information with you, who didn't have a clearance. The carelessness involved in having a system that a bad guy could hack into is a different sort, and so that's not what I was talking about earlier.
Mr. Gowdy. Did all of Secretary Clinton's attorneys have the requisite security clearances?
Mr. Comey. Not to my knowledge. Not all of them, no.
Mr. Gowdy. Do you recall which ones did not, and would they have been any of the ones who actually culled through her emails?
Mr. Comey. I don't recall as to people. I have some recollection that maybe David Kendall from another case had a clearance or something. But of the attorneys, surely not all of them had the requisite clearance to be viewing classified information.
Mr. Gowdy. Would that have met the evidentiary burden for an element if you gave emails to someone who did not have a security clearance?
Mr. Comey. No. DOJ would laugh us across the street if we came over with that, that someone in the course of legal representation had their lawyer review something. No chance.
Mr. Gowdy. It sounds to me, though, with all due respect, that you are describing an intent statute, an intent to disseminate or share classified information with somebody who is not entitled to it. So why would Congress come up with a gross negligence standard if we're going to read it as intent?
