. . .

in this case by contrast, the

commissioner has been denied access to the transcripts of interviews conducted by the house overnight committee even though we are told that those transcripts were key in forming the charges against him. many members of this committee are in the same position i might add. i'm not alone in being skeptical of short process or noting the importance of a full and independent investigation by this committee. in 2006, the gentleman from

wisconsin argued and i quote, only after the house judiciary committee has conducted a fair, thorough and detailed investigation will committee members be able to consider whether articles of impeachment might be warranted, end quotation. in 2016, mr. chairman, you expressed confidence in our impeachment task force because it had conducted an exhaustive investigation. that investigation included in your words, quote, reviewing the records of past proceedings ruling out new evidence that was never considered in previous investigations, conducting numerous interviews and depositions with firsthand witnesses and conducting hearings to take the testimony

of firsthand witnesses and scholars, end quotation marks. all of that process is missing here. yes, we have within our power to skip these steps, but what kind of precedence does that set? never in the history of this body have we impeached a government official without first proving that he has acted in deliberate bad faith, never in modern practice have we declined to provide the accused with the most basic due process, the right to counsel, the right to present evidence and the right to question the evidence against him. if the commissioners critics have their way, i feel that we will have a new rule going forward.

the house may impeach any government official for any reason without supplying evidence of any wrongdoing, without independent investigation and without base regard to basic fairness towards the accused. forcing a vote in this manner, will certainly not result in the removal of the commissioner even if his critics succeed here, senators of both parties have already stated their intent to bury the matter and in the process i fear we will have stripped our responsibilities of their weight and dignity and turn impeachment from a constitutional check of last resort into a tool of political vines and i cannot accept that and none of us. commissioner koskinen, thank you again for your willingness to be

here today. stick to the law and the facts and you'll be fine. i yield back, mr. chairman, and i thank you. >> chair, thanks, gentleman, without objection all other members opening statements will be made part of the record. we welcome our distinguished witness and commissioner, if you will please rise, i will begin by swearing you in. do you swear that the m that you're about to give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? thank you. let the record show that the witness answered in the affirmative. commissioner john koskinen was sworned as 48th irs commission e in december 23, 2013, prior to appointment mr. koskinen served as chairman of freddie mac in 2008 to 2012 acting chief executive officer in 2009. previously koskinen -- city

administrator of washington, d.c., assistant to the president and chair of the president's counsel on year 2000 conversion and deputy director for the office -- office of management and budget. from yale university of law and a bachelor's degree from duke university. mr. koskinen, you are welcomed, your entire testimony will be made part of the record and we ask that you summarize your testimony in five minutes. your written as i said, will be made part of the record and you see a timing light on the table, please help us. we have a lot of members with a lot of questions to ask. >> thank you. good morning, chairman, ranking member, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to answer questions here today. i understand the extraordinary responsibilities entrust today this committee. i appreciate both your

willingness to hear from me and the serious and fair-minded approach you have taken. is that counted as my time? [laughter] >> thanks. ly do my best today to answer your questions and full cooperation. i recognize the obligation all public share and criticism and acknowledging mistake and working diligent to improve. let me know at the outset how much i deeply regret inability to bring issue to a close in the way that satisfied all americans an members of congress.

i understand the level of us possession and distrust caused by the irs's failure to properly handle applications, social welfare status based solely on the names of the organization. i took this job in large part to help restore confidence in the irs and to ensure that the agency never returned to the unacceptable practice that had occurred before i arrived. i believe we have made real progress during my tenure in ending the practices that gave risk rise to the concerns, operational weaknesses, creating a cultural of risk management and work to go reassure taxpayers that our tax system treats taxpayers fairly. the tax system only works if taxpayers are confident that the irs will treat fairly and doesn't make any difference who they are, what organization or political party they belong to or whom they voted for in last section, this is an important principle at the irs and no one

should have wait years for answer to a question or request for determines of any kind. congress has a right to expect restore in public trust in a nonpartisan and effective irs will be implemented fully. i devoted my energies as commissioner to that goal and the inspector general as acknowledged that real progress has been made in implementing all of its recommendations. for instance, the irs eliminated long ago the use on be on the look out that it resulted in the improper scrutiny of a number of applicants as described in may of 2013. the irs has also offered expedited approval process for organizations that experienced delays in processing of applications for 501c for status .

