where our enemies would have easy access to it, Director Comey said as much in his statement, that he’s near certain that the enemy has access and had access to that material. So I don’t know why she did it. Why it puts Americans at risk is, I’ll give you the best example that I can speak to personally, there were 22 top secret emails, some of them classified at even higher levels, compartmentalized material, SAP material. I’ve read those 22 emails. I can assure your listeners that those weren’t about New York Times articles as they’ve described. These were about, these were classified properly. They were about important national security secrets, and Secretary Clinton exposed them to folks who want to do harm to America.
HH: The New York Times yesterday had a story by David Sanger, noted intelligence expert reporter. Hillary Clinton’s email was probably hacked, experts say, and I quote, “Reading between the lines and following Comey’s logic, it does sound as if the FBI believes a compromise of Clinton email is more likely than not, said Adam Seigel, author of Hacked World Order, who studies cyber issues at the Council on Foreign Relations. ‘Sophisticated attackers would have known of the existence of the account, would have targeted it, and would not have been seen.’” Do you agree with that, Congressman Pompeo?
MP: Yes, sir.
HH: Now why do we not take electronic devices abroad? Your colleague and friend, Tom Congress, in the Congress, said he never takes any electronics even to Canada. Why is that?
MP: Every individual who handles classified information is given an intel briefing on how to handle our own personal electronic devices as well as our government-issued electronic devices. And one of the first rules is thou shalt not take them to a place where we don’t have American levels of security. And so whether you’re traveling to a country like Canada or Germany, or Britain, our putative allies, or you’re traveling to someplace like China, or folks who don’t have America’s best interest, we all know that the security services of those countries know that people handling classified information are traveling. They would certainly have known that the Secretary of State was coming. And their governments are working diligently to take that material from them, as well as to implant software such that they can continue to track those devices as you go back and perform your important governmental functions. That’s why you don’t take those devices.
HH: Now Congressman Pompeo, you, she was under oath before the Benghazi Committee, was she not?
MP: That is correct.
HH: I believe she testified that she turned over all of her work emails to the Department of State. Was that not her testimony?
MP: That’s correct. Look, there were multiple statements that she made to the Benghazi Committee that were lies. Now I hope today we get a little more sense if Director Comey agrees with that. She told us that she did not send or receive any classified information or marked classified. We now know that to be false. She told us that it was not, that she didn’t put it at risk to a foreign government. We now know that is not true. She told us there was a single server. We now know that was not true. The list is pretty long, and she made those statements under oath, and I hope that along the way, there will be accountability for that.
HH: Is that perjury?
MP: We can all go read Section 1001 for ourselves, but we watched Section 1924, other statutes, be criminally violated, and so far, our Justice Department has declined to prosecute a person who was our nation’s most senior diplomat.
HH: 18USC1001 is called the False Statement Act. It makes is a crime to knowingly make a false statement to a federal official, and that would include that hearing?
MP: It would absolutely include that hearing, and Hugh, you read 1001 I mentioned. Thanks for putting the text out. So it has the word knowingly in there, and I am confident that somewhere along the way, someone will describe Secretary Clinton as not having known that the statements she was making were false. That can’t possibly be true. The judgment, the continued judgment over a period of years was so reckless, so cavalier with the way national security information was handled by her, it is not possible that she could have been so without understanding that the information she kept on her private server was secret, and that she did so knowingly, that she knew it, and then when she testified, she had to know that material was out there as well. Look, she said her lawyers reviewed every one of those emails. We now know that some of them were marked classified. How the capable lawyers of Williams and Connolly couldn’t figure that out defies logic.
HH: One of the things that became clear for me is why her staffer took the 5th Amendment, because he would have to confirm that she knew she had multiple servers, which would immediately implicate that one statement about her having one server and one device as being a knowingly false statement. She perjured herself. Now what happens with perjury? What normally follows in a perjury, when you have the predicate for perjury? What normally happens?
MP: So look, Americans know this. If it was you, Hugh, or me, or an average citizen, very clearly, those statements would be reviewed, they would go, unfortunately, to that same Justice Department that just cleared Secretary Clinton. That’s the recourse. There would normally be a detailed investigation. We know of cases just like this where there were underlying crimes, but they couldn’t quite prove them, but ultimately, individuals lied about them, and they’re prosecuted for the false statement. Secretary Clinton clearly came to our committee and lied to us about her email system, and the content of the emails, and her knowledge about those.
