U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

23–750 PDF 2017

S. HRG. 113–850 

CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE NOMINATION 

OF JAMES B. COMEY, JR., TO BE DIRECTOR 

OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 9, 2013 

Serial No. J–113–19 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

CHUCK SCHUMER, New York 

DICK DURBIN, Illinois 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

MAZIE HIRONO, Hawaii 

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa, Ranking Member 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

KRISTINE LUCIUS, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

KOLAN DAVIS, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

JULY 9, 2013, 10:03 A.M. 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Grassley, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa ............................ 3 

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 1 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 87 

PRESENTER 

Blumenthal, Hon. Richard, a U.S. Senator from the State of Connecticut ........ 6 

STATEMENT OF THE NOMINEE 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 49 

Comey, James B., Jr., of Connecticut, Nominee to be Director of the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation ....................................................................................... 8 

Questionnaire and Biographical Information ................................................. 50 

QUESTIONS 

Questions submitted to James B. Comey, Jr., by: 

Senator Feinstein ............................................................................................. 89 

Senator Franken ............................................................................................... 92 

Senator Grassley .............................................................................................. 94 

Senator Klobuchar ............................................................................................ 99 

Senator Whitehouse ......................................................................................... 100 

ANSWERS 

Responses of James B. Comey, Jr., to questions submitted by: 

Senator Feinstein ............................................................................................. 102 

Senator Franken ............................................................................................... 110 

Senator Grassley .............................................................................................. 113 

Senator Klobuchar ............................................................................................ 108 

Senator Whitehouse ......................................................................................... 105 

LETTERS RECEIVED WITH REGARD TO THE NOMINATION OF 

JAMES B. COMEY, JR., TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU 

OF INVESTIGATION 

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) et al., July 1, 2013, letter .................... 122 

Constitution Project, The, July 2, 2013, letter ...................................................... 125 

Federal Bureau of Investigation Agents Association (FBIAA), July 8, 2013, 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 145 

Federal Bureau of Investigation National Academy Associates (FBINAA), July 

9, 2013, letter ....................................................................................................... 146 

Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association (FLEOA), July 8, 2013, letter .. 141 

Former Senior Department of Justice Officials, July 8, 2013, letter .................. 143 

Former Senior Department of Justice Officials, July 10, 2013, letter ................ 147 

Former United States Attorneys, July 3, 2013, letter .......................................... 133 

International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), June 21, 2013, letter ....... 120 

Major Cities Chiefs Association, June 28, 2013, letter ......................................... 121 

National Association of Police Organizations (NAPO), July 3, 2013, letter ....... 138 

Police Executive Research Forum, July 5, 2013, letter ........................................ 139 

(1) 

CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE 

NOMINATION OF JAMES B. COMEY, JR., 

TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL 

BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 

TUESDAY, JULY 9, 2013, 

UNITED STATES SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in Room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Leahy, Feinstein, Schumer, Durbin, 

Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Franken, Coons, Blumenthal, Hirono, 

Grassley, Hatch, Sessions, Cornyn, Lee, and Cruz. 

Chairman LEAHY. The hearing will come to order. And before we 

start, just so everybody understands, I want everyone to be able to 

watch this hearing. I do not want anybody in the audience to be 

blocked by anyone for any reason whatsoever. I want everybody to 

be able to watch it comfortably. I am directing the police, if anybody stands up and blocks the view of anybody in this hearing, 

that person will be removed. Whether they are demonstrating either for or against any position I might take, for or against any position Senator Grassley or any other Senator might take, or for or 

against a position that Mr. Comey might take, that person will be 

removed. I do not think it is going to be necessary. I am sure everybody is going to want decorum, but I thought just so everybody 

would understand what the ground rules are, those are the ground 

rules. I have no idea how Senators will vote. More important, I 

want the American public to have a chance to be heard. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Chairman LEAHY. Today, as we know, we will consider the nomination of James Comey, Jr., to be the seventh Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The current Director, Robert Mueller, 

started just a week before the terrorist attacks of September 11th. 

We know our world has changed dramatically in that time. We 

have often debated how best to ensure our national security while 

protecting the freedom and the liberty and the privacy rights—the 

privacy rights—that define us as a great Nation. That debate is 

alive today, and this confirmation hearing provides us another opportunity to evaluate existing policy and to correct our course. Few 

positions have as much impact on our liberty and our national se-
2 

curity as the Director of the FBI. And as the body that considers 

the President’s nominee, the Senate has an important role in this 

debate, and that debate, of course, begins here in this Committee. 

I welcome Mr. Comey and his family here today, and they will 

be introduced in a moment. He has had an outstanding career in 

law enforcement. He served as Deputy Attorney General. He has 

served as the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York 

under President George W. Bush. He has worked in the private 

sector with Lockheed Martin, Bridgewater Associates, and at the 

law firm of McGuireWoods. 

When Mr. Comey appeared before this Committee in 2007, he described a dramatic hospital bedside confrontation with senior White 

House officials who were trying to get an ailing John Ashcroft, who 

was in the hospital, about to have serious surgery—or he had had 

it—to reauthorize an NSA surveillance program—a program that 

the Justice Department had concluded was illegal. As Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Comey showed courage and independence by 

standing firm against this attempt to circumvent the rule of law. 

I would want him to continue to demonstrate the same strength of 

character if he is confirmed as Director. 

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11th, the FBI has dramatically increased its national security and counterterrorism efforts, but that is a transition that has not been without problems. 

From National Security Letters to the latest revelations about the 

use of PATRIOT Act surveillance authorities, I remain concerned 

that we have not yet struck the right balance between the intelligence-gathering needs of the FBI and the privacy rights of Americans. We all agree that the FBI must have the tools necessary to 

help keep us safe from terrorism, but I hope that we can agree that 

this should not come at the expense of our constitutional rights. It 

is these constitutional rights that make us unique and great as a 

Nation. 

In recent weeks, Americans have become aware of the expansive 

scope of surveillance authorities granted to the FBI by the PATRIOT Act and other laws. We have heard administration officials 

defend these programs by saying that they are critical to identifying and connecting the so-called dots. But there are always going 

to be more dots to analyze and collect and try to connect, and when 

the Government is collecting data on millions of totally innocent 

Americans on a daily basis, when is enough, enough? Just because 

we have the ability to collect huge amounts of data does not mean 

that we should be doing it. 

Last month, I introduced the FISA Accountability and Privacy 

Protection Act to ensure that there are proper limits on the Government’s surveillance activities, along with strong privacy protections and oversight. But as the head of our premier law enforcement agency, the FBI Director bears a special responsibility for ensuring that domestic Government surveillance does not unduly infringe upon our freedoms. I have long said that protecting our national security and protecting Americans’ fundamental rights are 

not and should not be mutually exclusive. We can and must do 

both, and I look forward to Mr. Comey’s testimony about how we 

achieve both goals. 
3 

I also have concerns about the Justice Department’s treatment of 

journalists. As the son of Vermont printers and publishers, the 

First Amendment is in my blood. The burden falls to the Federal 

Government to ensure that freedom of speech and of the press is 

being protected. I am very concerned by allegations regarding the 

broad collection of the Associated Press’ phone records. Again, if 

confirmed, Mr. Comey is going to be tasked with balancing the 

Government’s law enforcement interests with First Amendment 

rights. 

I am concerned, as others have been here, that during Mr. 

Comey’s tenure as Deputy Attorney General, he approved a legal 

memo that authorized the use of waterboarding and other techniques long recognized as torture under both domestic and international law. I have conducted oversight on this issue for years out 

of my belief that these memos led to the treatment of detainees 

that was contrary to our laws and our values and actually made 

us less safe, not more safe. It is critical that whoever takes over 

as Director of the FBI has a keen sense of history and an understanding that we must never repeat these mistakes because they 

leave a permanent stain on this great Nation. 

If we learned nothing else from those years following the September 11th attacks, we learned that it matters who leads our Nation—at all levels of Government. We need strong, ethical leaders 

who will steadfastly adhere to the rule of law. 

The next Director has to face the challenge of how to sustain the 

FBI’s increased focus on counterterrorism while upholding the 

FBI’s commitment to its historic law enforcement functions. So, of 

course, we want to hear what you feel are the priorities for the 

next decade. It is a 10-year term. 

As Director Mueller noted—and I applauded him on the floor 

with a speech—he noted on the 100th anniversary of the FBI, the 

rule of law, civil liberties, and civil rights are not burdens for the 

FBI; they are what have made the FBI better for more than a century. So we will look forward to see how Mr. Comey, if confirmed, 

would lead the FBI during these challenging times. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Patrick J. Leahy appears 

as a submission for the record.] 

I yield to Senator Grassley. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHUCK GRASSLEY, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IOWA 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Comey, for wanting to re-enter public service 

again. The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is 

charged with running a vast agency with tremendous powers. This 

power, if used inappropriately, could threaten civil liberties of 

every American. However, when used appropriately, and subject to 

rigorous oversight by the Congress, it protects the Nation from terrorists, spies, and hardened criminals. 

The Attorney General is commonly referred to as the ‘‘top law enforcement officer in the country.’’ The FBI Director serves the Attorney General and the American people as the top cop on the 

street. It is a demanding job that requires a keen understanding 
4 

of the law, sound management skills, calm under significant pressure, and a level head. 

Director Mueller learned this soon after arriving at FBI headquarters when the United States was attacked by terrorists on September 11, 2001. As a result of those terrible attacks, Director 

Mueller’s mission as FBI Director changed very instantly and significantly. Instead of managing a law enforcement agency, he was 

immediately thrust into the role of reinventing a storied law enforcement agency into a national security agency. This is not the 

sort of change that happens overnight. Fortunately, Director 

Mueller rose to the challenge and changed the face of the FBI for 

this new age and new threat. 

The threats our country is facing are great and multifaceted. Terrorism is an unfortunate reality the FBI must face. In addition to 

serving as a law enforcement agency and the lead counterintelligence agency, the next Director of the FBI must be prepared to 

continue the transition. He must also be prepared to manage the 

FBI through the next challenge. 

Despite the successes Director Mueller had in transforming the 

FBI to deal with national security threats, challenges remain for 

the next FBI Director. For example, legacy problems such as developing a working case management computer system; a working— 

effectively managing agent rotations to Washington, DC, headquarters; managing linguists; and dealing with aging infrastructure such as the FBI headquarters building. 

Additionally, management concerns remain about the proper personnel balance between special agents and analysts, the perceived 

double standard of discipline between line agents and management, as well as the issues dealing with whistleblower retaliation. 

These matters must be addressed as they threaten to undermine 

the hard work of all the faithful employees at the FBI. 

The position of FBI Director is unique in that it is a 10-year appointment, subject to the advise and consent of the Senate. This 

10-year term was extended 2 years ago on a one-time basis only. 

The extension allowed Director Mueller to serve an additional timeframe as the President failed to nominate a replacement. At the 

time we held a special hearing to discuss the importance of the 

term limit for the FBI Director. One of the reasons Congress created a 10-year term was to ensure accountability of the FBI. 

This confirmation hearing is part of that accountability. We have 

a responsibility to ensure that the Director will be able to balance 

the duties of the FBI Director against the civil liberties of Americans. 

Before us today is the President’s choice for the next FBI Director—you, Mr. James Comey. Mr. Comey has a distinguished past. 

He served as Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York and as Deputy Attorney General during the Bush 

administration. I would also like to add that he has smarts because 

he married an Iowan. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator GRASSLEY. But Mr. Comey handled difficult matters—— 

Chairman LEAHY. You would do anything to get a vote up here. 

[Laughter.] 
5 

Senator GRASSLEY. Mr. Comey handled difficult matters that provide a solid basis for the types of matters that may come up as FBI 

Director. 

I had the opportunity to sit down with Mr. Comey yesterday. We 

talked about his Government experience and how it prepares him 

for the job. So today I want to discuss with him his nongovernmental employment work with Lockheed Martin, hedge fund 

Bridgewater Partners, and his position on the Board of Directors 

at HSBC. 

Having the balance of public and private sector experience is a 

very good thing, but I am openly concerned about the administration’s failure to prosecute those involved in the financial crisis, including criminal wrongdoing at HSBC. I want to know whether Mr. 

Comey can look beyond his affiliations in the private sector and 

prosecute such wrongdoing. 

I also want to discuss with Mr. Comey a number of policy matters impacting the Director. First, I continue to have serious concerns with the FBI’s treatment of whistleblowers. Mr. Comey and 

I discussed the important role whistleblowers play in bringing 

transparency and accountability to bureaucracies. Unfortunately, 

the FBI, in my opinion, has a poor history of retaliating against 

whistleblowers who come forward and report wrongdoing. This is 

particularly concerning in light of the recent leaks of classified information. While not necessarily an FBI matter, the recent leaks 

have highlighted an issue I have focused on for years: whistleblower protection for national security employees. These employees, 

including many assigned at the FBI, need a protected mechanism 

to report wrongdoing without fear of retaliation. I believe a significant number of national security leaks would not have occurred if 

they had a path forward. 

Unfortunately, a provision in the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act that I authored expanded protection to national security employees but was cut by the House of Representatives prior 

to being signed into law. I continue to believe this is necessary legislation. I would like to hear Mr. Comey’s thoughts on whistleblowers, their value, and how he will handle whistleblower complaints. I would like an assurance from Mr. Comey that whistleblowers will not face retaliation. Further, I would like an assurance 

that the FBI’s policy pursuing endless appeals against whistleblowers, even when retaliation was found by the Inspector General, 

will now come to an end. 

Second, I want to ask Mr. Comey about some recent developments regarding FBI use of drones within the U.S. A few weeks 

ago, we learned from Director Mueller that the FBI was using 

drones here for surveillance. While Director Mueller indicated that 

this was very limited, he also said that policies regarding limitations on drone use were still being developed. And so that is concerning as policies are of little use if they are developed after the 

FBI deploys drones here. 

Further, the FBI’s use of drones calls into question the thoroughness of a written response I received from Attorney General Holder 

indicating the use of drones by DEA and ATF but only mentioning 

the FBI in passing. So I want to hear from Mr. Comey what he 

thinks the proper limit on domestic use of drones should be, wheth-
6 

er he would delay their use until final regulations and policies are 

drafted, and how he would deploy drones for domestic use. 

I would also discuss with him his views on national security and 

the FBI’s role. We are all painfully aware of the limitations that 

were placed on FBI agents prior to 9/11 and the so-called wall between intelligence and law enforcement. Congress and the executive branch have been successful in bringing down the walls between intelligence and law enforcement, but concerns expressed in 

recent years threaten to rebuild those walls. 

For example, advocates have opposed information sharing of 

cybersecurity threat information which could erroneously reconstitute a separation similar to a wall. I would like to hear Mr. 

Comey’s views on national security matters such as cybersecurity, 

counterintelligence, and counterterrorism. 

I will also discuss the nuts and bolts of management matters 

with the nominee. Specifically, I want to hear his assurances that 

he will work cooperatively with Congress and provide forthcoming 

responses to inquiries. Congress has a constitutional duty to conduct oversight, and so given the wide discretion the FBI has to conduct investigations, Congress needs to have an open channel to obtain information relative to our oversight requests. 

Finally, I want to discuss some general management issues such 

as the disciplinary system which has long been criticized for having 

a double standard for management as opposed to line agents. Problems like this are dangerous to an agency and need to be managed 

before they bring out other problems. 

So there is a lot of ground to cover, and obviously I will probably 

have to submit some questions for answer in writing. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. I would note that Senator 

Blumenthal is the senior Senator of the State in which Mr. Comey 

resides, or as we call it in Vermont, one of those ‘‘Southern States.’’ 

Senator Blumenthal, did you wish to introduce Mr. Comey? 

PRESENTATION OF JAMES B. COMEY, JR., NOMINEE TO BE 

DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, 

BY HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do, and I appreciate the honor of introducing Mr. Comey to the Committee and 

supporting him strongly for this new role in an extraordinarily distinguished career of public service. I want to welcome him and his 

family, his wife, Patrice, and I think a number of your children are 

with you today, and I will let you introduce them. But I look forward to saying hello to them later when we are done. 

I want to say how much I admire Mr. Comey’s record of public 

service. He really epitomizes what is best about American public 

service. Senator Grassley mentioned that he was re-entering public 

service, but in a sense he has never left it, because in his private 

life, his life of working in the private sector, he has also contributed immensely to his community and to his State, the State of 

Connecticut and the community of Westport, where he and his 

wife, Patrice, really have devoted themselves, and his family, to 
7 

serving the needs and interests of both their community and the 

State and many individuals who live there. 

Mr. Comey is no stranger to our civil and criminal justice system. In fact, his life has been about public service and about using 

the Department of Justice as an agent and a means to achieve 

greater justice in our society. He began his career at the Department of Justice in one of the most difficult and important jobs 

there is, as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern 

District of New York, and he quickly rose to become the Deputy 

Chief of the Criminal Division. As a former United States Attorney 

myself, I know how important that responsibility is in a practical, 

hands-on sense of making extraordinarily difficult decisions about 

balancing individual rights and also the need to prosecute and 

achieve greater security and safety for the community. 

He took on another difficult job as Managing Assistant United 

States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, and he was 

recognized by his superiors there as an unusually skilled prosecutor who could be counted on to get results and get the job done. 

And he had personal responsibility for prosecuting one of the most 

heinous terrorist attacks in the history of the United States at 

Khobar Towers barracks in Saudi Arabia, and he quickly delivered 

14 indictments. 

He was promoted at that time to be United States Attorney for 

the Southern District of New York, one of the major prosecutorial 

areas outside of Washington, and he showed the same fearlessness 

and tirelessness and relentlessness in his dedication to justice 

there, which have become his trademark as a professional prosecutor. He also pursued corporate crime in some of America’s biggest businesses, and he was recognized for his performance there 

with the Director’s Award for Superior Performance and the Henry 

L. Stimson Medal from the New York City Bar Association. In fact, 

throughout his career he has been recognized not only in the public 

sector but also by the private Bar. 

Mr. Comey’s success led to his nomination to be Deputy Attorney 

General for the United States, the second highest ranking official 

at the Department of Justice, and a lot has been written and said 

about his tenure in that role. I had the privilege of working with 

him in a number of respects as Attorney General for Connecticut 

during that period of time. But I came to admire his extraordinary 

courage in standing up and speaking out to his superiors and his 

willingness to speak truth to power and defend the most fundamental liberties and guarantees that our Constitution provides. 

And I know that whatever the Members of this Committee think 

about Mr. Comey’s views, they can count on his complete and utter 

integrity, his devotion to the rule of law, his dedication to excellence in the pursuit of justice and civil liberties, which he has demonstrated not just in words but in action throughout his career. 

In Westport, Connecticut, I particularly admired the work that 

his wife and he have done in the community, as I mentioned earlier, but I think noteworthy for this Committee and I know a number of my colleagues are aware that he and his wife are licensed 

foster parents in Connecticut and have cared for infants and toddlers in that role. They have also donated their time and energy 
8 

and resources to create a foundation to support children who age 

out of foster care. 

So his life has been about public service. I am honored and 

pleased that he has chosen to assume this very demanding and 

challenging role. I want to thank him and his family for the service 

and sacrifices they have made, and thank you, Mr. Comey, for joining us today. I look forward to hearing your testimony. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Mr. Comey, before I swear you in, just so we can have it on the 

record for the Comey archives someday, would you introduce everybody who is here from your family? 

Mr. COMEY. Yes, Senator. I have my—— 

Chairman LEAHY. Is your microphone on? There you go. 

Mr. COMEY. Sorry. I forgot that. 

Behind me to my left is my wife, Patrice, whom Senator 

Blumenthal mentioned, the love of my life, and all that is good 

about me is her fault. And then my five children who are seated 

in just about the same seats they were sitting in 10 years ago when 

I was here to be confirmed as Deputy Attorney General. They are 

a little bit older. 

Chairman LEAHY. I was going to say, I was here at that time, 

and they have changed. 

Mr. COMEY. They have, right. The only one who has not aged a 

bit is my wife. The rest of us have gotten a little bit older. Maureen 

is 24, Kate is 23, Brian is 19, Claire is 16, and Abby is 13. And 

those are my troops. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. Now, would you please stand? Do 

you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give in this matter 

will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so 

help you God? 

Mr. COMEY. I do. 

Chairman LEAHY. Please go ahead, Mr. Comey. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES B. COMEY, JR., OF CONNECTICUT, 

NOMINEE TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF 

INVESTIGATION 

Mr. COMEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Grassley, and 

Members of the Committee. It is an honor to be back before you. 

The last time I sat at this table was 2 years ago or so to testify 

in favor of extending Bob Mueller’s term by 2 years. Now I am 

back asking you to confirm me to replace Bob Mueller, which is 

both an amazing honor and a little bit hard to believe. 

I have known and loved the FBI for a very long time. My first 

major case was an FBI case. In 1987, I was assigned an interstate 

theft and fraud case in the Southern District of New York, and the 

case agent, who was actually about to retire from the Bureau—he 

had reached mandatory retirement—went back and reported to his 

supervisor that a baby prosecutor had been assigned to this complex case, and she said, ‘‘I will go down and talk to Rudy Giuliani, 

and we will get somebody else assigned to this case.’’ And he asked 

her to please hold off because he thought that this prosecutor, 

maybe, could be trained. 
9 

And so I was trained, by him and by dozens and dozens of other 

special agents who were working the cases that I was so lucky to 

handle over the next decades. 

I came to know the FBI agents well, and I used to tell them the 

division of responsibility was clear: They would do hard, dangerous 

work, and the United States Attorney would get the credit. 

I was, of course, teasing, but rooted in that joke was some truth, 

that FBI agents every hour of every day did really hard, dangerous 

things, and the work was often only recognized when something 

went wrong. I came to know that they were people from all over 

the country, all walks of life, but united by a fierce desire to do 

something good for their country. I came to know that they embodied something that Churchill said that has stuck with me, that 

you make a living by what you get, but you make a life by what 

you give. They chose to make remarkable lives without getting 

much in return. Those people are what excite me most about the 

prospect of being confirmed to be the Director of the FBI. 

I also know that if I am confirmed for this position, I will follow 

a great American, one who has been clear-eyed about the threats 

facing our country, especially the metastasizing terrorist threat, 

the cyber threat that poses a risk to our secrets, to our commerce, 

to our people, and most ominously to the networks we depend upon 

as our lifeblood. I know he has changed the FBI, as the Chairman 

and the Ranking Member described, in fundamental and crucial 

ways. 

I know that this will be a hard job. I am sure that things will 

go wrong and I will make mistakes. What I pledge to you, though, 

is to follow Bob Mueller’s example of staring hard at those mistakes, learning from those mistakes, and getting better as a result 

of those mistakes. His legacy of candor and straightforwardness 

and integrity is one that I pledge to continue. 

I also know that the FBI is and must be an independent entity 

in the life of America. It cannot be associated with any party or 

any interest or any group. It has to be seen as the good guys and 

good gals in this country. The FBI is and must be about finding 

the facts and only the facts in a fair, thorough, and objective way, 

and to do that with a rock solid commitment to our Constitution 

and to our laws. 

That culture of commitment to law and resistance to any jeopardy of our independence is at the core of the FBI. I know it is deep 

inside FBI agents. Those values are the things I love about the 

FBI. 

As you know, Mr. Chairman, as I just introduced, sitting behind 

me is my beloved wife, Patrice, and my five kids. She, in a very 

real sense, is the reason I am sitting here today. I am going to embarrass her by telling you a little story. When I was first approached about this job earlier this year, I was inclined to say no, 

that it was too much for my family and it was the wrong time. And 

she urged me to say yes, I would be considered, and she said that 

for two reasons. She said, ‘‘This is who you are. You have always 

been happiest when you are in Government service. This is what 

you love.’’ And, second, ‘‘They are not going to pick you anyway.’’ 

[Laughter.] 
10 

Mr. COMEY. ‘‘So you might as well go through the interviews. 

Just make them sorry that they do not pick you.’’ 

And so here we are. I will remind her of that, if I am fortunate 

enough to be confirmed, many times, I suspect, over the next decade. I have been gone from Government for 8 years, and I have 

missed it nearly every day of those 8 years, the mission of the Department of Justice, and I am looking forward to answering your 

questions and hope very much to be confirmed to rejoin that mission. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The biographical information of James B. Comey, Jr., appears as 

a submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you, Mr. Comey. And I am reluctant to 

talk about private conversations, but a few weeks before your name 

was disclosed, the President called me at home and talked about 

you and asked me my advice and what I thought about nominating 

you. And I said, ‘‘How are you ever going to talk him into this?’’ 

And then I said, second, ‘‘How are you going to talk his wife into 

this?’’ He said, ‘‘We are going to have Bob Mueller’s wife talk to his 

wife.’’ 

So, anyway, to be serious, let me go back to something I talked 

about earlier. Waterboarding has been recognized to be torture 

since the time of the Spanish Inquisition. We prosecuted American 

soldiers for using this technique in the last century. We prosecuted 

Japanese soldiers for using it on Americans during World War II. 

And after 9/11, when CIA personnel began to use harsh interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, Director Mueller refused 

to allow the FBI to participate in those interrogations. I have said 

before and I will say again that this was true leadership on the 

part of Director Mueller. He refused to bend to enormous pressure 

at the time. 

It is easy to say what you might have done at the time, but what 

do you think you would have done had you been FBI Director at 

that time? Would you have given the agents the same directive Mr. 

Mueller did? 

Mr. COMEY. Absolutely, Senator. When I first learned about 

waterboarding, when I became Deputy Attorney General, my reaction as a citizen and a leader was this is torture. It is still what 

I think. And to his great credit, Bob Mueller made sure the FBI 

had nothing to do with that business. And if I were FBI Director, 

it would never have anything to do with that. 

Chairman LEAHY. Can that be reconciled with your approval of— 

was it May 2005?—the OLC memo which concluded the authorized 

use of waterboarding would not violate the torture statute? 

Mr. COMEY. I think so, Senator, and if I might explain to you my 

involvement with that issue. 

Chairman LEAHY. Please go ahead. 

Mr. COMEY. As I said, when I was first read into the interrogation program, my reaction was what I described. And so maybe the 

most important thing I did on this topic as Deputy Attorney General was force, try to force, and fight for a discussion about whether 

this was the kind of thing we ought to be doing as Americans. 

There were legal issues which I will talk about in a second. But 

I thought most important of all was this question about, regardless 
11 

of whether the CIA says it is effective and regardless of whether 

the Office of Legal Counsel says it does not violate this particular 

1994 statute, there is a critical third question, which is: Should we 

be doing this? And is it appropriate as Americans? 

And so I fought some legal fights, which I will talk about, but 

I went to the Attorney General and said, ‘‘This is wrong. This is 

awful. You have to go to the White House and force them to stare 

at this and answer that question. I believe the answer is we should 

not be involved in this kind of stuff.’’ 

And so I made that argument as forcefully as I could to the Attorney General. He took my—actually literally took my notes with 

him to a meeting at the White House and told me he made my argument in full and that the principals were fully on board with the 

policy, and so my argument was rejected. 

Now, on the legal front, what I discovered when I became Deputy 

Attorney General is that even though I as a person, as a father, 

as a leader thought that is torture, we should not be doing that 

kind of thing, I discovered that it is actually a much harder question to interpret this 1994 statute, which I found very vague, and 

apply that statute to the individual techniques. And so one of the 

first things I did as Deputy Attorney General was drive to withdraw some terrible opinions that had been written before my tenure and then to commission the drafting of a new analysis of this 

particular 1994 statute. And that resulted in an opinion at the end 

of 2004, which was a general opinion, I thought much more responsibly written. 

And then in the spring of 2005, after I had already announced 

my resignation, it resulted in two opinions that applied to the individual techniques that the CIA wanted to use and to the combination of those techniques. The combination opinion was by far the 

most important because no interrogation was done with one technique. They were always used in a group. And so I read the first 

opinion about individual techniques, and I thought, ‘‘That is a serious and reasonable interpretation of a very vague statute.’’ I read 

the second and thought it was terrible. I thought it was irresponsible both as a policy matter and as a legal matter, and so I objected to it and took that directly to the Attorney General and 

made my case that that was wrong. He disagreed with me and 

overruled me. And so next then I fought the policy fight that I 

talked about at the beginning. 

So, Senator, I am not sure that I did it right. That would be—— 

Chairman LEAHY. Then let us take the move forward 8 years. I 

will ask you the same question I asked Attorney General Mukasey 

when he was before this Committee for confirmation, and actually 

I found his answer unsatisfactory, but I will ask you the same 

question. Do you agree that waterboarding is torture and is illegal? 

Mr. COMEY. Yes. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. And would you agree to answer 

this question the same way no matter who was President? 

Mr. COMEY. Oh, certainly. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Now, the surveillance powers of the FBI have grown. Americans 

are becoming increasingly concerned the FBI is becoming more of 

a domestic surveillance agency than a crime-fighting, intelligence- 
12 

gathering organization. With the PATRIOT Act and other authorities, they can get vast amounts of information, including the data 

of law-abiding Americans, something that creates concerns, I know, 

among my fellow Vermonters. 

So do you believe that the bulk collection of meta data for domestic telephone calls or emails is appropriate, even when the majority 

of individuals with whom the calls or emails are associated are 

law-abiding Americans? 

Mr. COMEY. Senator, I am not familiar with the details of the 

current programs. Obviously I have not been cleared for anything 

like that, and I have been out of Government for 8 years. I do know 

as a general matter that the collection of meta data and analysis 

of meta data is a valuable tool in counterterrorism. 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, let me ask you this: We are going to be 

in this Committee very shortly reviewing again some of the aspects 

of this. If you are confirmed, will you work with me—I am not asking you for a commitment on a particular piece of legislation, but 

work with me to enact some commonsense improvements to our 

surveillance laws? 

Mr. COMEY. Certainly, Senator, I would be happy to work with 

you. 

Chairman LEAHY. I worry that, again, as I said earlier, just so 

you understand what I am thinking, just because we can do it, I 

am not sure it means we should. That is without going into the— 

well, in open session I will not go into some of the parts of it. 

Let me also ask you this, which is a basic question. Will you 

make sure that the FBI does not lose sight of its traditional crimefighting mission—violent crime, white-collar crime, public corruption, forensics reform—and not just be seduced away by the intelligence-gathering aspects? 

Mr. COMEY. Yes, Senator, and I think Director Mueller has tried 

to strike that balance, and I would as well. The FBI has to be both 

an intelligence agency and a crime-fighting agency. 

Chairman LEAHY. You and I both have a background in law enforcement, and sometimes it is the nuts and bolts that are the most 

important to the average person, and those are the people that we 

have to protect. 

Mr. COMEY. Yes, sir. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Senator Grassley. 

Senator GRASSLEY. As you and I discussed yesterday in my office 

how important oversight is in our checks and balances system of 

Government to make Government more transparent, accountable, 

and effective, I expect that you would be responsive to my constitutional duty of oversight and that my questions and documents will 

be taken seriously and answered in a timely and complete manner. 

So do I have your assurance that, if you are confirmed, you will assist me in my constitutional oversight activities, be responsive to 

my requests, my colleagues’ requests, and help me make the FBI 

more accountable to the American people, which is the principle of 

checks and balances? 

Mr. COMEY. I agree very much, Senator. I believe that oversight 

is a critical part of effective Government and of our functioning democracy. So, yes, sir. 
13 

Senator GRASSLEY. Okay. So would you pledge to be responsive 

to my requests for information and provide this information to Congress in a timely manner, that is not held up due to lengthy clearance processes? 

Mr. COMEY. Senator, I do not know what the problems are that 

you have encountered. I pledge to do my all to accommodate your 

oversight requests. 

Senator GRASSLEY. We also discussed the issue of whistleblowers. 

I value the candid, unfiltered information they provide Congress 

from the executive branch. Whistleblowers who raise concerns with 

management and who bring concerns to Congress and cooperate 

with congressional oversight efforts should be protected, not retaliated against. So to you, could you give me a commitment that you 

will not retaliate against FBI whistleblowers and instead work 

with them to address the concerns that they raise? 

Mr. COMEY. Yes, I will give you—I would give you that assurance 

now, Senator. As I said to you when we spoke privately, I think 

whistleblowers are also a critical element of a functioning democracy. Folks have to feel free to raise their concerns, and if they are 

not addressed up their chain of command, to take them to an appropriate place. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Now, I am not accusing you or other Directors of retaliation, but somewhere in organizations whistleblowers 

tend to be retaliated against in various ways by people within their 

organization. Would you assure us that every whistleblower is 

treated fairly, that those who retaliate against whistleblowers are 

held accountable? 

Mr. COMEY. Yes, sir. Retaliation is just unacceptable. 

Senator GRASSLEY. And do you believe that—this is a little more 

difficult probably for you to answer right now, but do you believe 

that whistleblowers who know of problems with matters of national 

security should be treated differently and they are treated differently today because the law does not apply to them? 

Mr. COMEY. You are right, Senator. That is one I do not know 

well enough the law and regulation that governs that area. I commit that I will look into it to understand it better. 

Senator GRASSLEY. I will go on to another subject. It might be 

a little more difficult because you are new to knowing you were 

going to be appointed, but sometimes a change in leadership can 

shift an organization and do it in a different direction while moving 

the organization forward. The Director of the FBI can set the tone 

for the Bureau, so the question is: Do you have specific goals or priorities for the FBI that, if you are confirmed, you would pursue? 

Mr. COMEY. From this vantage point, Senator, I can only say 

with confidence that I believe it is very important for the next Director to continue the transformation of the FBI into an intelligence agency, to continue that cultural change. And I know, as I 

mentioned in my opening statement, that the cyber threat, both 

cyber espionage, cyber crime, and cyber terrorism, is an enormous 

and exponentially growing threat, and so will certainly be a key 

part of the next 10 years. Beyond that, I think it would be irresponsible to say more without first being confirmed and getting in 

the job to understand how things are going now. 
14 

Senator GRASSLEY. I want to go now to your public sector service 

and how that might interact with the new position if you are confirmed. 