will remain top priority every day that i'm fortunate enough to continue to serve. i also understand there are significant remaining questions on the minds of some members about the irs response to congressional inquiries on my watch. i stand ready to answer these questions today. i responded honestly and in good faith as it meant particularly in response to the discovery that hard drive had crashed in 2011. from the start i directed irs staff to cooperate with congress and recover lost information wherever possible and i testified to the best of my knowledge. but the truth is, we did not succeed in preserving all of the information requested and some of my testimony later proved mistaken. i regret both of those failings. i can also tell you that with the benefit of hindsight even closer communication with congress would have been advisable. but my commitment is and always has been to tell you and all committees of the congress the

truth and to address issues head-on. i accept that it is up to you to judge my overall record, but i believe that impeachment would be imprommer, it would create disincentives for many people to serve and slow reform and progress at the irs. again, i appreciate the opportunity to be here and look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you, commissioner, we will proceed under the five-minute rule with questions and i will begin by recognizing myself. the report of investigation by the treasury inspector general for tax administration concluded in 2015 report regarding congressional request for emails that, and i quote, the investigation reveal that had the irs did not put forward an effort to uncover additional responsive emails. none of the irs employees involved had been asked prior to the june 30, 2014 request to find any backup tapes or the server hard drives associated

with the ncfb exchange 2003 server which would have contained responsive learner emails. the investigation determined that if the irs would have conducted a search for the existence of back up tapes, they would have found the necessary back up tapes that contained emails prior when the tapes were in march 2014, unquote. mr. koskinen is there anything inaccurate of that finding for tax administration and if so what is inaccurate from it, about it? >> nothing inaccurate in that. the -- i will be happy to explain to you on how that happened but the report is accurate. >> do you believe that it was the duty of the irs commissioner to as the treasury inspector general for tax administration put forth an effort to uncover additional responsive emails to congress' inquiries yes or no?

>> yes. the report of investigation by the inspector general for tax administration also concluded in its 2015 report as follows and i quote, the investigation revealed that the backup tapes were destroyed as a result of irs management failing to ensure that a may 22, 2013 e-mail directive from irs chief technology officer concerning the preservation of electronic e-mail media was fully understood and followed by all of the irs employees responsible for handling and disposing of e-mail backup media. is there anything inaccurate in that finding of the treasury inspector general for tax administration? >> no. >> do you believe that it was the duty of the irs commissioner to as the treasury inspector for tax nngs stated to ensure that a may 22, 2013 directive from irs technology office concerning the preservation of electronic e-mail media was fully

understood and followed by all of the irs employees responsible for handling and disposing of e-mail backup media and i would appreciate a yes or no response to that. >> to the extent the irs commissioner has control to that. >> the official irs website in the section describes you commissioner john koskinen, manages agency of 90,000 employees and budget $10 billion. you are the top manager of the irs, so when the inspection general conclude that had the irs did not put forth an effort to uncover additional responsive emails and that the backup tapes were destroyed as a result of irs management failing, the inspector general was referring to you the manager of the irs; is that correct? >> as the leader of the organization, i am responsible for the management of it. there are a lot of managers there but ultimately any director of the organization is

responsible for its operations. >> after you received congressional subpoena which affirmatively require that you protect all emails related to this subject, what affirmative steps did you take personally to ensure all responsive documents were preserved? >> i met with senior executives and was assured that an appropriate document retention order had been put out the prior year, the woman acting as my could believe at the time sent a follow-up to remind them that they ensure that all available information is being preserved. i was assured that that was being done. >> did you send anyone to different locations where emails are degauzed or destroyed, if you will, and instruct them not

