>> twenty-one disks? >> twenty-one disks. >> 1.1 million pages? and it did in contain information, correct? >> we learned that on the bus but i didn't ask when he didn't ask when you learn to i said it contained it, correct? >> we learned later that it contained it. >> mr. cummings just made a big deal about its no big deal. while in fact it is. the justice department astronaut mission of the use of publicly as they will put you go to lois lerner to get it. you get in 2010 and the format you want it. it's 21 to this, 1.1 million pages. you say it's available publicly but you go get it from the irs. it contains confidential taxpayer donor information. all those are facts, correct? >> they are not necessary facts that are all linked together though, mr. chairman. >> they are all in the database though correct? the irs -- i did make that up. the irs told us it was confidential information. >> no request at the time.

i'm not sure the justice department requested information or if the irs offered it. i'm not sure how the idea -- >> when you get in the format you ask for, it sure likes like you asked for it. >> i'm not sure of the actual idea providing that information to the justice department came up four years ago, but it was provided after the meeting. ..

i'm just reading your testimony. she indicated someone else would follow-up, but that did not occur. why did not occur? >> i don't know. >> you don't know? >> let me give you a reason why i think it might not have occurred. this corresponds, this meeting took place on may 8th 2013. do you know what happened? >> yes i do. >> what happened? >> she gave a speech and talk about the issue. >> yes. >> she explained to the whole world the irs was caught with their hand in the cookie jar and were target -- targeting conservative groups. that is what a follow-up did not occur. two days before the very lawyer who met with lois lerner and got that data base. two days before she goes public meeting with her again and saying follow will take place and the follow-up does not take place because she goes public and says, you know what, at

targeting did, in fact, happened . spinet in a way he blames someone bids and is known to be false. and this -- give me a break. unwed -- >> the next member. so this committee was told just one week again and now that he knew in april of this year him that a substantial portion of the e-mails of lois lerner or lost and he waited two months to tell us and even longer to tell you. it is -- if a private citizen does something like that under investigation, fines of they have lost a court document and does not tell someone, that is a problem. so is it a big deal to you, the justice department, the head of the internal revenue service waited two months on the united

states congress, the american people, and most importantly the fbi and justice department that they had lost the e-mails of lois lerner? >> this is a matter obviously we would like to know about the loss of the e-mails. >> i'm asking if it is a big deal he waited two months. >> it depends upon the circumstances. >> circumstances where he knew in april. last week he said he knew in april. why didn't he tell us and he didn't. but he waited two months. >> i would like to know all the circumstances from them as to why there was -- >> as well. >> before i answer the question whether it is a big deal. >> all right the gentle lady from illinois >> sent you, mr. chairman. i believe that in his testimony he actually, the response to why there was a weight is people were not informed and for the next two months they were attempting to recover the loss to e-mails from other computers were the e-mails were located so that just because you lose the mills from the hard drive of lois

lerner and want they would exist in the recipient. i believe over 80 other host computers were looked at. that is part of the delay. i would like to know also the full extent of what was going on as well. deputy him, as i am sure you are aware the nature of the justice department regarding tax exempt applications is subject to become a lengthy discussion before various congressional committees unsubstantiated allegations that the justice department had it pretty much closed the investigation or political reasons. attorney general holder repeatedly confirmed before both the house and senate judiciary committees that the justice department and fbi are still actively investigating this matter. january 29, 2014, the attorney general testified before the

senate judiciary committee that the matter, is presently being investigated, interviews are being done, and analysis is being conducted. several months later on april 8, 2014, the attorney general further testified before the house judiciary committee and confirmed the department investigation was still an ongoing matter that the justice department is actually pursuing. deputy attorney general cole, can you please confirm that the department is still actively investigating irs practices surrounding tax-exempt obligations? >> this is still an ongoing investigation, that is correct. >> so accusations that the department as prematurely closed the investigation is false, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> thank you. some have lamented the length of time this investigation has banned. in your experience is it uncommon for complex investigations such as this to take a substantial amount of time to complete? >> both as a prosecutor and defense attorney, this is not an unusual amount of time poor and investigation like this.

>> thank you. in your opinion, is there anything unusual or troublesome? >> not that i have seen, no. >> this is standard. investigations of this complexity you would expect to take an absolute link the amount of time? >> this is normal, yes. >> can you comment on reports that justice department has decided not to bring charges against irs officials? >> no decisions have been made in this case. >> can you confirm that there -- no decision has been made about whether to charge anyone in the ongoing investigation by doj in reference to the fact that the investigation is still ongoing. >> there have been no decisions made about the case. >> is there potential for criminal charges, if you were to discover in the investigation some cause? >> a whole range of options are still open. >> thank you. i think you for your cooperation today, and i want to give you a chance to respond to some of the allegations, whether the justice

department worked with the irs to compile an active database for illicit and comprehensive registry. was this something that was a collision between the justice department and the irs? >> no, it was not. >> did the doj or the irs use this registry for the potential prosecution of nonprofits? >> we didn't. as a matter of fact, we did not use it for any purpose. >> and both the germans have said that in the letter of june june 10, 2014 gamma special prosecutor is needed for a truly independent criminal investigation. do you support that? >> i do not think one is necessary here. >> i'm going to give you a little time to respond to the allegations on how the doj has

conducted this investigation and these allegations that you are deluding, delaying, lying. i only have 30 seconds left. it is not a lot of time, but go ahead. >> short of saying we are not doing that, this is the same thing. we are not talking about what we are doing investigations either way. my answers will help or hurt us, we're not talking about what we do. that is just how we proceed with investigations for a lot of good reasons. >> why, can you name some of the good reasons why you do that in general? first. >> first of all, you do not want people to prejudge without all the facts. you want to make sure you gather all the facts that are available so you have a complete and full record upon which to make the determination. you want to protect people's privacy because many times people will provide us information, and you don't want to start pulling out and telling everybody who is talking to us and to is not talking to us. you don't want to have some witnesses and affected by what other witnesses have said so

that you can get the pure statements from each type of witness. some people you may just want to make sure they are protected because there are allegations about them that turn out not to be true, and it is not fair for those to be published. you want to make sure that everything is done with fairness and thoroughness, and you wanted have the ability to do that without the interference and clear of the public spotlight. that is not the way investigations are done well. >> thank you. i am out of time. >> would that include the president of the united states prejudging the outcome of the case when he said there is not a smidgen of corruption? you just talked about you don't want anyone saying anything, but yet the head of the executive branch prejudges the entire investigation of nationally televised interview. >> mr. chairman, i am talking about what the department of justice does. >> you are talking about doing a good investigation, getting to the truth, and he did not want certain people talking about it. i would think that would include the highest-ranking official in the country.

>> mr. chairman, if i may, we do not want the justice department does not talk about the investigation. we are the ones that know what the facts are. lots of people have talked about this investigation on both sides of it. they are free to do that. that is part of the first amendment right. we do not because we are the ones with the actual facts. >> the president is different. that is a completely different category than members of congress are private citizens. all i am saying is, you just went through a whole list. you cannot even tell us who is involved in the case, but somehow we bring up -- no big deal. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. >> given the topic of this hearing, i assume you are familiar with the portion of federal regulations dealing with prohibition on disqualification present from personal or

political relationship regarding investigations, correct? >> yes. >> fadel 28 section 25.2 of the code of regulations. >> that's correct. >> you surely understand that it explicitly states, no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation and prosecution or any person or organization which he knows as a specific and substantial interest that can be substantially affected by the outcome of the investigation and prosecution. do you understand that? >> that is what it says. >> you probably also understand there is a section be that states, an employee assigned to or otherwise participating in a criminal investigation of prosecution believes his participation may be prohibited by paragraph eight of this section shall report the matter and all attending facts and circumstances to his supervisor or the equivalent. if the supervisor determines a

person or political relationship exists seashell relieve that employee a participation and less determined further in writing after full consideration of all the facts and circumstances that the relationship will not have the effect of rendering the employee services less than fully impartial and professional and the employee's participation would not create an appearance of a conflict of interest likely to affect the public protection and integrity of the prosecution you understand all of that? this applies to the department of justice, correct? >> estimate does. >> do you concede this is that code of guidance? >> this is the regulation having guidance. >> to you believe the attorney of the department of civil rights division is a major contributor to the president obama campaign ? >> you have to look at section c of that regulation. it defines those terms. and it defines the political relationship, meaning the close identification with an elected official, candidate, whether or

not successful for elective public office or a political party or a campaign organization and arising from service as a principal adviser thereto or a principal official thereof. >> would you say a principal adviser is someone who contributes to that party? >> no, an adviser would not be someone who makes a contribution >> really? do you also believe that you should have brought this forward is a conflict of interest? >> i believe that as the definition states she did not fall within the political relationship under the definition. >> let me ask you a question. are you familiar with the impeachment of richard nixon? >> i am. >> article two, exhibit one with the irs. this is poignant and the public mind said, the power to tax, the power to destroy. even more scrutiny should be applied to this captain to you not agree. >> we are applying a great deal of scrutiny. >> once again, the same type of coverage should be explicit in regards to making sure it is squeaky clean.