In March 2010, the FBI issued a stop-work order to Lockheed 

Martin, the leading contractor working with the FBI’s next-generation case management system, Sentinel. The stop-work order preceded the FBI’s termination of the Lockheed prime contractor—as 

being prime contractor. The development of Sentinel was closely 

watched and criticized by the Inspector General. Ultimately, the 

program development ran past the deadline and cost significantly 

more than was planned, not to mention the fact that the FBI got 

less system than originally thought. 

Now, because you were general counsel at Lockheed Martin at 

the time the stop order was initiated, I ask these questions: What, 

if any, involvement did you have with the Sentinel program? 

Mr. COMEY. None. I was aware of it internally at Lockheed Martin just in a general way. I had no contact with the FBI about it. 

I had been Deputy Attorney General when the contract was first 

let. I did not know that at the time. And so out of an abundance 

of caution, I tried not to be involved in it and was not involved in 

it. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Okay. The Inspector General continually 

faulted Sentinel development. Do you think the FBI and the American taxpayers got what they paid for in the Sentinel program? 

Mr. COMEY. I do not know, Senator. I know—— 

Senator GRASSLEY. That is okay if you do not know. 

Mr. COMEY. I do not know the answer to that. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Following your public service, you worked 

first at a major defense company, then a well-known private investment manager, Bridgewater. Recently you became a director of the 

global bank HSBC. Given that the Department has entered into a 

deferred prosecution agreement with HSBC, will you have a conflict of interest with regard to that matter? And if you do, or would 

have, how would you resolve that conflict? 

Mr. COMEY. I think it would be a conflict, and so I would recuse 

myself from any involvement in any matter relating to my former 

employers. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Okay. Just generally, in regard to pursuing 

those matters, what assurances can you give the Committee that 

you will actively pursue securities regulation violations, bank 

fraud, money laundering, and other financial white-collar offenses? 

And will you have any reluctance of conducting such investigations? 

Mr. COMEY. None at all, Senator. I have long thought that aggressive investigation and prosecution of so-called white-collar 

crimes was both the right thing to do and extremely effective. I believe deterrence works in that area because you do not have people 

committing crimes of accounting fraud or securities fraud high on 

crack or inflamed with passion. They are people who think before 

they act, and so they can be deterred. 

My track record as an Assistant U.S. Attorney and as U.S. Attorney and Deputy Attorney General was to make those cases, to 

make them fast, and send messages to the good folks of reassurance that we are doing something about this, and to the bad people 
15 

that if we catch you doing this, you are going to pay an enormous 

penalty for it, to try and change behavior. 

Senator GRASSLEY. May I ask one more question, please? 

Chairman LEAHY. Of course. 

Senator GRASSLEY. At Bridgewater, your former employer, the 

founder of the firm embraced a philosophy called ‘‘radical transparency,’’ which involves recording a lot of meetings, and encouraged junior employees to probe senior staff with tough questions. 

As a strong supporter of transparency in Government, I think the 

FBI could use a little more radical transparency. I do not mean 

necessarily recording your meetings. 

What do you think are the benefits of radical transparency? And 

how could this philosophy apply to the FBI? That will be my last 

question. 

Mr. COMEY. Actually, Senator, Bridgewater’s founder suggested I 

consider taping all meetings at the FBI. I am not prepared to commit to that. I went to Bridgewater—— 

Chairman LEAHY. Do not. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. COMEY. I went to Bridgewater in part because of that culture 

of transparency. It is something that has just long been part of me, 

and so I think it is incumbent upon every leader to try and foster 

an atmosphere where people will speak truth to power. Bridgewater and the FBI are two different institutions, but I promise you 

I will carry those values with me and try to spread them as far as 

I can within the institution. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Senator Feinstein, and then it will be Senator Hatch. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. 

Chairman, and welcome, Mr. Comey. 

As you know, in December the Senate Intelligence Committee 

adopted a 6,000-page report that provides a comprehensive review 

of the CIA’s detention and interrogation program during the Bush 

administration. We are not quite ready to issue the findings publicly. The adoption of the report, however, is significant because it 

means the majority of the Committee has gone on record to declare 

that the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques should never 

be used—past, present, or future. 

If you are confirmed to be the next FBI Director, I would like to 

ask you to personally review our report. It is a big deal to review. 

It is 6,000 pages. But I think it is very important. You have that 

background, and I think it is important to read the actual case 

studies. 

I would like to focus on objections you raised with Attorney General Gonzales in May 2005 before he attended the White House 

principals meeting about CIA techniques. In one of your emails 

that was made public in 2009, you described telling Attorney General Gonzales that CIA interrogation techniques were ‘‘simply 

awful,’’ that ‘‘there needed to be a detailed, factual discussion’’ of 

how they were used before approving them, and that ‘‘it simply 

could not be that the principals would be willfully blind.’’ 
16 

Here is the question: Why did you believe that there was a danger that the principals on the National Security Council were unaware or willfully blind to the details of the CIA program? 

Mr. COMEY. Thank you, Senator. Because I heard—I heard no 

one asking that third critical question. As you recall, I said I think 

there are three key questions with any counterterrorism technique, 

but especially with the interrogations: Is it effective? Something 

the CIA was talking about. Is it legal under Title 18, Section 2340? 

The legal question. And then this last question: Is this what we 

should be doing? And, instead, I heard nothing, and, in fact, it was 

reported to me that the White House’s view was only the first two 

questions matter. If the CIA says it works and DOJ will issue a 

legal opinion that it does not violate the statute, that is the end 

of the inquiry. And as you said, Senator, I thought that was simply 

unacceptable. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. Now, I would like to speak about 

one other thing in my time. On June 19th, I wrote a letter to the 

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel on the issue of forced feeding of 

detainees at Guantanamo. A week prior, I had spent the day at 

Guantanamo with the President’s Chief of Staff and Senator 

McCain, and we took a look at the forced feeding issue. Detainees 

are restrained in a chair by body, by foot, by hand, and twice a day 

a tube is inserted, perhaps covered with olive oil, up the nose and 

down into the stomach, and the individual is force-fed. This goes 

on week after week and month after month. 

We have 86 detainees who are cleared for transfer. They are no 

threat to this country. They have been adjudged so, and they have 

no place to go. So this is an expression of acute hopelessness in the 

forced feeding. 

The issue has recently been before the D.C. District Court, and 

this morning, the newspaper said that no court, justice, or judge 

shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against 

the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an 

alien who is or was detained by the United States and has been 

determined by the United States to have been properly detained as 

an enemy combatant. So we have a law that has essentially taken 

the courts out of any adjudication in this issue. 

I am very curious, because you have looked at the combination 

of EITs, the manner in which they are administered, and you have 

come to the conclusion that they form torture. These are people 

now, 86 of them, who are no threat to this country—they have been 

cleared for transfer—many of whom are being force-fed to keep 

them alive. In my view, this is inhumane, and I am very curious 

as to what you would say about this. 

I have received no answer from my letter to Secretary Hagel. The 

President’s Chief of Staff was with me. He saw what I saw. And 

I am very concerned about it because it is the wrong thing to do. 

I would appreciate your comment. 

Mr. COMEY. Thank you, Senator. Obviously, if I were FBI Director, I do not think it is an area that would be within my job scope, 

but I do not know more about what you are describing than what 

you are describing. I—— 
17 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, let me just say it is within all of our 

job scopes to care about how the United States of America acts. 

Mr. COMEY. I agree very much with that, Senator. And I do also 

know that there are times in the Bureau of Prisons when the Federal authorities have had to force-feed someone who is refusing to 

eat, and they try to do it in the least invasive way. What you are 

describing I frankly would not want done to me, but I do not know 

the circumstances well enough to offer you an opinion. I do not 

think it would be worth much, my opinion, at this point. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Okay. Thank you very much. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much, Senator Feinstein. I 

must say I agree exactly with what you said. 

Senator Hatch. 

Senator HATCH. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome back 

to the Committee, Mr. Comey. We are happy to have you here. I 

would be surprised if this is not the third time that you will be 

unanimously supported by the Senate, and I would hope that that 

is the case. After all, an ABC News report came back in May about 

your likely nomination and said that you are ‘‘a folk hero for Democrats.’’ At least in your case, I do not believe that is a cause for 

concern on this side of the aisle. 

It is also easy to forget that Director Robert Mueller began his 

service just 1 week before the 9/11 terrorist attacks that changed 

our Nation forever. He oversaw a fundamental reconfiguration of 

the FBI. Since then, Congress has provided significant tools for the 

FBI to use. But debate continues here in Congress about whether 

these tools are sufficient or appropriate. 

There is also a debate in the public arena sparked by damaging 

leaks by reckless individuals. But even while those debates continue, I hope that we have your commitment that, should you be 

confirmed, you will fully and aggressively use the tools that Congress has provided for your use. 

Mr. COMEY. Yes, Senator, you have that commitment. 

Senator HATCH. I believe that. In that connection, I am concerned that the American people do not fully understand the rules 

and standards that guide how the FBI uses these tools to protect 

the country. A recent column in The Washington Post, for example, 

claimed that we are living in a time of ‘‘warrantless everything.’’ 

Please take a minute and explain some of the rules and standards, because our fellow citizens need confidence that the FBI itself 

respects the rule of law. 

Mr. COMEY. Yes, Senator. I think that folks do not understand 

that the FBI operates under a wide variety of constraints, starting 

with the Attorney General’s detailed guidelines on how it is to conduct intelligence investigations, criminal investigations, and counterintelligence investigations. I think sometimes folks also do not 

understand what the FISA Court is. They hear ‘‘secret court.’’ 

Sometimes they hear ‘‘rubber stamp.’’ 

In my experience, which is long, with the FISA Court, folks do 

not realize that it is a group of independent Federal judges who sit 

and operate under a statutory regime to review requests by the 

Government to use certain authorities to gather information. And 

it is anything but a rubber stamp. Anyone who knows Federal 
18 

judges and has appeared before Federal judges knows that calling 

them a ‘‘rubber stamp’’ shows you do not have experience before 

them. 

Senator HATCH. I sure agree with you. 

Mr. COMEY. And so I think that sometimes folks also do not understand the degree to which the FBI’s activities and the activities 

of the entire intelligence community are overseen by Congress and 

also overseen by independent and, in my experience, highly effective Inspectors General embedded within each of the institutions 

that report within the executive and also to the relevant oversight 

committee of Congress. That combination of judicial involvement, 

congressional oversight, IG oversight, to me results in a very effective regime of oversight that just took me 2 minutes to explain it. 

It is hard to get the time and space in American life to have folks 

understand that sometimes. 

Senator HATCH. Well, that is good enough for me. I know you 

could go on for a long time on that. 

On March 31, 2009, you spoke at the Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota. When he introduced you, 

Vice President Walter Mondale said that you are a ‘‘remarkable example of public lawyers who remember their function in obeying 

and enforcing the law.’’ 

I would like you to just comment briefly on that dual function, 

both obeying and enforcing the law, as it relates to the position to 

which you are appointed here. 

Mr. COMEY. Yes, sir. The oath that public servants take is to uphold the laws and the Constitution of the United States, which 

means both to respect them in that you do not exceed the laws but 

also to ensure that they are executed and given life. Congress intended that they be used as tools to address crime, for example, or 

intelligence risk, for example, and so it is very important that you 

be both aggressive and respectful of the boundaries, and that is a 

balance that people sometimes think is impossible to strike. I do 

not think so. I think this Government is full of people who get it, 

that they are to do both: respect the law and the Constitution and 

ensure that they use the tools to protect the American people. 

Senator HATCH. One of the many things I respect about Director 

Robert Mueller—and I greatly respect him—is his candor with 

Congress in acknowledging the problems in the FBI that have 

needed fixing. He has been very straightforward about it. He did 

so, for example, when the Justice Department’s Inspector General 

released a report in 2007 about the FBI’s use of National Security 

Letters. That report found an intentional misuse of either statutes 

or guidelines. Nonetheless, Director Mueller implemented reforms 

to address the deficiencies in oversight and auditing that the IG, 

Inspector General, identified. I hope you see the value of that 

transparency and accountability and would be open and candid 

about anything that might need to be corrected. And I am quite 

sure that you do, but I just thought I would—— 

Mr. COMEY. Well, I agree very much that is at the core of Bob 

Mueller’s being, and it is something I intend to emulate. Admitting 

mistakes and learning from mistakes is the only way in which an 

institution survives and improves. 

Senator HATCH. And I think you will. 
19 

Senator Whitehouse and I, along with Representatives Schiff and 

Goodlatte, serve as Co-Chairmen of the Congressional International Anti-Piracy Caucus. For years, we have worked in a bipartisan manner to highlight the scope and depth of online piracy 

around the world. We lose billions and billions of dollars every year 

because of the lack of intellectual property protections. Now, theft 

of our intellectual property undercuts the hard work of Americans 

who share their talent and creations with us. 

Unfortunately, because of ever-changing technology, those 

charged with enforcing these laws must constantly strive to remain 

a step ahead of those who perpetuate these crimes. It is not an 

easy job, but some of the recent investigations underscore the 

progress being made in this difficult area. 

If you are confirmed, will you continue to prioritize intellectual 

property enforcement, including pursuing major copyright and 

counterfeiting enforcement actions? 

Mr. COMEY. Yes, Senator. I know from my 8 years in the private 

sector that this is an enormous concern to businesses of all kinds. 

One of the things that makes this remarkable country great is that 

we are the cradle of innovation, of ideas that become products that 

become jobs that become enormous companies. We will lose that if 

we are not able to protect that which we invent. 

Senator HATCH. Mr. Comey, I am happy that you have accepted 

this position. I have a great deal of respect for you and intend to 

work with you, as I think every Member of this Committee this 

does. I just want you to know that for you to be willing to come 

back into the Government is, I think, a great service to our country, and I just want to thank you. I support you, and we hope we 

can make this a quick confirmation. 

Mr. COMEY. Thank you. 

Senator FEINSTEIN [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Hatch. 

Senator Schumer. 

Senator SCHUMER. Well, thank you, and welcome. And despite 

the fact that you have moved to Connecticut—and I hope Senator 

Blumenthal does not take offense—we still consider you a New 

Yorker and a Yonkers boy made good. And we have known each 

other a very long time, and I am glad you are here. And I want 

to speak a little bit about my experience with you because I think 

everyone in the Committee and elsewhere should hear that, and 

then I will ask a few questions. 

First, the job of FBI Director is one of the most important jobs 

in the Nation. It is a 10-year commitment—10 years for two reasons: first, because a lifetime appointment runs the risk of abuse 

of power, as we learned from J. Edgar Hoover; but, second, because 

a shorter appointment could put the head of the most important 

law enforcement body in the country in danger of being subjected 

to the whims of purely political appointees. So a 10-year appointment is the right amount—not lifetime, too removed; not shorter, 

too susceptible to whims. 

Now, if there is one thing I am confident of, it is that you are 

more than capable of exercising independent judgment, even outand-out courage in the face of enormous political and professional 

pressure. 
20 

Mr. Comey, it was just a little more than 6 years ago that you 

sat at that table, I sat at the dais chairing a Judiciary Subcommittee hearing about the overweening role of politics at the 

U.S. Department of Justice. Your testimony about this incident was 

one of the most courageous acts by a witness I have ever seen, and 

if another book were written about Profiles in Courage, this would 

certainly be a chapter. 

Having served as Deputy Attorney General from 2003 until 2005, 

you came to my Subcommittee to talk about the Department’s policies regarding appointments of U.S. Attorneys, and at that point 

the Department did not look very good. 

But my staff—Preet Bharara, who was my chief counsel at the 

time, now U.S. Attorney for the Southern District, a place you had 

worked—had discovered there was more to the story. You reluctantly agreed to speak to him before the hearing on this additional 

topic, and after that conversation, we knew that you were prepared 

to testify about something of central importance: a possible constitutional crisis, previously unbeknownst to the American public 

by an administration embroiled in, very possibly blinded by, the 

war on terror. 

And so your testimony was one of the most dramatic and brave 

moments that I have ever witnessed in my years as a legislator. 

You exhibited the wherewithal to talk about a different ilk of interference with law enforcement decisionmaking at the Department of 

Justice, the apparent attempt by two members of the President’s 

team—Alberto Gonzales and Andrew Card—to attain approval of 

John Ashcroft for a warrantless domestic surveillance program 

while Mr. Ashcroft lay ill in his hospital bed. In fact, you were the 

Acting Attorney General on that night, March 10, 2004, and you 

were not willing to sign off on the full scope of the program that 

the White House wanted the Department of Justice to authorize. 

The history is known, but at the hospital you and FBI Director 

Mueller made sure that no approval was given for a program you 

believed had no legal authorization and, in fact, on threat of your 

resignation and that of other senior Department officials, it appeared the program was authorized only after it had been modified 

to your satisfaction. 

So, Mr. Comey, in 2005, you gave a speech in which you said 

that a good lawyer must be willing to say no when it matters most. 

As FBI Director, will you still be able to say no when it matters 

most, as you did on that night when you were the Acting Attorney 

General? 

Mr. COMEY. Yes, Senator, I believe so. 

Senator SCHUMER. Okay. Good. And I have every faith that you 

will. 

Mr. Comey, the details of the program at issue in 2004 and your 

decisionmaking then are still classified. News reports have suggested you were reviewing information-gathering programs that involved large amounts of meta data from phone records and the 

Internet. The parameters of what are perhaps modified versions of 

these programs may have been authorized later by the FISA Court 

under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act beginning in 2006. 

Leaks of classified documents also indicate that the FISA Court 

had approved gathering the content of email under certain cir-
21 

cumstances, circumstances that might be broader than what most 

Americans have assumed. 

Now, there has always been an age-old struggle between security 

and liberty. This tension has never been more stark in the 12 years 

since 9/11. As a New Yorker, I realize that very well. You know 

that better than most through your many roles in law enforcement 

before and after these events. My view, when you have the classic 

conflict of liberty and security, is, first, the debate should be open; 

second, the resulting policies have to be governed by rules, whether 

they are set by Congress and the administration; and, third—and 

this is where my questions lead—an independent arbiter must determine whether these rules are being followed. 

So in order to make sure that we strike the right balance as a 

society, we need to know more about what the FISA Court’s role 

is in approving these programs as they have been reported. 

My questions to you are as follows: 

First, would you be willing to support declassifying or releasing 

declassified summaries of FISA Court opinions that have been 

issued regarding these programs, as Senator Merkley proposes to 

do in a bill that I am a supporter of? Obviously with limitations 

on any security breaches. 

Mr. COMEY. Senator, I agree with you that transparency is a critical value, especially when weighing tradeoffs between security and 

liberty. And I am also aware that the Director of National Intelligence is looking at that very question. Because I do not know 

what is on the—I do not know what is in the opinions. I also do 

not know what is on the other side in terms of concerns about classified information. It is hard for me to say at this point. I think 

it is a worthy exercise to look closely at it, though. 

Senator SCHUMER. Okay. Let me just say this. If it is true that 

none of the 18 requests for orders last year were denied—and 

maybe some others on the Committee know that, but I do not—how 

can the American people be assured the FISA Court is exercising 

real oversight, as it was intended to do when it was established in 

1978? You told Senator Hatch it is not a rubber stamp. But if they 

have approved every decision, it is awfully hard to think that they 

are really doing the job that they were empowered to do. Can you 

give me a little thought on that? And that is my last question. 

Mr. COMEY. And I hear folks say that quite often, that the Government is undefeated in the FISA Court, so how can it be a real 

court? Well, I know from criminal cases that—I do not know of a 

case where a wiretap application in a criminal case has been rejected by a Federal judge, certainly none that I was involved with. 

And the reason for that is we do not ever want that to happen, and 

so we work like crazy to make sure we have our ducks in a row, 

we have probable cause, easily cleared, because if we lose that 

credibility with the court, we worry that we will have lost something that we cannot ever get back. 

And so I know that in both FISA applications and in criminal applications for court-ordered wiretaps, the Government is extremely 

conservative in putting together what it presents to the court. 

Senator SCHUMER. But you would work for greater transparency 

provided it does not jeopardize security. 

Mr. COMEY. Yes. 
22 

Senator SCHUMER. Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY [presiding]. Thank you. 

Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And congratulations, Mr. Comey, on this very important nomination. 

I love the FBI, as you have, and I remember, as you were telling 

your first case story, I remember being trained by some very fine 

FBI agents as a young prosecutor. And I do believe it is a great— 

the greatest law enforcement agency perhaps in the world and 

dealing certainly with complex cases of all kinds. And it deserves 

and must have great leadership. 

I first consider a nominee should be able to give that leadership. 

I believe it was Rudy Giuliani when he talked about his successor 

one time who said it would be nice if he were able to contribute 

to the discussion every now and then. And that sounds like Rudy, 

I suppose. And you were able to contribute to the discussion. 

I was just looking at your bio. Like Bob Mueller, you have the 

kind of bio that we should look for. You were Assistant United 

States Attorney in the Southern District of New York for 6 years; 

Assistant United States Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia for 6 years; Deputy Attorney General, chairing the President’s Corporate Fraud Task Force and the President’s Board on 

Safeguarding America’s Civil Liberties—I guess you were there 

about 3 years—in addition to being an attorney for some great law 

firms and corporate entities. So I think you bring the kind of background we need. 

I was looking at some of your cases. You tried the Gambino 

brothers, the Khobar Towers case involving 14 Saudi Hezbollah 

people who murdered 19 Americans. You did the WorldCom case. 

That was a huge billion-dollar fraud matter. Adelphia Communications, a $200 million case. You led the prosecution of one of the 

largest identity theft cases in U.S. history. The Martha Stewart insider trading case. Project Exile in Virginia, I will mention that in 

a minute. But those represent to me the experience of a highly professional, very, very rarely—a lawyer in the United States would 

very rarely be involved in so many intensive, high-profile cases. 

So you bring that background and worked, I suppose, on virtually every one of those cases with the FBI, did you not? 

Mr. COMEY. Yes, sir. 

Senator SESSIONS. And so you know the rules that they operate 

under and the Department of Justice operates under very well from 

an intensive personal experience. I think you have the background 

for this job. 

Now, you have proven in the past you are willing to stand up for 

your convictions. Will you be prepared to pursue any cases that 

come before you involving Congress or the administration or Governors or other powerful forces in the country if you are called 

upon to investigate them? And will you complete the investigation 

effectively and call the question based on the law and the facts? 

Mr. COMEY. Absolutely, Senator. 

Senator SESSIONS. I think that is your background, and I believe 

you can fulfill that task. I do. 

Now, I do not know—we talk about Guantanamo—exactly what 

Senator Feinstein is referring to there. I would just say that no-
23 

body is being tortured at Guantanamo. At Guantanamo, nobody 

was waterboarded. This was done special CIA or other people 

somewhere around the globe, but they were not done by the military at Guantanamo. 

Don’t you agree that there are two options with regard to how 

to handle someone who attacks the United States? If they are an 

enemy combatant, they can be tried by military commission; they 

can be tried and detained in a place like Guantanamo by the military as a prisoner of war; and they may be tried if they violated 

the rules of war or otherwise committed crimes as opposed to just 

being a lawful enemy combatant. And then, of course, there are 

Federal court prosecutions that can be carried out if a person is 

brought to Federal court and they have violated Federal civil laws 

and criminal laws. Is that right, two different approaches you can 

take? 

Mr. COMEY. Yes, Senator. From my experience, I think of them 

as three effective lawful and appropriate tools that can be used, depending upon the individual case. You have mentioned all three: 

Law of War detention, detention and trial in a military commission, or detention and trial in a civilian court, in the Article III 

courts. And I know all three have been used in both President 

Obama’s administration and President Bush’s administration. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, if you are tried in civilian court, then 

you must be brought promptly before a United States magistrate 

judge. Is that correct? 

Mr. COMEY. Yes, Rule 5 requires prompt presentment. 

Senator SESSIONS. And your right to have an attorney appointed 

for you if you do not have one. 

Mr. COMEY. Yes, sir. 

Senator SESSIONS. Or the attorney you may have. 

Mr. COMEY. Correct. 

Senator SESSIONS. Who, if it is a terrorist, could be associated 

with a terrorist organization, could they not? 

Mr. COMEY. Could be. 

Senator SESSIONS. And then you give Miranda warnings. They do 

not have to make any statements. 

Mr. COMEY. That is correct, at some point. 

Senator SESSIONS. And they can be brought before the judge at 

a preliminary hearing, and the Government has to lay out evidence 

revealing to the world that the individual who may be an enemy 

combatant has been captured, revealing that to his compatriots and 

enemies, our enemies. Is that right? 

Mr. COMEY. Certainly when court proceedings are filed and on 

the docket, the public can know about it. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, and evidence has to be presented, witnesses can be cross-examined, even in the early preliminary hearing stage. Isn’t that right? 

Mr. COMEY. Yes, Senator, if there is a preliminary hearing. I 

have actually never done one because I used to indict the cases instead. But I understand what you are saying. 

Senator SESSIONS. And while there are some protections for intelligence methods and capabilities and sources in some of these hearings, it does provide the possibility of revealing through the evi-
24 

dence that is presented the sources and methods of identifying and 

arresting this individual. Isn’t that correct? 

Mr. COMEY. I suppose it is possible. In my experience, Senator, 

the Federal courts are very effective at protecting classified sources 

and methods, even in prosecuted cases. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Isn’t it true that with regard to each of those 

instances I mentioned that the trial and military commission provides better protections for the United States with regard to intelligence revealing and be able to maintain the individual with or 

without a trial and without public presentment? 

Mr. COMEY. I think in some ways the military commission has 

an advantage. In other ways, I am not so sure. I think it depends 

on the individual case. 

Senator SESSIONS. My time is up, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I 

am sorry to go over. I had a few more questions, but I understand. 

Chairman LEAHY. We are probably getting off the subject, but I 

know we have had four or five convictions in military tribunals and 

100 or 200 in Federal courts. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, that is—if you do not try them in military commissions, you are not going to get convictions. 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator Durbin. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you—— 

Senator SESSIONS. And that is exactly what has been happening. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me start off, Mr. Comey, I understand your answer to Senator Feinstein’s question about the force feeding at Guantanamo, 

particularly in light of Judge Kessler’s opinion, but I would like to 

clarify for the record. I agree with Senator Feinstein’s conclusion. 

We are going to join together, and perhaps others wish to join us, 

in a letter to the President asking him to exercise his Executive authority to end this force feeding in Guantanamo. 

The President, for the record, has called for the closing of Guantanamo. He has also raised in a speech just a few weeks ago this 

very issue. He has not been evading it. But Judge Kessler is calling 

into question whether he has the authority, and we are going to 

express our feelings that it should come to an end. And that will 

force our hand. 

I believe Congress has been complicit in the current complicated 

situation. We have not followed the President’s lead in closing 

Guantanamo. We have left it in a limbo, which is unfair to many 

who are involved. I visited the Southern Command in Miami. I can 

tell you that the members of the Navy and Coast Guard who are 

part of it are at their wits’ end as to what to do with these detainees, many of whom have been adjudged no threat to the United 

States and having held indefinitely. In this case, Mr. Dhiab, who 

raised the issue, has been held for 11 years and for the last 4 years 

has been judged ready for release. In his despair, he has turned to 

this black fast where he is not eating at all. So I think it is time 

for us to move the issue. I understand it puts you in a delicate position to have conjecture on where this goes, but we are going to follow through. 

Let me go specifically to a couple issues. You and I had a long 

conversation yesterday about this torture issue, and I thought what 
25 

you said in a few words was what Attorney General Mukasey refused to say, that, in fact, waterboarding was torture. I could spend 

some time here—I will not—about what was going on within the 

administration, the debate over the use of waterboarding and other 

coercive techniques in interrogation. But I think more importantly 

was a point raised by Senator Schumer about the FISA Court. 

You said yesterday that as Deputy Attorney General you did 

your best to declassify so that there was more information available to the public to understand the decisionmaking in our Government. That is certainly consistent with our democracy, and although there is an obligation to keep us safe, which requires classified information, declassifying provides that information. 

Do you feel the same about these FISA Court decisions, that, if 

redacted, if carefully screened, we should be releasing more of the 

reasoning, more of the decisions to the public so they understand 

the role of the Court in this decision process? 

Mr. COMEY. Thank you, Senator. As I said earlier, I think that 

transparency is a key value, especially when it helps the American 

people understand what the Government is doing to try to keep 

them safe, and I think if they understood more, they would feel 

better about it. It is when folks do not know things that people can 

question whether the Government is doing the right thing. 

But at the same time, I am not in a position to judge what is 

on the other side. I would not want to let transparency be the only 

value—and I know you do not either, Senator—and that I would 

lose some operational advantage and let the bad guys know something by virtue of that. I think it is important to do what the DNI 

is doing, which is look closely at it and lean forward to see what 

you can do. 

Senator DURBIN. I hope you would encourage more transparency 

in the FISA Court. I think that would be helpful. Also, in future 

gathering of information, minimization is critical, to minimize the 

information gathered to protect innocent Americans. You and I discussed this yesterday. Instead of gathering all of the meta data, 

phone records of one area code, to focus on the suspects, which I 

have been arguing for for years and hope that we can move toward. 

Let me go to the point, though, that has been raised by Senator 

Sessions because it comes up time and time again. The minute we 

apprehend a terrorist, I can guarantee you within 24 hours, if we 

are in session, someone will take the floor and say, ‘‘Well, for goodness’ sakes, do not put them through the Article III courts. If it is 

a suspected terrorist, they must go to military tribunals or military 

commissions.’’ 

I have always been puzzled by this, and I know you have as a 

prosecutor faced this decision, recommendation: Where will this 

person be tried? 

For the record, I believe that hundreds, literally hundreds since 

9/11 have been accused of some form of terrorism and were successfully tried and prosecuted in Article III courts. During that same 

period, I believe the track record is six who have been successfully 

prosecuted before military tribunals. 

Let us go to the points raised by Senator Sessions. They would 

characterize the reading of the Miranda warnings as the end of the 
26 

interrogation. As soon as you say you can lawyer up, they will shut 

up. 

What has been your experience as a prosecutor when it comes to 

prosecuting terrorism cases in Article III courts using Miranda 

warnings? 

Mr. COMEY. My experience has been—I think we have about a 

20-year track record in handling particularly al Qaeda cases in 

Federal courts, and that the Federal courts and Federal prosecutors are effective at accomplishing the two goals in every one of 

these situations, getting information and incapacitating the terrorist. 

As I said, I believe there are a number of other tools that are 

available, but I know the track record of the criminal justice system, and it is highly effective. 

Senator DURBIN. We discussed yesterday the role of attorneys 

and family in the Article III process in the interrogation and preparation for trial. Could you tell us on the record what your experience has been? 

Mr. COMEY. Sure. One of the things I like about the Federal 

criminal justice system that I suppose some folks might not like is 

that the entire thing is designed to get information. We have very 

strong sentences in the Federal system. The only way to have any 

chance to get out from under them is to provide information. And 

in my experience, the presence in criminal cases of families and 

lawyers is often a useful lever for me as a prosecutor to get information, because then I have a loved one whispering in the ear of 

the person I have detained saying, ‘‘Look, you really need to do the 

right thing here. It is the only way you will ever see the kids 

again.’’ That lever assists me as a prosecutor in getting information. 

Senator DURBIN. And what about this point about taking this in 

an Article III court and prosecuting a terrorist runs the risk of disclosing sources and methods that could jeopardize the lives of 

friends, allies of the United States, even our military? What protection is there against that possibility? 

Mr. COMEY. Well, as I said to Senator Sessions, my experience 

has been the Federal courts are effective at protecting classified information. There is something called CIPA, the Classified Information Procedures Act, under which a court scrubs source and method 

information to try to reduce the risk of disclosure. I think the track 

record is pretty good. Obviously, there always remains a risk there 

is going to be disclosure. But I think, by and large, it is effective. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you very much. I appreciate your testimony and visitation in my office yesterday. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

Senator Lee. 

Senator LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. 

Comey, for joining us. I remember distinctly meeting you several 

years ago when I was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Utah. You visited our office. I still remember some of the counsel you gave us 

that day. I remember you telling us specifically that we as Assistant U.S. Attorneys ought to stay close to our families because, as 

you put it, you see things as an Assistant U.S. Attorney that sometimes no person ought to have to see, unpleasant things. And I can-
27 

not help but be reminded of that as you begin what could become 

a journey in serving as our Director of the FBI where you, too, will 

have to see things that might be unpleasant. And it is good to see 

your supportive family here with you today. 

I wanted to talk to you a little bit about some of the privacy interests protected by the Constitution and how those relate to some 

of the activities of the NSA and other arms of the Government. 

The Government maintains that it has the authority through the 

NSA to collect large amounts of meta data and to store that meta 

data on a data base basically with respect to telephone and email 

communications of pretty much every American. And it purports to 

have the authority to store that, hold it over a long period of time, 

and when necessary, perform searches to figure out, you know, connections based on national security concerns, to identify leads that 

it might follow up on. 

As I understand it, the searches on that data base are governed 

largely, if not entirely, by internal NSA rules. There is no external 

constraint on that, certainly no warrant requirement or anything 

really approaching it. 

Those who defend this program and this practice insist that 

under Supreme Court precedent, most notably Maryland v. Smith, the Government has the right to do this and there is no real 

Fourth Amendment problem with it. 

Maryland v. Smith, of course, was a case decided on a 5–4 margin back in 1979. It was an opinion authored by Justice Blackmun, 

and it dealt not with that kind of mass data collection; it dealt with 

data collection as against a single suspect in a single criminal investigation using a pen register. 

Don’t you think there might be different Fourth Amendment interests at play where we are dealing with a much broader scale 

where potentially, theoretically, every American is the target of the 

kind of data collection at issue with what we are talking about 

today? 