to destroy any emails without first going through the person's responsible for your responsibility to respond to this subpoena and say make sure that no e-mails are destroyed without first verifying that they are not related to this congressional subpoena? >> i did not personally do that. i was assured that managers understood the impact of the document retention request for order and in 2013 before i arrived and the follow-up i was assured would make it clear to employees and managers everywhere to preserve documents. we were at that point eight months into a massive document search so -- everybody would understand the goal and the introduction to produce all of the information as quickly as we could wherever it was. >> but apparently that message didn't get to the people who

actually do the work of destroying emails? >> apparently got to everyone but two employees on the midnight shift and at the time that was revealed which was a year after the hearings in 2013, i said that that was a mistake, it shouldn't have happened and i took responsibility for it. >> my time expired. >> thank you, chairman and welcome again to the committee, sir. yesterday the chairman and i received a letter from our colleagues and some 32 signatures and i ask, mr. chairman, that this letter be made part of the record. >> without objection, it would be made part of the record. >> commissioner koskinen, claims the head of the irs ordered

25,000 emails erased before congress could review them, end quotation. commissioner, did you order destruction of 24,000 emails in an attempt to obstruct congressional investigators? >> i did not. >> of course, you didn't. according to -- there's no zero evidence to support this claim. the letter also cites to an exchange of letters which treasury, inspector general for tax administration. mr. chairman, i ask that this letter be made a part of the record as well. >> without objection, it will be made part of the record. >> thank you. in 2015 the inspector generallen released a report that concluded no evidence was uncovered that any irs employees had been

directed to destroy or hide information from the congress. this same conclusion was independently reached by the senate finance committee and the department of justice. last week my colleagues wrote to inspector general to ask him if he had obtained any evidence whatsoever over the past year to cause his office to change its conclusion. he responded within a day and the answer was no. commissioner koskinen, to your knowledge have any of the underlying facts changed since the senate finance committee, the department of justice and the treasury inspector general concluded that there is no evidence of your intent to

mislead congress or obstruct the investigation? >> no. >> i spoke earlier about the president of the house which is always providing basic due process to an accused official. for example, in 2010, we allowed judge to submit evidence, call witness and cross examine others. in 1996, we allowed counsel for president clinton to do the same. in 1874, this committee allowed secretary of war william, the opportunity to explain, present witnesses and cross examine witnesses, but here in 2016, i understand, that you have not been allowed to review the

evidence against you. the oversight committee conducted over 50 transcribed interviews and claims that those interviews were key to forming the charges against you. mr. commissioner, have you asked to review these transcripts? we have. >> have you been given an opportunity to review them? >> no. >> do you believe they might include evidence that clears you of any of these charges? >> i do, if there were any evidence there that i would actually indicated or told anyone to impede, the operations of the congress, destroy or lead the congress, i assume somebody would have quoted it. i assume that those 50 depositions would support the fact that i did nothing to impede the operation of the congress, i gave no introductions to nip to do anything other than fully

cooperate with the requests of the congress. >> i thank you, sir, for your testimony and mr., chairman, i field back. gentleman from texas for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, this administration seems to have set a record for the number of agency heads who have wrongly deleted work related emails and the number of employees who have pled the fifth amendment and a number of officials who have fail today respond to lawfully serve subpoenas. even in this deplorable company one agency stands out. the internal revenue service targets organizations solely on the basis of conservative views. we expect this kind of behavior from dictatorships and total orian governments an not from the united states of america. it represents a direct attack on freedom of religion -- this

corruption of power continued unrestrained for several years can only lead to one conclusion. such conduct is an abuse of office that was condoned by the administration and warrants stiff penalties. mr. chairman, i will yield to the balance of my time to the gentleman of ohio, jim jordan. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. i'm going to read page 4, the internal revenue service erased backup tapes is that statement true? >> yes. >> were you commissioner at the time tapes were erased? >> yes. >> more than one subpoena, two subpoenas? >> well, the subpoenas asked for specific information. the assumption is that some of that information was on those tapes. >> not the assumption because it was in the critical time period when the hard drive crashed. who is kate?