>> i agree. she did not meet the definition. >> sidestepping, i would say. >> i respectfully disagree. >> i am not an attorney, but i am a dentist. if the implication of that aspect in the public light would show that there is a conflict of interest, and i think from that standpoint the public is one that we should be hearing to the perception of making sure it is a fair and political evaluation. i think that goes not only to you but also in regards to the concept to the public. and i think if they know that further detail. it would you not agree? >> i think you have to go through with the regulation and apply the law to the matter. the law in this matter has a clear definition of what is meant by the terms, and those terms did not encompass -- >> i see. i want to go back to some of the comments he made here. the president made a comment

that there is not a smidgen of opportunity appear corruption in this case. would you agree with that terminology? >> congressman, this investigation is open -- >> well, i am going to cut you off there. how would you define a smidgen? small? >> congressman -- >> smidgen, small? is it big? is a small? what is a smidgen? >> i am not sure the context and meaning. >> you were not watching the super bowl? >> i was. >> you actually did hear that. you are aliterate person. a smidgen would be what? >> a smidgen is small. >> in this case there is not an opportunity for something to be wrong and corrupted from your professional judgment? >> congressman, i am not going to comment on the findings we have made so far and the fact that we have gathered in this investigation. we don't do that. if somebody else wants to render an opinion -- >> let me ask you a question.

i will cut you off right there. he made a comment that individuals are fantastic people are the human? >> of course. >> so they do make mistakes. >> of course. >> thank you very much. >> the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman, deputy attorney general cole, thank you for being here today. i do hope that we can use this opportunity to lay to rest some of the more outrageous allegations that have been circulating about the department of justice. and and then have the may 22, 2014, letter to attorney general holder noted that they were, shocked to learn that the justice department and the irs had a meeting attended by lois lerner in early october 2010 to discuss the criminal enforcement of campaign finance laws. that letter, declined testimony

about the october 2010 meaning -- meeting, reveal that the justice department contributed to the political pressure on the irs to fix the problem posed by the citizens united decision. deputy attorney general cole, do you have any reason to believe that the october 2010 meeting between irs and doj was improper in some fashion? >> no, i do not. >> and i want to say, during the transcribed interviews of doj witnesses committee staff asked about that october 2010 meeting. the chief of doj public integrity section had the following exchange with committee staff. question, at the october 8,

2010, meeting did you or anyone else from the department of justice suggest that irs employees should fix the problem posed by citizens united decision? answer, no. the question, in your opinion, does the citizens united decision pose a problem answer, it is not my role to comment on the law of the land. it is along of the land. my job is to enforce the law. citizens united is to law of the land. that was the answer that was given. deputy attorney general cole, do you agree that citizens united is the law of the land and that it is the role of doj to enforce that law? >> yes, it is, and to enforce all the other loss involved in that argument. >> all right. now, the director of the election branch of the doj public integrity section was

asked about citizens united during this interview. in response he said the following. so citizens united is not a problem. it is a lot. and so, no, i am not aware of any effort or part of any effort to fix the problem from citizens united. i am aware that it changed a lot , and that law enforcement in reaction to such changes must be vigilant about the opportunities they presented for lawbreaking. my question for you, deputy attorney general cole, are you aware of any attempt by the justice department to fix a problem posed by citizens united? >> i am aware of no such effort. there was no problem. >> well, now that statements from doj witnesses and deputy attorney general himself have directly refuted the chairman's allegation that the doj

contributed to the political pressure on the irs to fix the problem posed by the citizens united decision, i want to say, i hope this claim is put to rest once and for all. it is time to stop creating fake scandals and start focusing on conducting real oversight, which is the charge of this committee. and i yield back. >> i would just ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a statement made by ms. lois lerner as speech eight days after the meeting that mr. cartwright just referenced. ms. lois lerner said, everyone, fix it now before the elections. what we do know is that there was a speech eight days after that meeting. >> mr. chairman, unanimous

consent request. >> i thank the chair. since we are putting stuff on the record i would ask unanimous consent that the full transcript of the staff interview with the director of the election compliance manager at doj -- >> i object. it is not the policy of this committee to but transcripts in entirety. i respected temin's right to take any and all pertinent areas, but putting the questions and answers in transgress has been proven to be used to coach witnesses. in the coaching of witnesses later on, i'm sure mr. kohl will tell you, is not productive and an investigation. >> the gentleman from california >> mr. chairman, i have a second unanimous consent request. i would further ask sense we do not want to cherry pick around here -- i was simply trying to avoid that because i know the committee chair frowns on that. may 29, 2014, interview with the chief of doj public integrity

section also be entered into the record. >> again, i object unless the gentleman can cite appropriate items. he is welcome to. the policy of this chair is that it is destructive to on goings investigation to do entire transcripts. >> well, mr. chairman, at the invitation of the chairman then i will cite two sections of the interview that i hope that chairman will not object to be entered into the record at this time. but i am going to have to read them. >> since i joined the public integrity section to if we -- consistent experience that this section is active on a strictly non-partisan basis and all of its decisions and actions. and i experienced politics plays

no role in our work as prosecutors. that was part of his interview. and then the second one, mr. mr. chairman, i will cease, on may 29, john kennedy's birthday of this year, the chief of doj public integrity section explain to our staff, since i have been chief of this section of the public integrity section i have never encountered, nor would i tolerate any politically motivated decisions. politics does not and cannot play a role in our work as prosecutors. and i think the chair. >> i think the gentleman. we will try to get to two more. we have a couple of votes on the floor. >> thank you, mr. chairman. a couple of areas. would you agree that it would be wrong to continue and investigation for any length of time if there is not a smidgen of evidence of wrongdoing? >> if you have completed the investigation and you have

satisfied yourself that there is no wrongdoing in the investigation, then the investigation is done. >> that was not my question. my question was, if you began an investigation and go through weeks, months, now basically a year, and you cannot have a smidgen of evidence of a crime, is it appropriate to continue spending taxpayer dollars? >> it depends on whether you think there is a chance that you may find additional evidence of crime. >> general cole, you have an ongoing investigation that has been going on now for a year. you have confirmed an ongoing investigation. so it is appropriate to say that your answer is that there are either has to be evidence of a crime or a belief by year investigators that there is, in fact, a crime that has been committed that you are investigating, is in that correct? >> there has to be believe that there is still evidence

necessary to be looked at to determine whether or not a criminal statute has been violated. >> mr. cole, i really appreciate your dodging on behalf of decorum -- >> i am not dodging. >> my question needs to be answered. you cannot spend taxpayer dollars if you do not have the belief that it is going to lead to a crime. it would be a frivolous investigation at some point, wouldn't it? you continue looking for crimes for years on innocent people when, in fact, there is not a smidgen of evidence, do you continue looking at somebody for a criminal investigation for months or years without any evidence just because you, and a long run, think it might happen? >> to start investigations -- >> no, that was a yes or no, general cold. i outlined a rather repugnant accusation that the minority has made about this chair and this committee that we are continuing

to investigate wrongdoing by the irs both in cincinnati and particularly in washington led by lois lerner. we continue to investigate it because we believed and ways and means has deferred to you criminal allegation. do you continued to investigate 55 we're not talking about whether or not you will get a successful prosecution and conviction. we understand that all of that, sometimes you go for years and never get -- like organized crime, you do not necessarily get a conviction. but would you continue investigating, as you have, if you did not have, if your investigators did not have the belief that the wrongdoing occurred for which you were trying to build a case. and that is a yes or no. >> mr. chairman, that is not a yes or no. >> oh, yes it is. will you continue to take

people's time, money, force them to get attorneys, investigate, subpoena, grab information coming interview people, would you do that if you did not have a belief that there was a possibility of a crime and one that you thought worth investigating. would you do that? >> can i give you my answer and you can follow up. >> you could give me a yes or no and then further explain. please don't be a bad witness. >> i'm trying not to be -- >> that was a question you can answer yes or no. would you continue to investigate people without a smidgen of evidence? would you continue to spend taxpayer dollars when, in fact, there was no reasonable belief that a crime had been committed? sometimes you investigate to insure that you have evidence that one was not committed. >> so you could be -- that means that you could be spending time and money trying to prove that lois lerner is innocent and that this committee was wrong and

accusing her, you could be doing that? >> we are not trying to prove anything. >> i did not ask you were trying to do. >> trying to find out what the facts are -- >> okay. i issued you a lawful, constitutionally mandated subpoena to the attorney-general in it we asked for all documents and communications between lois lerner and employees in the department of justice. he responded and said, we also have not included documents reflecting the department's internal deliberations about law enforcement matters in which we have substantial confidence of interest because we believe that disclosures would chill candid exchange of interviews that are important to sound decision making. you recognize those words? >> that is a standards -- >> okay. i just want to make it clear.