Mr. COMEY. Thank you, Senator. It is a very interesting question. 

You and I spoke about this a bit privately, and I had not thought 

about it much then. I have tried to think about it more since and 

read some cases. I actually read a paper written by a second-year 

Harvard law student about this. It is a really interesting question 

as to whether the Fourth Amendment framework that is in part 

embodied in the Smith case applies as technology changes or 

whether, I think as Justice Sotomayor wrote in the Jones case last 

year, we ought to think about it differently where each of those 

pieces of meta data is allowing the Government to sort of put together a mosaic about you, that is, goes beyond what you would 

normally expect and intrudes into a reasonable expectation of privacy. 

A fascinating question. I do not think it is settled. I hope it is 

one—I am going to ask if I am confirmed—that the Department of 

Justice is thinking about. So I do not think there is a clear answer 

to it, but it is a reasonable question to ask. 

Senator LEE. Okay. I appreciate your willingness to keep an open 

mind on that issue. I think as you look at that and as you review, 

as the Court in Maryland v. Smith did, the precedent in Katz v. 

United States, and you asked the two questions asked in Katz: 
28 

number one, whether there was a subjective expectation of privacy 

in the case at hand; and, number two, whether that expectation of 

privacy is one that in objective terms society could and should regard as reasonable. I do think you come to a different—I think you 

have to come to a different conclusion with regard to this. So I appreciate your willingness to consider that. 

Would you concede, as I suppose you would, that it would be different altogether—let us take in the case of email collection, surveillance of emails—it would be an even easier question with regard to collection of content of emails? 

Mr. COMEY. Very much. That is the difference, to use the 1970s 

analog, between reading the outside of an envelope and opening it 

and reading your letter. 

Senator LEE. Right, right. So you would not see any substantive 

distinction between the Government opening somebody’s mail and 

the Government opening somebody’s email to read the content of 

it? 

Mr. COMEY. I do not. I have always thought of it as a Fourth 

Amendment event. 

Senator LEE. Right. And yet it is interesting, the law in this 

area, the ECPA law, there is a particular title within ECPA that 

allows Government agents simply by sending a request to an email 

provider to read the content of someone’s email, not just the meta 

data but to obtain the substantive contents of the email communication once that email has ripened past the age of 180 days. That 

seems to me to be a problem, and it is one that Chairman Leahy 

and I have been working on together. This is a loophole that we 

are trying to close. 

But would you agree with me in concluding that, for Fourth 

Amendment purposes, there is no discernible constitutionally significant distinction between an email that is 179 days old and one 

that is 181 days old, with the former being entitled to Fourth 

Amendment protection and the latter being entitled to nothing? 

Mr. COMEY. I would, Senator. I do not think the Fourth Amendment has—like your yogurt, it expires on—a date on it. I was unaware as a prosecutor of that 180-day. I always thought of it all 

as content that I would need probable cause to get. So I am aware 

of that, and I think the Department is also working to see if that 

cannot be fixed. It sounds like an anachronism to me. 

Senator LEE. Yes, I think it certainly is. It was anachronistic 

even at the time in the sense that I think it was incompatible with 

the Fourth Amendment. But it is easier to understand why it did 

not raise eyebrows then because people typically did not store 

emails any longer than that. And so maybe one could have made 

an argument back then that nobody was concerned about it, therefore no reasonable expectation of privacy could develop. I certainly 

do not think the same argument can be made today, and I am 

pleased that you as a prosecutor never went down that road. I 

know I certainly did not. But there have been some within the Government who have suggested that this is an appropriate option for 

Government agents to pursue, and I hope you will stand with me 

in recognizing that there is an important Fourth Amendment interest at play. 
29 

Mr. COMEY. If there are, they are going to be unhappy with me, 

but I see it as you do. 

Senator LEE. Okay. Thank you very much. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much, and we will continue to 

work on the legislation you discussed. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman. Welcome back, Mr. 

Comey. 

Let me pick up where Chairman Leahy left off. You were describing the two Office of Legal Counsel torture opinions that addressed 

18 United States Code Section 2340 and 2340(a), and there was 

one that related to certain techniques, and then there was a second 

one that related to combined techniques. You indicated that you focused on the combined techniques one because you knew that the 

techniques were being applied in combined fashion, and so that is 

what really mattered. But you concede that if the combined techniques memo were to fall, under the certain techniques memo the 

Government, the CIA, would have been able to go ahead and 

waterboard as long as that was their technique, as long as they left 

the other ones aside. And in that sense, you clearly authorized 

waterboarding by approving that memo. Correct? 

Mr. COMEY. I think that is right. I do not want to quibble and 

say I authorized waterboarding. I found that opinion, which I think 

in its text has a very difficult and close question, was a serious and 

reasonable effort to interpret that statute. So that is what I 

thought. That is why I did not object to that one and objected to 

the second one. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Looking backward, I would contend that it 

was not serious and not reasonable and that it left out things that 

you as a supervisor were not necessarily in a position to know 

about. But when it leaves out the history that the Chairman referred to of the United States having been the prosecutor of 

waterboarders in the past, prosecuting Japanese soldiers as war 

criminals for doing that during World War II, prosecuting our own 

soldiers for doing that during the Philippines uprising, prosecuting 

an American sheriff for doing it—there is actually a file somewhere 

in the Department of Justice about a criminal prosecution of an 

American for waterboarding at the time that that memo came out, 

and nobody bothered to bring that up or put that in the opinion. 

And it is not something you had to go through the files of the Department to find out about because that decision ended in an appeal and a Fifth Circuit published opinion talking about 

waterboarding describing it probably ten times as torture, and that 

never made it into the opinion. 

So I cannot blame you for that, but I do not want to let the 

record of the hearing go forward with the thought that these actually are serious and responsible opinions, because I do not think 

they actually do meet that standard. 

You also said that you were concerned that they were very narrow. It was a very specific question that was being answered, and 

so that kind of was a reason to let it go. 

There was a third opinion dated May—these two were dated May 

10th. The third opinion was dated May 30th. It is on the same let-
30 

terhead from the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel. It is from the same office, the Office of the Principal Deputy 

Attorney General. It is signed by the same lawyer, Steven 

Bradbury. It is directed to the same recipient, John Rizzo, the 

counsel at the CIA. It discusses the same topic, waterboarding. But 

it is not specific to 2340 or 2340(a). It is the general opinion. It discusses the constitutional requirements. It discusses our obligations 

under the Convention Against Torture. 

What of that opinion? It came out 20 days later. 

Mr. COMEY. I did not see it at the time. I do not know why 

they—well, I guess I can guess why they did not show it to me at 

that point. I fought on both policy and legal grounds. So I did not 

see it. I have read it since, but I did not know about it. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. That is somewhat remarkable, isn’t it? 

Didn’t you ask Steve Bradbury to write the first two opinions, to 

review the previous opinions that you had said were not up to the 

standards of the Department of Justice? 

Mr. COMEY. I asked the then head of Office of Legal Counsel— 

we call it ‘‘OLC.’’ 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. OLC, yes. 

Mr. COMEY. There was a fellow named Dan Levin—to undertake 

the completion of Jack Goldsmith’s work, to finish the general opinion. I did not ask Steve Bradbury to do the two May 10 opinions. 

I think that came from elsewhere, probably the CIA. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So you were made aware of the two May 

10 opinions. 

Mr. COMEY. Yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Presumably between May 10 and May 30, 

you had made your concerns about them known? 

Mr. COMEY. Very much. I had made my concerns about the legal 

analysis known late April or early May, and then late May is when 

I went to the Attorney General and said we have to address why 

we are doing this as Americans. And then I—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So the response was that by the time of 

the May 30 opinion, they wrote another and broader opinion on the 

same subject and simply cut you out of the loop. 

Mr. COMEY. Yes, unless I am completely losing my mind, I do not 

remember—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I doubt that. 

Mr. COMEY [continuing]. Ever seeing that opinion. And so that 

opinion is about, as I recall from reading it recently, Article XVI 

and interpreting whether it is cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Yes, and applying a Fifth Amendment 

standard to that determination. 

Mr. COMEY. Yes, I do not know what—so, anyhow, I did not see 

that opinion. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. When you said that you thought that the 

latter two opinions were more responsibly written than the first 

two, what effort had you made to put a foundation under that determination? More responsibly written in terms of what did 

you—— 

Mr. COMEY. Both the people involved—and by that I mean I had 

great confidence in both Jack Goldsmith and in Dan Levin, serious, 
31 

balanced people—and the process they went through involving 

many more bright lawyers from around the Government—State 

Department, for example—to poke at their ideas to try and pressure test them in a way that I do not think was done in the early 

opinions. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So would it be fair to summarize it as saying you did not pressure test them yourself, but you saw to it that 

they were subjected to a much broader array of comment and, 

therefore, received pressure testing from multiple agencies and you 

also had considerably more confidence in the principals involved in 

writing—principals, P-A-L-S—the individuals involved in writing 

the opinion than you had in their predecessors. Correct? 

Mr. COMEY. That is fair. Yes, sir. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Okay. One thing I think I would like to 

emphasize to you, I think it would be very, very wise and helpful 

for you to take Senator Feinstein’s advice and spend some time 

with the Intelligence Committee report on the torture program. I 

was heavily involved in that, and if you look at particularly the 

third one, they make assertions specifically—a lot of the stuff is 

classified, so it is hard for me to debunk it here because it is classified. But I had a hearing in this Committee on the interrogation 

of Abu Zubaydah, and the FBI participated in that, and it was from 

the FBI’s humane interrogation that we got the news that Khalid 

Sheikh Mohammed, the 9/11 guy, was from the FBI’s humane interrogation that we got the information about the Jose Padilla dirty 

bomb plot. The CIA contractors, not the CIA agents, the contractors came in and started to apply the abusive techniques. At that 

point the information completely shut down, did not get anything 

more out of the guy that was of any significance, certainly nothing 

compared to what had been achieved by the FBI agent, who was 

a very gifted interrogator. 

My apologies. My time is up. But take a look at page 10 in the 

May 30 report and compare that to the facts, and I think you will 

see that the Department was pretty gravely misled. 

Chairman LEAHY. I am sorry to be so tough on the clock. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. No, no. I appreciate that you did that, 

Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. I know we have a vote coming. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. You did the right thing. 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator Cornyn. 

Senator CORNYN. Mr. Comey, congratulations on your nomination, and I am glad that your family is able to be here today. None 

of us could do these jobs without the support and love of our families, and thank you for your willingness to continue to serve the 

United States. 

I wanted to ask you, first of all—and I know you will agree with 

this. One of the great things that is unique about the American 

system is that no person, whether you be President of the United 

States or an average citizen on the street, no person is above the 

law. 

Mr. COMEY. Yes, that is one of many great things about this 

country. 

Senator CORNYN. But it is hard when you are a member of an 

administration sometimes to do what you have recounted that you 
32 

did during the Bush administration, and that is, be a voice of independence and perhaps go against the grain. 

Are you going to be as equally committed as a member of the 

Obama administration as you were as a member of the Bush administration to go against the grain and to be that independent 

voice where you feel that that is the appropriate course of action? 

Mr. COMEY. Yes, I am, Senator. 

Senator CORNYN. And for all the differences that have been discussed here over enhanced interrogation, my impression is that the 

counterterrorism policies of the Obama administration in large part 

bear a lot of similarity to the counterterrorism policies of the Bush 

administration. Would you agree with that? 

Mr. COMEY. I think that is fair. 

Senator CORNYN. I am thinking, for example, about the role of 

the Foreign Intelligence Court, the National Security Agency’s role 

in collecting meta data, their use of unmanned aerial vehicles to 

kill terrorists, members of al Qaeda. There seems to me to be a lot 

of continuity here, with some notable differences. 

I do have a question about the enhanced interrogation techniques 

that you talked about earlier. As I understood it, you said there 

were three questions: one is was it effective, which is a question, 

I suppose, for the intelligence agencies; second, was it legal, which 

is a question for the Office of Legal Counsel, the primary law firm, 

so to speak, for the United States Government; and then there is 

the prudential question about should we be doing this stuff, and I 

think you made clear that on the third issue you thought we should 

not. 

Mr. COMEY. Correct. 

Senator CORNYN. And does that apply to all of the enhanced interrogation techniques that were used to interrogate members of al 

Qaeda and other terrorists or just waterboarding? 

Mr. COMEY. I was particularly concerned with waterboarding and 

sleep deprivation in particular. I think those are the two I focused 

on the most, Senator. 

Senator CORNYN. Just to be clear, you think sleep deprivation is 

torture? 

Mr. COMEY. I was concerned, Senator, that particularly in aggregation, the use of 6–1/2 days of sleep deprivation plus these other 

things was very problematic under the Office of Legal Counsel’s interpretation of the statute. 

Senator CORNYN. Well, one of the consequences of the Obama administration’s decision to shutter the enhanced interrogation—and 

there are, of course, a number of practices, as you know, that do 

not include the ones that you object to. But by virtue of their decision not to question members of al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, we do not have a lot of information that we might otherwise be able to get from an intelligence-gathering perspective, and 

that strikes me as problematic. And instead we have an administration that has decided to compile kill lists for terrorists using 

armed drones and the like. 

That strikes me as problematic as well because if you are just 

going to use that authority to kill terrorists, you certainly do not 

know anything about their networks, any of the other information 
33 

that would be helpful from an intelligence perspective, and perhaps 

save American lives. 

Do you believe that the memos from the Office of Legal Counsel 

that have authorized the use of kill lists for armed drones, including American citizens, that those should be made public? 

Mr. COMEY. I do not know, Senator. I know—as I said earlier, 

I think transparency is a very important value. I do not know well 

enough what is on the other side of the scale on that, the operational risk, the exposure of methods. So I am not in a position to 

say that from this vantage point. 

Senator CORNYN. But you are not differentiating in terms of your 

transparency commitment between what was revealed during the 

last administration and what should be revealed here. I mean, the 

same principles would apply. 

Mr. COMEY. Oh, certainly, same values, same principles, should 

be thought of the same way. 

Senator CORNYN. And it strikes me as a lawyer’s argument that 

we would really be interested in to know how—what sort of process 

would be required as a legal matter and as a prudential matter to 

protect against inadvertent or improper use of that kind of ultimate authority to kill an American citizen using an armed drone. 

That would be something that, if kept secret, would, I think, tend 

to undermine public confidence. If, in fact, there is a good lawyer’s 

argument or one that would satisfy a court of law that this was 

necessary and it was properly applied, that would be something 

that would bolster public confidence, wouldn’t you think? 

Mr. COMEY. I think that is right as a general matter. As I said, 

I think transparency on these matters, including the views of the 

executive branch on the legal authorities, tends to bolster people’s 

confidence and support for the use of those authorities. Again, 

though, there may be reasons, good reasons, why an opinion would 

need to remain confidential or classified. And sitting from this vantage point, I really could not say about the particulars. 

Senator CORNYN. Well, of course, I do not suppose you have seen 

them—— 

Mr. COMEY. No. 

Senator CORNYN [continuing]. and I would not ask you to pass 

judgment on something you have not seen. But certainly they could 

be redacted or otherwise protected in terms of the information that 

would need to be protected and still give some better understanding of the legal rationale and how the due process concerns 

could be addressed, especially when you are talking about killing 

American citizens. 

I understand the questions you were asked and you answered 

about enhanced interrogation and your objection to the use of enhanced interrogation while you were a member of the Bush administration. Why didn’t you resign if you objected to those techniques? 

Mr. COMEY. I had already resigned by the time this came up. I 

announced my resignation in mid-April, and this came up, the 

memos we are talking about, in late April and into May, toward 

the end of May. I announced in mid-April I was going to leave before the end of the summertime, and I decided to stay for those 2 

months because there were a number of important things I needed 

to complete, especially on violent crime. So that is where I was. 
34 

Senator CORNYN. Were those of sufficient seriousness to your 

mind that, if you had not already announced your intention to resign, they would be resign-worthy or justify your resignation, that 

sort of serious disagreement with administration policy? 

Mr. COMEY. Hard to answer looking back, but I would have given 

it very serious consideration. 

Senator CORNYN. My time is up. Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Comey. And, again, welcome to your family. They 

are very stoic behind you. I have been watching them. 

Mr. COMEY. They were instructed to be stoic. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Yes, and I also understand that one of 

them—we will not reveal who—actually was assigned to play Senator Blumenthal in a high school debate and miraculously won that 

debate. 

Mr. COMEY. She swept the middle school. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Very good. 

You and I went to law school together. We were in the same 

class—and I love how you are pointing her out. We all see here. 

You and I were in the same class in law school, and people often 

wonder what people were like before they were shining lights in 

their face, and I can tell my colleagues and everyone here that you 

were an incredibly decent person, a smart guy, and a lot of fun to 

know. So I want to thank you for that. I know there are a number 

of law school classmates watching this hearing right now, and I 

have this urge to mention all their names. But I will not do that. 

And my colleagues should also know that the law school professors at the University of Chicago called our class ‘‘the happy class,’’ 

in part because we started the first law school musical and then, 

second, because I do not think we produced enough Supreme Court 

clerks to their liking. But I really hope they are watching this 

hearing right now and see the both of us up here and mostly see 

what a great job you are doing. 

I know most of my colleagues have focused on terrorism and 

drones and the important work you have done in the past in terms 

of upholding the law. And while I think we can all agree that 

counterterrorism and national security is a top priority of the FBI, 

I think you also know the bread-and-butter work of the FBI is still 

incredibly important to victims of crime, to those who are victims 

of complex fraud. As a former prosecutor, that is how I always 

thought of the FBI and the work that we did so well with them in 

Minnesota. 

And I know one of the things that has not come out is the work 

that you did in Richmond where you started Project Exile, a successful program that involved Federal, State, and local partnership. 

We copied that program, actually, in Minneapolis years later, and 

when the effort began, I know it was supported both by the NRA 

and the Brady Campaign, and the result of the successes, again, 

it spread across the country. Can you talk about that work and 

how that will inform your work as head of the FBI and what you 
35 

have learned from that that you think would be helpful to what we 

are facing now in street crime? 

Mr. COMEY. Yes, Senator, thank you very much. That was some 

of the most rewarding work I ever did. Richmond, Virginia, had a 

horrific violent crime problem, isolated especially in the minority 

community, and the idea behind Project Exile was what if we used 

the Federal penalties that came with gun possession offenses, possession by a felon, possession by a drug user, drug dealer, stiff penalties, what if we used those to try and change criminal behavior 

and make the gun a liability in the eye of a criminal? 

In Richmond, the situation we had was the average criminal got 

dressed for the evening and put on shoes, socks, pants, belt, gun— 

with equal amounts of reflection. So the idea was, What if we can 

change that dressing practice so they are afraid to have that gun? 

And so the first part of Project Exile was really aggressive prosecution of gun possession crimes, and the magic, I think, of Project 

Exile, which was not my idea—it was the idea of one of my Assistant U.S. Attorneys—was: What if we went into the public markets 

and hired an advertising agency—and they worked for free; ‘‘hiring’’ is in quotation marks—to sell deterrence to the bad guys? And 

so these geniuses at the advertising agency created a brand and 

bought billboards in bad neighborhoods and buses and TV commercials, and they printed little cards with our slogan, and cops gave 

out thousands of them so that—because advertising works, and actually the criminals became more afraid of us maybe than they 

should have been, because advertising works. There was a brand, 

there was a criminal actually—our slogan said, ‘‘An illegal gun gets 

you 5 years in Federal prison.’’ We locked one guy up, and he got 

7 years. He actually sent us a letter saying, ‘‘The damn ad says 5.’’ 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. COMEY. An unhappy consumer I guess was our goal. And so 

that aggression plus the magnification that came from advertising 

changed that community and changed behavior. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Well, I also do not think it has come up, 

but you and your brother were actually held hostage by an armed 

burglar when you were young, and you were able to escape captivity. And in an interview, you once said that experience gave you 

‘‘a keen sense of what victims of crime feel.’’ 

Could you talk about the current FBI and how you see the FBI’s 

role with violent crime, understanding most of it is headed upon 

the local level, how you can coordinate with that? And then I would 

add onto that, on those really complicated white-collar cases which 

are increasingly hard for local law enforcement to handle. 

Mr. COMEY. As we talked about earlier in response to other questions, the FBI has a vital role to play in criminal enforcement, and 

I know Bob Mueller has explained to this Committee that is a challenge for him, given all the things on the FBI’s plate. But at least 

from the outside, it looks to me like he has been smart and used 

leverage to achieve the objectives by forming good task force relationships, on violent crime in particular, with State and local law 

enforcement. The FBI has long been accused of not playing well 

with others. I think that is a bit of a myth in general, and I know 

that Bob Mueller has pushed to change that in both perception and 

reality. So that is critical. 
36 

And as I said in response to earlier questions, the FBI’s role in 

white collar is also indispensable, because you need an agency that 

can devote the time, the resources, and has the expertise to plow 

through stacks of Excel spread sheets to find the evidence of the 

fraud. That is very hard for overworked local enforcers to do, so it 

is ground you cannot surrender. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Very good. I am the daughter of a reporter, 

so I am asking this for my dad, but I also have seen both sides of 

this, the balance of the importance of a free press and then as a 

prosecutor the importance of moving forward with cases and keeping information so that you can do a good job and protect the public 

safety. And I am cosponsor of the Free Flow of Information Act— 

I was the first time it was introduced, and I am now—to protect 

the freedom of the press. 

Can you talk about your views on how law enforcement should 

balance one of our Nation’s most cherished rights, that is, freedom 

of the press, and the investigations of classified information leaks? 

Mr. COMEY. Law enforcement can balance it most importantly by 

keeping front of mind both of those values. There are secrets we 

must keep, and so we have to investigate their loss, and that may 

lead to bumping into the media. But when we do those bumps, we 

have to understand that essential to what a remarkable country 

this is is that aggressive, sometimes pain-in-the-neck press. They 

are a great pain in the neck. And so an enforcer has to keep both 

of those front of mind, and then in each case try to work it so you 

preserve both of those values. 

You are going to make mistakes, but if you keep both front of 

mind, I think in the main you will get it right. And I am aware 

of the shield legislation. I testified about a different shield bill 

when I was still in the Government that did not have a carveout 

for national security, which was very concerning to us. I gather this 

is different. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Okay. Well, we look forward to working 

with you on that. I have a question I will just put on the record 

about the Human Trafficking Report Act that I have introduced 

with Senator Cornyn. 

[The question of Senator Amy Klobuchar appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And I know there are a lot of my colleagues 

that have been waiting for a while, so thank you very much. 

Chairman LEAHY. I am just worried about this vote coming up. 

The record will stay open until noon on Friday for any questions 

to be submitted to Mr. Comey, and his nomination will be on the 

agenda a week from Thursday. 

Senator Cruz. 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Comey, welcome. Thank you for your testimony this morning, and thank you for your long public service as well. 

I have a number of topics that I would like to discuss. I want 

to start by talking about the IRS. As you know, as you and I discussed in my office, there has been multiple reports and admissions 

of the IRS improperly targeting groups based on political speech, 

based on their espousing conservative views, their espousing proIsrael views. There is an ongoing investigation of the FBI into what 
37 

exactly the IRS has done. And your predecessor, whom I like and 

respect, has received some amount of criticism for not appropriately prioritizing that investigation. Indeed, there have been 

multiple reports that even to date many of the groups that were 

unfairly targeted by the IRS, or at least that believe they were unfairly targeted, have yet to be interviewed by the Bureau. 

What level priority in your judgment should the investigation 

into the allegations of misconduct and political targeting by the 

IRS, what level priority do you believe that should hold at the Bureau? 

Mr. COMEY. I think—and I think I have seen Director Mueller 

say a similar thing—it should be a very high priority. 

Senator CRUZ. Well, I appreciate that commitment, and I would 

also—you know, anytime the Bureau is asked or the Department 

is asked to investigate allegations of wrongdoing by the administration, and in particular, wrongdoing that raises at least some concerns about infusing partisan politics in what should be the fair 

and impartial administration of justice, that puts the Bureau in a 

delicate position. We saw that during the Nixon administration 

when President Nixon attempted to use the IRS to target his political enemies. And there have been similar concerns raised here. 

Can we have your commitment that this investigation, if you are 

confirmed, you will pursue every lead vigorously, regardless of the 

political consequences? 

Mr. COMEY. Absolutely, in this and all other investigations. 

Senator CRUZ. Let us shift to a different topic, which is I have 

been concerned about the current administration’s balance of the 

rights of law-abiding citizens on the one hand and the willingness 

to pursue serious terrorist threats on the other. And in my view, 

the balance has been wrong on the one hand, not fully respecting 

the constitutional rights of United States citizens, and on the other 

hand not vigorously going after radical Islamic terrorists and not 

acting to stop terrorism before it occurs. 

On the first piece, one of the aspects where I think the administration has been less than fully protective of the constitutional 

rights of U.S. citizens deals with drones. So I would like to ask 

your view as a lawyer, which is, do you believe that the Constitution allows the U.S. Government to use a drone to target with lethal force a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil if that individual does not pose 

an imminent threat? 

Mr. COMEY. No, Senator. 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you for that answer. I agree with that answer, and the current administration has not always been so forthcoming in providing that answer. 

I want to talk about the other half of the balance, stopping terrorism, because, ironically, I think although the administration has 

been willing to sweep law-abiding citizens into the ambit of surveillance, the administration and, unfortunately, the Bureau has been 

less than vigorous tracking down hard leads and intelligence. And 

we see in instance after instance, we see in Benghazi, where there 

were multiple reports about the need for additional security that 

were not followed up on. 

We see with the Boston bombing—the Boston bombing I think is 

a very distressing pattern where the U.S. Government dropped the 
38 

ball. We had the Government of Russia that notified us directly 

about the concerns about the Tsarnaev brothers, that told us that 

he was a follower of radical Islam and they had fears of terrorist 

activity on his behalf. 

The Bureau interviewed him, interviewed his family, concluded 

they did not find any terrorist activity, and it appears dropped the 

ball after that. After that interview, we now know that he traveled 

to Chechnya without any apparent follow-up from the Bureau or 

other U.S. national securities. We know that in August 2012 he 

published a YouTube page with jihadist propaganda on it, and by 

all appearances, the Bureau missed that, law enforcement missed 

that. We know he was also affiliated with Abdurahman Alamoudi, 

who pleaded guilty to illegal transactions with the Libyan Government and a role in a conspiracy to assassinate Saudi Crown Prince 

Abdullah. 

And yet it appears with all of these warning signs, the Bureau 

did not follow up on the credible information it had and, tragically, 

because the dots were not connected, we saw a horrific bombing 

occur in Boston. 

Similarly, in Fort Hood—I was just in Fort Hood last week—the 

murder that occurred there, the FBI was aware that Major Hasan 

had been emailing with al Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, asking 

about the permissibility of killing his fellow soldiers. The FBI was 

aware of that. Major Hasan had made a presentation espousing 

jihadist views, and yet it appears in both of those instances the Bureau dropped the ball. And I have a real concern that fears of political correctness are—— 

Chairman LEAHY. I would advise the Senator that his time is up, 

and there is a vote on. Did you have a question here or just a 

speech? 

Senator CRUZ. I did have a question, Mr. Chairman. I apologize 

for, when you gaveled, being a few seconds over. If I may ask the 

question? Do you share the concerns about the Bureau being either 

unwilling or unable to connect those dots and, as a result, to prevent terrorist attacks that have been carried out? 

Mr. COMEY. I do not know enough from this vantage point, Senator, to comment on the particular cases. Obviously I think it is always important to connect the dots as best you can. But I do not 

know enough to give you a responsible answer at this point. 

Senator CRUZ. Do we have your commitment that you would not 

let political correctness impede efforts to connect the dots and to 

prevent terrorism? 

Mr. COMEY. Certainly. 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator Franken. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. Mr. Comey, thank you for coming 

to my office yesterday. I enjoyed our conversation. You have had 

a very impressive career, and if you are confirmed, you have a hard 

act to follow. Bob Mueller is really amazing. 

We touched on a number of subjects yesterday when we talked, 

and one of them was the right of Americans, American citizens, to 

counsel. We talked about Jose Padilla, the American citizen who 

was accused and has since been convicted of providing material 

support to terrorists. He was arrested on American soil but was 

subsequently transferred, with your support, to military custody. 
39 

While in military custody, Mr. Padilla went almost 2 years without 

having any access to an attorney. 

I abhor the beliefs and the actions of Mr. Padilla. He deserves 

to be punished. But I have to say that I was dismayed by the principle that an American can be detained in his own country for almost 2 years without having any contact with an attorney. 

I asked you this question in our meeting yesterday, and to be 

honest, I think that—I was not satisfied totally with your answer, 

so I just want to ask this head on. Do American citizens always 

have the right to talk to an attorney when they are detained by 

their own Government on American soil? 

Mr. COMEY. I suppose one of the reasons you may not have been 

satisfied is I am not sure I was expert enough, or still am, to give 

you a really good answer to that. I think the answer is yes, except 

when that person is detained as a prisoner of war in an ongoing 

armed conflict; that as a prisoner of war, the person does not have 

a constitutional right to counsel. I think that was the position that 

the Justice Department took in Mr. Padilla’s case, and so I think 

that is the position—— 

Senator FRANKEN. And who determines whether that person is 

a prisoner of war, an American citizen on American soil, is arrested 

on American soil, who makes that determination? And doesn’t that 

person have—an American citizen now—have a right to an attorney to make the case that, ‘‘I am not a prisoner of war’’? 

Mr. COMEY. Well, they certainly have a right to access to the 

courts, as was done in that case, to file a habeas corpus petition 

to challenge the President’s decision and designation that that person is involved in an armed conflict with the United States. So that 

is a different question from whether they have a constitutional 

right to have a lawyer. I think the district judge in that case said 

that, as a matter of his ability to oversee habeas corpus petitions, 

he thought the person ought to have a lawyer to assist him in the 

preparation of that petition. I do not think the judge found he had 

a constitutional right to counsel. 

Senator FRANKEN. Okay. 

Mr. COMEY. And as you said, it is a one-off horrific case that was 

a very difficult one. So it is obviously not a settled area, because 

I do not know that it has ever happened other than Padilla’s case. 

Senator FRANKEN. Okay. Well, I want to move to the warrantless 

wiretaps. By the way, a number of my colleagues have remarked 

on your courageous act—Senator Schumer referred to it—coming to 

that hospital room, when you were Acting Attorney General, and 

I commend you for those actions. 

At the same time, last month the New York Times reported that 

you did not object to ‘‘the key element of the Bush administration’s 

program, the wiretapping of American citizens inside the United 

States without warrants.’’ The Times reported in December 2005 

that, under this program, the NSA could eavesdrop on up to 500 

people in the U.S. at any time as long as one party to the call was 

abroad. 

According to a public letter from then-Attorney General Gonzales 

in 2007, the surveillance was subsequently approved by the FISA 

Court and, therefore, continued under the supervision of the Court, 
40 

as it is now. But until then, this wiretapping program had not been 

reviewed by the Court. 

How do you respond to the Times’ allegation that you did not object to this warrantless wiretapping program? 

Mr. COMEY. I have to be cautious in the way I answer simply because I do not know what is still classified and not. I think a lot 

of the things that I was exposed to in that connection in 2004 is 

still classified. I do not think the Times story is accurate. Maybe 

I should just leave it at that. I do not think it is accurate. 

Senator FRANKEN. Can you say in what way it is accurate without—— 

Mr. COMEY. Maybe I can say, Senator, while I was Deputy Attorney General, the Office of Legal Counsel headed by Jack Goldsmith 

concluded that the President could lawfully, relying upon the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, target the international 

communications of members of al Qaeda and associated forces. And 

the Office of Legal Counsel issued a written legal opinion that that 

could be done, that targeted collection of content of international 

communications of al Qaeda members and associated forces. 

So I think that is public, but I do not want to get into what I 

objected to because I think it is different than that. 

Senator FRANKEN. Okay. Let me move on to sleep deprivation. 

You talked about how sleep deprivation can be torture, and I think 

you said in combination with other methods. This is what the 

Bradbury memo says about sleep deprivation: ‘‘In this method, the 

detainee is standing and is handcuffed, and the handcuffs are attached by a length of chain to the ceiling. The detainee’s hands are 

shackled in front of his body, so that the detainee has approximately a 2- to 3-foot diameter of movement. The detainee’s feet are 

shackled to a bolt in the floor.’’ 

The memo also says that the detainee wears diapers and that 

sleep deprivation can cause swelling in the lower extremities. The 

memo goes on to say that none of this amounts to torture, and it 

authorized sleep deprivation for up to 180 hours. That is 71⁄2 days. 

That is torture, isn’t it? 

Mr. COMEY. That was my reaction, and I remember that description vividly, Senator. That is one of the things that led me to ask 

who are we as Americans, and we have to have that conversation 

about even if someone says it is effective, someone says it does not 

violate this vague statute, there is this third question that that description cries out for us to answer. 

Senator FRANKEN. Okay. I am out of time, but I would say—that 

was a memo that you approved. That was one of separate methods 

that was talked about in that one. That was the first Bradbury 

memo. 

Mr. COMEY. Correct. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, 

Mr. Comey. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

I see Senator Hirono is back, and I will yield to her, and then 

Senator Blumenthal is on his way back. I am going to leave to vote. 

I will not be back as they finish up. It is not out of disinterest in 

your hearing, Mr. Comey. You and I have known each other for a 

long time. I also, though, just want to take a moment to com-
41 

pliment Mrs. Comey and all your children. Senators can kind of go 

in and out and check other notes and whisper back and forth, and 

I am sure they hear their father and husband a lot, and they have 

to stay riveted—riveted with interest on everything you are saying. 

And they are probably thinking, ‘‘Wait until we get him home and 

tell him what we really think.’’ But I do want to compliment your 

family. 

