>> lois lerner e-mailed someone and said i quote i am taking advantage of your offer to recapture my lost personal files. my computer skills are basic so nothing fancy. but there were some documents in the files that were irreplaceable. whatever you can do to help is

appreciated. is that right? >> that is an e-mail that has been found and produced. >> next slide, later that day, that it employee sought out from the field director of the customer support division and wrote if she can not fix it, no body can. is that a document that you produced? >> yes. >> next slide. the next day the field director e-mailed ms. lerner and said i talked to the technician and he still has your drive and he wanted to exhaust all avenues to recover your data before sending it to the hard drive cemetery. unfortunately after receiving assistance from several skilled technicians, he cannot recover the data still. is that a part of a document you gave to our committee? >> yes. >> next slide.

on august 1st, 2011 the it field director wrote again and said quote as a last resort we sent your hard drive to a forensic lab to attempt data recovery. mr. koskinen, ci stands for criminal investigations division at the irs and what do they do in the forensic lab in that division? >> they are an ex pert at taking hard drives that have been seized by crum criminals and tax evaders and restoring e-mails. >> do you normally do this when an irs e-mail captures? >> no. >> and why did you do that? >> because i am advised she insisted that all possible efforts be made. >> despite all of the efforts

the field director finally e-mailed ms. lerner and i quote unfortunately the news is not good. these sectors on the hard drive were bad and that made your data unrecoverable. i am very sorry everyone involved tried their best. the technical experts concluded that three years ago, that the sectors on her hard drive were bad. is that accurate? >> that is what the e-mail says. >> these e-mails are concrete evidence of what happened in 2011 but my republican colleagues want to ignore them. they want to pretend they don't exist. those stubborn facts. but they do exist. and they show this was not intentional. this wasn't nefarious. this wasn't a conspiracy.

mr. koskinen, are you aware of any evidence, documents, e-mails and i remind you are under oath and i remind you you have been accused of false statements, are you aware of any evidence, documents, e-mails, or other information from it professionals that call questions the accuracy of the e-mails? >> no. >> and finally, when you testified before this committee on march 26th, did you know about this e-mail claim? did you know ms. lerner's e-mails were lost forever? >> no. >> thank you very much. >> we go to the gentlemen from florida now. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have known the commissioner for many years and i know him to be a good public servant.

i am a little bit baffled. i note, john, that i think you are in a position at the end of the parade with the broom and shovel here and in a difficult situation. let me, if i can, take people back to the history of this and to you commissioner. this targeted began sometime in march or april of 2010. in june of 2010, chairman issa alerted irs and made an inquiry. in february of 2011, lois lerner sent an e-mail saying the tea party is a very dangerous matter. then, the chairman of the committee with jurisdiction in june of 2011, june 3rd, dave

camp, who you spent time with recently sent a letter to the irs that it looks like the heat really started to come on at that point. now an entire administration and one of the biggest scandals in government was during watergate when 18 minutes of tape was lost and somehow between june 3rd and june 13th lois lerner's hard crash is gone in ten days. it isn't just a couple days or 18 minutes like rose mary wood's lost. but 27 months; is that correct? >> all of e-mails -- >> from june of '09 to april of

'11. it raises many questions. now, you came on in december, right? >> yes, the end of december. >> and you were briefed about this whole situation at the beginning, i guess, of january. in february, you testified today you learned there was a problem recovering some of the e-mails. is that correct? >> i learned there was an issue with her e-mails and there was a problem with the dates. >> but then in march what troubles me is you came to us and said last week you informed the committee and others we believe we completed our production to the ways and means committee and all of the documents that are asked for, and this is to us here, and i hope the investigations can now be concluded in the future. you went through telling us how

much money you spent and documents you produced. but nowhere did he hear until a few days ago that the hard drive crashed and this wasn't recoverable. the information we have is they briefed you in february, you gave us this testimony in march, and never spoke to this. >> right. in february as i said they briefed me that with the e-mails they had pulled subject to the search terms they were concerned there was an issue with the data. i wasn't advised there was a hard drive crash. >> i gave you the benefit of the doubt. i went back and looked through all of what you gave us. this is your testimony and what you gave us today conflicts. it raises questions because it appears that you knew and others knew. the congress wasn't informed until recently. i don't have much time, now.

i learned a little about the sauna saw backup contractor and they were retained. are you familiar with them to backup e-mails? >> i wasn't familiar then but i have the information provided today. >> i have the same information and i understand they were dismissed in 2011 and they started in 2005. do you know if they have a back up? >> they were an internal disaster recovery program that would allow you to move from one system or another. it was terminated after an upgrade to outlook 2010 and the system wasn't needed. >> you don't know if they have the backup?