the standard policy of the department of justice is, you do not give us the q and a of your interviews because it could have a chilling effect on or adversely affect your ongoing investigations, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> great. i just would step make sure we understood that is what could investigations to. however, when we subpoena documents between the department of justice and lois lerner, we got one crunch. that shows that, in fact, either justice wanted the goods on lots of people, including information that was not publicly available, taxpayer id, information, or lois lerner send that information and the department of justice did not want it. it is only one of the two because it did get sent. we subpoenaed all of the communications, was there any reason that you would not and have not delivered to us all of those documents says that is not your investigation of lois lerner but, in fact, our

investigation of you? you being the department of justice in addition to lois lerner since they're obviously was a relationship there in which documents inappropriate to be sent were sent. >> i would have to go back and look. they're is a difference between the documents that were created at the time and documents that have been created in determining how to respond, as is described in the letter. i don't know which documents are being withheld at this point, mr. chairman. >> will you commit today in the case of documents that would have been exchanges between lois lerner or documents that lois lerner may have asked to be sent back and forth, communications that back in those time frames, this is before -- obviously before you were debating whether to give us information are not, but the documents related to her activities and the irs activity. will you agree either to give us all the documents related to correspondence back and forth between the irs and anyone at

department of justice in this timeframe that may have been related to the ongoing investigation, 401(c)3 and so on or give us the privilege of law understanding that as an attorney one or the other is to us. will you commit to do that? >> we will commit to give you the documents or give you an indication of what types of documents we are not providing you, as we have done in the past. >> would you do in the form of a privilege to log so that the documents have sufficient specificity to individually make the claim why there is a specific privilege, not a blanket we are giving you some and not others, if you don't mind. >> my understanding is we have not given privilege logs in the past and see no reason the start that now, but we will give you information that will allow you to a understand the nature of documents that are not being provided. >> my understanding is your boss has been held in contempt because he refused to give us a document related to clause being broken by lying to congress and

the people who knew about it for ten months and those internal documents have yet to be produced in spite of the fact that before the court and two years later. so understand, i don't care about your history. i don't care about anything except the constitution. and when the discussion was going on about citizens united i almost interrupted for one reason. it is not about the law. citizens united is a constitutional decision. it is not a law that can be fixed. you cannot fix a constitutional decision. the constitution was a decision that the president objected to. the constitution was the one that he truly feel to have decorum in the well of the u.s. house of representatives when he reprimanded the supreme court for their decision in citizens united. and lois lerner fought publicly and said publicly, they want us to fix it. and lois lerner went about

trying to fix it by going after conservative groups for what they believed. and working with the department of justice to try to get audits and further prosecution of people who essentially were conservative and asserting their constitutional free-speech. so i hope that you would never investigate pay for war their crimes related to this if there was not a smidgen of evidence. i would hope that you were doing it because in fact as we know on this committee crimes were committed, regulations were violated, rules were broken and american constitutional rights were violated by lois lerner and, perhaps, others around her. i hope that is the reason your investigation is ongoing, and i look forward to those privileged locks. i yield back. >> the gentleman from nevada is recognized to be we're going to come back. if you want to go now, we have three minutes and 40 seconds left. >> mr. chairman, i ask for unanimous consent under rule nine that the minority be given equal time based upon the fact

that the chairman went over an additional five minutes. >> i have been very lenient with the time people be happy to let you go over, if you want. you may start. go right ahead. >> thank you for being here today. i want to start by reiterating the fact that the chairman asked at the beginning of this hearing for you to swear under oath that you are telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before this committee. and so throughout the questioning you have indicated that this investigation is ongoing by the department of justice. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> is there any reason for members of this committee or millions of americans to believe that that is not the case or to believe otherwise? >> there is no reason. >> after the press report was released in january, 2014, has attorney general holder

explicitly stated to the public that the investigation is ongoing. >> i believe he has. >> thank you. of want to bring to the committee's attention the fact, again, that many of us agree that there was absolutely wrongdoing by any irs on the handling of the tax-exempt status, the process was unacceptable , and people do need to be held accountable. believe that the president famously referred to the irs mishandling to the allegations insuperable sunday consisting of fun had decision that it was -- the chairman asked during a june june 11, 2014, judiciary hearing, how can we trust that a

dispassionate investigation is being carried out when the president claimed no corruption occurred? during the same hearing the chairman asked fbi director, can you explain why there is an investigation given that the president said there was not even a smidgen of corruption? the director responded, i mean no disrespect to the president or anyone else who has expressed a point of view about the matter, but i don't care about anyone's characterization of it. i care and might troops care only about the fact. there is an investigation because there was a reasonable basis to believe that crimes may have been committed, and so we are conducting that investigation. so deputy attorney general cole, do you agree with the assessment that outside characterization's, even by the president, have no

bearing on any particular investigation? >> that is correct. people do not know what it is we know. we do our job and try to of locked out -- black out what people say on the outside. >> is it accurate to say the department does not take direction from the president on how to conduct ongoing investigations? >> we do not, and that is a very specific line that is drawn. >> the gentleman yields. >> chairman, i understand we have less than a minute. i don't know whether you were coming back. are you coming back? can eat resume his question when he comes back and if you don't mind? i want us to be able to vote. >> yeah. yap. >> does that make sense? i just want to make sure we get answers. >> we are out of time. we have to get to vote. >> 300 people out here voting. >> i am not going to be one of them. >> it is totally up to the -- >> finished? recess? i am going to ask one more question one quick question

before i go. >> i reserve my time until we return. >> you will be given your full two and a half, three minutes, whatever you had left. we are going to recess, before we do, is the department of justice investigating why the irs waited two months to disclose the loss of lois lerner e-mails? >> i don't know if that is specifically what we are investigating. >> i am asking you specifically, are you going to look at the fact that the head of the agency that target conservative groups knew in april and did not tell us and did not tell you for two months? you going to look at that fact? >> that depends upon whether or not the irs refers -- the inspector general refers that to us. this scenario -- >> what should the inspector general have to do with it? i certainly think it is a problem. the american people think it is a problem. i would hope the justice department would think it is a problem. so why wouldn't you look into

the 10-month lag? >> we would have to determine if they're is a potential criminal violation before we look at that. we don't investigate for no reason. there has to be a basis that it might implicate a federal criminal statute. we have to look at that first. >> all right. we will resume. we're going to take a recess. we will be back in probably 30 minutes. thank you. we stand in recess. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the committee will be in order. the gentleman from nevada is recognized for the remainder of his time. i believe it it was approximately three minutes or

so. i will give you a couple of extra minutes. >> thank you. mr. attorney general, thank you for continuing to be with us this afternoon. so as i was concluding my questions before we recessed, i was asking about the fact that we -- regardless of statements made outside groups or characterization that the department of justice approaches its investigations in a pair, impartial, and unemployment ways so if you could just answer for the record whether is the case to say that the department does not take direction from the president on how to conduct ongoing investigation? >> we do not take any direction from the president. as a matter of fact, i would say it is a time-honored restriction and barrier put in between the

department of justice and the white house. it is independent in its investigations, and that is on a very scrupulously. the department of justice -- i think the director put it very well. when we find allegations that are worthy of investigation for whatever reason we investigate them to find out what the true facts are and then apply those facts to the law and make a determination about the appropriate resolution. that is what we do, no more, no less. >> has the president's statement in any way, the statement that there was not a smidgen of corruption, and plunge the department's investigation in any way? >> no, it has not. >> mr. chairman, what i would like to say is actually the fact that i wish this committee would affect our oversight function the way that the department of justice is approaching its investigation which is to do so fairly, and partially, and without

prejudging the facts. the attorney general here today has indicated that that is definitely the approach that they take, and we want the facts as well. there are those of us who believe that there was wrongdoing and there should be accountability. we just don't think that we should prejudge the circumstances before all of the facts get out. despite the approach by others. i would like to ask unanimous consent, mr. chairman, to enter into the record opening statements of to department of justice employees who were interviewed in the course of the irs investigation. >> opening statements, you said? >> and the chief of the public integrity section and the director of the electorate private bench. >> what are you asking to enter? >> i am asking to enter their statements from their --

>> is it the full transcript? we had this debate just a little bit ago. if it is the full transcript, i would object. >> i want to state for the record, mr. chairman, the republican armed services chairman just released 100 percent of the transcripts from benghazi. i am not clear on the standard being used by this chair. >> we are going to try to move on. and gramm going to object. i will take a look at it. i will object. i will look at it afterwards. >> canasta point of order as to the reading. >> unanimous consent. >> what would be the rule. >> and coming to recognize -- i want to try to move and get as many of our colleagues as we can. >> i have not finished my time that was allotted to me. the chair was over five minutes. i have additional time. we recessed. >> i gave you more than the time you had left.

>> under rule 95. >> i have given mr. cummings more time than five minutes if you talk to anyone, i have been and will continue to be generous with the time, but i want to get to everyone is here. >> under rule nine -- >> the gentleman from reckitt -- south carolina is recognized. >> fed chairman will not recognize -- >> i recognize the gentleman from carolina. >> i -- >> i -- >> you will not recognize my point of order. >> i have. you don't have a valid point of order. you ask for unanimous consent. >> i ask the minority be given equal time. >> yes, they have. >> the majority. >> an absolute time you will not get as much because you are the minority. you will be given equal time for the number of members you have. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. >> i would like to be recognized if you yield.