And I would say the same thing I said to Director Mueller and 

to Ann Mueller. It does mean a big sacrifice on the part of the family, and I just want you to know that those of us who spend time 

in Government realize that, and I compliment you on that, too. 

We will go to Senator Hirono, and then from her to Senator 

Blumenthal, and then after that, the Committee will stand in recess, and the record will be kept open until noon on Friday for further questions. Thank you. 

Senator HIRONO [presiding]. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I do apologize for having to leave the hearing, but I know 

that I am going to have an opportunity to chat with you further 

this afternoon, so thank you for that. 

I also apologize if some of the questions have already been covered by my colleagues. I note that the questions regarding 

waterboarding—and you acknowledged that while you had advocated—you were in disagreement on the use of waterboarding by 

CIA, but you were overruled in terms of your perspective, but now 

that potentially you would become the head of the FBI, the FBI 

does not utilize those forms of interrogation, and you would continue that policy, would you not? 

Mr. COMEY. I absolutely would, Senator. The FBI does not use 

any abusive interrogation techniques, and if I were confirmed, the 

effort—that would stay the same. 

Senator HIRONO. I think that is very important in the context of 

other agencies using some of these so-called enhanced interrogation 

techniques that we have an agency, the FBI, which will draw the 

line on the use of those kinds of techniques. 

There has been a lot of discussion around the surveillance programs and the collection of trillions, literally trillions millions of 

pieces of information in this program. So I wanted to ask you, regardless of the legality or constitutionality of a given surveillance 

program, do you believe that Government surveillance of U.S. citizens can go too far? 

Mr. COMEY. I am certain that there are circumstances in which 

it could, Senator. 

Senator HIRONO. It seems as though in a program where meta 

data, millions of pieces of information, where do we draw the line 

at going too far? 

Mr. COMEY. Hard for me to answer from this vantage point. I do 

not know—I am a private citizen at this point. I do not know the 

details of the programs involving meta data, for example, that are 

going on now. I have watched testimony from this table by Director 

Mueller about, for example, the safeguards around the meta data 

collection, the oversight of Congress, the involvement of the FISA 

Court, the IG’s involvement. All of those sounded reasonable to me 

from this distance, but I do not know enough to say at this point. 
42 

Senator HIRONO. Well, Director Mueller, when he testified, also 

said that the collection of this kind of information is very important. He used the description of ‘‘connecting the dots,’’ and you 

never know where that important connecting dot is going to come 

from, whether from the collection of millions of this kind of information or not. And if that is the answer, then if you start thinking 

about what the parameters may be, it seems as though there would 

not be any parameters because how could you define when that 

particular dot, critical dot of information, when that would arise? 

So that troubles a number of us. 

So I hope that you will give some thought to what the parameters might be, when can Government go too far in collecting data 

from millions and millions of U.S. citizens who have done nothing 

wrong. 

I think you also mentioned that you are engaged in—the FBI 

needs to now engage in a cultural change, acknowledging the 

threat to us from cyber threats. At the same time, though, the FBI 

has a very strong mission to go after white-collar and other criminals. So I think there might be some concerns in the law enforcement community as to where the FBI’s priorities will be and what 

percentage of your mission will involve the kind of intelligence 

gathering versus the traditional crime-fighting role that the FBI 

undertakes. 

Where do you see that balance? You can respond in terms of the 

percentage of your resources that will go toward this new kind of 

crime versus the traditional white-collar and other kinds of crime. 

Mr. COMEY. Thank you, Senator. I do not think I can responsibly 

be too specific from this vantage point. I know that it is essential 

that the FBI do both, be an intelligence agency and a counterterrorism agency and a counterespionage agency, and also address 

those vital criminal needs, especially things like public corruption 

and white-collar crime. But from this vantage point, I would hope 

to be confirmed and then to get into the job to understand what 

is going on now before I can make any prescriptions about how I 

would strike the balance. I know it is a constant challenge of Director Mueller, and I am sure it will be mine, but that is about all 

I could say from here. 

Senator HIRONO. So should you get confirmed, then you would be 

responsive to questions that we would have that would follow up, 

and in your role as Director, should you be confirmed, you would 

be in a much better position to provide us with timely responses 

to these kinds of questions. 

Mr. COMEY. Yes, Senator. If I am confirmed, I suspect you will 

see a lot of me. 

Senator HIRONO. And you would make the commitment to do 

that? 

Mr. COMEY. Yes. 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you. I do not know if there have been 

questions relating to the civilian use of drones. That is a burgeoning area of concern for us. And with the expansion of civilian 

use of drones, do you have any security concerns about criminals 

of terrorists using drones to conduct surveillance of potential targets? 
43 

Mr. COMEY. I do. I know from just the time even as a private 

citizen reading about the increasing availability of drones, I 

watched what to me was a sobering video of someone who had put 

a firearm on a drone and fired it remotely while flying one of these 

cheaply acquired drones, a $100 drone. So it is certainly something 

that lies in our future, if not in our present. 

Senator HIRONO. Do we already have laws that would allow the 

FBI to go after these kinds of use of drones? 

Mr. COMEY. I think so, Senator, but I do not know enough to give 

you a definitive answer. That is something I would need to understand if I became the Director. But I think that the FBI has authorities that it can—for example, if someone tried to shoot someone using a drone, there would be firearms or attempted homicide 

statutes that could be available. I do not know if there are any that 

are specific to drones, though. 

Senator HIRONO. I think that is another area that I would ask 

that you review, because when Director Mueller was here and I 

asked him other kinds of questions, he said that perhaps this is a 

good time for us to review whether or not we have very specific 

laws that address the use of drones by the civilian community, private use of drones. 

Mr. COMEY. I will do that, and I will urge the Department of Justice to do it as well. 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you. My time is up. Thank you. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL [presiding]. Thank you for your patience 

and for your excellent testimony, and let me begin by thanking you 

for bringing Claire to the hearing today. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Just to embarrass her. 

As a father of a Claire—my daughter is named Claire—I am particularly partial to the name. So you can be me anytime you want, 

Claire. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And I want to just say that the fact that 

I am able to joke about one of your children I think reflects the 

very solid support and the lack of any need to, as they say, ‘‘rehabilitate the witness.’’ But I think that you have done an excellent 

job today, and I am looking forward to your confirmation. 

I do have a few questions, and first, beginning with one of the 

topics that has been covered today, the interrogation procedures 

and waterboarding and so forth, I take it not only that you would 

oppose the use of such enhanced interrogation like waterboarding 

or other forms of interrogation that could be regarded as torture, 

but also that you would use the FBI’s resources to investigate those 

kinds of violations of law if you found reason to think they were 

occurring. 

Mr. COMEY. Correct. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And there is no question that you would 

oppose those kinds of procedures within the administration and 

recommend to the President that prosecution be undertaken if an 

official of the administration or the military or anyone in the Federal Government engaged in such practices. 

Mr. COMEY. That is correct, Senator. I think that would be without lawful authority, so it would be a violation of law. 
44 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Let me turn to another subject that is 

close to my heart and I think close to anyone who, like yourself, 

lives in Connecticut—gun violence. And the answer to this question 

may be self-evident, but I take it that you would support with great 

vigor and zeal the position of the administration in support of background checks, a ban in illegal trafficking, assault weapons, highcapacity magazines, in other words, the position and proposals of 

the administration to combat gun violence. 

Mr. COMEY. Yes, Senator. I think you will find that I approach 

that just as Bob Mueller did. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. And using the resources of the 

FBI to investigate violations of our gun laws, as you did in Virginia, not only for their own sake but also because so many of those 

gun violations are related to other kinds of crime, whether drug 

dealing or extortion, can you talk a little bit about the importance 

that you would bring to violations of our gun violence prevention 

laws as the Director of the FBI? 

Mr. COMEY. Yes, Senator. I think in general the enforcement of 

those laws is essential to crime reduction, especially violent crime. 

I have always believed that a gun in the possession of a felon or 

a drug dealer or drug user is a homicide that has not happened yet. 

And so I think it is important that the Government as a whole approach that very aggressively. 

I think the FBI’s role in addressing those particular offenses is 

more in the context of complex violent crime cases, gang cases, 

things of that sort, and the essential work on the possession and 

trafficking is more of an ATF responsibility. But I have a passion 

for this across the board, and I will ensure that we continue to do 

what Director Mueller has done, look at those seriously in the context of this complex gang case stuff. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I welcome that passion. I think it is tremendously important because, as you know, one of the arguments 

made against the improvement of these kinds of laws is that not 

enough prosecutions are undertaken under existing laws, and I 

strongly support stronger and more frequent prosecutions under 

existing laws, even as we move forward to improve those laws. And 

I take it that you would agree. 

Mr. COMEY. Yes. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Let me turn to an area that I think is 

very important. You have addressed it in part. I circulated a letter 

yesterday to my colleagues on the issue of NSA surveillance, and 

in particular the FISA Court. And I take your point and agree with 

it that any Assistant United States Attorney or United States Attorney or Department of Justice official who in effect failed to respect a district court judge in seeking a warrant where there was 

no reasonable suspicion or probable cause to do so would soon lose 

credibility and would undermine not only his or her credibility but 

also the office’s, and so would be rigorous, as you have been, and 

I think all of us are who have been Federal prosecutors in that ex 

parte process. 

But in the context of the Federal criminal procedure, there is ultimately a public proceeding when evidence is sought to be introduced in court, and there are challenges to admissibility and law 

is made in an adversarial process. 
45 

There is no such adversarial process in the FISA Court, and so 

I propose that there be some special advocate, in effect a defender 

of constitutional principles, to make sure that the other side is 

heard, if there is another side. I support declassifying and disclosing some of the opinions and rulings where possible, and so I 

have joined in supporting the measure that Senator Schumer and 

Senator Durbin mentioned. 

But put aside the disclosure and declassification issue. Isn’t there 

a role for the adversarial process in some form when law is made 

in the FISA Court, whether it is on the meaning of relevant or 

other kinds of key legal standards and criteria for the issuance of 

warrants or other kinds of means of surveillance, search, seizure, 

where constitutional protections of privacy and liberty are implicated. 

Mr. COMEY. My honest answer is I do not know, but I think it 

is a very good question. I have not thought about it well enough 

to give you a good answer. I would hope that the Department of 

Justice would take seriously that kind of suggestion and think it 

through in a way that I cannot sitting here. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, I welcome your receptiveness to 

thinking more seriously about some kind of adversarial process in 

the FISA Court so that, in effect, law is the result of litigation 

rather than simply fiat. And I know that that characterization may 

strike some as unfair, but I would hope to work with you and I 

hope you will work with me and other colleagues on trying to reform the FISA Court in that way. 

I also, by the way, think that you have raised a very important 

point that the American public does not fully understand the way 

the FISA Court works, has no inkling, in fact, in many ways of the 

way it works. And one of the aspects of the FISA Court unknown 

to a lot of people is that the Chief Justice acting alone appoints 

members of the Court. And I think strictly from an appearance 

standpoint, that could be regarded as raising questions about the 

accountability as well as the transparency of that procedure. There 

is no other court, specialized court, that operates in that way, and 

I understand that the FISA Court is different from the Court of 

Claims or other similar specialized courts where judges are appointed for a term of years with the advice and consent of the Senate. But I would invite your thinking about that issue as well. I 

recognize it may not be within your direct purview as the Director 

of the FBI, but I think in light of your experience as a Federal 

prosecutor and litigator, I would hope perhaps you would work 

with us on that issue as well. 

Mr. COMEY. Okay. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Finally, and maybe most important, I join 

you—I share with you a tremendous admiration and love for the 

FBI as an institution that has done great good for the country and 

has some of the most talented and dedicated public servants in 

America. And I wonder if you have given thought to how the FBI 

can continue to attract the very best talent, both women and men, 

to its ranks. 

Mr. COMEY. Some, Senator; enough to know that it is something 

I am keen to learn about, and not just because I have four beautiful, talented daughters sitting behind me, but I know that diver-
46 

sity in all institutions, public and private, is essential to excellence. 

Especially if you are going to enforce the myriad of laws the FBI 

has to enforce, you have got to look like America. And so I am keen 

to know—and I know this is a passion of Bob Mueller’s—how they 

are approaching that. As boring as it sounds for a chief executive, 

the two most important underlings I think are your head of H.R. 

and your head of technology. I am eager to learn how they are approaching recruitment, promoting, training people of all stripes. So 

from this vantage point, that is the best I can say, but I am sure 

you will hear more from me about it. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I hope to hear more from you about it, 

and I hope that you will let us know whenever we can support or 

help you in that effort, because it is, in my view, with all humility, 

one of the most important tasks and challenges that you will have 

as Director of the FBI. 

Thank you very much, and, again, my thanks to you and your 

family. And I am going to ask Senator Coons now to ask whatever 

questions he may have. 

Senator COONS. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal, and 

thank you, Mr. Comey. Thank you for your service to date to the 

people of the United States, and thank you for the task you are 

about to take on. I was moved by your comments earlier about 

Patrice, about the children you have raised together, and about the 

foster children you have cared for together, and I am grateful for 

your service. And I think the task you are about to take on as FBI 

Director is central to the security of the United States, to the enduring vitality of our constitutional liberties, and to the fate of our 

Nation. So this is a very important task, and I take this confirmation seriously as a result, and I appreciate how seriously you have 

taken it and the answers you have given so far. 

As many of my colleagues have noted previously, your record and 

prior service during the Bush administration gives you significant 

familiarity with and some responsibility for some very controversial 

decisions, in particular with regard to enhanced interrogation techniques. And in my view, in the last administration, legal opinions 

were improperly used to facilitate acts of what is now broadly understood to be torture. And I appreciate your answers previously in 

response to the Chairman and will rely on them in my support for 

your nomination. I think Americans will rely on you to defend their 

civil liberties in what are difficult times. 

Your prior involvement in also addressing the proper scope of 

surveillance authority is also deeply relevant once again, and here 

it is my hope you will be a force for openness and transparency as 

you have committed to this panel today. Particularly with regard 

to clarifying the legal rules of the road, as Senator Blumenthal was 

just saying, transparency and openness at this time in particular 

I think is essential to the role you will be undertaking. 

If I might then, could you comment on how you plan to address 

the current classification standards and whether you would consider loosening them? In response to Senator Durbin earlier, you 

said that transparency is a key value and that people would be better off if they knew more rather than less. How will you take an 

affirmative effort to ensure that classification is as minimal as is 

necessary? 
47 

Mr. COMEY. Thank you, Senator. First, as FBI Director, I would 

try to understand how are we approaching it at the FBI when the 

FBI is the classifying authority. I have a sense from my time in 

Government that there is a reflex to classify and to up the classification. But from this vantage point, I do not know how the Bureau is approaching that. And with respect to the broader questions, to the extent I am involved with those issues about FISA 

Court opinions or other opinions, I would simply be a voice, as I 

hope I was here, for the importance of the value of transparency, 

obviously balancing the other things I have to worry about. But in, 

for example, taking the FISA Court opinions, I think that is largely 

a question for the Director of National Intelligence, but I would be, 

I would hope, involved in discussions about that as the Director of 

the FBI. So I would bring with me that commitment to that value. 

Senator COONS. I think Director Mueller has laid out a long and 

important record on both of these issues, in particular on standing 

up against torture, and as well, standing for openness and transparency. And it is my hope you will continue in that tradition. 

You just mentioned, I think, to Senator Blumenthal that two of 

the most important folks you will be looking to are your head of 

H.R. and your head of technology. I am sure you are familiar with 

Director Mueller’s assessment that the FBI is somewhat behind the 

curve when it comes to countering cyber crime, and a piece of that 

is not having the personnel needed. And in a time of sequestration, 

that may be particularly difficult. 

How do you plan to ensure the FBI catches up, is current, and 

is fully participatory in what I think is one of our most important 

fronts against crime? 

Mr. COMEY. I agree very much that it is one of our most important fronts, and you spoke about being behind the curve, and it is 

a curve that is moving away from us at great speed. The first thing 

I intend to do is to understand what is going on now, what shortfalls there are. I come in with, I think, Bob Mueller’s sense that 

this is a vital area to be addressed, and to understand where we 

are falling short, and then to make appropriate tradeoffs if I cannot 

get the money and resources or to shout to the heavens that I need 

the money and resources. From this vantage point, I do not know, 

but it will be something I will focus on very early. 

Senator COONS. One of the things I am concerned about and that 

we spoke about earlier is the amount of both counterfeiting that is 

coming out of the People’s Republic of China—there was a report 

that Mark Turnage just put out suggesting 70 percent of counterfeit goods worldwide are of Chinese origin; 87 percent of seized 

goods in the United States are of Chinese origin. And there is a 

great deal of trade secret theft and of hacking, yet DOJ trade secret cases are relatively rare, between 10 and 20 a year over the 

last 5 years. 

I was wondering what you think U.S. law enforcement could do 

to be a better partner with companies that are facing either loss 

of intellectual property or that have become victims of industrial 

espionage or hacking in some way or have lost trade secrets. How 

could we be better partners between U.S. law enforcement and the 

private sector in this area? 
48 

Mr. COMEY. I think key to working together better is talking 

more. I think that coordination, which I know the Bureau has been 

pushing, to understand the threats—I just spent 8 years in the private sector, two different companies, that were keenly focused on 

this threat of someone stealing their intellectual property. I think 

it is vitally important that Government and the private sector 

speak together very, very closely because the information about the 

threat often lies in our wonderful balkanized private enterprise 

system, but it is in those little pockets at all those companies. And 

so to be able to address it, especially on a global basis, the Bureau 

needs to find out what is going on in each of those pockets of industry, and that requires conversation, a lot of conversation. 

Senator COONS. Last question. I was responsible for a county police agency, and so I am particularly passionate about State and 

local law enforcement. As the Co-Chair of the Senate Law Enforcement Caucus, I am trying to encourage closer working relationships between Federal, State, and local law enforcement. 

In your own experience as U.S. Attorney and other roles in the 

Department, you have had some real exposure to how it works well 

when it works well and how it breaks down when it does not. Tell 

me something about your plans as FBI Director to fully engage 

with State and local law enforcement, particularly with regard to 

emerging threats like cyber crime or IP theft, as well as terrorism 

and other threats to our national security. 

Mr. COMEY. I think most importantly I approach it with an understanding born of decades of experience that nobody can do it 

alone, that Federal, State, and local enforcers in a particular jurisdiction and across jurisdictions have to cooperate and work together. Especially true for the FBI, with so many things on its 

plate, it has to find the leverage to achieve its goals, and that leverage lies in the amazing people of State and local law enforcement. 

So I will understand better once I am in the job, if I am confirmed, but my long practice has been we have got to build those 

relationships. 

Senator COONS. Well, thank you. I appreciate your testimony 

today. I appreciate your willingness to serve. I note the visible relief on the faces of your family that this hearing is at last coming 

to an end. 

Senator Blumenthal, did you have the closing announcement to 

make, or should I? 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I am happy to close the hearing, and the 

record will remain open until Friday at noon. Seeing no other questions, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you very much. 

Mr. COMEY. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 12:43 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.] 
(49) 

A P P E N D I X 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
50 

QUESTIONNAIRE AND BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION OF JAMES B. COMEY, JR. 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR NON-JUDICIAL NOMINEES 

I. Name: State full name (include any former names used). 

James B. Corney, Jr. 

2. Position: State the position for which you have been nominated. 

Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation 

3. Address: List current office address. If city and state of residence differs from your 

place of employment, please list the city and state where you currently reside. 

Columbia University Law School 

435 West !16th St. 

New York, New York 10027 

Residence: Westport, Connecticut 

4. Birthplace: State date and place of birth. 

1960; Yonkers, New York 

5. Education: List in reverse chronological order each college, law school, or any other 

institution of higher education attended and indicate for each the dates of attendance, 

whether a degree was received, and the date each degree was received. 

University of Chicago Law School; October 1982- June 1985; J.D. 1985 

College of William and Mary; August 1978 - May 1982; B.S. 1982 

6. Emplovment Record: List in reverse chronological order all governmental agencies, 

business or professional corporations, companies, firms, or other enterprises, 

partnerships, institutions or organizations, non-profit or otherwise, with which you have 

been aftiliated as an oftlcer, director, partner, proprietor, or employee since graduation 

from college, whether or not you received payment for your services. Include the name 

and address of the employer and job title or description. 

Senior Research Scholar and Hertog Fellow on National Security Law (2/!3 to date) 

Columbia University Law School 

435 West !16th St. 

New York. New York 10027 
51 

Director (3/1 3 to date) 

llSBC Group plc 

London El4 5HQ, United Kingdom 

Member (9/12 to date) (unpaid) 

Defense Legal Policy Board 

United States Department of Defense (Pentagon) 

875 North Randolph Street 

Arlington. Virginia 22203 

General Counsel (9/1 0-1 /13) 

Bridgewater Associates, LP 

One Glendinning Place 

Westport, Connecticut 06880 

Board Member (3/08-3/12) (unpaid) 

Alumni Association 

One Alumni Drive 

P.O. Box 2100 

College of William and Mary 

Williamsburg, Virginia 23187 

University of Chicago Law School (all unpaid) 

I 1 1 1 E. 60111 Street 

Chicago, Illinois 6063 7 

Visiting Committee Member (est. 9/07-9/1 0) 

Business Advisory Council (2011 date) 

Public Service Advisory Council (20 13 date) 

Board Member and Chair (I 0/05-9/1 0) (unpaid) 

U.S. Chamber of Commerce 

National Chamber Litigation Center 

1615 H StreetNW 

Washington, DC 20062 

Senior Vice President and General Counsel (9/05-9/1 0) 

Lockheed Martin 

680 I Rockledge Drive 

Bethesda, Maryland 20817 

Deputy Attorney General ( 12/03-8/05) 

United States Department of Justice 

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20530 

Chair, President's Corporate Fraud Task Force (est. 2003-2005) 

Chair, Presidential Board on Safeguarding Americans' Civil Liberties (est. 2003-2005) 

2 
52 

United States Attorney ( 1102-12/03) 

Southern District of New York 

One St. Andrew's Plaza 

New York, NewYork 10007 

Managing Assistant United States Attorney (9/96-1 /02) 

United States Attorney's Office, Eastern District of Virginia 

600 East Y!ain Street 

Richmond, Virginia 23219 

Acting Chairman, Weed & Seed of Richmond, Inc. (1998-1/02) (non-profit) (unpaid) 

c/o United States Attorney's Office 

600 East Main Street 

Richmond, Virginia 23219 

Board Member 

The Healing Place. Inc. (2000-1 /02) (non-profit addressing homelessness) (unpaid) 

c/o The United Way 

200 East Broad Street 

Richmond, Virginia 23219 

Adjunct Professor ( 1994-1 /02) 

University of Richmond Law School 

28 Westhampton Way 

Richmond, Virginia 23173 

Associate & Partner (8/93-9/96) 

McGuireWoods, LLP 

90 I East Cary Street 

Richmond, Virginia 23219 

Deputy Special Counsel (6/95-7/95) 

U.S. Senate Special Committee to Investigate Whitewater 

and Related Matters 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

(Held position while an associate at McGuire Woods and the firm billed the U.S. Senate 

for my services.) 

Assistant United States Attorney (est. I 0/87-8/93) 

United States Attorney's Office, Southern District of New York 

One St. Andrew's Plaza 

New York, New York 10007 

3 
53 

Associate (est. 9/86-1 0/87) 

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP 

200 Park A venue 

New York, New York 10166 

Law Clerk (9/85-9/86) 

Hon. John M. Walker, Jr. 

United States Courthouse 

Foley Square 

New York, New York 10007 

Summer Associate (6/84-9/84) 

Cahill, Gordon & Reindel 

80 Pine Street 

New York, New York 10005 

Summer Associate (7/83-9/83) 

McCarter & English 

4 Gateway Center 

I 00 Mulberry Street 

Newark, New Jersey 071 02 

Law Clerk ( 6/82-8/82) 

Thomas H. Bruinooge, Esq. 

85 Orient Way 

Rutherford, New Jersey 07070 

7. Military Service and Draft Status: Identify any service in the U.S. Military. including 

dates of service, branch of service, rank or rate, serial number (if different from social 

security number) and type of discharge received, and whether you have registered for 

selective service. 

I have not served in the U.S. Military. I have registered for selective service. 

8. Honors and Awards: List any scholarships, fellowships, honorary degrees, academic or 

professional honors, honorary society memberships, military awards, and any other 

special recognition for outstanding service or achievement. 

2011 Carter 0. Lowance Fellowship, William and Mary Law School 

2008 Honorary Doctor of Laws, College of William and Mary 

1994 Director's Award for Superior Performance, Department of Justice 

1993 Henry L. Stimson Medal from New York City Bar Associate as outstanding 

Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District ofNew York 

4 
54 

1992 Director's A ward for Superior Perfmmance, Department of Justice 

1982 James Frederick Carr Cup for Character, Scholarship & Leadership, College of 

William and Mary 

9. Bar Associations: List all bar associations or legal or judicial-related committees, 

selection panels or conferences of which you are or have been a member, and give the 

titles and dates of any offices which you have held in such groups. 

Virginia State Bar Professionalism Faculty (2000-l/02) 

Virginia Bar Association Task Force on Professionalism (1998-1/02) 

Virginia Bar Association- Special Committee on Issues of National and State 

Importance (2000-1/02) 

Association of General Counsel, Member ( 10/05-9/1 0) 

I 0. Bar and Court Admission: 

a. List the date(s) you were admitted to the bar of any state and any lapses in 

membership. Please explain the reason for any lapse in membership. 

New York (I 986) 

Virginia (1994) 

Connecticut Authorized In-house Counsel (20 11-13) 

There have been no lapses in membership. 

b. List all courts in which you have been admitted to practice, including dates of 

admission and any lapses in membership. Please explain the reason for any lapse 

in membership. Give the same information for administrative bodies that require 

special admission to practice. 

U.S. District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York (1987) 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ( 1987) 

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (1993) 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (1996) 

United States Supreme Court (2004) 

There have been no lapses in membership. 

5 
55 

I I. Memberships: 

a. List all professional, business. fraternal, scholarly, civic, charitable, or other 

organizations, other than those listed in response to Questions 9 or I 0 to which 

you belong. or to which you have belonged, since graduation from law school. 

Provide dates of membership or participation, and indicate any office you held. 

Include clubs, working groups. advisory or editorial boards, panels, committees. 

conferences. or publications. 

Colonies Wilde Lake Association, Richmond, Virginia (1993-5/02) 

Colonies Swim & Tennis, Richmond, Virginia ( 1993-5/02) 

Board member, The Healing Place, Inc., Richmond, Virginia (2000-1/02) 

Acting Chairman, Weed & Seed of Richmond, Inc., Richmond, 

Virginia ( 1998-1 /02) 

Sultana Ridge Pool, Yorktown Heights, New York (2002-04) 

PTA, Richmond, Virginia ( 1993-200 I); Somers, New York (2002-03 ); McLean, 

Virginia (2004-1 0) 

Somers High School Booster Club, Somers, Connecticut (2002-03) 

Highlands Swim Club, McLean, Virginia (2004-08) 

Chesterbrook Swim Club, McLean, Virginia (2008-1 0) 

Morrow United Methodist Church, Maplewood. New Jersey ( 1988-93) 

Reveille United Methodist Church, Richmond. Virginia (1993-2002) 

Yorktown Heights United Methodist Church, Yorktown Heights, New York 

(2002-04) 

Mt. Olivet United Methodist Church, Arlington, Virginia (2004-07) 

Metropolitan United Methodist Church, Washington, DC (2007-l 0) 

Southport Congregational Church, Southport, Connecticut (201 0-present) 

TPC Potomac at Avenel Farm Golf Club, Potomac, Maryland (2008-present) 

Westport Weston YMCA, Weston, Connecticut (2010-present) 

6 
56 

Aspctuck Valley Country Club, Weston, Connecticut (2011-present) 

I have made financial contributions to charitable organizations over the years. 

have not included in the list above any organizations to which I gave funds and 

did not otherwise participate in organization activities, although the organization 

may label me as a member by virtue of my financial contributions. 

b. Indicate whether any of these organizations listed in response to II a above 

currently discriminate or fonnerly discriminated on the basis ofracc, sex, religion 

or national origin either through formal membership requirements or the practical 

implementation of membership policies. If so, describe any action you have taken 

to change these policies and practices. 

None to my knowledge. 

12. Published Writings and Public Statements: 

a. List the titles. publishers, and dates of books, articles, reports, letters to the editor, 

editorial pieces. or other published material you have written or edited, including 

material published only on the Internet. Supply four (4) copies of all published 

material to the Committee. 

1 have done my best to identify all titles. publishers and dates of books, articles, 

reports, letters to the editor, editorials or other published material, including 

through a review of my personal files and searches of publicly available electronic 

databases. Despite my searches, there may be other materials I have been unable 

to identity. find or remember. I have located the following: 

James B. Corney, Letter to the Editor, "Leave Emotion out of the Abortion Debate.'' The New 

York Times, May 2, 1982. 

James B. Corney, ·'Wide-eyed Visitor to Africa Discovers Blessings of America," The Wall 

Street Journal, September 12. 1983 opinion/editorial page. 

James B. Corney, Letter to the Editor, ''High Hurdle to Boosting New York Wine," The New 

York Times, April 7, 1984 (responding to criticism of New York Times editorial opposing 

proposal to permit New York supermarkets to sell only New York wines). 

James B. Corney, Letter to the Editor, ·'How Far Should Society Butt in on Smokers," The Wall 

Street Journal, May 18, 1984 (responding to editorial about cigarette smokers' rights). 

Deputy Attomey General James B. Corney. Letter to the Editor, "In Defense of Civil Liberties,'' 

The New York Times, September 27.2004 (responding to criticism of Civil Liberties board). 

7 
57 

Deputy Attorney General James B. Comcy, Letter to the Editor. "Rc: Politics and the Patriot 

Act," The New York Times, April28, 2004 (responding to editorial about delayed notification 

search). 

·'Intelligence Under The Law." 10 GREEN BAG 2D 439 (2007) (Deputy AG speech at NSA 

Law Day, May 2005). 

''Holder's Reasonable Decision," The Washington Post, opinion/editorial page (November 20. 

2009) (with Jack Goldsmith). 

"The Role of General Counsel in a Crisis,'' book chapter in "Defending Corporations and 

Individuals in Government Investigations'' (West 2011 ). 

b. Supply four (4) copies of any reports. memoranda or policy statements you 

prepared or contributed in the preparation of on behalf of any bar association. 

committee, conference, or organization of which you were or are a member. If 

you do not have a copy of a report, memorandum or policy statement, give the 

name and address of the organization that issued it, the date of the document. and 

a summary of its subject matter. 

None. 

c. Supply four ( 4) copies of any testimony, official statements or other 

communications relating, in whole or in part, to matters of public policy or legal 

interpretation, that you have issued or provided or that others presented on your 

behalf to public bodies or public officials. 

I have done my best to identify any testimony, official statements or other communications 

relating to public policy or legal interpretation, including through a review of my personal files 

and searches on publicly available electronic databases. Despite my searches, there may be other 

items I have been unable to identify, find or remember. I have located the following: 

June 19. 2002, testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Crime and 

Drugs concerning "Penalties fix White Collar Criminal Offenses." 

November 14,2002, testimony before the United States Sentencing Commission Ad Hoc 

Advisory Group on Organizational Sentencing Guidelines. 

October 29, 2003, testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Confirmation hearing on 

the Nomination of James B. Comey to be Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice. 

March 24. 2004, testimony before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, 

Justice, State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies, hearing on the FY 2005 Budget. 

April 14, 2004, testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on ''Preventing and 

Responding to Acts of Terrorism: A Review of Current Law.'' 

8 
58 

September 22, 2004, testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on ··A Review of 

Counter-Terrorism Legislation and Proposals." 

June 8, 2005, testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on the Reauthorization of the 

PATRIOT ACT. 

June 16, 2005, Advisory Committee on Federal Rules, remarks on Proposal to Amend Rule 16, 

Boston, MA. 

July 20, 2005, testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on "Reporters' Privilege 

Legislation: Issues and Implications ofS. 340 and H.R. 581. the Free Flow oflnfonnation Act 

of2005.'' 

May 3, 2007, testimony before the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Commercial 

and Administrative Law hearing on ·'The Continuing Investigation into the U.S. Attorney 

Controversy." 

May 15,2007, testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on ''Preserving 

Prosecutorial Independence: Is the Department of Justice Politicizing the Hiring and Firing of 

U.S. Attorneys: Part IV.'' 

June 14, 2007, testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence closed 

hearing on ·'NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program and the FISA system." 

June 27, 2007, testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee closed hearing on Terrorist 

Surveillance Program and FISA. 

June 8, 20 ll, Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on "The President's Request to Extend the 

Service of Director Robert Mueller of the FBI until 2013." 

d. Supply four (4) copies, transcripts or recordings of all speeches or talks delivered 

by you, including commencement speeches, remarks, lectures, panel discussions, 

conferences, political speeches, and question-and-answer sessions. Include the 

date and place where they were delivered, and readily available press reports 

about the speech or talk. If you do not have a copy of the speech or a transcript or 

recording of your remarks, give the name and address of the group before whom 

the speech was given, the date of the speech, and a summary of its subject matter. 

If you did not speak from a prepared text, furnish a copy of any outline or notes 

from which you spoke. 

I have done my best to identify transcripts or recordings of all speeches or talks delivered, 

including through a review of personal files and searches of publicly available electronic 

databases. Despite my searches, there may be other material I have been unable to identify, find 

or remember. The records of my speeches that I have located are set forth below. 

9 
59 

In addition, during my service in the United States Attorney's Office for the Southem District of 

New York and as the Deputy Attorney General. I gave essentially the same or very similar 

speeches on some topics on multiple occasions. They arc described below to the best of my 

ability, but I cannot reconstruct the specific dates and other details of each such speech. I have 

supplied documents relevant to these speeches whenever possible. 

