Last quote by James Comey
James Comey quotes
I have no information that supports those tweets, and we have looked carefully inside the FBI. The Department of Justice has asked me to share with you that the answer is the same for the Department of Justice and all its components. The department has no information that supports those tweets.
I'm not going to confirm there was a conversation. How do you know that? I can't comment. I can't answer that.
Because it is an open, ongoing investigation and is classified, I cannot say more about what we are doing and whose conduct we are examining.
Please don't draw any conclusions from the fact that I may not be able to comment on certain topics. I know speculating is part of human nature, but it really isn't fair to draw conclusions simply because I say that I can't comment.
Putin hated Secretary Clinton so much that he had a clear preference for the person running against Secretary Clinton. That includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian Government and whether there was any coordination.
I know that is extremely frustrating to some folks, but it is the way it has to be for reasons that I hope you and the American people can understand. The FBI is very careful in how we handle information about our cases and about the people we are investigating.
I've read a whole lot of stuff, especially in the last two months, that's just wrong. But I can't say which is wrong. We'll give information to our adversaries that way. We not only have no obligation to correct that; we can't. It's very, very frustrating, but we can't start down that road.
The FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. And that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government, and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia's efforts. We just can't do our work well or fairly if we start talking about it while we're doing it.
We just cannot do our work well or fairly if we start talking about it while we're doing it.
I have no information that supports those tweets and we have looked carefully inside the F.B.I. The Department of Justice has asked me to share with you that the answer is the same for the Department of Justice and all its components. The department has no information that supports those tweets. Yes, sir. It's a serious crime. In general, yes, as would any attorney general. To be clear, Mr. Conaway, we all agreed with that judgment. Putin hated Secretary Clinton so much, that the flip side of that coin was he had a clear preference for the person running against the person he hated so much.
Whoever the Red Raiders are playing, you want the Red Raiders to win, by definition, you want their opponent to lose.
This is one of those circumstances.
That includes the nature of any links of individuals associated with the Trump campaign and Russia. This will also include whether any crimes were committed.
He "would never comment on investigations – whether we have one or not – in an open forum like this.
We request that the Department of Justice provide us copies of any warrant applications and court orders ... related to wiretaps of President Trump, the Trump campaign, or Trump Tower.
We need to stop bumper-stickering each other. This isn't the 'FBI versus Apple'. We need to build trust between the government and private sector. We are dogged people. We just gave up on D.B. Cooper, and that was after 50 years.
You're stuck with me for another six and a half years.
You're stuck with me for another 6-1/2 years.
You're stuck with me for another 6½ years. The cyberthreats we face are enormous. I don't know if we can stay ahead of them. And I think to say otherwise would be hubris. We need to ensure that cybersecurity is a priority for every enterprise in the United States at all levels. We need to get better and faster at sharing information in the appropriate ways. We need to make sure we have the right people on board to help fight that threat, and we need to build trust between the government and the private sector.
All of us have a reasonable expectation of privacy in our homes, in our cars, and in our devices. But it also means with good reason, in court, government through law enforcement can invade our private spaces. Even our memories aren't private. Any of us can be compelled to say what we saw … In appropriate circumstances, a judge can compel any of us to testify in court on those private communications.
I hope very much he is able to share his conclusions and observations with the public because everyone will benefit from thoughtful evaluation and transparency regarding this matter.
We did not develop any evidence that the Trump campaign, or the current RNC, was successfully hacked.
I don't want my, the F.B.I.'s name on that.
We need to do a better job of tracking and reporting hate crime to fully understand what is happening in our communities and how to stop it.
In previous congressional testimony, I referred to the fact that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had completed its investigation of former Secretary Clinton's personal email server. Due to recent developments, I am writing to supplement my previous testimony.
That night was probably the most difficult night of my professional life.
I'm not against videotaping police, I'm not against scrutiny. We get better that way. What I'm asking is, is there something unintentional affecting our communities that is contributing to the spike in violent crime?
Creating "a misleading impression. We don't ordinarily tell Congress about ongoing investigations, but here I feel an obligation to do so given that I testified repeatedly in recent months that our investigation was completed. I also think it would be misleading to the American people were we not to supplement the record.
I haven't seen anything that would come near to that kind of situation.
I am going to include more detail about our process than I ordinarily would, because I think the American people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest.
The FBI could not yet assess "whether or not this material may be significant," or how long it might take to run down the new investigative leads.
I want the American people to know we really did this the right way. You can disagree with us, but you cannot fairly say we did it in any kind of political way. We don't carry water for anybody. We were trying to do what the right thing is.
Our officers see the videos. They desperately do not want to be in one. They think about that all the time.
And so into the chasm, into that gap of distrust, fall more dead young black men. In places like Chicago, we know what the chasm looks like and how much pain it causes.
It is a narrative driven by video images of real and gut-wrenching misconduct, by images of possible misconduct, by images of perceived misconduct. It's a narrative given force by the awesome power of human empathy.
That isn't dispositive for us because they'll claim responsibility for any savagery they can get their name on.
You can call us wrong, but don't call us weasels. We are not weasels.
The FBI's collective judgment was that "we need to get to that laptop.
Information that is accurate, reliable, complete and timely will help all of us learn where we have problems and how to get better.
Just because you can't see something doesn't mean your government's not doing something.
We will pay the bill. They go outside. They get a doctor. They get a prescription.
I was for something, but I wasn't for what we have right now.
The FBI did find that hostile foreign actors successfully gained access to the personal email accounts of individuals with whom Clinton was in regular contact and in doing so obtained emails sent to or received by Clinton on her personal account.
I don't think that's for me to recommend.
He "would not comment on existence or non-existence of any other investigations.
Should've known, must've known, has to know does not get you there. You have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. No Justice Department, whether under Democrats or Republicans, would prosecute that case.
There is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information. 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.
However the information was "marked," participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified "are still obligated to protect it.
As for whether there was anything the FBI should have done differently, so far, the honest answer is, I don't think so.
So far at least we have no claim of responsibility or evidence that this was an intentional act.
We think the payoff from the publicity has diminished over time. That's our criteria: Can we make a difference in this case with the publicity?
A lot, more than I will make in the remainder of this job, which is seven years and four months, for sure. But it was in my view worth it.
If we decide not to disclose it to Apple, it's still quite perishable and it will disappear if Apple changes its software in some way. It will also disappear if we use it in a criminal case and then it has to be disclosed.
Someone outside the government, in response to that attention, came up with a solution, one that I am confident will be closely protected and used lawfully and appropriately. the government "purchased" the tool.
What if law enforcement had a phone owned by somebody that abducted your sister? Or a phone used by a suicide bomber who blew up the train station in your home town?
If I didn't do that, I ought to be fired, honestly. I don't know the number. A lot. And they're all different which is what makes it hard to talk about any one case.
And then, I step back and say, you know, law enforcement, which I am part of, really does save people's lives, rescue kids, rescue neighbourhoods from terrorists, and we do that a whole lot through court orders that are search warrants, and we do it a whole lot through search warrants of mobile devices.
I love privacy and, when I hear corporations saying 'We are going to take you to a world where no one can look at your stuff', part of me thinks, that's great, I do not want anyone looking at my stuff.
Overwhelmingly this is a problem that local law enforcement sees.
There are no clues except for the phone there, and they still can't open it.
They were radicalized before they started courting or dating each other online. And online as early as the end of 2013 they were talking about jihad and martyrdom before they became engaged, and married and lived together in the United States.
This may be the way things are, but this is not the way things have to be.