>> counselor of the commissioner. >> we got her bio, counselor to the commissioner said she advised on high-profile investigations and she was a member of your senior management team, is that accurate? >> yes. >> in her deposition in front of the oversight committee mrs. duval learned on february second, about computer crash and missing emails. on february 2nd, the counselor to the commissioner in senior management working on high-profile investigations evidence was missing, on march fourth, backup tapes that contained evidence are destroyed. what a coincidence, mr. koskinen. one month after your top counselor learns her hard drive crashed and missing emails, the backup tapes, the secondary source, primary source is gone and a month later the backup tapes are destroyed.

here is what also is interesting, those backup tapes were supposed to have been destroyed months and months beforehand, weren't they mr. koskinen. >> a large number of them had been destroyed in 2012 and '13. >> you testified to this, this is testimony in front of eversight committee. crashed in 2011, as a result certain emails could not be retrieved. recovery tapes forking for that period existed, false statement, they did, they were supposed to have been erased. data was retained on tape for six months so erased two years prior to the date that they were but they somehow survived. they somehow survived and then exactly one month, 30 days after your top counselor kate duval in senior management learn that is the primary source, emails are missing, the backup tape that is have survived for two years suddenly get destroyed and we are supposed to believe that's

just a coincidence, that just happened by chance. >> the inspector general spent a year exactly that subject and came after conclusion after interviewing 50 witnesses that that was totally a mistake by two employees on the midnight shift. let me read one of the statements to you on the articles of impeachment. page three, article 2. on june 20th, 2014 commissioner koskinen testified, quote, since the start of this investigation, every e-mail has been preserved, nothing has been lost, nothing has been destroyed. is that statement true, mr. koskinen? >> at the time that was what -- informed what i believe. a year later -- >> whoa, whoa. it could not have been true at the time because that says the date is june 20, 2014. >> that's correct. >> you told me on march fourth,

the first question i asked you on march fourth, three months before you, mañ -- march fourth, 2014 that the irs had destroyed backup tapes. >> that's correct. >> the statement was not correct in light of evidence. >> the statement wasn't true? >> the statement i thought was true it was not true on the basis of the evidence that we discovered later. >> mr. chairman, this is a problem. you think about any of the folks we represent -- any of the constituents i represent in ohio has the same fact pattern where they lose documents, they are being audited from the irs, a month later they destroy the backup disk and it's fine. they get away with it. this is what so many americans are frustrated about, this double standard. mr. koskinen can lose documents, the irs can lose documents and destroy the backup source and backup tapes and nothing happens

. all we are asking this guy no longer hold this office. that's the least we can do. i yield back. >> the time of the gentleman from texas has expired. the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in your opening statement reviewing thousands of pages relating to charges, the majority access to unedited documents in oversight committee? >> you should direct questions to the witness? >> you should direct your questions to the witness. >> i'm directing to the chairman. >> we do not think so. >> you do not think the majority has access? >> i would ask that the minority at least, the majority wishes that your prerogative, request of minority access to the documents. >> the chair will take request

you should advise rent and ascertain whether your question is answered in the affirmative, if so we think it should be. >> we go forward with itch -- impeachment hearings and we should see relevant but that's self-evident. let me just say before i ask mr. koskinen questions. that shows nothing about impeachment. all it shows that he didn't know at the time he was asked the question. mr. koskinen, commissioner, thank you for being here, the senate finance committee, the department of justice and the treasury inspector general have looked into the accusations against you and each one independently concluded there's no evidence to support the

charges, your critics have not made their case nor do they have votes to force impeachment and the proceedings are an obvious sham, but because you are an expert in tax policy i do think it serves purpose to shed some light in how you as irs commissioner understand some of the work of the irs. if someone -- is there anything that would prohibit someone from releasing their tax return ifs they want to because they're under audit? >> no. >> thank you. president nixon disclosed tax returns under irs audit, have the rules changed since then? >> no. >> can an individual use other people's money, run through a charitable foundation to enrich himself with satisfy personal debts or obligations? >> the rules are that would be personal, no tax-exempt organization can use funds to benefit any -- insider. >> would the following factors