From 1997-02, I gave a number of speeches about Project Exile and the importance of 

prosecuting gun possession crimes (notes only or no notes). 

April 1998, keynote address about importance of reducing demand for drugs, Metro Richmond 

Coalition Against Drugs. Richmond, VA (notes only). 

From 1/02 to 8/05, I gave many talks within and outside the Department of Justice about wbite 

collar crime, gun crime (including the Violent Crime Impact initiative I led as Deputy Attomey 

General), terrorism. the PATRIOT ACT, and/or the work of federal prosecutors (usually without 

notes or from notes only). 

September 25. 2002. Corporate Fraud Conference, Washington, D.C. (notes only). 

June 15, 2003, Connecticut Bar Association Panel on Counterterrorism/Civil Rights (notes only). 

June 17, 2003, Law Library of Congress, ''The Holmes Debates" (notes only). 

August 29, 2003, Convocation Address, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA. 

December 1 l, 2003, DEA 30'h Anniversary Commemoration. Alexandria, VA. 

January 29, 2004, "Trends in White Collar Criminal Enforcement," Federalist Society Luncheon. 

Washington, D.C. (notes only). 

February 5. 2004, ·'Mitigating the Impact of Intellectual Property Theft and Counterfeiting," 

United States Chamber of Commerce Strategic Leadership Forum. 

February 20, 2004, Installation as Deputy Attorney General, Great Hall, Department of Justice. 

Washington. D.C. 

March 16, 2004, Judicial Conference of the United States on issues of concern to judiciary, 

Supreme Court Building, Washington. D.C. 

March 22,2004, ''The Meaning of Valor,'' Medal of Valor Awards ceremony, Great Hall, 

Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 

March 29, 2004, "Fighting Terrorism and Preserving Civil Liberties," Fox Lecture, New York 

Crime Commission, New York, New York. 

10 
60 

March 30. 2004. U.S. Marshals Director"s Awards. Alexandria. VA. 

April 23, 2004, DEA Graduation Ceremony. Quantico, Virginia (notes only). 

May 5, 2004, Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation Annual Conference, Washington. 

D.C. 

May 5, 2004, National Network of Youth Ministries National Mentoring Recruitment Campaign, 

Washington, D.C. 

May I 0, 2004, Portland Community Forum on Counter-Terror Challenges (notes only). 

May I 3, 2004. American Bar Association, Institute on Health Care Fraud, New Orleans. 

Louisiana. 

May 19. 2004. Fighting Terrorism and Preserving Civil Liberties,'' American Law Institute, 

Washington. D.C. 

June 2004, Richmond Police Department Graduation, Richmond, VA. 

June I. 2004, Deputy Attorney General Corney Remarks Regarding Jose Padilla. 

June 14, 2004, "Trends in White Collar Criminal Enforcement.'' American Corporate Counsel 

Association. Alexandria, Virginia (copies not located). 

June 16, 2004, National Project Safe Neighborhoods Conference, Kansas City, Missouri (notes 

only). 

July 20, 2004, OCEDTF National Leadership Conference, Washington, D.C. (first page of text 

unavailable). 

July 21, 2004 ·'The State of the Department," 9th Circuit Judicial Conference, Monterrey, 

Califoria (notes only). 

August 30, 2004. Crimestoppers International conference, Cincinnati, Ohio (notes only). 

September 17, 2004. Federal Prison Industries 70th anniversary conference, Washington, D.C. 

September 30. 2004. PA TR!OT Act, Americas Conference. Miami, Florida. 

October 1, 2004, ·'The Meaning of Valor,'' Medal of Valor Awards ceremony, Richmond. 

Virginia. 

October 18, 2004, "Lessons Learned from Recent Corporate Debacles," National Association of 

Corporate Directors,'' Washington, D.C. (notes only). 

11 
61 

October 20, 2004. Intellectual Property Student Summit. Great Hall, Department of Justice. 

Washington, D.C. 

October 22,2004, ''The Meaning of Valor." Law Enforcement Awards Ceremony, Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania. 

October 22, 2004, Pittsburgh Community Forum on Counter-Terror Challenges (notes only; 

please see notes from May 10,2004 Portland Community Forum). 

November 9, 2004. ''Why Project Safe Neighborhoods Matters," American Prosecutors Research 

Institute Conference, Alexandria. Virginia. 

November 17, 2004, "Lessons Learned From Recent Corporate Debacles.'' CNBC Conference, 

Washington, D.C. (please see notes from 10/18/04 speech). 

December 6, 2004. Conference on Partnering to Prevent Truancy, Washington, D.C. 

February II, 2005, ''Fighting Terrorism and Preserving Civil Liberties,'' Virginia Bar Criminal 

Law Section, Williamsburg, Virginia (please see notes from March 23,2005 and Aprill5, 

2005). 

March 7, 2005, Symposium on Victims of Federal Crime, Atlanta, Georgia (notes only). 

March 23, 2005, ''Fighting Terrorism and Preserving Civil Liberties," Duke Law School, 

Durham, North Carolina (notes only). 

April 15, 2005, ·'Fighting Terrorism and Preserving Civil Liberties,'' Emroch Lecture. University 

of Richmond Law SchooL Richmond, Virginia. 

April 15, 2005, ·'Lessons Learned From Recent Corporate Debacles," Leadership Metro 

Richmond, Richmond, Virginia (notes only). 

May 6, 2005, International Fugitive Conference, Toronto, Canada (notes only). 

May 16. 2005. National Law Enforcement Memorial Remembrance, Washington, D.C. 

May 20, 2005, ''Intelligence Under the Law," NSA Law Day, Ft. Meade, Maryland. 

May 23, 2005, "Relationship with the Judiciary,'' 7'11 Circuit Judicial Conference, Washington, 

D.C. (notes only). 

May 24, 2005, National Gathering of Tribal Justice Officials, Washington, D.C. 

May 26,2005. Iraq Regime Crimes Liaison Office Awards Ceremony, Department of Justice, 

Washington, D.C. (copies not located). 

12 
62 

July II, 2005, ''Do the Write Thing" awards ceremony, Washington, D.C. (notes only). 

July 12, 2005, National Sentencing Policy Institute, Washington. D.C. (notes only). 

July 27, 2005, National Advocacy Center First AUSA conference (by video) (notes only). 

August 15. 2005, Farewell Remarks, Great Hall. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 

May 17,2006, Commencement Address, Cleveland State Law School, Cleveland, Ohio. 

June 25. 2006, Khobar Towers Remembrance, Arlington National Cemetery. 

July 19,2006. "'Becoming a Star," Summer Associate Class. Kirkland & Ellis, Washington. D.C. 

(notes only). 

August 2006, ·'Lessons of the Enron Era," Directors' Roundtable, Washington, D.C. 

October 20, 2006.lnduction of Charles Rosenberg as U.S. Attorney for Eastern District of 

Virginia. U.S. Courthouse, Alexandria. Virginia (notes only). 

May 20. 2007, ''Lesson of the Enron Era," Commencement Address at William Mitchell School 

of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota (notes only). 

June 14.2007, Defense Industry Initiative on Business Ethics and Conduct, J.W. Marriott Hotel, 

Washington D.C. (copies not located). 

October 10, 2007, Brookings Institution Conference on Prosecutorial Misconduct (notes only). 

November 15, 2007. "Can We Talk? Seeking Common Ground in Fighting Terrorism," ABA 

Standing Committee on National Security, Washington, D.C. 

December 4, 2007, ''Meaning of A USA/Meaning of Life,'' EDVA District Conference, 

Alexandria, Virginia. 

February 9. 2008, Charter Day, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg. VA. 

February 21,2008, ''Lessons from the Enron Era,'' University ofNorth Carolina Law School, 

Chapel Hill, NC (please see notes from August 2006 and October 2, 2009). 

March 4, 2008, ''Integrity, Public Trust, and Prosecution," Vera Institute Justice Address, 

Harvard Club, New York, New York. 

March 14, 2008. ''Lessons from the Enron Era," Barristers Conference, Maui, Hawaii. 

April 16, 2008, Green Award Luncheon. University of Richmond Law School, Richmond. 

Virginia. 

13 
63 

June 3, 2008, "Integrity and Prosecution," UJA Criminal Justice Committee, Harmonie Club, 

New York, New York. 

September 10,2008, Practicing Law Institute, New York. New York (notes only). 

September I 5, 2008, District of Oregon U.S. Attomey Conference, Bend, Oregon (notes only). 

September 16, 2008, "Seeking Common Ground on National Security,'' Seattle University Law 

School. Seattle, Washington (notes only) 

October 2, 2008, Mandel Legal Aid Clinic, University of Chicago Law School, Chicago, Illinois. 

October 28, 2008, ''To be an AUSA,'' National Advocacy Center, Columbia, South Carolina 

(notes only) 

February 23, 2009, "Why Public Service.'' Public Service Forum, Dickenson College. Carlisle. 

Pennsylvania. 

March 31, 2009, ''Can We Talk? Seeking Common Ground in Fighting Terrorism,'' Hubert H. 

Humphrey Institute of Public AtTairs. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 

May 8, 2009, NYU Center on Administration of Criminal Law, New York, New York (notes 

only) 

June 4. 2009, Chief Legal Officer Forum, New York, New York (notes only) 

August 28, 2009, Convocation Address, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia. 

September 10,2009, ''Leading as a GC,'' General Counsel Roundtable, Arlington, Virginia. 

September 25, 2009, George Wythe Lecture, William and Mary Law School. Williamsburg, 

Virginia. 

October 2, 2009, "Lessons from the Enron Era,'' District Conference, Northern District of 

Mississippi, Oxford, Mississippi (notes only). 

October 15, 2009, Richmond Crimcstoppers 25'11 Anniversary, Richmond, Virginia. 

March 23, 2010, All-U.S. Attomey Conference, Tempe, Arizona (notes only). 

April 14, 2010, ''Making a Profit," Board of Contract Appeals Judges Association, Alexandria, 

Virginia. 

May 6, 2010, "Can We Talk? Seeking Common Ground in Fighting Terrorism," National 

Security Law Committee of the D.C. Bar Association, Washington, D.C. 

14 
64 

March 14, 2011. William and Mary Law School Lowance Fellowship Lunch. 

November 13. 2011, DNIInspector General staff (notes only). 

March 9, 2012, dinner remarks about charity and character to Friendly Sons of St. Patrick. 

Westchester Dinner, Tarrytown, New York. 

April 12, 2013, Columbia Law's Center for Constitutional Governance Conference on "The Next 

Four Years: Major Issues In Constitutional Governance'' 

April 17, 2013, "How to be a Star." Columbia Law Students (notes only). 

May 21,2013. ·'Institutional Culture and Leadership," Conference of Inspectors General. Patent 

and Trademark Office Conference Center, Alexandria, Virginia (notes only). 

e. List all interviews you have given to newspapers, magazines or other 

publications. or radio or television stations. providing the dates of these 

interviews and four (4) copies of the clips or transcripts of these interviews where 

they are available to you. 

l have done my best to identify all interviews given, including through a review of personal files 

and searches of publicly available electronic databases. Despite my searches. there may be other 

materials I have been unable to identify, find or remember. I have located the following: 

Date News Source Title 

1. 08/08/05 Washington Post "Lockheed Puts Faith In 

Tough Lawyer; Compliance Is 

Focus Of New Legal Chief· 

2. 04/27/05 Bl!(falo News (New York) "Rigases Called ·crooks' 

Who Corrupted Firm; Head of 

Fraud Squad Said Rigas Case 

Had 'Everything You See In 

Corporate Crime'" 

3. 03/03/05 Las Vegas Review Journal ''Authorities Tout Success of 

(Nevada) Anti-Crime Initiative" 

4. 10/02/04 Richmond Times Dispatch "Federal Officials See 

(VA) Progress ln Fighting 

Richmond Gangs" 

5. 07/21104 ; CNBC News Transcripts "James Corney Discusses 

Corporate Fraud Cases" 

6. 07/12/04 AP "Corporate Crackdown 

Reaches High Point" 

7. 06/27/04 CBS News Transcripts ·'Dr. Sam Waksal: Bad business 

decisions that have put the 

former lmCione CEO in prison 

15 
65 

8. 06/02/04 

9. 06/02/04 

10. 06/01/04 

II. 04/06/04 

12. 04/06/04 

13. 09/15/03 

14. 06/30/03 

15. 06/30/03 

16. 06/16/03 

17. 06/13/03 

18. 06/05/03 

I CNN.com 

I 

1 The Washington Post 

CNN Live Event/5"pecial 

AP State & Local Wire 

Los Angeles Times 

Today 

Virginia Lawyers Weekly 

New York Observer 

The Evening Standard 

(London) 

Chicago Tribune 

for seven years" 

"'U.S.: Suspected 'dirty bomb' 

plot included plan to blow up 

apartments·· 

"'U.S. Details Case Against 

Terror Suspect" 

·'Justice Department Briefing on 

Jose Padilla Justice Department 

Briefing on Jose Padilla·· 

"'Even adversaries have good 

things to say about new deputy 

attornev venera!'" 

"'New deputy attorney general 

has admirers among friends. 

foes" 

"'Taking Center Stage: 

Prosecutor James Corney 

Moves to the Forefront in 

Wall Street Cases 

··us Attorney James Corney 

Talks About Prosecuting 

Martha Stewart and Other 

White Collar Crimes"' 

"'Corporate Scandals Keep 

U.S. Attorney James B. 

Comey Busy'' 

"'Meet Martha's Prosecutor"" 

·'America's Celebrity 

Prosecutors: Chasing the 

White Collar Crooks Puts Top 

Lawyers on the Glory Trail"" 

··steward Indicted for Stock 

Fraud. Quits as CEO"' 

f-1-9-. __ 0_6_1_0-51_0_3------+-N-e_>_v_r;_o_rk-,--D_a_i.,..l;-· J\-Te_M_•_s _______ ~;Martha hit, the Quits, Pleads 

20. 03105103 

21. 01/30/03 

22. 12/29/02 

News day 

, The Journal News 

, New York Dailv News 

16 

Guilty and Steps Down from 

Jobs 

"James Corney, U.S. Attorney 

from Southern District of New 

York, and Some High Profile 

Corporate Crime Cases He is 

Investigating'" 

··u.s. Attorney Tackles White 

Collar Crime'' 

"At War with TeiTor: U.S. 
66 

Attorney James Corney's 

Mission•· 

23. 12/26/02 The Journal News .. U.S. Attorney Shares 

Spotlight" 

24. 12/21/02 lv"ew York Times .. Empathy Shapes a 

I Prosecutor, a Past Victim of 

Violence and Greed'' 

25. 11/26/02 The Osgood File (CBS} ·'Federal Authorities Break 

Identity Theft Rin!L_ 

26. 09/14/02 The Economist ··out to Catch the Bio Fish'' 

27. 08/06/02 Business Center (CNBC} ·•James Corney. U.S. Attorney 

for the Southern District of 

I New York, Discusses 

Corporate Fraud Lawsuits and 

Penalties•· 

28. 08/04/02 New York Post .. Wall Street Prosecutor 

Bullish on His New Job'' 

29. 11/25/01 Cleveland Plain Dealer .. Richmond, Va., Persuades 

Bad Guys to Drop Their 

Guns 

30. 02/04/01 I Richmond Times Dispatch ·'Pardon of Rich Stunned 

Prosecutor; Corney was Once 

Assigned to Case'' 

31. 09/28/00 The Baltimore Sun ''Md. Crimes Effort Debated. 

City Should Follow 'Exile' 

Rpogram in Va., Ehrlich Says. 

Battaglia Defends 'Disarm·•· 

32. 04/12/00 Christian Science Monitor "A Gun Control Plan that 

Even the NRA Can Love'' 

33. 04/01100 Calgary Herald .. Free Ride Out of State; Gun 

Means Exile'' 

34. 01/20/00 Los Angeles Times .. Making A Federal Case Out 

of Guns .. 

35. 10/10/99 : Morning Call ''Feds Help Easton Fight 

Crime" 

36. 10/12/99 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel ''ln Virginia, A Tough Stance 

on Gun Crime Appears to Hit : the Target" 

37. 09/11/99 Washington Post .. Federal-Local Gun Control 

Venture Stymied by Success'' 

38. 09/05/99 The Houston Chronicle "'Tougher Firearms Laws Put 

I Convicted Felon Under Gun" 

39. 07/05/99 : Richmond Times Dispatch ''Morrissey is Jailed on 

17 
67 

40. 

41. 

42. 

43. 

Contempt Charge" 

06/10/99 USA Today ''Virginia No Longer Gun 

Emporium of the East'" 

05/14/99 Richmond Times Dispatch "'Young Gets Two Years .. 

04/12/98 Richmond Times Dispatch "Some Taking Shots at Project 

Exile" 

02/22/97 Richmond Times Dispatch ·'Project Targets Drugs, 

Violence; City lJ.S. Team Up I for Stiffer Sentences" I 

13. Public Office, Political Activities aud Affiliatious: 

a. List chronologically any public offices you have held. other than judicial offices. 

including the terms of service and whether such positions were elected or 

appointed. If appointed, please include the name of the individual who appointed 

you. Also. state chronologically any unsuccessful candidacies you have had for 

elective office or unsuccessful nominations for appointed office. 

lJnited States Attorney, Southern District of New York; appointed by President 

George W. Bush (1/02 to 12/03) 

Deputy Attorney General of the United States; appointed by President George W. 

Bush (12/03-8/05) 

b. List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered, whether 

compensated or not, to any political party or election committee. If you have ever 

held a position or played a role in a political campaign, identify the particulars of 

the campaign. including the candidate, dates of the campaign, your title and 

responsibilities. 

None. 

14. Legal Career: Answer each part separately. 

a. Describe chronologically your law practice and legal experience after graduation 

from law school including: 

i. whether you served as clerk to a judge, and if so, the name of the judge, 

the court and the dates of the period you were a clerk; 

Law Clerk. lion. John M. Walker, Jr., Southern District ofNew 

York (1985-86) 

ii. whether you practiced alone, and if so, the addresses and dates; 

I have not practiced alone. 

18 
68 

iii. the dates, names and addresses of law firms or offices, companies or 

governmental agencies with which you have been affiliated, and the nature 

of your affiliation with each. 

Senior Research Scholar and Hertog Fellow on National Security Law 

(2/13 to date) 

Columbia University Law School 

435 West !16th St. 

New York, New York 10027 

Director (3/13 to date) 

HSBC Group pic 

London E14 5HQ. United Kingdom 

Member (9/12 to date) (unpaid) 

Defense Legal Policy Board 

United States Department of Defense (Pentagon) 

875 North Randolph Street 

Arlington, Virginia 22203 

General Counsel (9/1 0-1 1!3) 

Bridgewater Associates, LP 

One Glendinning Place 

Westport, Connecticut 06880 

Board Member and Chair (I 0/05-9/1 0) (unpaid) 

U.S. Chamber of Commerce 

National Chamber Litigation Center 

161511 StreetNW 

Washington, DC 20062 

Senior Vice President and General Counsel (9/05-9/l 0) 

Lockheed Martin 

6801 Rockledge Drive 

Bethesda. Maryland 20817 

Deputy Attorney General (12/03-8/05) 

United States Department of Justice 

950 Pennsylvania Avenue. NW 

Washington, DC 20530 

Chair, President's Corporate Fraud Task Force (est. 2003-2005) 

Chair, Presidential Board on Safeguarding Americans' Civil Liberties (est. 

2003-2005) 

United States Attorney (I /02-12/03) 

19 
69 

Southern District of New York 

One St. Andrew's Plaza 

New York, NewYork 10007 

Managing Assistant United States Attorney (9/96-1/02) 

United States Attorney's Office, Eastern District of Virginia 

600 East Main Street 

Richmond, Virginia 23219 

Acting Chairman, Weed & Seed of Richmond, Inc. (1998-1/02) (nonprofit) (unpaid) 

c/o United States Attorney's Office 

600 East Main Street 

Richmond, Virginia 23219 

Adjunct Professor (1994-1 /02) 

University of Richmond Law School 

28 Westhampton Way 

Richmond, Virginia 23173 

Associate & Partner (8/93-9/96) 

McGuire Woods, LLP 

90 I East Cary Street 

Richmond, Virginia 23219 

Deputy Special Counsel (6/95-7 /95) 

U.S. Senate Special Committee to Investigate Watergate 

and Related Matters 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 2051 0 

(Held position while an associate at McGuire Woods and the firm billed 

the U.S. Senate for my services.) 

Assistant United States Attorney (est. 1 0/87-8/93) 

United States Attorney's Office, Southern District ofNe\v York 

One St. Andrew's Plaza 

New York, New York 10007 

Associate (est. 9/86-1 0/87) 

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP 

200 Park A venue 

New York. New York 10166 

Law Clerk (9/85-9/86) 

Hon. John M. Walker, Jr. 

United States Courthouse 

20 
70 

Foley Square 

New York, New York 10007 

iv. whether you served as a mediator or arbitrator in alternative dispute 

resolution proceedings and. if so, a description of the 10 most significant 

matters with which you were involved in that capacity. 

I have not served as a mediator or arbitrator. 

b. Describe: 

i. the general character of your law practice and indicate by date when its 

character has changed over the years. 

I have spent much of my career as an attorney with the Department of 

Justice. first as an AUSA investigating and prosecuting a wide range of 

matters in New York and Virginia, then as the United States Attorney in 

Manhattan, and finally as the Deputy Attorney General. My time with the 

Department of Justice was preceded by a year as an associate at a big law 

firm focused on civil litigation and then broken up by a three-year stint 

with a large law finn in Richmond, where l did mostly civil trial work. 

Since leaving government service in 2005. I have been general counsel of 

a prominent public company and a well-known private investment 

manager. The focus in both those general counsel roles was on managing 

lawyers, both inside and outside the companies, supervising complex 

matters, and advising the senior leadership of the finn on a wide variety of 

matters. 

1986-87: commercial litigation 

1987-93: criminal prosecution 

1993-96: commercial litigation and criminal defense 

1996-200 l: criminal prosecution 

2001-05: supervising government lawyers/agents/employees 

2005-13: general counsel to companies 

2013: academic 

ii. your typical clients and the areas at each period of your legal career, if 

any, in which you have specialized. 

For much of my career, my client was the United States. Outside of 

government service, I have represented mostly institutions, both as outside 

counsel and as in-house general counsel. l also did a small amount of 

criminal defense work representing individuals during my time at a 

Richmond law firm. 

1986-87: large accounting firm, accountant's liability defense 

1987-93: federal criminal prosecution 

21 
71 

1993-96: manufacturing company, toxic tort defense: railroad, FELA 

defense; various corporate clients, internal investigations and 

representation during government investigations; criminal defense trial 

1996 to 200 I : federal criminal prosecution 

2001-05: United States government 

2005-13: the companies where I was employed 

c. Describe the percentage of your practice that has been in litigation and whether 

you appeared in court frequently. occasionally, or not at all. If the frequency of 

your appearances in court varied. describe such variance, providing dates. 

1986-200 I: all litigation, I 00% 

2002-13: supervising litigation as well as many other areas, est. 75% 

Court appearance frequency: 

1986-87: not at all 

1987-93: frequently as prosecutor 

1993-96: occasionally 

1996-2003: occasionally 

2003-05: once 

2005-13: not at all 

1. Indicate the percentage of your practice in: 

For the periods during which !litigated: 

I. federal courts: I 00% when with the government; 20% when in 

private practice); 

2. state courts of record: 0% when with the government; 80% when 

in private practice; 

3. other courts; 

4. administrative agencies. 

ii. Indicate the percentage of your practice in: 

For the periods during which !litigated: 

I. civil proceedings: 0% when with the government; 80% when in 

private practice; 

2. criminal proceedings: I 00% when with the government; 20% when 

in private practice. 

22 
72 

d. State the number of cases in courts of record, including cases before 

administrative law judges. you tried to verdict. judgment or final decision (rather 

than settled), indicating whether you were sole counsel, chief counsel, or associate 

counsel. 

25 (sole counsel in 18; chief counsel in 4; co-counsel in 3) 

1. What percentage of these trials were: 

I. Jury, 95%; and 

2. non-jury, 5%. 

e. Describe your practice, if any, before the Supreme Court of the United States. 

Supply four ( 4) copies of any briefs, amicus or otherwise, and. if applicable, any 

oral argument transcripts before the Supreme Court in connection with your 

practice. 

Represented the United States at Oral Argument in Devenpeck v. Alford, 

November 2004. 

Brief of Amici Curiae Kenneth B. Mehlman et al. as Amici Curiae Supporting 

Respondents. Hollingsworth v. Pen);, No. 12-144 (2012). Copies attached. 

15. Litigation: Describe the ten (I 0) most significant litigated matters which you personally 

handled, whether or not you were the attorney of record. Give the citations, if the cases 

were reported. and the docket number and date if unreported. Give a capsule summary of 

the substance of each case. Identify the party or parties whom you represented; describe 

in detail the nature of your participation in the litigation and the final disposition of the 

case. Also state as to each case: 

a. the date of representation; 

b. the name of the court and the name of the judge or judges before whom the case 

was litigated; and 

c. the individual name, addresses. and telephone numbers of co-counsel and of 

principal counsel for each of the other parties. 

(I) United States v. John Gambino, et al. , 88 CR 919 (Judge Leisure, Southern District of New 

York) (1991-93). Served as lead prosecutor in racketeering, murder, and drug trafficking case 

against members of La Cosa Nostra in New York. Case was tried during first six months of 

1993. Lead defendants John and Joe Gambino were convicted ofbailjumping, but jury hung on 

remaining charges. They and one other defendant (Mannino) then pled guilty before retrial and 

the fourth defendant (Romano) was convicted at a trial after I left the Southern District of New 

York for Richmond. 

Co-counsel: 

23 
73 

Patrick J. Fitzgerald (then Assistant U.S. Attorney in Southern District of New York) 

Skadden Arps 

155 N. Wacker Drive 

Chicago. Illinois 60606 

(312) 407-0700 

Defense counsel: 

George Santangelo (John Gambino) 

Suite 2100 

225 Broadway 

New York. New York 10007-3001 

(212) 26 7-4488 

Bruce Cutler (Joe Gambino) 

41 Madison Avenue 

New York, New York 10010 

(212) 233-61 00 

Charles Carnesi (Lorenzo Mannino) 

34 Daniel Rd N 

North Massapequa, New York 11758-1915 

(718) 855-6646 

Howard Leader (Matteo Romano) 

Ill Broadway 12th Fl 

New York. New York 10006-1901 

(212) 753-3794 

(2) United States v. Paul Tinnirello, eta!.. 90CR428 (Judge Cedarbaum, Southern District of 

New York) (1989-93). Served as sole prosecutor of racketeering, robbery, and theft case against 

group of robbers and fences operating out of Manhattan's 47th Street jewelry district. After two 

leaders pleaded guilty, seven defendants were tried during April and May 1991. Four were 

convicted. three acquitted. Affirmed, United States v. Tinnirello, 998 F.2d 53 (2d Cir. 1993). 

Defense counsel: 

Lawrence Y. Carra (Paul Tinnirello) 

114 Old Country Road 

Mineola, New York 11501 

(516) 742-1135 

Harriet B. Rosen (Lorenzo Gregory) 

240 W 23rd St 

New York. New York 10011-2305 

24 
74 

(212) 366-6166 

Alfred F. Brown (Frank Mucchiello) 

655 Mosswood Ave 

Orange. New Jersey 07050-3024 

(973) 643-8098 

Jacob R. Evseroff (Joseph Disomma) 

186 .lora lemon St 

Brooklyn. New York 11201-4326 

(718) 875-0903 

Anthony L. Ricco (Frank Tinnirello) 

361 Broadway 

New York, New York 

(212) 629-4995 

JoAnn Harris (Michael Pugliese) 

Scholar in Residence 

Pace University School of Law 

78 N. Broadway 

White Plains. New York I 0603 

(914) 422-4401 

Howard Mulholland (Charles Lachterman) 

83-74 Talbot Avenue.# IE 

Kew Gardens. New York 11415 

(Last known address) 

(3) United States v. Joel Walker Harris. 3:97CR141 (Judge Spencer. Eastern District of 

Virginia) (1996-98). Served as lead prosecutor in racketeering and fraud case against Richmond 

businessman, who was former political aide in Richmond, and his wife. Harris had his wife pose 

as wealthy heiress to obtain bank financing for their corporate schemes. Both pled guilty before 

trial. 

Co-counsel: 

Robert E. Trono (then Assistant U.S. Attorney, EDVA) 

Lockheed Martin Corporation 

6801 Rockledge Drive 

Bethesda, Maryland 20817 

(301) 897-6000 

Defense counsel: 

Craig Cooley 

25 
75 

3000 ldlewood Avenue 

Richmond, Virginia 23221 

(804) 358-2328 

Edward E. Scher 

316 W. Broad Street 

Richmond, Virginia 23219 

(804) 644-0711 

(4) United States v. Leonidas Young. 3:98CR302 (Judge Williams, Eastern District of Virginia) 

(1998-2000). Served as lead prosecutor in racketeering, fraud. and corruption case against 

Richmond's former mayor. Investigation and indictment exposed kickbacks to Mayor Young. as 

well as his efforts to obstruct our investigation. Case resolved by guilty plea to racketeering. 

fraud, and obstruction on eve of trial. 

Co-counsel: 

Robert E. Trono (then Assistant U.S. Attorney, EDVA) 

Lockheed Martin Corporation 

6801 Rockledge Drive 

Bethesda, Maryland 20817 

(301) 897-6000 

Defense counsel: 

Michael Morchower 

9 East Franklin Street 

Richmond, Virginia 23219 

(804) 643-0147 

(5) United States v. Thomas Wilkinson and Edward Conk, 3:95CR68-0I (Judge Merhige, 

Eastem District of Virginia) (1995-96). This was a federal criminal case in which I served as 

defense counsel for Thomas Wilkinson, a businessman accused of fraud and money laundering. 

Wilkinson and his partner, Edward Conk, were accused of bilking millions from an investor in 

their medical management companies. Case tried in federal court in Richmond for two weeks in 

December 1995. My client was convicted on all charges and went to federal prison. Affirmed. 

United States v. Wilkinson, 137 F.3d 214 (4th Cir. !998). 

Co-counsel: 

Richard Cullen (co-counsel for Wilkinson) 

McGuircWoods, LLP 

901 East Cary Street 

Richmond. Virginia 23219 

(804) 775-1000 

Dennis W. Dohnal (Conk) 

26 
76 

The McCammon Group 

6641 West Broad Street. Suite 400 

Richmond. Virginia 23230 

804-343-0922 

Prosecutor: 

Assistant U.S. Attorney David Maguire 

U.S. Attorney's Office 

600 East Main. Suite 1800 

Richmond. Virginia 23219 

(804) 819-5400 

(6) United States v. Anthony Dawkins, 88 CR 526 (Judge Edelstein, Southern District of New 

York) (1988-89). Served as sole prosecutor of conspiracy and interstate theft charges against 

leader of ring involved in theft of American Express travelers checks. Case involved Dawkins· s 

use of figures in the New York art world to travel abroad and falsely report large amounts of 

travelers checks stolen. Tried in April 1989 in U.S. District Court in Manhattan. Dawkins was 

convicted. 

Defense counsel: 

Howard Mulholland 

83-74 Talbot Avenue. #IE 

Kew Gardens, New York 11415 

(Last known address) 

(7) United States v. Herbert Smith and Joseph Peeples, 85 CR 434 (Judge Keenan, Southern 

District of New York) ( 1989-90). Served as sole prosecutor of arms export case based on the 

defendants' eff01i to export military helicopters to Iran. Case was tried in November 1989 in 

U.S. District Court in Manhattan and both defendants were convicted. Affirmed, United States 

v. Smith, 918 F .2d I 082 (2d Cir. 1990). 

Defense counsel: 

Michael Sporn (Smith) 

Suite 2199 

225 Broadway 

New York, New York 10013-2909 

(212) 791-1200 

Martin Fogelson (Peeples) 

South Tower 12th Floor 

4 70 Park Ave South 

New York, New York 10016-6819 

(212) 679-4262 

27 
77 

(8) United States v. Osumau Kwakye. 87 CR 962 (Judge Keenan. Southern District ofNcw 

York) ( 1988-89). Served as sole prosecutor of drug importation case stemming from 

investigation of West African heroin trade. Case involved cooperating witnesses and undercover 

taping. It was tried in 1989 in U.S. District Court in Manhattan and Kwakye was convicted. 

Defense counsel: 

Barry Weinstein 

888 Grand Concourse 

Bronx. New York 10451-2802 

(718) 665-9000 

(9) United States v. Khoroush Bakhtiari, 88 CR 395 (Judge Sand, Southern District of New 

York) ( 1988-90). Served as sole prosecutor of weapons and prison escape case against Iranian 

national. Bakhtiari was an aspiring terrorist who was arrested with a frightening array of 

weapons as he tried to rent a high-floor apartment near the United Nations. While in federal 

custody. he escaped by sliding down a rope made of dental floss from 7th floor of federal jail, 

but was apprehended. Case was tried in August 1989 in U.S. District Court in Manhattan and 

Bakhtiari was convicted. Affirmed in part, vacated in part (for resentencing), United States v. 

Bakhtiari, 913 F.2d 1053 (2d Cir. 1990). 

Defense counsel: 

John P. Curley 

Federal Defender Services 

52 Duane Street 

New York. New York 10007 

(212) 417-8700 

(1 0) United States v. Ramon Coates, 3:97CR73 (Judge Williams, Eastern District of Virginia) 

(1997-98). Served as sole prosecutor in 1997 of firearms case brought under Project Exile. 