they were in place -- they had that responsibility for back up between i think 2005-2011. >> that is for the chief council. >> that data might exist? >> we have searched everywhere. >> did you ask that company for the information? >> the company didn't have data on their servers that was inside the irs. >> that is gone too? >> that was disaster recovery system for the chief council. they are all been searched. >> many questions, again. >> i thank the gentlemen. we go to the gentlelady from georgia. >> i have known you well before

you came to congress, mr. koskinen. since coming, i have been impressed by the confidence you have inspired in the republicans and democratic state convention alike. it is as if they saved you for jobs that others couldn't do, didn't have the cuts do to, or the integrity. you are well-known on both side of the aisle has the government's more versitle helper. i begin by offering you an apology. i believe you deserve. you deserve one because of accusations designed to sacrifice the reputation of a public service with a spotless

reputation for political advantage without a sen tilla and i use the words advisely of evidence. it is vile enough to look a man in the face and accuse him of perjury without submitting any evidence. it is much worse when all of the evidence supports the version of the facts of the man you are facing. whether it is that the lerner crash occurred well before this investigation began. she must be clanvoyant. all of the evidence is on your side. and i want to point out that the line of conspiracy hunting has

shifted with had lerner crash. for the longest time, the line of questioning was about one subject alone. so we have moved from one scapegoat to another. we just moved off of the notion that this was all a conspiracy directed on behalf of the whitehouse -- that also without a crumb of evidence. lacking evidence the crash provides new information. just for the record mr. koskinen have you identified any evidence since you have been commissioner that irs employees before you came or now were part of a conspiracy to intentionally target the president's political enemies? >> i have done no investigation.

i read the ig's report that said inappropriate criteria were used to identify for review and the ig had nine recommendations and we accepted all of them. i think it is important for the public to be sure whoever they are they will be treated fairly whether it is republicans or democratic state convention that belong to organizations. they should understand they are going to be treated fairly. if there is an issue it is something in their tax return. if someone else has the issue they get the same response from the irs. i think it is critical the public have that confidence. >> individuals have testified just as you have that there is no evidence of the first conspiracy and now that we are on to the second conspiracy -- so did the ig. do you recall the ig testified and i will quote the inspector general when asked by the ways

and means community if there was evidence of political motivation from the whitehouse he said did you have any evidence and he said we did not, sir. so i just want to say that your strong reputation, your character should hold you in good stead as you face baseless accusations and when a man of faith is given accusations and no evidence before him, i think he has nothing to worry about. thank you for your extraordinary service to the people of the united states. >> i would wonder if that quote from march, we can find lois lermer's e-mail -- would the commissioner stand behind that statement or qualify with we will find some of lois lerner's e-mail.

>> i am sure we was trying to find all of the e-mails and they were lost before we began. >> her crash came after be began investigating. >> and therefore what mr. chairman? >> therefore she did what? >> therefore documents disappeared? >> and therefore she did what or mr. koskinen did what? >> i didn't say -- >> there is no evidence this man had anything to do with any malseasons or he should be accused of perjury before the committee. >> only that he said he was aware that lerner's e-mails were overlooked, missing or had technical issues. there was no evidence to know they were missing.

i said at the time we had no idea whether any of those applied. that is why they were investigating. that is what i was told in april when they came back with the findings. i never said at the time that we had any idea whether any of that was true. >> that is the inconsistency we are talking about >> what is the inconsistency? >> if you know there is a difference in the numbers -- >> what numbers? >> the commissioner knew there was a problem but not the details. >> he should talk before he knows the details? >> when they want to know if you are get to get all -- >> mr. koskinen, what is your response to that? you said we are going to find them all. were you lying when you said that? >> absolutely not. thank you. >> we now go to mr. turner.

>> mr. koskinen, you are time-otouted as a man of integrity and i am going to ask you to use that to help me understand a few things that have become confusing to me. you said you want to restore confidence to the agency and i have no question to question that. i have no bases upon which to think that is not your goal. but you have to under the discussion of the missing e-mails goes to the accomplishment of your about to do that. let's start with concepts of ethics. you agree, as commissioner, you can not be the manager of the agency, the investigation, and the judge, jury and prosecutor of the matters being under taking by the agency? there is conflict and bias in

those positions. you cannot fill all of those correct? >> i'm not sure i understand. i am in charge of the agency, responsible for its activities and accountable. >> you believe you can testify under oath that no crime has been committed? >> i can testify i have seen no evidence. >> i can tell you i have no evidence that lindsay lohois let committed a crime but i don't have the ability for let them take things. just because you have not seen the evidence doesn't mean you have the ability to say no crime was committed. >> i would note again -- >> you cannot testify under oath that no crime was committed. >> the inspector general -- >> do you have the ability to say no crime has been done.