>> will the gentleman yield for 30 seconds? >> yes. i will be glad to yield for 30 seconds. mr. chairman, i would like to point out that the chairman of the full committee was given a full ten minutes prior to the line of questioning, and it was represented by you that he would be given -- >> it was not represented that would give him an extra five minutes. >> i am planning my time. and reclaiming my time. i think the chair. let me go ahead, mr. kohl, with a few questions. one, and your testimony, verbal testimony here today, let me give you a quotation. you said, you have the utmost confidence in take-and their investigation 3d stand by that? that is a direct quote of you. >> yes i do. the entire team investigating. >> let me ask you, is it normal

procedure when they investigate someone to have a member of management and on personal interrogatory discussions with other employees? would you normally do that in your investigative mode? to have members of management in the majority of those interviews >> a lot of them take place -- >> the question is -- >> i just want to put it in context, congressman. >> when the interviews were happening back in 2011 how would you put it in context? >> if you let me, i am trying to explain. inspectors general have different types of investigations that they do other than just criminal investigations. >> right. >> we are working with tigda on a criminal investigation. >> i understand that. >> prior to this they were doing an investigation on their own without us please. >> your utmost confidence is really about the investigation now, not what happened before. >> the different types of rules

that apply. sometimes different agencies have union rules that applied and control the way that an inspector general may talk to people. i am not sure what the rules are . >> since you weren't there, we will go on. many of 2013 you started an investigation, is that correct. >> the justice department. >> the justice department started the investigation, and that continues today? >> yes. >> missing e-mails that we have now discovered, does it not concern you that your exhaustive investigation did not uncover the fact that there were missing e-mails and you had to read about it in the press? should we be concerned your investigation is not exhaustive if it tipped you more than 13 months and you had to read about it in the press that there were missing e-mails? does that concern you? >> it concerns me.

it depends upon the reason. as i have explained, as we look to the records in this case there was not a gaping hole because these e-mails come from a lot of different sources. >> okay. that is reasonable. but the individual with tigda that knew about the fact that there were missing e-mails in october of 2012, did you not talk to him? because he apparently did not tell you, and he knew about it. why would he not have told you, if you had this ongoing, exhaustive investigation with somebody from tigda of which you have the utmost confidence, and they would not tell you there were missing e-mails when he knew about it? >> if i understand your question , the person who i believe knew about it earlier on was in a much different context, and i do not know how much they knew about what related to our investigation at the time. >> listen, --

>> i just don't know. >> you are insulting the american people. >> i don't believe -- >> and you are indicating that someone that was involved in the tigda investigation did not know that there was all this going on and that the american people are concerned. is that what you're saying. >> i don't know if that person was involved in this tigda. >> yes. they wrote notes. that is how we found out in october 2012. actually, the way we found out about it is you gave us e-mails and we all of a sudden said, why did the irs not give us the e-mails. and then it was she is sam we found out that the missing e-mails when actually someone with c-span2 already knew about it >> i would have preferred the dots be connected earlier, but i think that tigda agent in october of 2012 was investigating something quite different and not this matter that tigda was in is my understanding. >> oh, really? because he went back and found notes that there may be a

problem. so let's go a little bit further. the irs commissioner february that there was a problem. he said he did not tell you. are you concerned about that? >> i would have liked to have known. >> yeah, we would have to. and so you found out about it in a newspaper? >> that is correct. >> so how exhausted is your investigation then if you would have liked to have known about it? how can the american people have confidence in your investigation if the things that you would like to know about are not getting asked? are you not having interviews back and forth? has anyone interviewed the -- commissioner? >> as i have said, we do not talk about who we interviewed and do not interview. >> he says you have not. would you think he was being truthful with cameras? >> i am not plan to comment, we do in our investigations, but as part of looking into the e-mails we will look into that as well. >> win? thirteen or 14 months is not

enough, when is? >> we just found out about this last month, congressman. we are starting to look into it. >> i yield back. >> you are going to interview mr. cost in and? >> i did not say what we are going to do. as you know, we do not talk about the steps, but we will look into the issues surrounding it. >> the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. deputy attorney general cole, you have done a -- been done a tremendous disservice when the president prejudged this investigation. it is not fair to the people in the department of justice, the people who investigate, that complaining witnesses, potential victims. it is really unheard of for someone who purports to be an expert in constitutional law to prejudge and investigation. so i will start with that. i know you cannot provide names, and i know you cannot provide details, but you have on a number of different occasions this morning sought to reaffirm

that there is an ongoing investigation. i am going to ask you about some of the traditional investigatory tools, and i want to make sure they are in place. again, i am not asking you for names or specifics, but when you say a matter is being investigated -- and by the way, back in the old days you could not even confirm that there was an ongoing investigation. that was the policy. i do not know if the policy has been waived for this particular fact pattern is such that you are willing to confirm an ongoing investigation, but that is policy. that is not a lot. there is no law that prevents you from answering these questions to tough questions. have witnesses been brought before a grand jury? >> as you well know, representative, we cannot talk about anything that takes place before a grand jury. that is not permitted. >> have subpoenas been issued? >> that is also a grand jury

matter. >> have administrative subpoenas been issued, not grand jury but administrative subpoenas? >> with all due respect, we do not talk about the steps we've taken our investigation. >> mr. deputy attorney general, i understand that, but when the chief law-enforcement officer for this country, the chief executive prejudge is an investigation and you are seeking to enter -- assurance that that investigation is ongoing and vibrant and being professionally done i think it is okay in this instance for you to reaffirm us that all of the traditional tools available to the prosecutors are being used. administrative subpoenas are not covered bible 6c. you can answer that question. >> we are using every tool that is appropriate to be used. we are using every facility we can to find out what the facts are in this matter as thoroughly and as completely as we can. >> how many witnesses have been interviewed?

>> i cannot tell you that. >> because you don't know or because you choose not to answer the question? >> it would be both. >> more than 20? >> i am not going to go into a guessing game with you, congressman. >> have any proffers spin -- >> i will not go into the details of the investigation. i'm sorry. i know that is frustrating, but when this is over we will provide you with details. >> how do we know when it is over? obviously there is an indictment for. over for that person until the prosecution, but how are we -- you have a constitutional responsibility to do your job. with all due respect, so do we. our job is not to prosecute criminal code violations, but it is our job to set policy and to determine whether or not an agency is worthy of the same level of appropriations it received the year before. and we cannot do our jobs if we are constantly told not because of a law but because of policy that we are not going to answer

questions related to the investigation. so how will we know when this investigation is over? >> we will let you know either through an indictment that comes out and you will see that war through us telling you it is over and providing you with information. >> you don't know how many witnesses have been interviewed? >> i do not know an exact number, no, but i would not tell you if i did with all due respect. >> do you know what percentage of witnesses have been interviewed out of the full universe of witnesses you have identified? >> i am not going to go down that road congressman. >> have any plea agreement been signed? >> i'm not going to go down that road. >> mr. deputy attorney general, i asked you the last time you were before a committee that i had the privilege of serving on if you would please in the quietness of your own conscience consider whether or not this fact pattern is appropriate for a special prosecutor, and i am sure that you did. this morning you said you

reached the conclusion it would not be appropriate. can you give me the fact pattern where it would be appropriate to prejudge a investigation that has political overtones and undertones and the selection of -- and i am not prejudging. i am sure she is capable of doing a fine job. i find it stunning that out of the full universe of available federal prosecutors to pick a max out i think was short-sighted. if not this fact pattern, what fact pattern would be appropriate to ever use a special prosecutor given the fact that your boss drafted the regulations? >> it is very, very rare in the history of the justice department to use a special prosecutor. >> give me fact pattern were it would trigger to you in your mind the appropriateness of the special prosecutor . >> i cannot dream up a fact pattern, but i know the one time we have appointed special counsel was in the waco

investigation will. >> well, the regulation is in place. it is plainly written. the interest of justice, a potential conflict, you have politics investing -- inspecting this investigation, a prejudgment by the commander in chief that there is not a smidgen -- and i will substitute the words until up because smidgen is not a legal word. there is no evidence of wrongdoing. you talk about jeopardize an investigation, compromising the jury pool. again, out of fairness i will not ask you to comment because he is your boss budget, really, that was a tremendous disservice to be done to people who dedicate their lives to law enforcement to prejudge and investigation and to do it for a cheap political score during the super bowl. so if not here when? is not this fact pattern when?

>> each individual matter will have to be judged on its individual and unique tax. i cannot set out a prescription for when one would be appropriate. all i can tell you is, we have analyzed this one, looked at the applicable regulations, and this does not meet any standard that would come to the point of warranting a special counsel. >> when you say it has been analyzed, this is a determination that is ultimately made by the attorney general himself? >> along with myself. >> did you seek outside opinions did you consult anyone else whose legal opinion you value and ask, hey, did this -- this is an interesting fact pattern. maybe this is appropriate. find a career prosecutor who has not maxed out to the rnc or dnc. teach you seek other people's opinions? >> the internal deliberations, as you well know, are not things we talk about in public. we made a fair review of this matter and decided it did not

meet any standard toward a special counsel. >> my time is up. i will and the same way i did last time. this is bigger than politics and the election cycles. though one entity in our culture that is universally respected and represented by a woman wearing a blindfold is the department of justice. and when we start playing games with that we are in trouble. ..