affect the tax exemption of a foundation if an individual used funds from charitable foundation to purchase a 12,000-dollar football helmet for himself signed by tim tebow, if an individual used $20,000 from the frowneddation to pay 6-foot tall portrait of himself and used money to cover part of legal settlement after dispute are any of those actions using tax- exempt improper? >> i can't comment -- >> i would like for you to answer the question, sir. >> i object to the question in that it's outside the scope of this hearing. additionally it's outside the scope and expertise of the witness.

>> it's not a proper parliamentary inquiry. >> rules of the committee permit to ask the questions and the commissioner is requested to answer it. >> clearly the general rules are understood that a 501c's assets should not be used to benefit either a major contributor or anyone operating the entity. the particular facts and circumstances of any case would be reviewed. >> obviously. those are the facts that i have just said, would they be improper? ..

investigation. we get referrals, suggestions, urging to look into a wide range of activities of tax-exempt organizations and others referring to detailed processes. >> at the time you were appointed by the president why did he ask you to come out of retirement and point you to the head of the irs? >> i did not talk to the president personally. the reason i was asked was obvious, the irs made a management mistake, i spent 40 years managing organizations under stress including the private sector and public sector and it was obvious just reading the paper that a problem needed

to be fixed and i was honored to be asked to undertake the responsibility. >> my time is expired. >> the gentleman from ohio is recognized for 5 minutes, mister chabot. >> everyone is afraid of the irs, they can make your life a living hell if they want to. that is why it is important to play it straight, that they don't play favorites or play politics. back in the years leading up to barack obama's reelection in 2012 the irs intensely scrutinized conservative organizations especially if they had the word party in their title and refused to grant them tax-exempt status. the irs freely granted such status to liberal organizations. why would they do this? to give barack obama and liberal allies the advantage in the upcoming election.

who ordered it? lois lerner was head of the exempt organization unit at the irs, she ordered it but who above her told her to do it and didn't go all the way to the white house? we will never know because she destroyed the evidence, then took the fifth and the obama justice department -- find out the answers to these important questions. in many ways this is like what hillary clinton did, destroyed the evidence. evidence of her email was sought by the fbi and congressional committee. rather than comply she had her emails destroyed and she lied about it. even hit the devices and stored the emails, multiple blackberries and i've hads destroyed, some with a hammer. yet the obama administration justice department refused to prosecute her too. mister commissioner, where do you come in? when selective targeting of

conservative groups broke, president obama gained outrage saying targeting was inexcusable and declared we needed, quote, new leadership that can restore confidence moving forward so president obama to head the irs arguably you made matters worse. you testified before congressional committee on multiple occasions you made a number of important statements before congress that turned out to be false even though you were under oath. about lois lerner's emails you stated, quote, since starting this investigation every email has been preserved, nothing has been lost or destroyed, this turned out to be completely untrue, she had tens of thousands of emails destroyed, rather than inform congress you notified congress for four months.

why in the world did you wait four months. >> i waited too long since i was advised of the situation in april and the reason i waited is i instructed people we needed to find as many emails from that period of the hard drive crash as we could, we found and produced 24,000 lois lerner emails from the period of her hard drive crash, she did not destroy information afterwards and we produced 50,000 accounts, all six investigators, 78,000 lois lerner emails from 2009 -- >> i submit you had a duty to inform congress when you learned that but let me move on. >> i would agree. in retrospect if i had it to do over again i would have contacted and advised congress immediately. the delay didn't change the investigation but i understand the aggravation it caused. if i had to do it again i would've advised congress i knew

the hard drive crashed and we will try as we did to produce all the emails we could from that period and we produced 24,000. >> similarly after you we learned of the destruction of lois lerner's emails, went to great lengths to resurrect her emails. you and the irs did little to recover destroyed emails, experts testified there were six ways the irs could have managed to acquire the emails, 5 of 6 techniques, failed to look at the irs doing backup tapes, failed to look at the backup server, the lois lerner laptop and lois lerner's blackberry. did little to comply with that. my time is running out. what really makes me mad about this sorry episode is the irs

