Page:Comey-Interview-12-7-18-Redacted.pdf/206

206 Mr. It does sound right.

Mr. In your judgment, what element was missing that prevented or thwarted a successful -- well, let me ask you this: Is it your position there was insufficient evidence to charge or your position that there was insufficient evidence, even if charged, to secure a conviction?

Mr. As I recall, our judgment was that, given the way the Department of Justice for 50 or 100 years had treated those statutes, we did not have sufficient evidence of intent for any -- anybody in the counterespionage section to bring those charges, that they would never bring a gross negligence prosecution, and that all the misdemeanor cases involved some other element of proof that raised it up to the level at which they would bring that statute to bear.

So I don't -- I don't think we spent a lot of time figuring out whether we had a beyond a reasonable doubt case, because it was so obvious we had a case that nobody would prosecute.

Mr. Had there ever been prosecutions under the gross negligence statute?

Mr. One, as I recall, since 1917.

Mr. Was the statute ever used in applications for search warrants?

Mr. I don't know. I don't know if I ever knew that.

Mr. So, as we sit here today -- and I know you and I have had this conversation, and it's been a while -- your best