>> i have the ability to say i have seen no evidence. >> lois lerner came here and provoked to fifth because she indicated she wanted to assert the rights because of fear of prosecution. let's say that again. fear of criminal prosecution. you cannot testify today that lois lerner has no need for fear of criminal prosecution because you cannot testify she didn't commit a crime. here is what i am concerned about. since you are a man before us with integrity. if in the process of the e-mails being destroyed, there were those in your agency that knew a crime possible was committed they committed a crime because destruction of evidence is a

crime. and you cannot testify there was no crime committed in the destruction of her e-mails. you can only say you have no evidence. >> i have no evidence of a whole series of things. >> that is why it is important to getting to jim jordan and the special prosecutor. if you are a man of integrity and you know you don't have evidence versus you know no crime committed you have to understand your agency is at risk. you possible have people at the irs who are committing crime. the only way to know that is calling the fbi and asking them to do an investigation on the disappearance of the e-mails. so my question is will you call the fbi and ask thel them to

investigate the e-mails that their destruction could have been a crime? >> an inspector general, not controlled by us -- >> they are not a criminal investigation. >> they are capable of doing criminal and civil. they make recommendations. >> the integrity of your group is at stake. lois lerner evoked the fifth and that should be enough to say maybe crimes were committed with my agency and now the e-mails are missing maybe someone not of integrity committed a crime. you should call for the fbi and you should call for a special prosecutor. >> i cannot enter into lois lerner's mind. >> i asked you to pick up the phone and call the fbi. >> i am not calling the fbi. >> that is an issue of your personal integrity because the

concern the americans have are at stake. >> the inspector general will issue a report and we will get the benefit of the report and then determine watt the appropriate action. >> i have believed what happened in your agency with lois lerner is a crime, i believe others are involved, i believe the e-mails missing would give us the ability to establish that and i believe that someone took criminal acts to destroy them and i believe as the commissioner of the agency you should call the fbi. >> no facts behind them. >> thank you. we go to the gentlemen from massachusetts now. >> mr. koskinen, good evening and thank you for being here. i don't think i have seen a display of this kind of disrespect since i have been in congress. it is unfortunate that anyone

would be subjected to this. >> will the gentlemen yield? >> no. >> then you suspend. >> please stop the clock. >> the time is suspended. i would caution all members not to characterize the intent or the character of your fellow members here on the dayious. >> but it is fair game to question the integrity of the witness? the rules of the house speak to questions the integrity of members. i would caution all of us that the chair has questioned the testimony earlier as whether it was the truth or whole truth that in fact to question the motives of the witness should be

done on evidence and questions the motives of your fellow member is an action for which the floor can take down rules. >> mr. chairman -- >> use your mike. >> has the chairman violated the rules of the committee? >> please state your point of parliamentary -- >> has the chairman violated his own rules in the -- >> that is a question. >> do you have a question of approv approval? >> state a point of inquiry. if not, we will go on. the gentlemen may continue. >> i think the understanding is

the rules of the house say the members should reflect them in a way that periforms creditability on the house. i think people watching can decide if that has been followed. you are trying to tell people it is the inspector general's responsibility to file the report and make action on what should be done or upon reading the report you and others might make recommendations on what should be done. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> we are not even to that point yet. >> that is correct. >> we might first gather information and decide where we go from there. >> correct. >> have you testified tonight to anything that was not discussed at last friday's hearing? >> did i what? >> have you discussed any matter important to this subject that

wasn't discussed last friday? >> thus far, no. just to get it right, you were scheduled to testify originally in front of chairman camp's committee on the 24th. >> that is correct. >> have they been in touch before scheduling that? >> they asked if i was available on the morning on tuesday and i wasn't and we agreed i would testify in the afternoon >> you agreed to testify volunitarivolu voluntarally. >> i have always agreed. >> you received a subpoena from chairman issa? >> correct. >> did mr. issa come and ask you to come? >> no. >> did the staff ask you to come? >> no. >> did he explain why it was urgent you come at 7:00 on

monday when you were scheduled to appear the following day? tuesday the 24th. >> no. >> i will not ask you to sp speculate. but some might say camp can't do the job or there is competition. you were notified there was going to be a hearing in chairman camp's committee on friday of last week. >> that is correct. >> >> how were you notified? >> the staff asked if i was available on friday and they had to get the approval agreement and i understand there was a seven day rule. i told them i could make myself available. >> how long