Coates was a felon connected to a firearm by Richmond police. Case was fairly simple. but very 

significant because it was one of the early Exile cases and I tried it before a hostile federal judge 

in an effort to show management support for Project Exile. Coates was convicted after a jury 

trial. Affinned. United States v. Coates, 1998 WL 454793 (4th Cir. 1998) (unpublished). 

Defense counsel: 

JeRoyd Green 

2809 North Avenue 

Richmond, Virginia 23222 

(804) 321-1728 

16. Legal Activities: Describe the most significant legal activities you have pursued, 

including significant litigation which did not progress to trial or legal matters that did not 

28 
78 

involve litigation. Describe fully the nature of your participation in these activities. List 

any client(s) or organization(s) for whom you performed lobbying activities and describe 

the lobbying activities you perfonned on behalf of such client(s) or organizations(s). 

(Note: As to any facts requested in this question, please omit any information protected 

by the attorney-client privilege.) 

As an attorney, I have participated in a wide range of legal activities, from the trials listed 

above, to internal investigations, to counseling boards and senior executives, to 

overseeing mergers, acquisitions, and equity investments. I have been fortunate to touch 

nearly every area of the law in and out of government. As a government leader, I 

participated in analysis and decision-making on a host of subjects, from national security 

to criminal investigative and policy matters. My exposure to legal issues after my 

government service was similarly broad and also involved leading complex organizations 

and advising the senior leadership of enterprises. Describing matters in any detail from 

the periods in which I served as General Counsel would risk breaching my duty of 

confidentiality to my clients. I have not engaged in lobbying activities. 

17. Teaching: What courses have you taught? For each course, state the title, the institution 

at which you taught the course, the years in which you taught the course, and describe 

brielly the subject matter of the course and the major topics taught. If you have a 

syllabus of each course, provide four ( 4) copies to the committee. 

I taught trial practice for seven years (1995-200 l) at the University of Richmond Law 

School and appellate advocacy for about three of those years. Copies attached. 

18. Deferred Income/ Future Benefits: List the sources, amounts and dates of all 

anticipated receipts from deferred income arrangements, stock, options, uncompleted 

contracts and other future benefits which you expect to derive from previous business 

relationships, professional services, firm memberships, former employers, clients or 

customers. Describe the arrangements you have made to be compensated in the future 

for any financial or business interest. 

Upon reaching the age of 55, in December 2015, I expect to receive my lump-sum 

pension payment from Lockheed Martin in the amount of$400,000. 

I expect to receive from Bridgewater Associates, LP, $163,000 on June 30, 2013, and, if I 

am confirmed, I will also receive a full payout of my interests in its profit sharing plan, in 

the amount of $3,072,654, prior to the date that I assume the position of the Director of 

the FBI. 

19. Outside Commitments During Service: Do you have any plans, commitments, or 

agreements to pursue outside employment, with or without compensation, during your 

service? If so, explain. 

No. 

29 
79 

20. Sources of Income: List sources and amounts of all income received during the calendar 

year preceding your nomination and for the current calendar year. including all salaries. 

fees. dividends, interest, gifts, rents, royalties, licensing fees, honoraria, and other items 

exceeding $500 or more (if you prefer to do so. copies of the financial disclosure report, 

required by the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, may be substituted here). 

See attached SF 278. 

21. Statement of Net Worth: Please complete the attached financial net worth statement in 

detail (add schedules as called for). 

See attached Net Worth Statement. 

22. Potential Conflicts of Interest: 

a. Identify the family members or other persons, parties, affiliations, pending and 

categories of litigation, financial arrangements or other factors that are likely to 

present potential conflicts-of~ interest when you first assume the position to which 

you have been nominated. Explain how you would address any such conflict if it 

were to arise. 

In connection with the nomination process, I have consulted with the Office of 

Government Ethics and the Department of Justice's designated agency ethics official to 

identify potential conflicts of interest. Any potential conflicts of interest will be resolved 

in accordance with the terms of an ethics agreement that I have entered into with the 

Department's designated agency ethics official. I am not aware of any other potential 

conflicts of interest. 

b. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest, including the 

procedure you will follow in determining these areas of concern. 

In connection with the nomination process, I have consulted with the Office of 

Government Ethics and the Department of Justice's designated agency ethics official to 

identify potential conflicts of interest. Any potential contlicts of interest will be resolved 

in accordance with the terms of an ethics agreement that I have entered into with the 

Department's designated agency ethics official. I am not aware of any other potential 

conflicts of interest. 

23. Pro Bono Work: An ethical consideration under Canon 2 of the American Bar 

Association's Code of Professional Responsibility calls for ''every lawyer, regardless of 

professional prominence or professional workload, to find some time to participate in 

serving the disadvantaged." Describe what you have done to fulfill these responsibilities, 

listing specific instances and the amount of time devoted to each. If you are not an 

attorney, please use this oppotiunity to report significant charitable and volunteer work 

you may have done. 

30 
80 

I have tried to help the disadvantaged in many ways during my life, including using my 

skills as a lawyer. Much of my career was devoted to working long hours to protect the 

disadvantaged from the ravages of violent crime, work that is among the most meaningful 

I have ever done. I started with the legal aid clinic in law school, have done tutoring. 

mentoring, and pro bono projects, but I think it is fair to say the work I have tried to do 

for others in non-legal roles has been more extensive than any pro bono work I have 

done. For example, my wife and I arc licensed foster parents and care for infants and 

toddlers placed with us by the Connecticut Department of Children and Families. As part 

of that commitment, in late 201 L we took into our home a newborn boy born 

prematurely with cocaine in his blood stream and cared for him for six months until he 

could be placed with a foster/adoptive mother. Because of our interest in foster care, we 

donated money to create a charitable foundation devoted to supporting children who "age 

out" of foster care, but struggle to survive. In Richmond, I served on the Board of The 

Healing Place, a non-profit devoted to reducing drug addiction among the homeless 

population, and as Acting Chairman of Weed & Seed of Richmond Inc., a non-profit 

dedicated to reviving crime-ridden neighborhoods. In nearly all the communities in 

which we have lived, I have taught Sunday school and done volunteer work through our 

churches. 

31 
81 

FINANCIAL STATEMENT 

NET WORTH 

?rovide a complete, current financial net worth statement 

which itemizes in detail assets (including bani< accounts, 

real estate, securities, trusts, investments, and other 

financial holdings) all liabilities (including debts, mortgages, 

loans, and other financial obligations) of yourself, your 

sr..ouse and other i:cnmediate me-rr,bers of your household '" " .. 