has seen information from taxpayers all the time and every taxpayer exercise the same lack of cooperation the irs displayed in this matter the taxpayer would be in a world of trouble. the taxpayer would undoubtedly have been prosecuted, likely convicted and would have spent time behind bars but in this case the obama administration's powerful irs the got caught with his hand in the cookie jar and you circled the wagons, clammed up, took the fifth, destroyed evidence and betrayed the country and most sadly, got away with it. my time is expired. >> recognizing ms. lofgren. >> i'm astonished by the reckless statements that have been made this morning but let me go to the commissioner. you are under oath right now, you have to tell us the truth.

we have had an ig report pointing out that when you testified before you told the truth and you knew it at the time and laid it in with information you didn't know came out that you sent to us. so article 2, section 4, the president, vice president, the united states shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. i realize you are not here as an expert on constitutional law but you are a lawyer, you went to a fine law school. can you tell me which element of that, treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors you

committed? >> my position and that of my lawyers is i have not committed any of those crimes. i recognize the committee has heard from constitutional experts. >> i just think this is a trump up type of thing. having worked on many impeachments in the past this doesn't even pass the smell test, this is absurd. i would ask since you are here and we are not on the financial services committee is it within the authority of the commissioner to send an audit of a taxpayer during the course of the presidential campaign so that the taxpayer who felt they were constrained in the relief of their audit would release it? >> the irs commissioner has no authority over any individual audit or determination whether it should begin as appropriate.

>> let me ask you whether or not, everything the irs does is private and staff takes it seriously and we appreciate that but let me ask you this. event audit has been terminated, with the commissioner or agency be allowed to say publicly there was in out it going on? >> we would never comment about any taxpayer situation whether they are under audit or the audit is continuing or taxpayer information is protected. >> even if there was nothing going on or somebody was lying about that they get away with lying? >> we would never comment on any taxpayer situation with regard to audits or what was in the

information. >> i need to talk about whether someone took money from a foreign government, say russia, and then decided as a candidate or elected official to go easy on our opponent, would that if they were elected half fall into the realm in the constitution of bribery or treason? >> i'm not in a position to make a comment on that. >> i think one of the things that should concern this committee is the fact that one of our candidates for president has failed to provide transparency on his financial situation by releasing his tax

returns as every other candidate has this time it has for many decades leading to questions on the role russia is playing in his business, what that may lead him, extraordinary comments of praise for russia's leader who is a virtual dictator and adversary of the united states. i would hope this committee might use some time to explore that possibility and see if we couldn't get that candidate to do the right thing and let the american people know he hasn't compromised financially with russia, the foreign power causing so much problems in the balkans, in syria and elsewhere around the world. with that i see my time has

expired. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from california for five minutes. >> i will refrain from asking about large nonprofits that might have been taken and influenced by foreign government contributions that are sensitive to mrs. clinton. commissioner, our founding fathers did consider maladministration for impeachment and decided it was too low. do you know of that from your readings? >> that is my understanding. >> i want to ask along that, misdemeanors are in, administration is out. i represent camp pendleton, 47,000 marines. maladministration is what you get fired for if you are a colonel, captain, sergeant or general and that includes loss

of confidence in being able to do the job, failure to get your subordinates to follow your orders, failure to show the kind of zealous obedience or compliance with rules, regulations and laws, these are two different standards, the standard between impeachment and the standard for relieving senior officer or a sergeant in the military. i want to go through this because i think at a minimum we should have a discussion about what actually occurred, you were under a subpoena, looking for documents, assured the oversight committee that you were using every possible tool to recover them but now the question in retrospect, did you fail to use every tool? did you fail to ask questions of enough people, enough experts to know that the blackberry that