did the fbi and the justice department look at going to ms. lerner's office and seizing and getting a hold of all the documents, her computer, her files? did you attempt to do that me of lester? >> i don't mean to sound like a broken record but we are not at liberty talk about non-public information about what we did in this investigation. >> well, if you -- it seemed to me if you done that, let me ask it this way, if you have done that maybe would have learned about the lost e-mails a lot sooner. let me ask this. how are you getting the evidence in this case is our youth is waiting for the irs to give it to you like we'll have to wait for them to give us documents and e-mails to? >> we are doing what we need to do to get the evidence, mr. chairman, and we're getting the evidence we need in this matter. >> you can't tell me what he went and got a search war, a

court-ordered to go and get those documents from ms. lerner's office or from the irs to? >> as i told you before and they know it's frustrating to you, but we can talk about the nonpublic aspects of the investigation. i'm going to go back to this point that again several members have talked about it. if there's a private citizen who was under investigation by the justice department and they withheld information, willfully withheld information about the loss of evidence, the loss of documents, for two months, would that be a crime to? >> depends on if they had a legal duty to disclose that. when you're dealing with somebody with holding someone thing as opposed to permit making false statement, you to find some sort of legal duty for them to make the disclosure to have that the criminal. >> depending on if the entity but they'll be be something to look into. you would investigate if they had a duty to disclose that they

had, in fact, lost documents? >> we would. >> that would be something investigate. >> we would. >> you said earlier that relative to -- it depends, a defense on whether there's a problem with the fact that the commission at the irs new in april and waited two months to tell us the american people, and more importantly, you. so you're going to investigate that aspect as well just like you would for a private citizen? >> all the issues related to the e-mails will be wrapped up in the investigation. >> including the lake? >> including the delay. >> the fact that the commission at the irs delay telling the congress and the american people get that and the justice department is a matter that you going to investigate? >> we will look into what the circumstances -- >> that's important. i would recognize the ranking

member for his questions. >> thank you mrs. truman. spilled i'll go with whoever wants to go. if mr. cummings is ready. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. chairman issa and chairman jordan have alleged that prominent democrats, mr. cole, pressured the department of justice and the irs to single out conservative groups for potential prosecution. both chairmen allege in a may 22 letter to the attorney general that a hearing held in april of last year by a democratic senator, quote, led to the justice department re- engaging with the irs for possible criminal enforcement relating to political speech by nonprofits, into a quote. a press release accompanying the letter alleged that department officials and lois lerner quote discussed singling out and

prosecuting tax exempt applicants at the urging of a democratic senator, into school. general cole, i would like to give you an opportunity to address this allegation. ended the department discussed singling out and prosecuting tax exempt applicants at the urging of a democratic senator? >> no. what happened in that regard was just trying to answer a question of whether we had a mechanism for whether applicants for tax-exempt status, if they had lied on their application for that status, if there was a mechanism for the irs to refer those types of false statements to the justice department for consideration for prosecution. that's all that was. >> so in other words, if someone, we been sitting here talking about crime here quite a bit. if someone allegedly committed a crime, would they, or again i sent allege, would you be a

mechanism by which to get that information to the justice department? is that what you're going to come? >> correct. there was no targeting or anything like that. it was whether or not we have the proper to communications and mechanisms that if it was discovered by the irs that false statements have been made, or those going to the justice department for consideration. >> does the department take direction about prosecution decisions from members of congress? >> no, we do not. >> your testimony is consistent with statements made by the department of justice officials interviewed by the committee. on may 29 committee staff asked for the public integrity section chief the following question on the court, did you ever received any instruction from any member of congress to target tea party or conservative groups for prosecution? end of quote. he responded, quote, no. similarly on may 6, committee staff asked the director of the elections of crime branch a letter from democratic senator

-- senator directed him to quote, target conservative organizations for prosecution, end of quote. he responded no did not. mr. deputy attorney general, are you aware of the department receiving direction from democratic members of congress to target or prosecute a conservative organization, or have you or any member of congress, trying to get you to target any organizations? i'm just curious. >> i'm not aware that what extent any such request was made, we would not honor that. we would ignore it. >> when you say you would ignore it, certainly a lot of investigations are started by newspaper articles, i guess. see something in an article in the fbi may see it, and certain allegations are made, like that, but isn't it th a fact that

sometimes things that may appear in the newspaper may start the ball rolling with regard to investigation? i was wondering, taking a natural extension of that, if someone were to say something that seemed to indicate that perhaps some criminal activity had taken place, or alleged, would you not pursue that? >> if somebody brought to our attention evidence of a crime we would of course look into it. but if someone wanted us to target somebody because of their political beliefs, we would not go down that road. >> and so i'm hoping that those accusations we can put to rest. going back to some questions, mr. chairman asked you a moment ago, with regard to the investigation of ms. lerner, when you look at the facts that you've got, and i'm not asking you to get into that, let me just talk generally, and when

you are sure those facts, whatever they may be, and what happens? does a group of attorneys get together and say, you know what, we move forward with a case -- again on taking away from us learned from talking in general. what usually happens? what point do you determine that you're going to proceed and how does that come about? >> generally the way it works is the line of attorneys involved in a learn the facts of the investigation. the investigation is conducted largely by the law and forcing agents. many times the fbi. they may be working with the line attorneys in helping figure out what information is needed. when they have gathered all the facts to take a look at what those facts are in light of the applicable law. then recommendations are made to their supervisors as to what the resolution should be the case and there could be any number of resolutions.

the supervisors then review those recommendations. they may ask for more permission to be gathered because certain facts may not have been developed sufficiently. they may decide they disagree with the recommendation or a great with a recommendation to any number of things can happen in that process, but these are all done by the career people. usually with input from the investigators. and through the line and division and section chiefs in the division that we have in the department by career people. >> so that the record is clear, so all of this now going to ms. lerner, there is no decisions that have been made, i send you an answer that questions but no decisions have been made. >> no decisions have been made. everything is wide open, right? bright? >> that's correct. >> i have nothing further. >> recognize the chairman of the full committee. >> thank you. i can understand that no decision has been made but let's

just go through this because i think it's important. the ways and means committee did a criminal referral. you are in receipt of that, isn't that correct? >> that's correct. >> and that does give you a basis of a number of allegations to investigate, correct? >> that's correct. >> you took those seriously, correct? >> we do. >> you have serious allegations, referred based on actual evidence produced from the ways and means committee, voted on by the committee and referred to you of which you are continuing to consider wrongdoing by lois lerner and have not made a final decision. >> yes. >> additionally, this committee and the u.s. house of representatives and entire body on a bipartisan basis referred to an attempt to u.s. attorney, isn't that correct? >> correct. >> the statute says the u.s. attorney shall prosecute that, is that correct? >> i believe that is the wordi

wording. >> the u.s. attorney has not prosecuted outcome isn't that correct? >> no charges have been brought to my knowledge. >> under the statute that criminal referral, that referral for contempt is, in fact, a separate event from any other or allegations and is not, in fact, subject to double jeopardy, is about to? >> i'm not sure what you mean by subject to double -- >> that all charges need to be brought in a related matter need to be brought at one time, otherwise there's a question of piling them on sequentially. contempt was, in fact, and is, in fact, a separate event that you can go forward with separate from the ongoing criminal investigation of lois lerner, is a better? >> i'm not sure i agree with the first part but content is separate. >> contempted separate so it's not a charge that has to wait for the other charges and investigation. today can you explain to us why the u.s. attorney would not go forward with a content that's already been evaluated, voted out of his house on a bipartisan basis, and bring it? not allow discovery, she came, she talked and then she decided

to lawyer up, if you will, with taking the fifth and then turned around, talked samore, answered some question and then reasserted the fifth amendment. for contempt information is available to you on video online. y. in fact is a u.s. attorney not bringing it? what lawful right does he have not to obey shall bring the case because i don't believe it says shall bring the case. number one, but -- >> well, shall prosecute. >> i don't think it even says shall prosecute. prosecute. >> it is not a me. it is a shall. yeah, there we go. shall have a duty to bring the matter before. so okay, he's got to bring it before -- look, i'm not a lawyer. i don't try to play one. there's good lawyers here on both on the dais and behind the dais. it very clear that he doesn't get to think about can decide if he's going to do it. this should be brought forward

for consideration to the only question would be what is it reasonable timeline. would you please answer, do you believe there's a regional timeline, and if so -- >> every case has its own time and it needs its own review. there has been -- >> this didn't say review it and look at it and think about it. it says, we've already made our decision. she's been held in contempt. it's a question of when shall applied to bringing the case. >> well, shall doesn't say we shall bring a case. that's not there. the prosecutor retains discretion about whether or not a to -- >> let me read this verbatim to you because apparently only verbatim matters here. to the appropriate united states attorney, u.s. attorney in the district, whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action, shall bring it before the grand jury.

there's no discussion there, is there? >> i believe that the office of legal counsel when ted olson was in a position rendered it an opinion that said there is discretion in fact. >> would you please grant us a yes or no? in absence of justice because you may think that you may not have to enforce the constitution, you may not have to obey congress, you may not have to deliver information pursuant to crimes committed by the justice department in bringing fraudulent statements before the congress and then covering it up for 10 months, the only thing we ask for that mr. cummings i'm sure we join me is, if you don't think shall bring -- i'll keep reading it properly -- shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action come if you don't think that means in a period of time that would be reasonable to do it, that he shall do it. if you think it's discretionary, would you please give that back to us in a legal opinion so that we can change the law to make it

clear you are wrong? >> we can provide you with that. >> i would appreciate having a legal opinion. one last question. do you know a person named virginia sites? >> yes, i do. >> did you work for the department of justice for approximately 90 days of? >> she worked for more than 90 days. >> how long? >> i don't know the exact time. >> at the time was she working on criminal areas including wire fraud? >> she was the virginia sites but was a system turn shot in charge of legal counsel. >> okay. is there any chance that during her tenure, policy changed as to the enforcement of internet online gaming illegal activity or any chance that any policy change under her? >> i don't know offhand. >> this committee is interested in knowing during a relatively short tenure apparently what role she played in evaluating

any policy change related to going after online gaming. we can follow up with appropriate demands if that's necessary but we would hope that you would inform us as to any policy change as to going after internet, essentially online gaming, and any role she may have played in it. >> if you communicate your request to us, mr. chairman -- >> we will do so. >> gentlemen you've? >> of course i yield. >> thank you so much. delivery to amass before yielding is i want to join the gentleman. i, too, you mention my name and i am interested in seeing the olson opinion, but there's something else that i want you to do. i want you to provide us with the history of how contempt has been dealt with through republican and democratic prosecutors, u.s. attorneys, and any information that you may have with regard to this shall.