ASSETS LIAB:i:LITIES 

j Cash on hand and in ba::ks 'otes peysb.le co baoks-seccrod 8 

• ~;hedule G 

ensece~ed 

~--~ 

:.iste;l secu schedsle ' Notes pajeb.le to relatives 0 

~~~~dole c 

' !'.ccouots sod notes " Accounts sod bllls due 

and Ur::paid Q 

erico:% 

othe~s 0 

• oteres t 

0 

sdci schc•dole 

Real OW:!Cd-add ar:d 0 

lien.s peyeble ,,, " ~:~:e c veble 

Autos ana ·e 

property 

Coed vu1 ue-li fe cossruuoe 

Other assets itemise\ 

Totai l ialnli s ies 

= < 

Ner. Worsh 

'l'otai ll 

wcrtlr 

cV,\ rssoo CIF\BlLLT:CS GS"ERAL ""'' 0\'\KHV\\ 

~.~arontot or 0 Arc 

scheaole} 

On 0 any ~w 

or leqal actlocs'' 

32 
82 

33 
83 

Symbol 

SWGXX 

DB LEX 

PELBX 

ITW 

XOM 

JNJ 

cvx 

PEP 

D 

WTR 

NSRGY 

BRKB 

NSC 

CYB 

vz 

TOT 

AGN 

PTTRX 

INTC 

TGP 

EPD 

EMR 

CMP 

KMP 

PG 

WAB 

UNP 

CME 

KO 

GAS 

MSFT 

BTE 

MUR 

BHP 

QCOM 

HRL 

Schedule of Listed Securities 

James and Patrice Comey- Holdings as of 6/17/2013 Market Value 

Joint Account and James Comey IRA -combined 

Sorted by Highest Value to Lowest 

Current 

Description Value 

Schwab Government Money Fund 561,352 

Doublcline Emerging Mkt Bond Fund 150,885 

Pimco Emerging Mkt Bond Fund 148,733 

Illinois Tool Works 145,016 

Exxon Mobil Corporation 143,214 

Johnson & Johnson 126,801 

Chevron Corp. 126,585 

Pepsico 124,661 

Dominion Resources 118,058 

Aqua America 116,453 

Nestle SA Reg B ADR 114,954 

Berkshire Hathaway Cl B 114,920 

Norfolk Southern Corp 110,425 

Wisdomtree Chinese Yuan 104.280 

Verizon Communications 103.606 

TotalS A Adr 101.940 

Allergan Inc 101,576 

Pimco Total Return Fund 98,616 

Intel Corp 91.920 

Teekay Lng Partners MLP 91.504 

Enterprise Prd Partners MLP 90,814 

Emerson Electric 89,142 

Compass Minerals Inti 88,200 

Kinder Morgan Energy Partners MLP 86,576 

Proctor & Gamble Co 83,841 

Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies 83,266 

Union Pacific Corp 80,020 

CMEGroup Inc Cl A 76,949 

Coca Cola Company 76.939 

AGL Resources 74,670 

Microsoft 72,594 

Baytex Energy Corp 67,536 

Murphy Oil 64,262 

Bhp Billiton Ltd Adr 63,270 

Qualcomm 62.303 

Harmel Foods Corp 61,805 

34 
84 

POT Potash Corp Sask Inc 60,840 

CLB Core Labs 59,912 

T AT&T 58,015 

AAPL Apple Inc 57.093 

DE Deere & Co 55.444 

CAT Caterpillar Inc. 54.868 

RIO Rio Tinto Pic Spon Adr 54.324 

KR Kroger Company 53,271 

WDFC WD-40 Company 52,926 

GLD Spdr Gold TRUST- ETF 50,164 

PPL PPL Corporation 46,306 

so Southern Company 45,509 

DD+A DuPont E I $3.50 Preferred 44,335 

MOS The Mosaic Company 43.845 

csx CSX Corp 37,705 

704549A Peabody Energy Ind. Bond 33,900 

915217U University Ya Muni Bond 28.415 

428236B Hewlett Packard Ind. Bond 24,757 

MT Arcelor Mittal 24,260 

02076XA Alpha Natural Res Ind. Bond 21,625 

SLY I shares Silver Trust- ETF 21,100 

61747WA Morgan Stanley Ind. Bond 20,250 

.JOE St .Joe Company 21,000 

529772A LEXMARK INTL INC NOTE- Ind. Bond 20,587 

DEM Wisdomtree Emerging Mkts- ETF 20,572 

055299A Bbva US Senior Ind. Bond 20,184 

165167C Chesapeake Energy - Ind. Bond 20,050 

852634F Stamford Conn - Muni Bond 19,761 

941383N Waterford Conn- Muni Bond 17.661 

237266A Darling Intl Inc- Ind. Bond 16,688 

19416QD Colgate Palmoliv- Ind. Bond 14,908 

716495A Petrohawk Energ- Ind. Bond 14,298 

CG Carlyle Group LP 13,340 

570535A Markel - Ind. Bond 12,214 

093851S Bloomfield Conn- Muni Bond 10,022 

013817A Alcoa- Ind. Bond 9,567 

177474A Citrus Cnty Fla- Muni Bond 5.059 

--------------- 5,204,904 

35 
85 

Schedule of Real Estate Owned 

Real Estate Owned 

Personal Residence in Westport. Connecticut 

36 

Current Approximate Value 

3.000,000 
86 

AFF'l mw:::T 

I' 

that 

of my knowledge, true and accurate. 

4 

do swear 

s statement s, to the best 
87 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN PATRICK J. LEAHY

Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) 

Chairman, Senate ,Judiciary Committee 

On the Nomination of James B. Corney, Jr. To Be 

Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation 

.July 9, 2013 

Today the Judiciary Committee considers the nomination of James Corney, Jr., to be the seventh 

Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The current Director, Robert Mueller, started 

just a week before the terrorist attacks of September II th. Since then, our world has changed 

dramatically, and we have often debated how best to ensure our national security while 

protecting the freedom, liberty, and privacy rights that define us as a great Nation. That debate is 

alive today and this confirmation hearing provides us another opportunity to evaluate existing 

policy and to correct our course. Few positions have as much impact on our liberty and national 

security as the Director of the FBI. As the body that considers the President's nominee, the 

Senate has an important role in this debate, and that process begins here in the Judiciary 

Committee. 

I welcome Mr. Corney and his family here today. He has had an outstanding career in law 

enforcement, serving as Deputy Attorney General and as the U.S. Attorney for the Southern 

District ofNew York under President George W. Bush. Mr. Comey has also worked in the 

private sector with Lockheed Martin, Bridgewater Associates, and at the law firm of 

McGuire Woods. 

When Mr. Comey appeared before this Committee in 2007, he described a dramatic hospital 

bedside confrontation with senior White House officials who were trying to get an ailing John 

Ashcroft to reauthorize an NSA surveillance program a program that the Justice Department 

had concluded was illegal. As Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Comey showed courage and 

independence by standing finn against this attempt to circumvent the rule oflaw. I hope he will 

continue to demonstrate the same strength of character if he is confirmed as Director. 

Since the terrorist attacks of September ll 1

h, the FBI has dramatically increased its national 

security and counterterrorism efforts; a transition that has not been without problems. From 

National Security Letters to the latest revelations about the use of PATRIOT Act surveillance 

authorities, I remain concerned that we have not yet struck the right balance between the 

intelligence-gathering needs of the FBI, and the privacy rights of Americans. We all agree that 

the FBI must have the tools necessary to help keep us safe from terrorism, but we must also 

agree that this should not come at the expense of our constitutional rights. 

In recent weeks, Americans have become aware of the expansive scope of surveillance 

authorities granted to the FBI by the PATRIOT Act and other laws. We have heard 

administration ofticials defend these programs by saying that they are critical to identifying and 

connecting the so-called "dots." But there will always be more ''dots" to collect, analyze, and try 

to connect, and when the Govemment is collecting data on millions of innocent Americans on a 

daily basis, when is enough, enough? Just because we have the ability to collect huge amounts 

of data doesn't mean that we should be doing so. 
88 

Last month. I introduced the FISA Accountability and Privacy Protection Act to ensure that there 

are proper limits on the Govemment's surveillance activities, along with strong privacy 

protections and oversight. As the head of our premier law enforcement agency. the FBI Director 

bears a special responsibility for ensuring that domestic government surveillance does not unduly 

infringe upon our freedoms. I have long said that protecting our national security and protecting 

Americans· fundamental rights are not mutually exclusive. We can and must do both and !look 

forward to Mr. Corney's testimony about how best to achieve both goals. 

I also have concems about the Justice Department's treatment ofjournalists. As the son of 

Vermont printers, the First Amendment is in my blood. The burden falls to the Federal 

Government to ensure that freedom of speech and of the press is being protected. I am very 

concerned by allegations regarding the broad collection of the Associated Press's phone records. 

If confinned. Mr. Corney will also be tasked with balancing the Government's law enforcement 

interests with First Amendment rights. 

I am concerned that during Mr. Corney's tenure as Deputy Attorney General, he approved a legal 

memo that authorized the use of waterboarding and other techniques long recognized as torture 

under both domestic and intemationallaw. I have conducted oversight on this issue for years out 

of my belief that these memos led to the treatment of detainees that was contrary to our laws and 

our values, and this frankly made us less safe. It is critical that whoever takes over as Director of 

the FBI has a keen sense of history and an understanding that we must never repeat those 

mistakes. They have left a permanent stain on this great Nation. 

If we learned nothing else from those years following the September lith attacks, we learned that 

it matters who leads our Nation at all levels of Government. We need strong, ethical leaders 

who will steadfastly adhere to the rule of law. 

The next Director must face the challenge of how to sustain the FBI's increased focus on 

counterterrorism while upholding the FBI's commitment to its historic law enforcement 

functions. !look forward to hearing from Mr. Corney on what he believes are the most 

important priorities for the FBI over the next decade. As Director Mueller noted on the I ooth 

anniversary of the FBI, the rule of law, civil liberties, and civil rights are not burdens for the FBI; 

they arc what have made the FBI better for more than a century. !look forward to hearing from 

Mr. Corney as to how hopes to lead the FBI in these challenging times. 

##### 

2 
89 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO JAMES B. COMEY, JR., 

BY SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN
90 

o If so, do you also believe it is Constitutional to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens 

apprehended on U.S. soil in military detention wit/tout charge or trial? 

o lfyou believe it is Constitutional to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens 

apprehended on U.S. soil, are you basing that on the President's Article II 

powers or are you saying the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force 

(AUMF) provides that authority? 

Ongoing Need for Congress to Receive OLC Opinions 

After some unnecessary resistance, earlier this year the Intelligence Committee and the 

Judiciary Committee were finally able to access all of the OLC opinions related to the 

targeted killing of Americans outside the United States and outside areas of active 

hostilities, such as Afghanistan. 

In the area of surveillance, one of the documents allegedly leaked by Edward Snowden 

indicates that a 2004 OLC opinion on the legality of aNSA surveillance program was not 

shared with even the General Counsel of the NSA because it was considered contldential 

legal advice to President Bush. 

• Does it seem appropriate to you for anyone in the Executive Branch to with/told 

an OLC opinion on a specific NSA program from the NSA 'stop lawyer? 

• Do you believe that the congressional committees of jurisdiction should have 

access to the legal analysis underpinning the classified operations they oversee? 

Did OLC Reach the Legal Result its Client Wanted? 

Several of the OLC opinions on the CIA's interrogation techniques stressed that their 

legality was a close call, yet this was the same detennination even when the legal 

standard changed. Some OLC memos analyzed whether the CIA's techniques were 

"torture." Others analyzed whether the techniques were "cruel, inhuman, or degrading." 

Yet, each time the OLC detennined that the CIA techniques were "legal." 

• If tlte OLC is supposed to be the gold standard for candid, independent, and 

principled advice-even when that advice is inconsistent with tlte aims of 

policymakers-how do you account for what happened at tlte OLC during the 

Bush Administration? 

2 
91 

Surveillance Issues 

There has been an intense focus on some of the NSA surveillance programs recently. 

Regarding the Phone Call Records Metadata program, we've been told recently that the 

program helped disrupt 12 of the 13 U.S. homeland terrorist events since 2007 that have 

been analyzed by NSA. Assuming that other counterterrorism tools may have 

contributed to all or some of these 12 terrorist events as well, what would you say about 

the effectiveness of the Phone Call Records Metadata program? 

3 
92 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO JAMES B. COMEY, JR., 

BY SENATOR AL FRANKEN
93 

press conference, you stated you believe it is (1) lawful and (2) good policy for the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation to transfer citizens to military custody and deny them access to 

counsel if the government believes they are "enemy combatants.'' However, you have also 

recognized that federal courts are effective at trying suspected terrorists. You published an 

op-ed in 2009 applauding Attorney General Holder's decision to try Kbalid Sheik 

Mohammed in federal court, and Jose Padilla was ultimately convicted in a civilian triaL We 

have a proud tradition in this country of a strong court system that is effective at trying the 

most heinous criminals, and we know that ensuring all sides have access to counsel 

strengthens our justice system, rather than weakens it. 

Can you elaborate on your statements regarding when you believe it is appropriate to transfer 

a suspect from FBI detention to military detention, and when you believe it is acceptable to 

deny a suspect access to their lawyer? 

Can you please identify who you believe has the authority to make the unilateral 

determination that a suspect should be transferred to military custody or held without access 

to a lavvycr, and what statute provides that authority? 
94 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO JAMES B. COMEY, JR., 

BY RANKING MEMBER CHUCK GRASSLEY
95 

2. During your hearing before the Committee, we discussed my concerns about the FBI's 

poor record involving whistleblowers. As I stated, one of my concerns is that 

whistle blowers involved with national security matters are treated differently than those 

in other areas of the government. During the hearing. you stated that you were not well 

versed enough in the law that causes this disparate treatment among whistleblowers. 

a. Have you had an opportunity to adequately review the applicable law and 

regulations? 

b. If so, do you believe whistleblowers who know of problems with matters of 

national security should be treated differently? 

3. Outgoing Director Mueller stated in his recent testimony before this Committee that the 

FBI was using drones for surveillance and the FBI was in the process of developing 

guidelines and policies for drone usc by the FBI. When evaluating the use of drones by 

the government, do you think the 4th Amendment provides sufficient privacy protections 

to American citizens or do you think we need to pass laws to provide greater privacy 

protection? Please explain. 

4. As you mentioned in your testimony, the FBI must address the ever growing cyber threat 

to both our government and private industry. Outgoing Director Mueller has stated that 

the FBI must ''develop channels for sharing information and intelligence quickly and 

effectively." While I applaud the fact the FBI has taken a more proactive role in working 

with the private sector, there are still gaps that need to be filled. 

a. You spent several years as General Counsel for Lockheed Martin and 

Bridgewater Associates. In those roles, I suspect that dealt with issues arising 

from cyber threats that the government and private enterprise face as well as the 

barriers that make it difficult to minimize cyber attacks. In your experience, what 

barriers currently prevent a free t1ow of information sharing between the 

government and the private sector? 

b. What incentives could be provided to the private sector to encourage information 

sharing with the government and with other private businesses? 

e. Is legislation required to provide these incentives to the private sector? If so, 

please explain. 

5. The Presidential pardon of Marc Rich is a blemish on the record of both President 

Clinton and Attomey General Holder. In 2008 you \\Tote a personal letter of 

recommendation in support of Mr. Holder's confirmation. In that letter you specifically 

addressed your involvement with the Rich investigation. You condoned Mr. Holder's role 

in the pardon process. Do you still believe that the Rich pardon made Mr. Holder a 

''better steward of the Department of Justice?" Please explain. 
96 

6. The Director of the FBI is an extremely powerful individual. It is his or her responsibility 

to set the policies and procedures for the entire agency. Sometimes, Congress passes 

legislation that, as an individual, the Director may not agree with. The problem arises 

when that individual uses his or her position of power to reflect personal and not 

professional guidelines. Unfortunately, this seems to becoming a regular feature of this 

administration. 

Nonetheless, as Director of the FBI, it will be your job to enforce the laws as wTitten hy 

the legislative branch, regardless of your personal views. Please explain your 

commitment to enforce the laws and the Constitution, regardless of your personal 

position on a matter. 

7. Inter-Agency cooperation is a vital aspect of successful criminal investigations. Given the 

complex and interconnected world we live in, it is not un-common for the FBI to rely on 

the National Security Agency or the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms to help 

close a case. Unfortunately, many fcderallaw enforcement agencies have reported that 

the FBI "does not play well with others." In fact, recently I have read repotis 

documenting the infighting between the FBI and other agencies, including the New York 

Police Department. 

As the Director of the FBI, you will be responsible for managing both your agency and 

your agents when they interact with other members of the executive branch. While not 

the most glamorous aspect of the job, The Bureau's development of good inter-agency 

relationships can be the difference between closing a major case or not. 

Since the culture of an organization starts at the top. I'm concerned about what may be 

going on in management at the FBI. 

a. Given your role as the Deputy Attorney General, how did you handle inter-agency 

disputes? What methods did you use that were successful and what methods were 

not? How will you apply this experience to being FBI Director? 

b. Please explain your commitment to the FBI working with all appropriate federal 

partners in addressing issues such as national security. 

c. What are your plans to improve the FBI's working relationships with state and 

local law eniorcement agencies and how do you plan to relay that message to the 

line agents and supervisors? 

8. Fom1er FBI Director William Webster investigated the attack at Ft. Hood by Major Nidal 

Hasan. Major Hasan attacked the Ft. Hood deployment center on November 5, 2009, 

killing 12 U.S. soldiers, 1 employee of the Department of Defense, and injuring 42 

others. The commission report showed the FBI had information indicating Hasan was in 

contact with terrorists, but the Washington D.C. Field Office assessed that Hasan was not 

involved in terrorist activities. However, the San Diego Field Office disagreed. The 
97 

report found that neither office took steps beyond this to prevent something from 

happening. 

The Webster Commission made several recommendations, and I know that the FBI has 

implemented many changes to its procedures since November 2009. 

a. Are you familiar with the Webster Commission Report's recommendations? 

b. Do you agree with the recommendations of the Webster Commission? 

c. Will you continue to implement the recommendations, as the FBI has indicated 

they are doing? 

d. Do you have any suggestions with how to improve the FBI systems and 

procedures to ensure something like Ft. Hood does not happen again? 

9. With any appointed position, there is some concern that a nominee will succumb to 

improper partisan or special interest group influence. 

a. Please explain what procedures or safeguards you will continue or put in place to 

ensure the independence of the FBI from political and partisan influence. 

b. Please explain what procedures or safeguards you will continue or put in place to 

guaranty transparency within the FBI? 

c. Please explain what procedures or you continue or put in place to facilitate 

Congressional oversight of the FBI. 

10. In April, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey wrote an op-ed raising concerns 

about the FBI's reluctance to look for ties that radical jihadists may have overseas. Mr. 

Mukasey pointed out that since 9/11, the FBI has questioned tive terrorists before they 

committed their attacks. However, the FBI was unable to prevent the attacks. 

In contrast, a Washington Post editorial in the same time period pointed out that ·'the FBI 

has devoted considerable resources to sting operations against people it judges to be 

terror suspects, sometimes on what look like dubious grounds." The editorial concluded: 

"[l]t's not clear that a sometimes far-fetched plot would have gone forward without the 

encouragement and help of FBI informants.'' 

a. Do you think the FBI needs to rethink how it deals with information about radical 

Jihadists in the United States? Please explain. 

b. Please explain your views on whether or not the FBI should attempt sting 

operations on people such as the five terrorists mentioned in Attorney General 

Mukasey's article? 
98 

11. A recent Wall Street Journal editorial criticized you for supporting the FBI's pursuit of 

Dr. Stephen Hatfill in the anthrax case. One book about the anthrax investigation states 

that former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz recalls speaking with you about 

the investigation prior to a meeting in the White House Situation Room. According to 

the book, Wolfowitz recalled that you were "absolutely certain that it was Hatfill." 

Woltowitz said you cited the evidence provided by bloodhounds in the case. 

a. Is this account accurate? 

b. Do you believe the FBI handled the anthrax investigation properly? 

c. What lessons do you think the FBI should learn from the anthrax case? 
99 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO JAMES B. COMEY, JR., 

BY SENATOR AMY KLOBUCHAR
100 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO JAMES B. COMEY, JR., 

BY SENATOR SHELDON WHITEHOUSE
101 

Political Intelference with Prosecutions 

On Aprill5, 2002, Attorney General Ashcroft issued a memorandum to the heads of Justice 

Department components and the United States Attorneys. This memorandum established 

Department policy regarding communications between the Department and the White House. 

Because of an exception in this policy, its practical effect was to permit, by the Committee's 

count, 417 individuals within the White House to speak with 42 individuals at the Department of 

Justice about criminal investigations. 

On May 4, 2006, Attomey General Gonzales issued a memorandum that affinned the Ashcroft 

memorandum and further expanded the exception so that, by the Committee's count, 895 

individuals at the White House were pennitted to speak with 42 individuals at the Department of 

Justice about criminal investigations and prosecutions. 

It is my opinion that these policies created an environment in which undue political interference 

with the administration of justice could flourish, and were one cause of the scandal relating to the 

firing of United States Attomeys. 

The Ashcroft memorandum was in effect during your tenure as the Deputy Attorney General. In 

light of this fact please: (a) describe your awareness of this policy and of any inappropriate 

consequences during your time as the Deputy Attorney General; (b) explain your views about 

political interference in criminal investigations by the White House. elected officials, or other 

political actors; and (c) provide assurance that you will protect the FBI and the Justice 

Department from political interference by the White House if you are confirmed. 

2 
102 

RESPONSES OF JAMES B. COMEY, JR., TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN
103 

Role in the Indefinite Detention of U.S. Citizen Jose Padilla 

2. As US Attorney for the Southern District of New York you supported, and later as Deputy 

Attorney General publicly defended, the military detention without charge or trial for several 

years of Jose Padilla. a U.S. citizen apprehended on U.S. soil on suspicion of involvement in 

terrorism plots. 

a. Is it your current belief that it is Constitutional to indefinitely detain persons 

apprehended on U.S. soil in military detention without charge or trial? 

b. If so, do you also belie••e it is Constitutional to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens 

apprehended on U.S. soil in military detention without charge or trial? 

c. If you believe it is Constitutional to indefinite{p detain U.S. citizens apprehended on 

U.S. soil, are you basing that on the President's Article II powers or are you saying the 

20(Jl Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) provides that authori(p? 

RESPONSE: It is my view that, as long as the armed conflict with al Qaeda and its associated 

forces is ongoing, it would be constitutional to detain persons, including U.S. citizens, 

apprehended on U.S. soil in connection with that conflict. Those persons would have the right to 

challenge their detention in habeas corpus actions. This detention authority, in my view, stems 

from the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, which I believe permits detention until 

cessation of hostilities. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit concluded that 

Padilla's detention was lawful. I understand that the President has stated that. as a malter of 

policy, his Administration will not hold U.S. citizens in indefinite military detention without 

trial, and if I am confirmed as FBI Director, the FBI would act consistent with that policy. 

Ongoing Need for Congress to Receive OLC Opinions 

3. After some unnecessary resistance, earlier this year the Intelligence Committee and the Judiciary 

Committee were finally able to access all of the OLC opinions related to the targeted killing of 

Americans outside the United States and outside areas of active hostilities, such as Afghanistan. 

In the area of surveillance, one of the documents allegedly leaked by Edward Snowden indicates 

that a 2004 OLC opinion on the legality of aNSA surveillance program was not shared with 

even the General Counsel of the NSA because it was considered confidential legal advice to 

President Bush. 

a. Does it seem appropriate to you for anyone in the Executive Branch to withhold an 

OLC opinion on a specific NSA program (rom the NSA 'stop lawyer? 

RESPONSE: I am not in a position to comment specifically, except I understand that the 

President has the authority to seek advice from OLC about any matter and I would be reluctant to 

opine on whether he has an obligation to share that advice with anyone else. 

2 
104 

b. Do you believe that the congressional committees ojjurisdiction should have access to 

the legal analysis underpinning the classified operations they oversee? 

RESPONSE: I believe that congressional oversight is important and essential to good 

government. If con finned as FBI Director, l will do my best to ensure cooperation with 

legitimate and appropriate oversight requests from relevant committees. I believe it is important 

for oversight committees to receive infonnation about the legal bases for classified operations 

they oversee, but the best method to accomplish that may depend upon a variety of facts and 

circumstances. 

Did OLC Reach the Legal Result its Client Wanted? 

4. Several of the OLC opinions on the CIA's interrogation techniques stressed that their legality 

was a close call, yet this was the same detennination even when the legal standard changed. 

Some OLC memos analyzed whether the CIA's techniques were ''torture." Others analyzed 

whether the techniques were "crueL inhuman, or degrading.'' Yet. each time the OLC 

detennined that the CIA techniques were ''legal." 

If the OLC is supposed to be the gold standard for candid, independent, and principled 

advice-even when that advice is inconsistent with the aims of policymakers-how do you 

account for what happened at the OLC during the Bush Administration? 

RESPONSE: Although I reviewed three of the opinions to which you refer, I was not involved 

in the research, analysis, or actual drafting of those opinions. I do not feel that I am in a position 

to explain the drafters' thought processes or to otherwise comment on OLC opinion practices 

during the Bush Administration. 

Surveillance Issues 

5. There has been an intense focus on some of the NSA surveillance programs recently. Regarding 

the Phone Call Records Metadata program, we've been told recently that the program helped 

disrupt 12 of the 13 U.S. homeland terrorist events since 2007 that have been analyzed by NSA. 

Assuming that other counterterrorism tools may have contributed to all or some of these 12 

terrorist events as well, what would you say about the effectiveness of the Phone Call Records 

liietadata program? 

RESPONSE: I am not familiar with that specitic program other than what I have learned from 

public sources. However, as I understand it, the program is congressionally authorized and court 

approved, with oversight by all three branches of government. We need to use all of the tools 

that are legally available and appropriate to connect the dots and counter the threats to our 

national security. 

3 
105 

RESPONSES OF JAMES B. COMEY, JR., TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR SHELDON WHITEHOUSE
106 

statements until specific cases were referred by IRS to the Justice Department. This is in spite of 

the fact that 18 U.S.C. § 1001 false statement cases are, as Acting Assistant Attomey General for 

the Criminal Division Mythili Raman described them, .. bread-and-butter'" cases that investigators 

and prosecutors handle on a regular basis. Meanwhile. as a number of witnesses and experts 

have stated, the IRS is ill-equipped to investigate these cases. Neither the Justice Department 

nor the IRS was able to provide examples of any referrals having been made. 

a. Do you believe that where "open and notorious" violations of materia/false statement 

statutes are alleged, the FBI should step in to investigate regardless of action or 

inaction by the IRS? 

b. Would you, if confirmed, act to ensure that the FBI exercises its authority to 

investigate potential violations of criminal statutes pertaining to material false 

statements regarding political activity on IRS forms? 

RESPONSE: I am committed to the fair, impartial, and responsible enforcement of the law. To 

that end. I believe that law enforcement should investigate credible evidence indicating 

violations of criminal statutes and follow the facts wherever they lead. While I am not in a 

position to determine what investigative decisions I might make if confirmed as Director, I 

recognize that material false statements that violate 18 U.S.C. § I 001 may warrant appropriate 

law enforcement action. 

Political Interference with Prosecutions 

3. On April 15, 2002. Attorney General Ashcroft issued a memorandum to the heads of Justice 

Department components and the United States Attorneys. This memorandum established 

Department policy regarding communications between the Department and the White House. 

Because of an exception in this policy. its practical effect was to permit, by the Committee's 

count, 417 individuals within the White ]-louse to speak with 42 individuals at the Department of 

Justice about criminal investigations. 

On May 4, 2006, Attorney General Gonzales issued a memorandum that affirmed the Ashcroft 

memorandum and further expanded the exception so that, by the Committee's count, 895 

individuals at the White House were permitted to speak with 42 individuals at the Department of 

Justice about criminal investigations and prosecutions. 

It is my opinion that these policies created an environment in which undue political interference 

with the administration ofjustice could flourish, and were one cause of the scandal relating to the 

firing of United States Attorneys. 

The Ashcroft memorandum was in effect during your tenure as the Deputy Attorney General. 

In light ofthis.fact please: 

a. describe your awareness of this policy and of any inappropriate consequences during 

your time as the Depu(v Attorney General; 

5 
107 

b. explain your views about political inte~ference in criminal investigations by the White 

House, elected officials, or other political actors; and 

c. provide assurance that you will protect the FBI and the Justice Department from 

political interference by the White House if you are confirmed. 

RESPONSE: When I served as the Deputy Attorney General. I was aware of the policy to limit 

communications by representatives of the White House to appropriate policy level officials at the 

Department, and it was my understanding that such contacts were extremely limited. The policy 

served an important purpose of insulating line level employees from political influence and the 

perception of political interference. I do not recall any inappropriate contacts during my service 

as the Deputy Attorney General. Consistent with my testimony before the Committee, I believe 

that federal law enforcement efforts should be non-partisan and free of any political influence or 

interference. If I am confirmed as Director of the FBI. I will be committed to protecting law 

enforcement efforts by the Bureau and the Department from political interference from any 

source. 

6 
108 

RESPONSES OF JAMES B. COMEY, JR., TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR AMY KLOBUCHAR
109 

RESPONSE: Whistleblowers play an important role in discovering and preventing waste. 

fraud. and abuse in the government. I am not familiar with the particular rules that apply to 

whistle blowers who seek to disclose information that implicates national security information. 

All employees who witness waste, fraud, or abuse should be encouraged to report it to 

appropriate supervisors and, if they choose, to the Inspector General. lfl am confirmed. I will 

work to ensure that FBI employees do not face retaliation for making protected disclosures. l 

also have long believed that it is the duty of every supervisor to create a climate in which 

employees feel empowered to call out problems of all kinds and, if! am confirmed, l will bring 

that approach with me to the Bureau. 

8 
110 

RESPONSES OF JAMES B. COMEY, JR., TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR AL FRANKEN
111 

2. In response to one of my questions. you testified that you believe that sleep deprivation, as 

described in the Bradbury I Memorandum. is torture. Nonetheless, you concurred in the 

Bradbury I Memorandum. 

Please explain the discrepancy between the position you took during your confirmation 

hearing and the position you took when you concurred in Mr. Bradbury'.\' memorandum. In 

your response, please state whether you believe that sleep deprivation is (1) torture, (2) illegal, 

(3) immoral, and (4) ineffective as an intelligence-gathering technique. 

RESPONSE: Please sec my response to Question 1, above, regarding waterboarding. My 

response to that question also applies to sleep deprivation. 

3. The Bradbury I Memorandum said the following about cramped confinement: 

This technique involves placing the individual in a confined space, the 

dimensions of which restrict the individual's movement. The confined 

space is usually dark. The duration of confinement varies based upon the 

size of the container. For the larger confined space, the individual can 

stand up or sit down; the smaller space is large enough for the subject to 

sit down. Confinement in the larger space may last no more than 8 hours 

at a time for no more than 18 hours a day; for the smaller space, 

confinement may last no more than two hours. 

The Bradbury 1 Memorandum goes on to say that this technique is not torture because it does not 

involve any significant physical pain or suffering or any severe mental pain or suffering. 

Do you agree with that ana(vsis? If not, please explain the discrepancy between that position 

and the position you took when you concurred in the Bradbury I Memorandum. In your 

response, please state whether you believe that cramped confinement is (I) torture, (2) illegal, 

(3) immoral, and (4) ineffective as an intelligence-gathering technique. 

RESPONSE: Please see my response to Question 1, above, regarding waterboarding. My 

response to that question also applies to cramped confinement, although my primary focus in 

2005 was on waterboarding and sleep deprivation. 

4. Mr. Corney, in response to my question you stated that you believe it is lawful to detain an 

American citizen, captured on American soil, without access to a lawyer if that citizen is deemed 

to be a prisoner of war. Previously, when discussing Jose Padilla's case in a 2004 press 

conference, you stated you believe it is (1) lawful and (2) good policy for the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation to transfer citizens to military custody and deny them access to counsel if the 

government believes they arc ''enemy combatants." However, you have also recognized that 

federal courts are effective at trying suspected terrorists. You published an op-ed in 2009 

applauding Attorney General Holder's decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in federal court, 

and Jose Padilla was ultimately convicted in a civilian trial. We have a proud tradition in this 

country of a strong court system that is effective at trying the most heinous criminals. and we 

10 
112 

know that ensuring all sides have access to counsel strengthens our justice system, rather than 

weakens it. 

a. Can you elaborate on your statements regarding when you believe it is appropriate to 

transfer a suspect from FBI detention to military detention, and when you belie1•e it is 

acceptable to deny a suspect access to their lawyer? 

b. Can you please identifv who you belie1•e has the authority to make the unilateral 

determination that a suspect should be transferred to military custody or held without 

access to a lawyer, and wit at statute provides that authority? 

RESPONSE: As a former prosecutor, l agree that we have a strong and effective system of 

Article Ill courts. I also believe that it is important to retain our ability to use military tribunals 

and law of war detentions if deemed necessary to protect national security. 

I held the June 1, 2004, press conference because I believed that it was important then, 

and remains important now, for the American people to understand the President's decision to 

declare Mr. Padilla an enemy combatant, and for there to be an oppotiunity for public debate 

about these issues. When Mr. Padilla was arrested in May 2002, we believed that he posed a 

significant threat to national security, that he had undertaken a mission to kill Americans, and 

that he possessed important infonnation about others who sought to harm the American people. 

He was appointed an attorney and, through that attorney, moved to vacate the material witness 

warrant that had authorized his arrest. \Vith time running out in our ability to prevent Mr. 

Padilla's release, which we considered a serious threat to national security, the President ordered 

the Depmiment of Defense to take Mr. Padilla into custody as an enemy combatant. 

Ultimately, we learned from Mr. Padilla's own admissions that he was recruited, trained, 

and fi.mdcd by A! Qaeda. He met with senior AI Qacda operatives including Abu Zubaida and 

Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the master mind of the September !I, 2001 attacks. They had asked 

him to conduct an operation involving devastating natural gas explosions in apartment buildings 

in American cities, which had the potential to kill hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans, and, 

by his own admission, Mr. Padilla accepted that assignment. The U.S. Government arrested him 

when he returned to the United States, equipped by A! Qacda, for the purpose of carrying out 

that assignment. 

As l described in the press conference, had Mr. Padilla remained in the criminal justice 

system, on advice of his attorney, he would likely have refused to speak with us, and he would 

have been set free. Instead, the U.S. Government was able to gather intelligence from Mr. 

Padilla as an enemy combatant, with the understanding that we would not be able to usc that 

information against Mr. Padilla in an Article Ill court. Indeed, Mr. Padilla was ultimately 

charged and convicted in an Article Ill court of other offenses, including material support to 

terrorism, and sentenced to 17 years in prison. 

It is my understanding that the President has the power to determine whether an 

individual is an enemy combatant, subject to relevant legal constraints and appropriate judicial 

review. I would not have that authority if con finned as Director of the FBI. 

11 
113 

RESPONSES OF JAMES B. COMEY, JR., TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY RANKING MEMBER CHUCK GRASSLEY
114 

c. Do you believe the link between terrorist financing and the violent acts that the 

terrorists will be able to pursue with such funds is a sufficient nexus to justijj• federal 

law enforcement involvement? Please explain. 

RESPONSE: I believe that, as a general matter. the FBI has lead responsibility for investigating 

terrorism cases, including cases that may involve financing or other material support to terrorists. 

such as cases brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 2339A, 2339B and 2339C. I would expect that 

the FBI's involvement in a particular case would depend on the facts and circumstances. 

coordination with other law enforcement agencies. and judgments about the best allocation of 

FBI resources. 

2. During your hearing before the Committee, we discussed my concerns about the FBI's poor 

record involving whistleblowers. As I stated, one of my concerns is that whistleblowers 

involved with national security matters are treated differently than those in other areas of the 

government. During the hearing, you stated that you were not well versed enough in the law that 

causes this disparate treatment among whistleblowers. 

a. Have you had an opportunity to adequately review the applicable law and regulations? 

RESPONSE: No, but I will do so if confirmed. 

b. If so, do you believe whistleblowers who know of problems with matters of national 

securi(l' should be treated differently? 

RESPONSE: Please see my response to Question 2a. above. 

3. Outgoing Director Mueller stated in his recent testimony before this Committee that the FBI was 

using drones for surveillance and the FBI was in the process of developing guidelines and 

policies for drone usc by the FBI. 

When evaluating the use of drones by the government, do you think the 4th Amendment 

provides sufficient privacy protections to American citizens or do you think we need to pass 

laws to provide greater primcy protection? Please explain. 

RESPONSE: I am not yet familiar with the way in which the FBI uses Unmanned Aerial 

Systems (UAS) in its work. I recognize that it is important that the Bureau's use ofUASs 

complies with applicable law and, if confirmed. I will review the FBI's policies and practices 

regarding UASs to ensure such compliance. 

4. As you mentioned in your testimony, the FBI must address the ever growing cyber threat to both 

our government and private industry. Outgoing Director Mueller has stated that the FBI must 

"develop channels for sharing information and intelligence quickly and effectively.'' While I 

13 
115 

applaud the fact the FBI has taken a more proactive role in working with the private sector, there 

are still gaps that need to be tilled. 

a. You spent several years as General Counsel for Lockheed Martin and Bridgewater 

Associates. In those roles, I suspect that dealt with issues arising from cyber threats 

that the government and private enterprise face as well as the barriers that make it 

d(fjicult to minimize cyber attacks. In your experience, what barriers currently prevent 

a free flow of information sharing between the government and the private sector? 

RESPONSE: Although J cannot comment specifically about particular concerns of my former 

employers. J do know that industry groups are keenly interested in working with the government 

to thwart cyber attacks. but some have expressed concerns that information they share with the 

government not be disclosed publicly or be used for other government purposes outside of the 

cyber security purpose for which it was shared. In addition. some industry representatives have 

expressed concem about the risk of civil liability for sharing information with the government. 

These concerns should be addressed so as to ensure a coordinated public/private effort to protect 

our nation and its valuable intellectual property. 

b. What incentives could be provided to the private sector to encourage information 

sharing with the government and with other private businesses? 

RESPONSE: There are a variety of incentives that could be given to the private sector to 

encourage sharing. These may include assurances about the way the information is stored and 

processed. liability protections. and privacy protections. 

c. Is legislation required to provide these incentives to the pri1•ate sector? {f so, please 

explain. 

RESPONSE: Some of the possible incentives could be achieved without legislation but others 

may require legislative action. 

5. The Presidential pardon of Marc Rich is a blemish on the record of both President Clinton and 

Attorney General Holder. In 2008 you wrote a personal letter of recommendation in support of 

Mr. Holder's confirmation. In that letter you specifically addressed your involvement with the 

Rich investigation. You condoned Mr. Holder's role in the pardon process. 

Do you still believe that the Rich pardon made Mr. Holder u "better steward of the Department 

of Justice?" Please explain. 

RESPONSE: I spoke in my confirmation hearing about my belief in the importance of learning 

from one's mistakes, because some mistakes are inevitable. In my 2008 letter in support of thennominee Holder, I explained that I believed he is a man of integrity, committed to the rule of 

law, who made a serious mistake with respect to the pardon of Marc Rich. 

14 
116 

6. The Director of the FBI is an extremely powerful individual. It is his or her responsibility to set 

the policies and procedures for the entire agency. Sometimes, Congress passes legislation that. as 

an individual, the Director may not agree with. The problem arises when that individual uses his 

or her position of power to reflect personal and not professional guidelines. Unfortunately, this 

seems to becoming a regular feature of this administration. Nonetheless. as Director of the FBI, 

it will be your job to enforce the laws as written by the legislative branch. regardless of your 

personal views. 

Please explain your commitment to enforce tlte laws and the Constitution, regardless of your 

personal position on a matter. 

RESPONSE: If! am confirmed as Director of the FBI. I will faithfully discharge my 

responsibilities to enforce the laws and uphold the Constitution of the United States with vigor 

and to the best of my ability. 

7. Inter-Agency cooperation is a vital aspect of successful criminal investigations. Given the 

complex and interconnected world we live in, it is not un-common for the FBI to rely on the 

National Security Agency or the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms to help close a case. 

Unfortunately, many federal law enforcement agencies have reported that the FBI ''does not play 

well with others:· In fact. recently I have read reports documenting the infighting between the 

FBI and other agencies, including the New York Police Department. 

As the Director of the FBI, you will be responsible for managing both your agency and your 

agents when they interact with other members of the executive branch. While not the most 

glamorous aspect of the job, The Bureau's development of good inter-agency relationships can 

be the difference between closing a major case or not. 

Since the culture of an organization starts at the top, I'm concerned about what may be going on 

in management at the FBI. 

a. Given your role as the Deputy Attorney General, how did you handle inter-agency 

disputes? What methods did you use that were successful and what methods were not? 

/low will you app(v this experience to being FBI Director? 

RESPONSE: I agree that interagency cooperation is essential to successful criminal 

investigations. Even before my experience as Deputy Attorney General, I understood the 

importance of using the full interagency team in the criminal cases I worked on when I was a 

United States Attorney and an Assistant United States Attorney. Throughout my career, I have 

been successful at working within the interagency structure and resolving disputes among 

various components. At the center of my approach was treating others with respect and listening 

well to their concerns and ideas. If I am confirmed, I will use the skills I have gained in these 

positions to continue Director Mueller's work in building strong alliances with the FBI's partner 

agencies. 

15 
117 

b. Please explain your commitment to the FBI working with all appropriate federal 

partners in addressing issues such as national security. 

RESPONSE: I know that Director Mueller believes that it is important that the Bureau interact 

effectively and cooperatively with other law enforcement agencies and, if I am confirmed as 

Director, I intend to continue his work in this area by reinforcing that message from senior 

management down and throughout the Bureau. 

c. What are your plans to improve the FBI's working relationships with state and local 

law enforcement agencies and how do you plan to relay that message to the line age111s 

and supervisors? 

RESPONSE: Please see my response to Question 7b, above. 

8. Former FBI Director William Webster investigated the attack at Ft. Hood by Major Nidal I Iasan. 

Major Hasan attacked the Ft. Hood deployment center on November 5, 2009, killing 12 U.S. 

soldiers, 1 employee of the Department of Defense. and injuring 42 others. The commission 

report showed the FBI had information indicating Hasan was in contact with terrorists, but the 

Washington D.C. Field Office assessed that Hasan was not involved in terrorist activities. 

However. the San Diego Field Office disagreed. The report found that neither office took steps 

beyond this to prevent something from happening. 

The Webster Commission made several recommendations, and I know that the FBI has 

implemented many changes to its procedures since November 2009. 

a. Are you familiar with the Webster Commission Report's recommendations? 

RESPONSE: I am not. 

b. Do you agree with the recommendations of the Webster Commission? 

RESPONSE: Please see my response to Question 8a, above. 

c. Will you continue to implement the recommendations, as the FBI has indicated they 

are doing? 

RESPONSE: I am not familiar with what the FBI is doing in this area. I am unable to answer 

this question based on my current knowledge, but I will promptly review this matter if I am 

confirmed. 

d. Do you have any suggestions with how to improve the FBI systems and procedures to 

ensure something like Ft. Hood does not happen again? 

16 
118 

RESPO~SE: I am not familiar with what the FBI is doing in this area. I am unable to answer 

this question based on my current knowledge. but I will promptly review this matter if I am 

con finned. 

9. With any appointed position. there is some concern that a nominee will succumb to improper 

partisan or special interest group influence. 

a. Please explain what procedures or safeguards you will continue or put in place to 

ensure the independence of the FBI.from political and partisan influence. 

RESPONSE: I can assure you that if I am confirmed as Director, partisan political 

considerations will play no role in the discharge of my responsibilities. The FBI is and must be 

an independent entity. and it cannot be associated with any political party or partisan interest. In 

accordance with law and long-standing traditions, the FBI will carry out its law enforcement 

mission independent of political and partisan influence. If confirmed, I will expect all FBI 

agents and employees to carry out their work as I will, with fairness and with uncompromising 

personal and institutional integrity. I cannot say at this point whether there are procedures or 

safeguards that would be helpful. 

b. Please explain what procedures or safeguards you will continue or put in place to 

guaranty transparency within the FBI? 

RESPONSE: In general. I believe that transparency and openness within a government agency 

strengthens the agency and our democracy. If confirmed as Director, I will support a culture of 

transparency within the FBI. I cannot say at this point whether there are procedures or 

safeguards that would be helpful. 

c. Please explain what procedures or you continue or put in place to facilitate 

Congressional oversight of the FBL 

RESPONSE: Oversight is an important function of Congress and is a necessary part of our 

system of checks and balances. If con tinned, I will work to respond to oversight by relevant 

congressional committees and accommodate their needs, consistent with the FBI's law 

enforcement and national security responsibilities. 

I 0. In April, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey wrote an op-ed raising concerns about the 

FBI's reluctance to look for ties that radical jihadists may have overseas. Mr. Mukascy pointed 

out that since 9/11, the FBI has questioned five terrorists before they committed their attacks. 

However, the FBI was unable to prevent the attacks. 

In contrast a Washington Post editorial in the same time period pointed out that "the FBI has 

devoted considerable resources to sting operations against people it judges to be terror suspects, 

sometimes on what look like dubious grounds.'' The editorial concluded: ''fl]t's not clear that a 

17 
119 

sometimes far-fetched plot would have gone forward without the encouragement and help of FBI 

informants.·· 

a. Do you think the FBI needs to rethink how it deals with information about radical 

Jihadists in the United States? Please explain. 