existed at the time of the investigation would have had many of these lost emails, servers, tapes and other documents could have been recovered as you discovered. would you say that is a failure of yours that you have to live with? >> we clearly failed. the blackberry was in control from 2013 on. we clearly failed in areas of preservation of documents driven by the fact that i was told we were looking every place they thought we would find the emails, 300,000 pages of documents, took us a year to do that and that was where people thought they would come, the ig and his review the number of which -- those thousand emails if we had the technique and time would have been important to produce but i would remind you

we produced a phenomenal volume of stuff and from my standpoint the commitment and instruction to people was do everything possible to produce information for the committee as fast as we could and as thoroughly as we could. >> 226 page report, actions placed in record for the oversight committee. >> if we had to do this over again we would ask it be done differently but i will use the remainder of my time to ask a more serious question, and the expertise to know and how to preserve documents, and all the places to make sure the six areas that could have been

looked at and were not looked at, do you think congress should insist on having a responsible person in each agency that could be held accountable because they had the expertise and be reasonably expected to enforce and deliver documents on subpoenas? >> interesting suggestion and i don't have the authority to respond but it would be helpful to reaffirm what we had at the irs, if congress asked whether subpoenaed or not for information we have an obligation to provide it as thoroughly as we can and that is an obligation we have to congress any time you ask for a question. >> lois lerner was referred for a criminal indictment under a statute that said the us attorney shall present to a

grand jury and the administration failed to do that. in retrospect the american people expect somebody to be held accountable for the wrongful targeting of conservative groups wouldn't it have gone a long way of the justice department simply complied with the law rather than chose not to comply with the law? >> can't speak for the justice department but i remind you from the commissioner on down all five levels responsible in this area are no longer with the government or the irs or at their jobs. >> i yelled back. >> recognize the gentlewoman from texas. >> thank you very much, commissioner, let me apologize your presence here today. i realize you have made a commitment as a public servant but it is appropriate to apologize to you for what i believe is a nonserious effort

as relates to the constitution and impeachment criteria. saying that let me take note of the language in your statement that says i will do my best and i am committed to full cooperation, that means listening and responding to the criticism acknowledging mistakes working diligently to improve. do you still adhere to that statement in your testimony? >> i do. >> you are committed as a public servant to ensure we have the information we need to have, is that correct? >> that is correct. i spent four years on the senate side, chairing the oversight committee and fully understand and appreciate and think it is appropriate for agencies to respond as quickly as they can with all the information requested. >> thank you very much. let me put into the record a statement the senate finance committee to permit of justice, treasury and inspector general, tax administration found three points related to you.

you had not misled congress, you had not allowed evidence to be destroyed, and not afraid to be able to you, you were not considered to have obstructed oversight of the irs. do you still believe those were true about your actions have a commissioner? let me also point into the record a letter dated september 14th for direct question was asked to the treasury inspector general, no evidence was uncovered, to destroy or hide information from congress, that letter was written by two members of congress on september 14, 2016. a letter came back from mister russell, j russell george, inspector general, quote, i received your letter and no evidence was uncovered that any irs employees were directed to destroy information or hide information from congress coming in your letter you ask issuing

this report to changes previous conclusion on this manner. at this time no additional information changes our conclusion in this report. i ask unanimous consent to put this in the record. do you adhere to that letter? >> the document was made part of -- >> you have seen the report from the inspector general. >> yes. >> you adhere or at least understand that that is being said about irs employees including yourself? >> yes. >> do you and lois lerner when you arrive? >> she was gone. i never actually met her or talk to her. >> are you engaged on the lookout activities? >> i do not use lookout activity numbers for three years or longer. >> it is important to note this is not an impeachment hearing and even though many members are requiring that, it is not. it is important to note that experts have said we have not given you due process.