i understand the joke of much concern. you've got the word shall better, but i just want to know what the history has been. the history. and the olson opinion is just one part of that history. and the question of whether the statute usurps prosecution of discretion. i hope your people can give something back to us so we have that entire body of law. so whatever you been doing, your tradition, so that we will know what republicans and democrats have been doing. >> and i would only a minute that ever so slightly to say, please leave out of it or put separate the questions in which executive privilege has been claimed, since in the case of lois lerner the case in point we are talking about what we believe to be a criminal based on referrals on the ways and means committee who made

statements before this committee under oath, asserted her fifth amendment rights, then make more statements under oath, and then reasserted and was held in contempt by the u.s. house of representatives. so we're talking merely about somebody who came, quite frankly, not in any particular role. she's a former employee of the government. she came and was held in contempt. not someone in which the president claims in the executive or similar privileges. >> i understand. >> mr. chairman, thank you for your indulgence. we will follow-up with a letter. >> no, that e-mails of lois lerner sent outside the irs are missing. we know she had communication with the justice department on several occasions in e-mails, and we know that you are withholding certain documents from the committee. is it fair to assume that some of those documents you are withholding actually our e-mails that ms. lerner has -- e-mails

from ms. lerner to people in the justice of our? >> i don't know if it's fair to someone. i don't know exact what documents are being withheld but i don't know if it's fair to assume -- >> can you guarantee us that none of the documents justice department is withholding from congress are lois lerner e-mails? >> i can't guarantee. i have seen all the documents we are withholding the i'll take a look at them. >> we would like to see the documents. >> we will give you the ones we can give you. >> so you very well could have. with all kinds of e-mails where lois, can you send us to his in the format we want? pretty extensive correspondence back and forth at your withholding documents. the only e-mails that are missing, frankly this is why i raised the question early, the night you would've went in, maybe have but you will tell us, got a search word, got a court order, went in and sees her files right at the get-go. maybe we would've known that all these e-mails were missing a year ago. but the fact that e-mails she

sent outside the irs are missing. should direct correspondence with people in the justice department if you're not withholding documents from this committee and from congress, more importantly the american people. seems to me there's lois lerner e-mails and indictments your withholding. >> i'm not sure there's a found assumption of lois lerner e-mails we are withholding. i don't think that's a fair assumption. >> but what is fair to say is you can concede that there aren't. >> i haven't looked at all the documents. i can answer that question -- >> it's important for you to testify so you get more information but the second of all it would be nice if we give them. with that i recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> first off, general cole, would you like to respond to that last statement? >> i'm not sure i heard completely the last statement. >> fair enough. a couple of issues i want to touch on. the prejudging and the screaming issues. first of all, i share something with mr. gowdy of south carolina.

i prefer technical, legal terms, and when we talk about, we talked about smidgen, scintilla might be better and we talked about prejudging, prejudicing might be better and want to talk about whether anything has been done to prejudice the investigation of the justice department. my colleague, mr. horsford, touched on this earlier. last month the judiciary committee held a hearing and they brought in fbi director james comey and went over this. and chairman goodlatte asked him, can you explain why there's an investigation given that the president said there was not even a smidgen or a scintilla of corruption? and director comey, the director of the fbi said, i mean don't disrespect to the president or anybody else who has expressed a view about the matter, but i don't care about anyone's

characterization of it. ikea and my trips care only about the facts. as -- there's an investigation because there was a reasonable basis to believe that crimes me been committed, and so we are conducting that investigation. deputy general cole do you agree with the fbi director's assessment that outside characterization, even by the president of the united states, have no bearing on a particular investigation? >> that's correct. outside characterization is i anybody have no bearing on our investigation. >> when you talk about career prosecutors, line prosecutors, career investigators, does not apply to these people? >> it does. these are all career justice department investigators, attorneys, none of them are political appointees. appointees. >> is it accurate to say that the department of justice does not take direction from the president on how to conduct

ongoing investigation? >> we do not and we would not. >> there was also an allegation of screening going on by the doj, screaming at the irs. and i'm going to invite your attention to the testimony of jack smith, who as you know is the chief of the doj public integrity section. this post has been taken on may 29, 2014. representative jordan was present at a good read to you a brief quote from that. question, and this is a question to mr. smith. if you direct your attention to the second sentence of the second paragraph below the block quote, quote by encouraging the irs that the vigilant and possible campaign finance crimes by 501(c)(4) groups, the department was certainly among the entities quote screaming, unquote, at the irs to do something in the wake of citizens united before the 2010

election. and the question was, are you aware of the department, quote, screaming at the irs to do something in the wake of citizens united before the 2010 election? and the chief of the doj public integrity section sadly, no. next question was, at the october 8, 2010 meeting, did anyone at the department raise their voice at the irs, speak in a strident tones, make demands on the irs? answer was, no. by jack smith. and then the question was, are you aware of anyone at the department of justice placing pressure on the irs to influence the outcome of the 2010 election? and the answer was, no. and i'm going to put that same question in front of you, mr. goal. are you aware of anybody at the department of justice screaming

at anybody at the irs to fix citizens united or put any kind of pressure on the irs of? >> no, not at all. this is not something we'll be doing. we're just looking for whether or not they are criminal cases to be made or not. and that's it. >> not aware of any screaming? >> no screaming. >> and you didn't do any screaming yourself i take a? >> i did not. >> i yield back. >> when the president makes a speech or statement does that have meaning? statement does that mean? as that of their income influence of? >> on a criminal investigation -- >> when the president talks, he'd give speeches all the time. sometimes you'll thought in the way designed to send a message even to foreign heads of state. so when the president talks does not have meaning and influence? >> as a basic matter, it can, certainly. >> when the president given entity where he's not telling some story, not a, he's commenting on a serious subject matter, that is influence, has, in fact, have significance, correct? >> not on a criminal investigation.

>> i'm just saying in general. you're a smart guy. lawyer done very well in life. an important position in the nine states government and justice department are when the president talks it is, in fact. he's the president of the greatest country in the world. it should have impact. >> he asked congress to do a lot of things and seems not to have impact. >> we heard him that we think he's wrong. here's my point them. and i respect -- unlike anyone else on the standard i respect the good professional to work in the department of justice, but don't you think it's possible, maybe even likely that in the back of even the best professional come in the back of their mind, they know that the president has said in a public way, in a very public way, nationally televised interview that there's nothing there? there's nothing there. don't you think that's just somewhat deep back in there and they have a sense -- use the term i call the, a scintilla of

impact, just a smidgen of impact on the decisions of these great professionals who work in your agencies because i'm going to echo director comey's statement in that regard. no, it doesn't. these people put out what other people say they put it out of their minds and they go after the facts. that's what they care about. and particularly in high profile cases like this, that happens quite a bit. they are very expert at putting out of their minds anything but the facts and the law in the case. >> so barbara bosma doesn't take this into account, that the guy she gave a mix of conservation to his campaign, goes on national television and says there's nothing there. it's not anywhere, not anywhere in the back of her mind that this thing authority been prejudiced? >> her job is not to do that. >> she gets 6007 and $50 to the president's campaign and the debug national committee. is the president who could be potential target of the

investigation when she hears it doesn't impact her at all? >> it does not. she does her job professionally. >> you can say that for sure? >> yes they got confidence in the greater prosecutors -- >> that's major. thank you. recognize the gentleman from florida. >> thank you, mr. chairman. deputy general cole, as the doj is investigating an individual or entity, when is it ever acceptable, if it is acceptable at all, to conceal the fact that evidence sought by law enforcement has been destroyed? i can see a civil case where you're asking for specific things, a criminal case where a search warrant is issued. is it acceptable to not disclose that to law enforcement? >> again, as i said with mr. jordan, chairman jordan and it depends on the circumstances. they shouldn't conceal it. they shouldn't lie about it. there may or may not be depend

on circumstances a duty to tell about it, but those will all depend on the circumstances. >> so if did you was prosecuting a civil matter against the company, issue subpoenas asking for e-mails over specific experience i'm at the company responded saying yes, we will comply with it, but it had reason to believe that they wouldn't be able to fulfill that request, then that would be a problem that they represented the two, chris speaks yes. if at the time they represented that, they knew they were to comply, that would be a problem. >> if they did know at the time but after sending his response, they figured out that they were gone, they have a duty to come back to you and amanda that response, correct? >> yes, they should come back and tell us. >> is an issue -- i was confused about. doj was not informed that e-mails have been lost or destroyed. congress wasn't into june, but according to irs commissioner koskinen and the treasure department and the white house

were informed in april. so will be the reason to disclose that the treasury and the white house but not disclose it to either the doj or congress or both conducting investigations in domestic as i don't know. that's a question you should probably get to the irs. >> doesn't bother you don't you would've told the treasury department without telling the adjusted to barbara? >> they are part of the treasure department so again you have to ask them as to the reasons for doing to us. >> about the white house? does it concern you they would let the white house know what not tell the department of justice? >> i would want to know what the circumstances were and two of the white house and what was told. i just don't know enough information to answer. >> is it going to be those circumstances, is that something to think is appropriate to investigate? >> this will all be part of our looking into the e-mails, yes. >> recently two federal judges have greeted the irs's claim of lost e-mails with suspicion and they've actually come are forcing irs to come in and substantiate their claim that these things are somehow lost

and not recoverable. we have people have advised us saying, we have that data from the john judge bush, 9/11, all the stuff and a lot of people, data say you can get these e-mails. so how would you characterize the department of justice? do you create their claim that the e-mails are simply lost because the hard drive crashed with skepticism? >> we are trying to find out if there is any way to recover them and do what we can to do that. >> is a safe to say that you are invest in a private entity and you want specific documents, if they said they said sorry, the hard drive crashed. at probably would not be something you would simple just accept at face i? >> generally we would ask what the circumstances were and effects were behind the statement that they couldn't be recovered. >> let me follow up with is holding about this attorney whether they shall bring. i think we are, people using different terms. bringing something gory grand jury is not the same as prosecuting it at trial, correct?