RESPONSE: I am familiar with the FBI's actions in this area only from publicly available 

information. If confirmed, I will consider how the FBI addresses ties that radical jihadists may 

have overseas and will implement any changes that are necessary to protect our national security. 

b. Please explain your views on whether or not the FBI should attempt sting operations 

on people such as the five terrorists mentioned in Attorney General Mukasey 's article? 

RESPONSE: I am familiar with the FBI's actions in this area over the last eight years only 

from publicly available information. I know from my prior experience that sting operations can 

be a useful tool against those inclined to terrorist acts. If confirmed. I will consider how the FBI 

addresses sting operations against would be terrorists and will implement any changes that are 

necessary to protect our national security. 

II. A recent Wall Street .Journal editorial criticized you for supporting the FBI's pursuit of Dr. 

Stephen Hat fill in the anthrax case. One book about the anthrax investigation states that former 

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz recalls speaking with you about the investigation 

prior to a meeting in the White House Situation Room. According to the book, Wolfowitz 

recalled that you were ''absolutely certain that it was Hatfill." Wolfowitz said you cited the 

evidence provided by bloodhounds in the case. 

a. Is this account accurate? 

RESPONSE: I have no recollection of such a conversation with Mr. Wolfowitz. 

b. Do you believe the FBI handled the anthrax investigation properly? 

RESPONSE: The anthrax investigation was a matter of national importance. The 

investigation was extensive. complex, and involved significant FBI resources. I do not have all 

of the information about the investigation because it remained active long after I left the 

Department. Therefore, I am not in a position to assess the manner in which the investigation 

was handled. 

c. What lessons do you think the FBI should learn from the anthrax case? 

RESPONSE: Again, given the level of complexity ofthis investigation and the fact that !left 

the Department while it remained on-going, I cannot offer an opinion on this matter. 

18 
120 

LETTERS RECEIVED WITH REGARD TO THE NOMINATION OF JAMES B. COMEY, JR., 

TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
121 

:\H.JOR CITIES CHIEFS .\SSOCL\TIO:\ 

June 28, 2013 

The Honorable Patrick Leahy 

Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

Washington. DC 20510 

Dear Senator Leahy. 

On behalf of the Major Cities Chiefs Association, representing the 63 

largest local Jaw enforcement agencies in the nation. I am writing to 

support the nomination of James Comcy as Director of the Federal Bureau 

of Investigation. 

Mr. Comey has Jed a distinguished career in public service, including 

serving as the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New 

York, and the Deputy Attorney General under President Bush. lie has 

overseen the investigation and prosecution of a wide variety of crimes that 

alTcct the public each day. 

The Nation continues to face a serious threat from tetTorism, so it is 

prudent to promote stability and experience at the FBI. Mr. Comey 

possesses the experience and knowledge necessmy that will make him 

successful in leading the federal government's preeminent investigative 

Jaw enforcement agency. We look forward to continuing our partnership 

with the FBI under Mr. Comcy to protect the communities we arc sworn to 

serve. 

Sincerely, 

Commissioner Charles H. Ramsey 

Philadelphia Police Department 

President 

Major Cities Chiefs Association 
122 

July 1, 2013 

Re: Confirmation Hearing for James B. Corney 

The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy 

Chairman 

Judiciary Committee 

United States Senate 

Washington D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Chuck Grassley 

Ranking Member 

Judiciary Committee 

United States Senate 

Washington D.C. 20510 

Dear Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley: 

The undersigned organizations concerned with human rights and civil liberties 

write regarding the upcoming confirmation hearing for James B. Corney to be 

Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). We are particularly concerned 

with two legal memoranda that approved the use ofwaterboarding and other forms 

of torture, the use of which Mr. Corney later wrote that he "concurred," even as he 

objected to a third memorandum that approved the use of these tactics in 

combination. 

We urge the Senate to determine the full extent of Mr. Corney's role in the approval 

and use of torture and abuse before voting on whether to confirm him. Not only is 

the FBI the lead federal agency in interrogating criminal suspects, but it also is 

charged with conducting criminal investigations into allegations of torture and 

other ill treatment by government officials. The Senate cannot make an informed 

decision on whether to confirm Mr. Corney as FBI Director without having a 
123 

complete understanding of his actions at a time when torture and abuse were being 

used and top government officials were taking extraordinary steps to avoid criminal 

liability. 

During the prior administration, several legal memoranda provided the basis for the 

use of various forms of torture and other abuse of detainees. One of the most 

egregious was an August 1, 2002 memo, known as "Bybee!," which was signed by 

then Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel Jay Bybee. That 

memo asserted that in order for abuse of detainees to meet the definition of torture 

under the federal anti-torture statute, it must produce pain similar to that of organ 

failure or death. In a memo dated the same day known as "Bybee II," the Justice 

Department approved the use ofwaterboarding and other torture or inhumane 

techniques against Abu Zubaydah, a suspect in US custody. 

Mr. Corney was serving as Deputy Attorney General in 2004 when Bybee I was 

leaked to the press. He reportedly concurred in the decision by Bybee's successor at 

the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), Jack Goldsmith, to withdraw Bybee I. However, 

Bybee II was not withdrawn, and in early July 2004, Mr. Corney advised CIA General 

Counsel Scott Muller that the CIA could continue to use all of the Bybee II techniques 

other than waterboarding. 

Later, OLC re-authorized waterboarding as well. In December 30, 2004, OLC 

released the replacement memo for Bybee I, which was addressed to Mr. Corney. 

Footnote eight in the legal memo addressed to Mr. Corney specifies that conclusions 

reached in prior opinions from the Office of Legal Counsel with respect to detainee 

treatment would not be any different under the new guidance: "While we have 

identified various disagreements with the August 2002 Memorandum, we have 

reviewed this Office's prior opinions regarding issues involving treatment of 

detainees and do not believe any of their conclusions would be different under the 

standards set forth in this memorandum." The following spring, Mr. Corney wrote in 

an email that he "concurred" with another new legal memo, signed by Stephen 

Bradbury of the Office of Legal Counsel on May 10, 2005, that authorized torture 

techniques designed to inflict pain or terror, such as cramped confinement, wallstanding, water dousing, extended sleep deprivation, and waterboarding. 

Mr. Bradbury also wrote a separate memo discussing the use of interrogation 

techniques in combination. Mr. Corney's emails from that time were published by 

the New York Times in 2009 and make clear that, although he viewed the techniques 

as "simply awful" and strongly recommended against issuing a second memo that 

permitted them to be used in combination, he "concurred" with the first Bradbury 

memo that evaluated and authorized the CIA's use of the techniques. 

The Bybee II and first Bradbury memos authorized waterboarding, 180 hours of 

sleep deprivation, and other techniques long recognized as torture or cruel, 

inhuman or degrading treatment in violation of both domestic and international law 

contrary to the advice of experienced FBI interrogators, who believed that these 
124 

techniques were wrong. Mr. Corney's apparent view that these techniques were 

lawful is deeply troubling and raises important questions that need to be answered. 

Beyond questions related to approval of legal memos authorizing waterboarding 

and other forms of torture, the Senate Judiciary Committee should examine related 

aspects of Mr. Corney's record in office. Specifically, the Committee should examine 

Mr. Corney's role in meetings and deliberations of the National Security Council on 

interrogations, any role he had as Deputy Attorney General in deciding whether, 

where, or how criminal investigations of the use of torture by civilians would 

proceed, and any role he had-either as Deputy Attorney General or as the US 

Attorney for the Southern District of New York-in decisions related to the 

indefinite military detention and abuse of Jose Padilla, an American citizen taken 

into custody in May 2002 and detained within the United States. 

We are aware that Mr. Corney raised concerns about using the proposed CIA 

interrogation techniques, particularly in combination, and that he urged Attorney 

General Gonzales to argue against them on policy and other grounds to the 

Principals Committee. This does not, unfortunately, change the acknowledged fact 

that he concurred in OLC's legal judgment that waterboarding, lengthy sleep 

deprivation and other abusive techniques did not constitute torture and did not 

violate US law. It does reinforce our request that the Committee thoroughly 

examine these issues and have Mr. Corney clarify his views and actions. 

The public does not know the full scope of Mr. Corney's role in the approval and use 

of torture and other abuse. We urge you to have him explain that role during his 

confirmation process. One key lesson from the post-9/11 abuses is that we need 

moral and legal clarity from top-level leadership positions. The director of the FBI 

must not only be committed to the administration's policies opposing torture and 

indefinite detention, but he or she also must be a candidate who in the many years 

to come will steadfastly adhere to the rule of law regardless of what crisis the nation 

may face. 

Sincerely, 

American Civil Liberties Union 

Center for Victims of Torture 

Human Rights First 

Human Rights Watch 

National Religious Campaign Against Torture 

Open Society Policy Center 

Physicians for Human Rights 

cc: Members of the Senate judiciary Committee 
125 

BOARD OF DIRECTORS 

Mickey Edwards 

Asa Hutchmson 

'\<t 

John 

~CONSTITUTION PROJECT 

Safeguarding Liberty, Justice f:- the Rule (~/"Law 

July 2, 2()1.) 

The [ Ionorahk Patrick J. Leah;. 

(:h,<irman 

The H01wrable Chuck Cra~;_~Jc;. 

Ranking ':\kmhcr 

Senate 

w·ashington D.C. 20510 

Rc: Confirmation Hearing for James B. Corney 

Dear Chairnun Leahy und Ranking ~Iembl·r Grasslcy: 

w·e \\Tlt!ng HE to th~· confirn1ation hc:~ring Comcy, nominated ro 

bcconw rht· Dt."W director Federal Bureau of bwcstigation The Cons:itution Project 

takes no position on ·whether :\IL m ~my nominee, should be confirmed. But we 

urge that, in considering rlK nomination, comnmtce the 

CL\'s usc of ·what The Constitution Project's Task Force on 

th1..' US{' of torture and other forms of ahusc on detainees held by our 

;\s .\ttorney Gencr:1l from December 2003 to .\ugusr \1r. Come~- played 

an 1mponam in discus~ions and decisions abour rhc legality of rhc CL\\ tn:atmt'tlt of 

dct.lincc~. Based on the aYai!ahle C\ idencc, :\lr. Comcy warned his at the 

Dcpartnlt'l1t of Justice the CL\ program was "simply awfuL" 

·'would come b,u~k to haunt" DOJ. But he also sratcd that he concurred with a .\Ln 

Stt'n-n Bradhur~, which ach-iscd the CL\ tblt brutalizing detainees b\ 

locking them into coffin-sized "confinement boxes": dcpriYing them of 

them in a position for up to 180 hours at a time; :111d a Yaricty of 

not Yiolate the torture st,nutc.i 

1he 

ind,·n,•ndem T;~sk Force on Deraincc Treatment, co~chain:d 

Hutchinson (R-,-\R) and James (D-OK). On ;\pril 16, 200. two years of stud: 

and dc!ibcnwon, the Task 1-'orcc on the treatment of detainees 

taken into l: .S. cu::.tody in connection The T~sk Force 

in torture after 

usc of SCYl·ral 

bas been ended by Esccutin~ ( )rdcr. 

for tc:n ~cars, under multiple presidents. 

It is crucial for 1hc com mim-e to fully e:-..plure wbcrhcr he appron::d torture and other detainee 

abusl·, to dett-rminc his current \cicws on rhc subject, ;md to a firm commitment from him 

that he would nn·cr authorize dcr:lin<::c mistreatment as FBI Some suggc-:ted guestions 

and a s.hon background paper on ?\[r, Cnmey's role arc atrtlch('d. 

Sincerely, 

\'irginia Sloan 

Pn:sidcm 

Katherine Hawkins 

Inn~stigator, Task Force on Detainee Treatment 

cc: \fcmhers nf rhe Senate Judici:•xy CommiHlT 

( )fticc of Professional 29, 2(l(J!); 1\kmor:tndum lwm Srncn Br;:~dburY to 

to Chuck Rosenberg, .-\pnl & .\by 20\JS. 

'200 ~ 8tt1 Street NV\1 Swte 1000. \Nashmgton. DC 20035 • tel 202,580-6920 • fax 202-550"6929 • www cons!ltulionprow::t org 
126 

SUGGESTED QUESTIONS FOR JAMES COMEY 

1) \X'hile sen,ing as Deputy Attorney General, were you involved in authorizing the "enhanced 

interrogation techniques" of any individuals? How many indi,,iduals? Please explain as many details 

as you can in an unclassified setting. 

2) According to a document released under the Freedom of Information Act, on July 2, 2004, you 

met with CIA General Counsel Scott Muller regarding the interrogation of a detainee, A 

memorandum from Muller states that you authorized the use of all of the "techniques previously 

approved for use with Abu Zubaydah, with the exception of the waterboard,'' Is that accurate? 

3) /\July 7, 2004 memo from Jack Goldsmith to Scott ?\fuller states that you asked Goldsmith to 

emphasize to Muller that your authorization "presupposes that the techniques will adhere closely to 

the assumptions and limitations stated" in the August 1, 2002 Memorandum from Jay Bybee to 

Acring CIA General Counsel John Rizzo, (Bybee ll), \\by did you send that clarification) 

4) Did you take any steps to verify whether the CIA did, in fact, adhere to the limits in the Bvbee II 

memo in interrogating the detainee discussed in the July 2 meeting? 

5) As of July 2004, were you aware of the means that the CIA used to pre\'ent detainees from 

sleeping? 

6) Aside from the detainee discussed during your July 2, 2004 meeting with ,",1uller, did CTA or OLC 

attorneys inform or consult with you before authorizing the use of "enhanced interrogation" on any 

other detainee) If so, how frequently? 

7) Is waterboarding torture? Is it a crime? 

8) Is sleep deprinrion for up to 180 hours torture? \V'hat if it is carried out by shackling naked, 

diapered detainees to the ceiling for hours/days at a time? Is it a crime? 

9) Is locking detainees inside confinement boxes torture? Is it a crime? 

10) If you believe that any of these practices constitute torture, why did you state that you 

"concurred" with the conclusion in a May 10, 2005 memo from then Principal Deputy Assistant 

Attorney General Steven Bradbury to John Rizzo, then Senior Deputy General Counsel at the CIA, 

which found that none of the techniques abm'e were torture? 

11) In a May 31, 2005 email from you to Chuck Rosenberg, you described telling Attorney General 

Alberto Gonzales that the CIA interrogation techniques were "simply awful," that "there needed to 

be a detailed factual discussion" of how they were used before approving them, and that "it simply 

could not be that the Principles were willfully blind," 

\\l1y did you believe that there was a danger that the NSC Principals were unaware of or "willfully 

blind" to the details of the CIA program? 

12) Ste\'cn Bradbury's May 2005 memos re-authorizing the interrogation program relied heady on 

the CIA's factual representations regarding: 

(a) the degree of pain and suffering int1icted by the "enhanced interrogation techniques" 

(b) the lack of any symptoms of "serious phvsical pain" or "prolonged mental harm" in 

detainees subjected to those techniques 
127 

(c) the independence of the Office of Medical Se1Tices clinicians responsible for 

monitoring interrogations 

(d) the efficacy of the CIA techniques 

Based on what you know now, were the CIA representations cited in the Bradbury memos accurate? 

(Please answer separately for each category). Based on what you knew at the time, was Bradbury's 

reliance on the CIA's representations justified? 

13) \\1lat is your opinion now about your ad,·ising the CIA that it would be permissible to use all of 

the Bybee II techniques other than watcrboarding on a detainee? ;\bout your approYal of the first 

Bradbury memo? About any other actions or omissions regarding the CIA black site program? 

14) In 2002, FBI agent Ali Sou fan called his supef\·is01·s to protest the interrogation techniques that 

CIA contractors were using against r\bu Zubaydah, including sleep deprh·aticm, nudity, and 

placement in a "confinement box", which Soufan ,·iewed as "borderline torture." \\nat would you 

haYe done if \OU had been 1\li Soufan's supef\'isor or the FBI director at that time? \\'hat would you 

ha\'e done if you were FBI director in 2004 or 2005, and a field agent called you with similar 

concerns about interrogation techniques whose legality OLC had approved? \\nat would you do if 

confirmed as FBI director and you are faced with that situation in the future? 

15) Please describe your role in Attorney General John Ashcroft's decision to refer criminal 

im·cstigations of detainee abuse cases to the Eastern District of Virginia. Did Attorney General 

,\shcroft consult with vou before he made that decision? Did you agree with it? 

16) \\'ere you informed of the reasons for subsequent declinations of prosecution? Did you concur 

in the prosecutors' judgment) 

17) If a future President rescinded President Obama's executiYe order on interrogation and re, 

instated the CIA program, would you allow FBI agents to take part? Would you criminally 

im·estigate FBI agents' allegations that they witnessed torture or war crimes by other government 

agencies? 

18) Do you support declassification and release of the Senate Intelligence Committee's 6,000 page 

study into the CIA program? 

19) As United States Attorney for the Southern District of ~ew York yon supported, and later as 

Deputy Attorney General publicly defended, the military detention without charge or trial for seYeral 

years of Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen apprehended on U.S. soil on suspicion of involvement in 

terrorism plots. Is it your current belief that military detention without charge or trial for persons 

apprehended on U.S. soil is lawful? If so, for what category of people and under what authority) 

Specifically, is it permitted under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force? 
128 

BACKGROUND PAPER REGARDING JA..VIES COMEY'S 

POSITION ON "ENHANCED INTERROGATION" 

James Come\' serYccl as Deputy Attorne1· General from December 2(103 until c\ugust 2005. 

In i\!ay/June 2004, with Corney's support, Office of Legal Counsel head Jack Goldsmith 

withdrew John Yoo and Bybee's August 1, 2002 memo (the Bybee I memo) narrowh 

defining "torture" and that the anti-torture statute could not be used to prosenuc 

indi,·id~als following orders from the President.' 

Goldsmith did no! withdraw a separate memo bY Bybee and Y oo signed on the same date, 

authorizing the use of a scri6 of specific abusi1·e techniques to interrogate i\bu Zubaydah (the 

Bybee 11 memo). 2 The B1bee II memo authorized waterboarding, sleep "close 

confinetnent" for se\-eral hours in a coffin~si.zcd \Vooden box and for longer 

box, slan1ming detainees into a plywood wall, stress positions, and to the face and 

On M.a\· 27, 2004, (~oldsmith "stronglY recommended" that the CIA suspend the use of 

until ()LC could examine its use 1nore thoroughly, but did not recon1n1end 

of the other "enhanced techniques" in the BYbee memo.' 

On Jul\' 2, 20ll4, Comey met with CIA General Counsel Scott :\luller to discuss "the use oi 

lnterrogatjon techniques 

detainee \Yas n1ost 

approYed the usc of all 

than waterboarding. 

on a certain dctainee.n4 Public sources that the 

llassan ( ;hul, this has not been ddinitil·ely Cotney 

techniques discussed in the August 1, 2002 Bybee/'{ oo memo other 

On July 7, 2004, Goldsmith \\'tote to Muller to cmphasi%c that Corney's approya] "presupposes 

that the techniques will adhere to the assumptions and limitations" in the Bybee 

techniques memo.' (1\ :\lay 2004 the CIA's Inspector General's Office had found that 

the CL\ did not consisten111' follow limits in the past,)" 

2004 through September 2004, the Oftlce of Legal Counsel wrote sewral letters to 

that indi,·idualized legal authorization to use abusiw 

waterboarding, nudity, and "water dousing," soaking detainees 

of knowledge of and participation in those authorizations is not known. 

6 CIA Inspector General, Special RwinP: Counterlerrotism Detention and Intenv~i!,afion Actidties (l\1ay 7, 2004), available at 

http:// media.washingtonpost.com/ wp-srv /nation/ documents I cia_oig_report.pdf. 

Letter from Daniel Levin to John Rizzo, Aug. 6, 2004, available at http:/ /w\\"\\'.iusticc.goY /ole/ docs/n1emo~ 

rizzo20.D±,p_df; Letter from Daniel Levin to John Rizzo, Aug. 26, 2004, available at 
129 

In December 2004, OLC publicly issued a memo addressed to Corney from OLC Attorney 

Daniel LeYin, which replaced the Bybee l memo's of the torture 

footnote to LeYin's metno stated that despite '\~arious "'·ith the 

JB,·bee I J 7\lemorandum, we haw reyie\\·ccl this Office's prior opinions 

inn>king treatment of detainees and do not belieYe any of their conclusions would be 

undc:-r the standards set forth in this memorandum.''~ 

In :\lay 2005, OLC issued three memoranda by Stewn Bradbury re-authorizing the CL\'s use of 

"enhanced interrogation" technic1ucs: 

o :\ 46 page memo on whether the indiYidual CIA including waterboarding, 

,-iolated the torture statute (Bradbury 1), issued on \fay 

o ,\ 20 page memo on whether the combined use of the CL\ techniques ,-iolated the torture 

statute. (Bradbury II), also issued on :\fay !0, 2005.''' 

o c\ 40 page memo on 1d1ether the C!Ns treatment of detainees violated the prohibition on 

inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. (Bradbury lll), issued on \lay 3il, 

2005. 

According to an email from to his deputY Chuck Rosenberg, published bv the ,\-ew York 

]i/m.r in 2009, with Bradbury !, but he strong~\- recommended 

issuing Bradbury IL Comey's emails do not discuss Bradbury l!L According to a report the 

Department ofJustice's Office of Professional Responsibilin· (OPR), Come1· told im-estigators 

that he \\Tas nc'iTr informed of the third n1cmo. 1

' 

In an email dated .\pril 27, 201lS, Come\· recounted telling c\ttorney General c\lberto Gonzales 

that: 

1 1ns here to 

told him it 

him not to allow the 'combined effects' memo to be finalized. I 

come back to haunt him and the Department. 1 told him the first 
130 

opinion was ready to go out and l concurred. I told him I did not concur with the 

second and asked him to stop it. 1

' 

Comey's emails state that one reason for his concern about the BradbutT II memo was its 

"nrnsn,,ct,Ye nature. OPR later wrote that Corney's ''main concern "·as that the memorandum 

\\'aS and not tied to a request of specific techniques on an indi\·idual clctainee. C:ome1· 

bclieYecl it was irresponsible to giYe legal ad,·ice about the combined effects of techniques in the 

abstract.''1(' 

Come\ has neyer spoken publiclY about why he concurrecl with the Bradbun· [ memo. 

The tactics that the Bradbun· I memo concluded were not torture included: placing detainees in 

completelY dark "confinement boxes" that restricted their mo1-cment; soaking them with cold 

ass;mlting detainees in Yarious \\'ith a leYel of force that was 

controlled to prencnt injury; stress positions: only limitecl amounts of 

Ensure or other commercial nutrition supplement instead of normal 

Bradbun· wrote that his conclusion that the aboYe techniques were not torture was 

" but t\\·o others raised more "substantial questions": and sleep 

The Bradbury I memo described sleep depri,·ation, as implemented by CIA, as 

method of sleep depri,-ation im·ol\·cs the use of to keep the 

awake. In this method, the detainee is standing and is and the 

handcuffs are attached lJ\' a length of chain to the ceiling. The detainee's hands are 

shackled in front of his body, so that the detainee has a m·o· to three· 

foot diameter of moYcmcnt. The detainee's feet are to a bolt in the 

t1oor .... the detainee is not allowed to hang from or support his body weight with the 

shackles ... should the detainee begin to fall asleep, he will lose his balance and 

awaken~ either because of the sensation of losing his balance or because of the 

restr;1ining tension of the shackles. 

/\detainee 

titnes be nude and wearing a diaper ... 

fed by hand b\· CIA personnel 

to sleep depri\"ation .. will at 

The maximum allm,·ahk duration for sleep depril·ation authorized for the CIA is 180 

hours. '~ 
131 

The BradburY I memo authorized sleep depri,·ation in part based on the CIA's representations 

that medical and psychological from the Office of :\ledical Sen-ices constanth· 

monitored detainees undergoing procedure and would inten.-ene if there was any danger to 

detainees; that the not painful"; and that no detainee subject to 

sleep deprin1tion "has anY harm or injun·. 

The Bradbun· 1 memo authorized waterboarding based on similar CIA assertions about careful 

medical monitoring, and lack of harm to detainees: 

the \\"atcrbnard has been used b,· the C!:\ on three high ]eye! Al Qacda detainees, 

two of whom were subjected to the technic1ue numerous times, and, according to 

OMS, none of these three indiYiduals has shown am· c,-idcnce of physical pain or 

or mental harm in the more than 25 months since the technique was used 

on them. 

The Bradbury I rnen1o's reliance on representations regarding tnedical n1onitoring of 

interrogations is highly problematic. lt is a gra,·e dolation of ethics for doctors to 

participate in torture or cruel treatment, including by 

torturous or cruel tncthods are used.71 The Constitution 

Detainee Treatment unanimously concluded that 

The Department oi Justice should formally prohibit the Ofttcc of Counsel 

from apprm·ing interrogation techniques based on representations health 

proYiders will monitor the techniques and regulate the degree of physical and mental 

harm that interrogators may inflict. Health professionals cannot ethicallY condone 

an\" deliberate infliction of pain and suffering on detainees, e\-en if it falls short of 

torture or cruel treatment. 

The Bradbury I memo's representations about lack of pain, 

resulting from the approYed techniques contradict the detainees' accounts to the 

International Committee for the Red Cross, and court findings regarding detainees subjected to 

similar treatment in CL\ prisons in The Obama administration takes the position 

that fonner black site det~inecs' records are classified, as arc tbc detaint:cs' n1ctnoric:o; 

about their treatment in CL\ custody. 1-!owewr, one former CL-\ detainee, ;\bel al Rahim alNashiri, was recenth- diagnosed with depression and posttrawn;ttic stress disorder lw a military 

commission "sanity board. Another, Abu Zubanlah, is b,- his counsel to suffer from 

se\"ClT pain, n1emo~;.: loss, and frequent seizures as~ result tre;tmcnt at CIA black sitcs.2

'' 

19 I d. at 11-12. 

20 Id. at 15. 

21 Report of the Constitution Project's Task Force on Detainee Treatment (Apr. 2013) 233-241, available at 

http:// detaineetaskforce.org. 

22 ld. at 19. 23 I d. at 212-218, 367-369. 

24 R.M.C. 206 

available at 
132 

According to Come1·'s em ails, on :\lay 31, 2005 he met with Attorney c;eneral Gonzales before a 

:\ational SecuritY Council principals committee meeting on the CL\ program. Comey said he 

described the CIA techniques to Gonzales in graphic detail: 

to demomtrate that some of this stuff is simply a\YfuL 1 told him it would all come 

out some day and be presented in the \Y<l)' I was presenting it. I mentioned that I 

had heard there was a ,-ideo of any early session, "·hich would come out 

e\Tntualh-... .I explained that eyen he and Bradbury bclieYed that the legal C]Uestion 

was extremely close; and the details of what we are talking about, there needed to 

be a detailed factual discussion, followed by a full policy discussion. It \\·cmld land 

on the President ewntually [and! it simply could not be that tbe Princip[alsl \\·ould 

be willfully blind."' 
133 

The Honorable Patrick Leahy 

Chairman 

The United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

437 Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Charles Grassley 

Ranking Member 

The United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

135 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

July 3, 2013 

Re: Bipartisan Endorsement of Jim Comey to be FBI Director from Former United States Attorneys 

Dear Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley: 

We are friends, admirers, and former Justice Department colleagues of Jim Comey, and we write in 

strong bipartisan support of his nomination to be the next Director of the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation. 

Jim is an extraordinary public servant. He is a man of tremendous integrity - principled, thoughtful, 

dignified, and smart. In case after case, as an Assistant United States Attorney in two districts, as 

the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and as the Deputy Attorney 

General of the United States, he demonstrated a steadfast adherence to the rule of law and to the 

principles of federal prosecution. He found facts, and he followed them. He understood the law. and 

he applied it. He paid no heed to politics. He made decisions without fear or favor. 

Jim speaks often and eloquently of the role of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Justice 

Department in safeguarding the liberty and security of all Americans. It is a balance he knows well, 

because he spent so many years striving to strike the right balance, under all circumstances and in 

every case. Indeed, it was his principled leadership that helped the Department of Justice through 

challenging times. Some of those are well known. Others, however, are not. Often, Jim's 

leadership revealed itself through a phone call or a short note - a word of encouragement or 

appreciation- to a hardworking, and underappreciated, agent or prosecutor. 

Jim is also a gifted manager. As Deputy Attorney General, he was responsible for the oversight and 

management of the entire Department of Justice, and all of its component parts, including the FBI, 

which reported to him. He also supervised the United States Attorney community it was in that 

capacity that so many of us worked with him and for him. And that is why we know, with certainty, 

that Jim is an honorable and dedicated friend, colleague, leader, and manager. 

We know Jim well. We have watched him from up close and from far away. We like him, we admire 

him, we trust him, we respect him, and we can think of no better person to take on this remarkably 

important job- as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

Respectfully, 
134 

A. Brian Allbritton 

Former United States Attorney 

Middle District of Florida 

Robert C. Balfe 

Former United States Attorney 

Western District of Arkansas 

Michael A. Battle 

Former United States Attorney 

Western District of New York 

Steven M. Biskupic 

Former United States Attorney 

Eastern District of Wisconsin 

Bill Blagg 

Former United States Attorney 

Western District of Texas 

Robert Bonner 

Former United States Attorney 

Central District of California 

Congresswoman Susan W. Brooks 

Former United States Attorney 

Southern District of Indiana 

Greg Brower 

Former United States Attorney 

District of Nevada 

John Brownlee 

Former United States Attorney 

Western District of Virginia 

Mary Beth Buchanan 

Former United States Attorney 

Western District of Pennsylvania 

Wayne Budd 

Former United States Attorney 

District of Massachusetts 

Benton Campbell 

Former United States Attorney 

Eastern District of New York 

Leura G. Canary 

Former United States Attorney 

Middle District of Alabama 

Zachary W. Carter 

Former United States Attorney 

Eastern District of New York 

Paul K. Charlton 

Former United States Attorney 

District of Arizona 

Governor Chris Christie 

Former United States Attorney 

District of New Jersey 

Robert J. Cindrich 

Former United States Attorney 

Western District of Pennsylvania 

Tom Colantuano 

Former United States Attorney 

District of New Hampshire 

Colm Connolly 

Former United States Attorney 

District of Delaware 

Robert Corrente 

Former United States Attorney 

District of Rhode Island 

Richard Cullen 

Former United States Attorney 

Eastern District of Virginia 

William B. Cummings 

Former United States Attorney 

Eastern District of Virginia 

Bud Cummins 

Former United States Attorney 

Eastern District of Arkansas 

Margaret Ellen Curran 

Former United States Attorney 

District of Rhode Island 
135 

Richard H. Deane, Jr. 

Former United States Attorney 

Northern District of Georgia 

Russ Dedrick 

Former United States Attorney 

Eastern District of Tennessee 

Don DeGabrielle 

Former United States Attorney 

Southern District of Texas 

David R. Dugas 

Former United States Attorney 

Middle District of Louisiana 

Matt M. Dummermuth 

Former United States Attorney 

Northern District of Iowa 

Troy A. Eid 

Former United States Attorney 

District of Colorado 

Helen Fahey 

Former United States Attorney 

Eastern District of Virginia 

Joseph J. Farnan, Jr. 

Former United States Attorney 

District of Delaware 

David Fein 

Former United States Attorney 

District of Connecticut 

Patrick Fitzgerald 

Former United States Attorney 

Northern District of Illinois 

Terry Flynn 

Former United States Attorney 

Western District of New York 

Michael J. Garcia 

Former United States Attorney 

Southern District of New York 

Mayor Rudolph Giuliani 

Former United States Attorney 

Southern District of New York 

Todd P. Graves 

Former United States Attorney 

Western District of Missouri 

Jim Greenlee 

Former United States Attorney 

Northern District of Mississippi 

Catherine Hanaway 

Former United States Attorney 

Eastern District of Missouri 

Hal Hardin 

Former United States Attorney 

Middle District of Tennessee 

Rodger Heaton 

Former United States Attorney 

Central District of Illinois 

Thomas B. Heffelfinger 

Former United States Attorney 

District of Minnesota 

Karen P. Hewitt 

Former United States Attorney 

Southern District of California 

Congressman George Holding 

Former United States Attorney 

Eastern District of North Carolina 

Dwight Holton 

Former United States Attorney 

District of Oregon 

Roscoe Howard 

Former United States Attorney 

District of the District of Columbia 

Diane Humetawa 

Former United States Attorney 

District of Arizona 
136 

David Iglesias 

Former United States Attorney 

District of New Mexico 

Karin lmmergut 

Former United States Attorney 

District of Oregon 

Marcos Daniel Jimenez 

Former United States Attorney 

Southern District of Florida 

David Kelley 

Former United States Attorney 

Southern District of New York 

Carol Lam 

Former United States Attorney 

Southern District of California 

Charles W. Larson, Sr. 

Former United States Attorney 

Northern District of Iowa 

Bill Leone 

Former United States Attorney 

District of Colorado 

Harry Litman 

Former United States Attorney 

Western District of Pennsylvania 

John L. MacKay 

Former United States Attorney 

Western District of Washington 

Alice Martin 

Former United States Attorney 

Northern District of Alabama 

Robert G. McCampbell 

Former United States Attorney 

Western District of Oklahoma 

James McDevitt 

Former United States Attorney 

Eastern District of Washington 

Edward E. McNally 

Former United States Attorney 

Southern District of Illinois 

Congressman Patrick Meehan 

Former United States Attorney 

Eastern District of Pennsylvania 

Kathleen Mehltretter 

Former United States Attorney 

Western District of New York 

Ken Melson 

Former United States Attorney 

Eastern District of Virginia 

Jan Paul Miller 

Former United States Attorney 

Central District of Illinois 

Gregory R. Miller 

Former United States Attorney 

Northern District of Florida 

Paul B. Murphy 

Former United States Attorney 

Southern District of Georgia 

Thomas O'Brien 

Former United States Attorney 

Central District of California 

Kevin J. O'Connor 

Former United States Attorney 

District of Connecticut 

Paul Perez 

Former United States Attorney 

Middle District of Florida 

Sharon Potter 

Former United States Attorney 

Northern District of West Virgini< 

John Ratcliffe 

Former United States Attorney 

Western District of Texas 
137 

John Richter 

Former United States Attorney 

Western District of Oklahoma 

Benito Romano 

Former United States Attorney 

Southern District of New York 

Chuck Rosenberg 

Former United States Attorney 

Eastern District of Virginia 

Richard Rossman 

Former United States Attorney 

Eastern District of Michigan 

Joseph Russoniello 

Former United States Attorney 

Northern District of California 

Kevin V. Ryan 

Former United States Attorney 

Northern District of California 

McGregor W Scott 

Former United States Attorney 

Eastern District of California 

Charles J. Stevens 

Former United States Attorney 

Eastern District of California 

Mike Sullivan 

Former United States Attorney 

District of Massachusetts 

Johnny Sutton 

Former United States Attorney 

Western District of Texas 

Jeffrey A. Taylor 

Former United States Attorney 

District of the District of Columbia 

Ron Tenpas 

Former United States Attorney 

Southern District of Illinois 

Brett Tolman 

Former United States Attorney 

District of Utah 

Dennis Vacca 

Former United States Attorney 

Western District of New York 

Ken Wainstein 

Former United States Attorney 

District of the District of Columbia 

Donald Washington 

Former United States Attorney 

Western District of Louisiana 

Dan Webb 

Former United States Attorney 

Northern District of Illinois 

Governor William Weld 

Former United States Attorney 

District of Massachusetts 

John Wood 

Former United States Attorney 

Western District of Missouri 

Debra Wong Yang 

Former United States Attorney 

Central District of California 

Edward Meacham Yarborough 

Former United States Attorney 

Middle District of Tennessee 
138 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF POLICE ORGANIZATIONS, INC. 

July3.2013 

317 South Patrick Street.- Alexandria, Virginia- 22314-3501 

(703) 549-0775- (800) 322-NAPO- Fax (703) 684-0515 

www napo_org -Email: info@napo.org 

The llonorable Patrick Leahy 

Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

Washington. D.C. 20510 

Dear Chairman Leahy: 

On behalf of the National Association of Police Organizations (NAPO). I am 

pleased to inform you of our support for the nomination of James Comey to 

serve as the next Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI). 

NAPO is a coalition of police unions and associations from across the United 

States that serves to advance the interests of America's lmv enforcement 

through legislative and legal advocacy. political action, and education. 

Founded in 1978. NAPO now represents more than 1.000 police units and 

associations, 241.000 sworn law enforcement officers. and more than 100.000 

citizens who share a common dedication to fair and effective crime control and 

law enforcement. 

:vir. Comey is one of our nation's most skilled and respected national security 

and law enforcement professionals. Throughout his career. :vir. Comey has 

demonstrated that he is exceptionally qualified to handle the full range of 

challenges faced by today 's FBI. especially during his time as Deputy Attorney 

General of the United States. Mr. Comey has been a dedicated career public 

servant. and has continually evidenced his integrity. strong judgment. and 

commitment to the law enforcement mission. 

We urge the Senate Judiciary Committee to act swiftly in coniirming Mr. 

Corney for this critical position. If NAPO can provide any additional 

information to support Mr. Comey's nomination. please do not hesitate to 

contact me at: (703) 549-0775. 

Sincerely. 

William .1. Johnson 

Executive Director 
139 

Cl 

z 

u 

0 

.. 

z 

"' "' w 

"' Cl 

0 

"' 

w 

a 

> 

0 

July 5, 2013 db 

The Honorable Patrick Leahy 

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

PCi..IcE ExEcunvE 

REsEARCH FoRUM 

437 Russell Senate Building 

Washington, DC 2051 0 

Dear Senator Leahy: 

Chuck Wexler Executive Director 

I am writing to endorse the nomination of Mr. James Corney to become Director of the 

Federal Bureau oflnvestigation. As executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum 

(PERF), an organization of police chiefs from across the country that conducts research on best 

practices in policing, I have some experience with Mr. Corney and I believe he has a record of 

working well with local law enforcement agencies on important issues. In fact, I think Jim 

Corney was far ahead of his time in recognizing the importance offederal-local partnerships in 

law enforcement. 

I first met Mr. Corney in 1996 when he was the managing Assistant U.S. Attorney in 

Richmond, Virginia. At that time, the surge in crack cocaine use was a major issue, and gun 

crime was impacting Richmond and other cities across the country. 

PERF saw what was happening in Richmond as reflective of a major crisis impacting 

many cities. And I believe that Jim Corney saw the role of the federal government somewhat 

differently compared to other federal prosecutors. He recognized the need to take a leadership 

role and go shoulder to shoulder with local police chiefs in taking on this epidemic of violence. 

My sense is that most federal prosecutors are so busy with their own enforcement 

responsibilities that they do not always have the same sense of urgency that I saw in Jim Corney 

about developing strategies to complement the work of local officials. Operation Exile, which 

was developed out of the U.S. Attorney's office in Richmond, was one of the first prognuns of 

its kind to recognize the value of federal prosecutors taking gun cases to federal courts, where 

the penalties are significantly stronger. 

At the time when Jim was dealing with gun violence in Richmond, I was working in 

Minneapolis with a task force of local, state and federal officials on strategies for reducing 

homicides. And the U.S. Attorney in Minneapolis heard about the Richmond model, and soon 

began taking gun cases federally. This had an immediate impact on homicides in Minneapolis, 

and I know that it also helped in other cities like Boston. 

The role of the federal government in addressing the difficult issue of gun crime was 

shaped by the Richmond model, and prosecutors across the country saw Jim Corney as someone 

who recognized the importance of local/federal partnerships well before this became 

commonplace. 

• 1120 Connecticut Ave., NW Suite 930 Washington, D.C. 20036 

Tel: 202-466-7820 Fax: 202-466-7826 TIY; 202-466-2670 www.PoliceForum.org perf@policeforum.org 
140 

In fact, in 2009 PERF conducted a survey oflocal police agencies serving populations of 

100,000 or more, and asked them about more than 40 different gun crime enforcement strategies 

- from tracing guns recovered at crime scenes and having special units to investigate gun "hot 

spots," to gun buyback programs and investigation of illegal "straw purchases" of firearms. We 

asked local police whether they used each of these strategies- and about which strategies they 

found most effective. And by far, submitting information about gun felons to the local U.S. 

Attorney's Office was the single strategy that local police agencies often used and found most 

effective. 

When I think of how far the FBI has come since 9/11 with respect to developing 

partnerships, I think of Jim Corney and his leadership in gaining the trust and confidence oflocal 

police departments and police chiefs. I think Mr. Corney will be an outstanding director of the 

FBI, based upon my own experience working with him and on his outstanding record of public 

service. 

Finally, on a personal level, I have found Jim Corney to be a man of character and 

integrity as well as someone who is down to earth and unassuming. I believe these qualities will 

help ensure that Mr. Corney will intuitively do what is right. 

Please let me know if I can answer any questions, and thank you for your consideration. 

Cc: Commissioner Charles Ramsey 

Philadelphia Police Department 

President of PERF 

Most sincerely, 

Chuck Wexler 

Executive Director 

Police Executive Research Forum 

Washington, DC 
141 

Secrelarv 

E:\JDFEBt"S 

FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ASSOCIATION 

1 I 00 (<)nn~L·ticut \\ .:nuc \:\\'.Suite- 900 • \\'ashington. D.C. 200,~6 • .202-293-1 :':>0 

'''' '' .!leua.~_)ru 

July 8, 2013 

The Honorable Patrick Leahy 

Chairman 

Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Leahy: 

On behalf of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association 

(FLEOA), including Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation (FBI), I am writing to you to memorialize our support 

for the nomination of James Corney as the next Director of the FBI. 

Attempting to convince you of Mr. Corney's qualifications for the 

position is like trumpeting out, "Water is wet!" It is readily obvious 

that he is more than qualified on paper. Mr. Corney has had a 

distinguished career working for the Department of Justice, and has 

vast experience working the mission areas covered by the FBI. 

However, Mr. Corney is equally, if not more, qualified by virtue of 

his strength of character. The "FBI" proudly stands for Fidelity, 

Bravery and Integrity, and Mr. Corney exudes them all. Not only 

does he possess the symbolic law enforcement "blue" in his veins, 

but he also has the "blue honor" in his heart. As witnessed 

throughout his distinguished career, Mr. Corney has demonstrated 

sound judgment and strong leadership under challenging 

circumstances. 

Among the field ranks in law enforcement, in particular in the 

opinionated kingdom of the Southern District of New York, Mr. 

Corney has earned the reputation as a dedicated "true believer" in 

the law enforcement mission. Mr. Comey has earned the respect of 

working field agents, and can be described as a man wearing a 

General's stars, while also wearing a soldier's boots. He possesses 

the requisite leadership, integrity and experience to lead the proud 

men and women in the FBI. 

The FLEOA membership respectfully asks that the Senate Judiciary 

Committee apply its routine due diligence and expeditiously move 

to confirm Mr. Corney as the next Director of the FBI. 
142 

Please do not hesitate to contact me directly should you require any additional input 

regarding the qualifications of Mr. Corney. 

Respectfully yours, 

cJ..&ihr 

J. Adler 

National President 

Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association 
143 

The Honorable Patrick Leahy 

Chain11an 

The Un1ted States Senate Committee on the JLd1ciary 

437 Russell Senate Office Buld1ng 

Wash1ngton DC 20510 

The Honorable Charles Grassley 

Ranking Member 

The Un1ted Sta:es Se11ate Committee on the Judiciary 

1 35 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington. D.C 20510 

July 8. 2013 

Re Bipartisan Endorsement of J1m Corney to be FBI D1rector from Former Senior Department 

of Justice Off1cials 

Dear Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley 

We are friends. admirers. and former Justice Department colleagues of Jim Corney. and we 

wnte in s:rong bipart.san support of his nomination to be the next O:rector of the Federal Bureau 

of Investigation All of us have held. at one time or another. senior positiofls Within the Justice 

Department, giving us both a perspective on what Jim's pnor positions have demanded of him 

and how J:m s expenence and personal qualities have prepared h1m to be the Director. 

The Federal Bureau of Investigation fulfi:ls an important role in our society. ensuring our safety 

and preserving our l:berty. It IS also a remarkably complex organizatiOn - 1ts men and women 

serve around the g!obe and arourd the dock. 1n extraord1nanly 1mportant and diffrcuit 

assignments In turn. we know, from our own experience. what it takes to !ead the FBI 

integrity intelligence. independence, dedication. vision, compassion. JUdgment, and a steadfast 

adherence to the rule of law. 

Jim Comey possesses ali of these traits He has, for instance, the judgment that comes from 

experience and from having faced difficult decisions. He has integrity and independence born 

of his innate sense of what is required of senior public servants He is smart and 

compassionate. He never expects more of anybody else than he expects of himself 

We i<now he Will be a strong and effective leader and that our country would be well-served to 

see him confirmed. 

Respectfully. 
144 

Lanny Breuer 

Ass1stant Attorney General 

Cnm1nai D1vis1on 

2009-2013 

Paul Clement 

Solicitor General 

2005-2008 

Jamie Gorelick 

Deputy Attorney General 

1994-1997 

Neal Katya! 

Act1ng SoliCitor General 

2010-2011 

Peter Keisler 

Acting Attorney General 

2007 

Craig Morford 

Acl!ng Deputy Attorney Genera' 

2007-2008 

Eileen J. 0 Connor 

Assistant Attorney General 

Tax Divis1on 

2001-2007 

David Ogden 

Deputy Attorney General 

2009-2010 

Larry Thompson 

Deputy Attorney General 

2001-2003 

Chnstopher Wray 

Assistant Attorney General 

Criminal Division 

2003-2005 
145 

July 8. 2013 

The Honorable Patrick .1. Leahy 

Chainnan 

Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington. DC 20510 

Re: Nomination of James B. Comey Jr. 

The Honorable Charles E. Grasslcy Ranking 

Member 

Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington. DC 2051 0 

Dear Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grass ley: 

On behalf of the FBI Agents Association ("'FBlAA"). a voluntary professional assocmtton 

currently representing over 12.000 active duty and retired FBI Special Agents. I write to express 

the FBIAA's support for the nomination of Mr. James B. Comey Jr. to serve as the next Director 

of the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI .. or .. the Bureau .. ). 

The FBI faces variety of significant challenges in the coming years, ranging from increasingly 

complex criminal and national security threats to challenges resulting from sequestration and 

other budget cuts. These challenges make it more important than ever that the Bureau be led by 

an individual who understands the central role of Agents and criminal investigative skills to the 

work done by the Bureau. 

Mr. Comey has strong reputation among Agents. and the FB IAA believes that he understands 

the nature of investigative work and the central role of Agents in the FBI. The FB!AA looks 

forward to working with Mr. Comey to effectively confront the challenges facing our country. 

Sincerely. 

;I It ti I (----1 C-11.-;t- --

Konrad Motyka 

President 

Post Office Box 12650, Arlington, Virginia 22219 

A Non-Governmental Association 

(703) 247-2173 Fax (703) 247-2175 
146 

INAA 

July 9, 2013 

The Honorable Patrick Leahy 

Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Chairman Leahy, 

On behalf of the Federal Bureau of Investigations National Academy Associates, Inc., I 

would like to offer our support for the nomination of James B. Comey to serve as the 

next Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI). 

Mr. Comey has been steadfast in his commitment to safeguarding our nation throughout 

his career. His years of experience as Deputy Attorney General of the United States 

have given him the opportunity to work with law enforcement agencies across the 

nation. He fully understands the challenges and complexities agencies face in fighting 

crime, terrorism and everyday threats that exist in our communities and the citizens they 

serve. 

The FBINAA believes that Mr. Comey's years of experience, his expertise and his 

record of success are evidence of his outstanding qualifications necessary to serve as 

the next FBI Director. The FBINAA urges the Judiciary Committee and the members of 

the United States Senate to confirm Mr. Comey's nomination. 

Please feel free to contact us if we can be of any further assistance. 

Sincerely, 

Douglas F. Muldoon 

President, FBINAA 
147 

The Honorable Patrick Leahy 

Chairman 

The United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

437 Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington. D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Charles Grassley 

Ranking Member 

The United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

135 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

July 10, 2013 

Re: Bipartisan Endorsement of Jim Corney to be FBI Director from Former Senior Department 

of Justice Officials 

Dear Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley: 

We are friends, admirers. and former Justice Department colleagues of Jim Corney, and we 

write in strong bipartisan support of his nomination to be the next Director of the Federal Bureau 

of Investigation. All of us have held, at one time or another, senior positions with>n the Justice 

Department, giving us both a perspective on what Jim's prior positions have demanded of him 

and how Jim's experience and personal qualities have prepared him to be the Director. 

The Federal Bureau of Investigation fulfills an important role in our society, ensuring our safety 

and preserving our liberty. It is also a remarkably complex organization - its men and women 

serve around the globe and around the clock, in extraordinarily important and difficult 

assignments. In turn, we know, from our own experience, what it takes to lead the FBI -

integrity, intelligence, independence, dedication, vision, compassion, judgment. and a steadfast 

adherence to the rule of law. 

Jim Comey possesses all of these traits. He has, for instance, the judgment that comes from 

experience and from having faced difficult decisions. He has integrity and independence born 

of his innate sense of what is required of senior public servants. He is smart and 

compassionate. He never expects more of anybody else than he expects of himself. 

We know he will be a strong and effective leader and that our country would be well-served to 

see him confirmed. 

Respectfully, 
148 

Æ