HH: Does the Benghazi Committee still have staff? Are you still functioning?
MP: We are still functioning. We actually have a hearing tomorrow. We have a witness still to interview. There still are a few loose ends to wrap up.
HH: May I make a recommendation to you, Congressman Pompeo?
MP: You’re never bashful, Hugh.
HH: I’m not. I would love to see Chairman Gowdy put out a list of statements that she made to the committee which have been contradicted by what you now know based upon Director Comey, so that the Benghazi Committee make a formal referral that the FBI investigate the following statements, and then go through her sworn testimony.
MP: I think such a task, such an undertaking would be important, and I think it is absolutely the case that the Justice Department ought to review whether or not Section 1001 was violated.
HH: And if it’s all in one place and it comes from the committee, because nobody watched the 11 hours unless it was you. I mean, you and your staff had to watch the 11 hours. But she’s so proud of that. If she made 25 false statement, I’d love to know them. I’d read them on the air so that everyone could know she’s just a liar. I mean, she just lies and lies and lies.
MP: She lied continuously about this. We shouldn’t forget, too, Hugh, it was a circle of lies. There were senior leaders, some of whom are still employed at the State Department, who also had this classified information in places that it should not have been. They are also prosecutable. They also should be subject to having their clearance and their access to classified information denied as we continue to have these same people having access to this important information that put our soldiers, sailors and airmen at risk.
HH: Now Congressman Pompeo, Jason Chaffetz is the chairman of the House Oversight and Governmental Affairs Committee. He’s leading a hearing today into Director Comey’s statements. I am hoping that the Republicans follow your lead and don’t make speeches, but just ask questions. Do you think your colleagues will have the discipline to do that?
MP: I’m sure that they will. Everyone understands the importance of this. They understand why Director Comey is coming, that this is odd to bring an FBI director up to talk about an investigation that they conducted. The FBI never talks about them. But Director Comey created this exceptional condition. I think the American people are entitled to a fuller explanation of how it’s the case that someone could be excessively careless, but not grossly negligent.
HH: I would like to note, do you know how many of the 33,000 emails she deleted that they were able to recover? Director Comey described it as a jigsaw puzzle, the edges of which have been removed, and all of them dumped. But he didn’t tell us how many of the 33,000 were recovered.
MP: I don’t know the number. Perhaps he’ll share that with the Committee today.
HH: And do we know why he can’t conclude whether it was hacked or not? Based on the New York Times experts, they all think it was hacked. But do we know why they can’t conclude it?
MP: You know, I don’t know, but I’ve seen in forensic investigations like this of foreign governments or foreign government-sponsored attempts to hack, it is a very difficult process to nail down completely. But you heard Director Comey speak. He’s been at this an awfully long time. What he was communicating to the American people is that foreign governments or foreign hackers, or at the very least, foreign agents, had access to that information. I heard him speak. I know the words he used. I am very confident that in his judgment, that occurred.
HH: So if in the middle of a crisis, say she wins the presidency, in the middle of the crisis, if all of a sudden appears a Hillary Clinton email from her classified server, isn’t that going to paralyze her? I mean, the ability to manipulate her now is so complete.
MP: Yeah, I just, I watch her actions. I did. I served on the Benghazi Committee. I watched her stonewall and deny, and continue to change her story to try and fit back patterns as we continued to uncover facts, right? And so I think there are problems on problems with a Hillary Clinton presidency, not the least of which is that we have now seen once again how deeply untrustworthy she is, and how cavalier she is when it comes to the safety and security of the people that work for her. This is dangerous. She put lives at risk with the way she handled this information, and I hope that there ultimately is an accountability for that.
HH: Well, Congressman, thanks for joining me. Please go back and talk to Chairman Gowdy, and put forward my request that you just make a list of the statements that you believe to be contradicted by the statements of Director Comey so that in one place, the American people can see how often she lied to you.
MP: Yes, sir. Thanks for having me on this morning, Hugh.
HH: Always a pleasure. Thank you, Congressman Mike Pompeo.
End of interview.