>> correct. >> the statute does not impose a duty on his return to bring the case to draw, right? >> correct. >> it imposes a duty to bring it to a grand jury, is that i could? >> the language of the statute and i don't mean to be just kind of fine point locally on you but there is this ted olson opinion from -- >> i think what olson's thing is, the statute to ms. crystal clear. an obligation to bring it for a grand jury. the also thing is article ii, you guys are the executive branch. you can't force someone an answer to prosecute a case but i think that's true. if we told you to prosecute every money laundering case, you makto bemade a lot cases that ae meritorious and would be a waste of resources and it would impinge on your discussion. this i think is different because we in congress have found reason for content. contempted it was voted on have of the american people. so us imposing a duty city to bring to a grand jury and allow them to make a decision i think is a bit different. let me ask you this.

the fact that we imposed a duty to bring it to a grand jury, let's say you accept that, do you think that imposes a duty on the prosecutor to ask that a true bill be returned or could you as a prosecutor consistent with a statute going to a grand jury proceeding? i don't know sir think this is what should happen but could you go in if he didn't think content was meritorious and asked the jury not to return a true bill? >> there's an assumption any question that has to be brought before a grand jury. this ted olson opinion -- >> bringing a matter before the grand jury for action, which is i believe the wording of the statute, leaves open a number of different resolutions that the grand jury could be asked about. >> thank you. i yield back. >> ms. kelly is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. republicans allege that efforts to target conservative groups in the screaming of applicants,

tax-exempt status is result of an overarching government conspiracy involving the white house, the irs, the justice department, securities and exchange commission, the federal election commission as well as other agencies. according to the republicans this vast conspiracy originated after the supreme court's 2010 citizens united decision. decision. chairman issa, in my opinion, issued a person staff report on june 16, 2014, concluding that the justice department and the irs had, quote, internalize the president's political rhetoric lambasting citizens united and nonprofit political speech. deputy general cole, to the best of your knowledge, t did the president's political rhetoric about citizens united cause of the department to conspire against nonprofit political speech? >> it did not. >> are you asking about the irs or the justice department? >> i haven't yielded. spent out of the question was

did the irs conspired? of course they did. >> i haven't yielded, but give any reason to believe that citizens united has prompted the unwarranted prosecution of political organizations? >> no. i have no reason to believe that. >> your answer does not surprise me because despite conducting 10 hearings, receiving hundreds of thousands of pages of documents and conducting over 40 transcribed interviews, the committee has been unable to gather any actual evidence of this vast conspiracy my republican colleagues claim exists. in fact, the evidence gathered by the committee and the ig show that the inappropriate search terms that were first used by an employee in the cincinnati determination jennet and inspector generals may 14, 2013, report concluded that the inappropriate criteria, quote, were not influenced by any individual or organization outside the irs. deputy general cole, in the

written testimony that you submitted to the committee you wrote, and i quote, i have the utmost confidence in the career professionals in the department and the tigta and they know they will follow the facts wherever they lead and apply the law to those facts, which you state your. is that guiding principle that the department is and conducting, is that the guiding department uses and guiding all of its investigation? >> yes, it is. >> i think the committee should follow these same principles to investigate of the irs. it's quite clear that facts do not lead to the conclusion that citizens united prompted a governmentwide conspiracy. thank you for your testimony. >> weight. would the gentlelady yield? >> yes. >> i want to go to what mr. said those -- mr. desantis was just asking. he referred to the olson case and i have the olden days in front of me. the olson opinion rather. and what it says is we believe

that congress may not direct executive to prosecute a particular individual without leaving any discretion to the executive to determine whether a violation of the law has occurred. that's what the opinion says. it's a 1984 opinion, dated ma may 30. and this was a contempt citation coming from the congress that he was talking about. so i guess this is consistent with what you were saying. i mean, so this olson case in the u.s. attorney's office, i mean come is well known, is that right? i mean, the olson opinion. is this something that's well known? it's something that you all, you know -- >> it's known. i don't know if it's well-known. >> would the gentleman yield?

>> of course. >> i am confused. mr. olson, is he a judge? what opinion are we talking about? i thought he was a career employee? >> i'm sorry. >> i yield back. i thank the gentleman from maryland spent if i may answer, he was a political employee. political appointees of the assistant attorney general for the office of legal counsel back in 1984 in the reagan administration. the office of legal counsel has asked many times and is authorized for the executive branch of government to provide legal opinions which are binding upon the executive branch of government to interpret various aspects of law that the government has to abide by. >> thank you very much. so you said he was a reagan appointee? >> yes. >> very well. i'd like to -- since we talked about this opinion, mr. chairman, i'd like to enter into

the record -- >> without objection. >> very well. that's all i have. >> gentleman from north carolina is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. cole omlt mr. kobak -- let me go back, republican integrity section you said reached out to the irs, is that correct? >> in 2010? yes. my understand is they made contact with the irs. >> what was the nexus of why they reached out? >> i just look at the account i've heard from jack smith and from richard pilger who have testified, given transcribed interviews to the committee about what they were doing at the time. so i take their purpose is what it was but i think mr. smith had seen an article in the newspaper about what appeared to be

perhaps a misuse of the tax-exempt organization laws and wanted to find out if -- >> so that's your opinion? >> it's not my opinion. that's my understanding of the facts. >> wouldn't it be important for us to understand the nexus of them reaching out to the irs? e-mails, motivations? wouldn't that be important? >> i think were in the process of providing that to you. when you talk about the about whether motivations were -- >> it's important for doj to look at that, wouldn't that be part of the investigation? >> that's not necessary part of the irs investigation. >> why wouldn't it be? modus back and forth -- >> nothing happen. there was a brief meeting, a discussion about how it would be very difficult if not impossible to bring cases. there were no investigations started. there were no referrals made. nothing happened after that. this was very, very brief and -- >> you say nothing happened. how can you give me that kind of specificity with regard what happened and what didn't happen if you're really not familiar

with what went on? because you just said prior to that -- how can you be so precise and nothing happening, i don't -- >> because we've had people look at whether or not the public integrity section got any referrals from the irs as a result of that. >> part of investigation you look at that? >> we asked about whether that happened. >> do you have an open investigation right now on april stands used to be with the fec? >> are not aware of one way or another. april since? >> yeah. i mean, maybe need to read the newspapers about this. she was the one the action violated the hatch act, worked with the fec, used to work with low flu. you are not aware that? >> not hand. >> i would encourage you to become aware that because she admitted that she violated the hatch act, and that quite frankly some of the twitterers asking for donations while at work or have been alleged,

wouldn't that be important that you look at that from the department of justice speak with you said she worked at the fec? >> yes. >> i'm not sure if that's part of the irs investigation. >> let me just tell you. ms. lois lerner, it's been reported that lois lerner and april since action worked together. when they're with the fec. would part of your investigati investigation, wouldn't speak i'm not going to go into all the details as i said before. >> i find it interesting to you've never heard of april since? >> not sitting here today. i don't know about every single case that the justice department is investigating. we have 112,000 employees. >> well, i've been led to believe that you guys are not going to look at it. and that's troubling because this gets to the very heart of what we been talking about. and so would you commit here today to take a look at april sands at the fec and what

violation of the hatch act may or may not avert? >> find it with us or isn't find out if it's a matter of worthy of looking into. >> all right. let me close with this. you've done an exhaustive, i think according to your words, exhaustive research in terms of these missing e-mails, is that correct? >> i don't know if i used that word exhausted but we been very thorough in trying to find e-mails. >> if you have been that thoreau, does it not trouble you that it is a slow and for them and just to read the "washington post" to figure out what's going on in terms of irs employees telling you what may or may not have happened over the last four or five most? >> i would have preferred to have learned earlier. >> so would that be something that would be subject investigation by the doj?