i hope as we proceed to eliminate this proceeding meaning to cease and desist and if we do not you will have due process. let me proceed with some questions regarding the time after february 2014. what efforts you provide information to members of congress? >> i had a commitment that we will respond to every request, i will respond to every letter within 30 days and i will explain as a general matter over 90% of inquiries, we have not refused to provide any information. we are anxious across the board to affect every taxpayer. >> in this proceeding dealing with impeachment, high crimes and misdemeanors, there are elements our friends believe would suggest that you be subjected to impeachment

proceedings. is there anything you have done that can show deliberate bad-faith? you are a lawyer, you are allowed to say you think this action or that action or any action that may have done so. >> it was not a perfect process. when you made mistakes you owned up to it. >> there is nothing i feel, no evidence i acted in bad faith. >> you offered information when you found information after the fact. >> we spent a lot of time. >> let me ask you this, sorry for talking over you, just trying to get in. is it appropriate for a foundation to give political donations out of the foundation of 5013c foundations? >> they are not allowed to participate.

>> and an apology is owed to you and there are no grounds for any form of impeachment. and answering questions from congress with normal oversight response ability, thank you and i yield back. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mister forbes. >> thank you for being here let's bring some common sense to this. a vast majority of americans say our country is headed in the wrong direction and people elected by that, i want to go on record as i don't apologize for trying to fix it. and vast majority of americans no longer trust their government creating a crisis of confidence in our government and i don't

apologize for asking about that when i see gag orders by the pentagon they don't even allow over there to testify we see evidence being destroyed, misrepresentation of facts to congress, that is something we should try to fix. everyone has asked you what is appropriate testimony from the other side so i want to ask you this. what do you feel is appropriate as irs commissioner, should you be held to a lower standard than taxpayers subject to your jurisdiction, a higher standard or the same standard? what do you think is appropriate for us to hold you? >> i like any other public servant should be held to the highest standards. we should cooperate. >> should you be held to equal standard to taxpayers that are subject to your jurisdiction?

>> i think we should be held to that standard entire. >> of that is the case wouldn't you agree if a taxpayer were sitting where you were sitting with the same responses that you are given that taxpayer would be in a lot of trouble before the internal revenue service? let me throw this out. of the facts showed you lied to congress, not saying they did, if they showed you lied to congress or that you mismanaged your office, what do you believe is appropriate for congress to do to fix it? you said you don't think impeachment is the right thing. what do you think is appropriate? should we just do nothing and let that continue or just keep coming back and you saying we won't do it again? >> i never objected to any of the hearings. >> not talking about the hearings, talking about the conclusions. you said you didn't think impeachment was appropriate, jordan said you didn't think you should continue to hold that

office, if a taxpayer were here, should be held to the same standard as the taxpayer. the taxpayer would have had to pay the irs. >> taxpayer provided us information truthfully, did the best they could to produce information and found information was missing the first thing we would do is try to help them reconstruct the records. >> you are not going to tell me if a taxpayer comes to you and filed a faulty tax return and then said oh, i am sorry, i didn't know that was the case, you're going to let him off the hook? >> know he has to pay the taxes he owes. >> what do you over misrepresenting something to congress to q what incentive is it when you testify before us if you can consistently say i don't know, is a great incentive for you not to do due diligence, you could have told the committee i don't know, but when you make an affirmative statement, does that put you under some responsibility to make sure you

ascertain that, and my friend on the other side of the aisle consistently love to say they didn't find any affirmative action you did to order the information impeded from going to congress. do you have it affirmative duty to do everything you can to make sure that doesn't take place? >> i have a duty to make sure it happens. >> in hindsight did you do everything you could to find out if you were making accurate statements, do everything you could to make sure evidence getting to congress being impeded? >> i do in retrospect. the erasure of those tapes was not known until after my hearings which i couldn't tell the committee things i didn't know. all i can tell the committee and honesty and good faith is what i knew and what i told the committee, later information a year later. >> did you do everything in your

power to find that information? you said you were given assurances. is that what you relied on? >> we have a large number of executives i have great confidence in and when they tell me they are doing their best to produce all relevant assets -- >> you rely on those experts to tell you that, that is enough for you? i close by saying, mister chairman, the commissioner says he should meet the same standard as the taxpayer, if a taxpayer was sitting there i think you know he would be in a world of hurt. ..