>> asset the know he part of our look at the e-mails. all the things that surround it. >> the fact that the commission of the irs didn't tell you months until months later that, that colleges because we will be finding out what happened. >> does that trouble you? >> not until i find it all the facts. >> if that's true doesn't trouble you? >> i need to find out all the facts speak you're afraid to say troubles you? >> i don't deal with hypotheticals. >> yield but. >> gentlemen from nevada is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. limits on the outset, i still find it astonishing the lack of courtesy that the chairman continues to show two members of this committee. the fact that members continue to not receive equal time, that the chair interrupt members during our time. the fact that you back your witnesses and make judgments upon employees and their motivation without any evidence.

i think all of this does a disservice to the role of the oversight function, which is very serious and has a very clear responsibly to the american people for providing an oversight to federal agencies. and in this particular case, because there is so much concern about the wrongdoing that occurred at the irs. i'm also, you know, alarmed by the ongoing efforts by some members of the committee to treat this process like a courtroom. we have three branches of government for a reason, and i know while some members may be first in the law and may have previous careers in that arena, this is not a courtroom. and yet there are those who continue to try to treat it as such. i want to speak to the issue of

the special prosecutor and to ask you, mr. cole, for your response. the attorney general in a january 8, 2014 letter responded -- excuse me, chairman issa and chairman jordan, in a letter to the attorney general, claimed that ms. bosserman, a clear attorney and his of rights division at the department of justice is leading the doj's fbi investigation. however, this allegation was directly refuted by the attorney general in his testimony before the senate judiciary committee on january 29, 2014. i won't read his full testimony, but so there is no stone left unturned, deputy general cole, i would like to ask you the same question that was asked of mr. holder.

is barbara bosserman the lead attorney in the department of justice investigation or the number of a larger came? >> she's a member of a larger team. she is not the lead investigator. >> despite assurances from the department that ms. bosserman is not the lead investigator, chairman issa and chairman jordan continued to assert that her political donations have created a quote startling conflict of interest. this supposed conflict of interest is a key justification for some republican members request that a special prosecutor be appointed to conduct criminal investigation. on may 2, 2014, days before introducing a resolution requesting special counsel, chairman jordan said we need a special counsel to help us get to the truth because the so-called investigation by the justice department has been a joke. the current investigation has no credibility because it is being

headed by a mac's don't who is financially invested in the president's success. mr. cole, is there any merit to allegation that ms. bosserman's involvement destroyed the credibility of the department of justice investigation? >> i don't believe there's any merit at all. >> on june 26 the department of justice sent a letter concluding that the appointment of a special counsel is not warranted. can you explain the determination as to why the special counsel is not need? >> we look at the regulations. we go by law. in these matters and would look at what the regulation is that applicable here and we talked about already in deceiving. regulation 45.2, and ms. bosserman's activities don't come anywhere near that for her disqualification. there's no reason to take it away from the normal regular order. of career prosecutors doing the job with lots of other people involved.

fbi, tigta, other people in other divisions and sections in the department. she is part of a much larger team. there's no reason to take anything out of the normal course in the normal order. that you should the best way to do an investigation. >> thank you. well then, i would assert rather than wasting more taxpayer money on a special prosecutor, congress should be focused on addressing some other pressing issues facing our constituents. and again, mr. chairman, i deplore you to please provide a level of decorum and civility so that those of us on this committee who do want to get to the truth and have a fair and impartial process can do so without having an abusive setting in which to operate. >> thank the gentleman. mr. cole, does barbara bosserman have a financial interest in the president success? >> i don't which he does, no. >> so when you get a campaign

contribution you are not hoping good things have a? >> you don't have a financial interest. i know several leading ethics attorneys in the united states have been asked to opine on that and have said it's not even close to that of the public of interest. >> 112,000 employees at the just departed you can find someone who didn't have this perceived financial interest you can find someone else to be a part of this came? >> there is no perceived financial interest. >> there is by the american people. maybe not by you but there is by the american people. >> i'm not sure i agree with that. >> you are welcome to come to my district and talk to all kinds of folks because they sure think there is. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. >> thank you, deputy general cole. i'm a dentist and the little minutia things, i can go smaller. cacan you tell me a little bit more about the statute of 6103? can you tell me the privilege information who gets that 6103 stick with i'm not an expert in 6103. it's part of the tax code and it

deals with protecting taxpayer information from disclosure, except in certain circumstances. >> some going to make a comparison i guess. being a dentist i have to know that the mac regulations. i'm not excuse or not, right? >> that's correct. >> we were talking of 6103 within the irs or doj or executive branch or anybody working within the federal government, they are pretty astute to to get sick to one of three, right? >> they should be. >> does it give them an excuse if they violate that? i mean, when i'm under a malpractice case i don't get an excuse from hipaa or osha, does it was not that i know of. >> that's what want to go but i'm talking from america. america wants to make sense of this jargon, legal jargon. does anybody get away with 6103? >> if you violate 6103, if you

violate the provisions, you should not get away with it but it depends on the facts and circumstances as with any case. >> wait a minute. you just told me as a rigorous citizen i can't get away with hipaa an osha violation but i can get away with 6103 -- >> that's not what i'm saying. i'm sure that not every single hipaa or osha violation is prosky are dealt with. spent i understand that. >> that's what i mean. >> when we should 6103 to be an implicit ask from doj, right? >> there has to be an approval from the irs as i understand it. >> from the doj? >> no, from the irs to sheer 6103 information. they have to authorize that. >> do you have that in your possession from ms. lois lerner? >> have what? >> information to should 6103 she sent you a disc with 1.1 million applications with some 30 individuals have privilege information for 6103. the reason i bring that up is i'm hampered as a member of

congress with pertinent information of 6103 and this is a willy-nilly just a flippant aspect of sharing a disc. she knew what was on there. >> i don't know that she knew there was -- >> or the enough to ditch it was represented to us at the time became that there was none. and i do know is she's the one who sent it or someone else from the irs -- >> weight. she's the one, the fbi says they're all for me. says they're all for me. she is one of correspondence in regards to the format of the disc. >> but that doesn't necessary mean she prepared the discourse centered. >> just oversight of that, right? >> i don't know if that's within her control are not the i just don't know. the question is whether or not whoever sent it news with 6103 information on it. >> she's been involved in this regards of the leak of this format aspect because she's one talking to the fbi. where i'm going with this is it gives me more pertinent information if i'm a learned

person that there was a violation of 6103. if i'm a learned person? >> generally fast be an intentional violation. the question was whether this was the information that was included, whether it was inadvertent or intentional. at the time it was provided we were told that there was no nonpublic information. >> once again you were told there was no non-pertinent information and there was -- >> nonpublic. >> once again to me this brings this issue up of his being pertinent information and that when congress says that we are doing contempt charges, men were looking at the criminal or civil violation of an oath of office, doesn't that give us some aspect of hedging our bets? >> i'm not sure what you mean by hedging -- >> wouldn't this kind of go in the mindset of the u.s. attorney that he would actually bring forth contempt charge issued by can't? >> i believe u.s. attorney for the district of columbia has the

content citation and is reprinted. has decided to some and it is being reviewed. >> you keep bringing up this olsen ruling. isn't that a subjective and an interpretive ruling when the statute is very specific? >> the opinions by the office of legal counsel, when the issue formal opinions, are binding on the executive branch. >> but isn't it also, when there's a conflict between the legislative intent of the language and the executive branch that we have to have a better review such as one interpretive aspect would not be good enough -- >> i'm sure somebody could probably challenge that in the right forum in court but generally the way the structure is set up for olc is they are the source of legal advice for the executive branch. >> well, thank you, general co cole. >> are you interrupting me? is their decor was because i was asked that the chairman -- >> i guess i'll yield.

>> the gentleman from nevada is recognized. >> i was asking whether the chairman had made a determination on my request for unanimous consent to edit the documents did i apologize. i forgot to look at that. we can look at the documents, we will look at them. the gentleman from california. >> general cole, put up on the org chart please. i'm glad you brought up this whole question. this is a little small, although complex but that org chart up on the board shows the attorney general followed by you followed by a whole group of associates followed by all the division chiefs. virtually all of those people are political appointees, are they? >> many of them are. >> virtually all. i mean you in the attorney general and your direct reports are political appointees. >> by and large most of them are. some our group of investment toward our little tes judgment f what you suspect they are career

people who served with pleasure but you can move them around. some rules on that but the vast majority of the assistant attorneys general and the associate attorney general are political appointees. right now that person isn't a good person and is a career employee. but they serve at the pleasure of view. >> that's correct although there are certain civil service -- >> but you could move into some of the positions because that would probably be true. >> they keep their pay but to lose her job. and the criminal division? >> fame thing. that person as a political appointee approved by the senate. >> when we talk about ms. bosserman, the team she is on, everybody practically from her team, all the way up to your boss, your all political appointees who control their lives and so when. so when the questions asked and the gentleman from nevada has left, but i think fairly he was saying, well, he was asking you and you add of course, we don't

need a special prosecutor. don't you understand, the american people see you as a political appointee? they see your boss who's been held in contempt by the house for failure to comply. they see the supreme court finding that those legal opinions you seem to have. now, i'm going to go to one quick one. your legal opinions included, your brief in "fast and furious," didn't they, before amy berman jackson, right? >> i'm sorry, our legal opinion? >> your legal opinions led to those briefs in the "fast and furious" case that's currently in the district court in washington. >> we have our lawyers in the civil division draft of those. >> your legal opinions were that you didn't have to provide them and that you were a mean from having to provide them and that specifically, your opinion was that she didn't have the right to adjudicate that, wasn't that

so? >> i believe that was the position we took. left last