inspiration to leaders all across this country. he's been a great governor and he will continue to be a great governor, because you all are going to return him to office on november 4th, aren't you? [ cheers and applause ] and i like lieutenant governor kim, too. my lieutenant governor is acting governor while i'm here in iowa. lieutenant governor kim has great ideas, and she's somebody who i think iowans all across the state look up to. because, again, she's someone who is doing the job every day. not looking for fanfare, not looking for the limelight, not looking to be the star of the show. looking to get the job done. and that's the kind of partner

you want when you're a governor. governor branstad picked really wisely four years ago. there's no reason to change a winning team right in the middle of a winning streak. so please give as much support to lieutenant governor reynolds as you give governor branstad. she's earned it, and she's great. [ applause ] now here we are. we're at scott county. now, you know, i probably shouldn't say this, but when i was walking in, branstad said this is the best county. this is just incredible. these guys, i never lose in scott county. i never lose in scott county. these are really good, good supporters of our party. and so for all of you who are here tonight, and i turn to the chair while governor branstad was talking and said, this is such an amazing turnout in the middle of july, for you all to be here, supporting this team and this ticket in the middle of july when you could be doing lots of other things, it is

incredibly impressive for me to see all of you out here. and so i can tell you that we're working just as hard all across the country to give the same kind of support that you're giving to terry, right here in iowa, to all the other republican governors, and the folks who want to be republican governors. and we're going to do great things. we've got 29 republican governors now. and as terry said, i'm going to be to 14 states in july and august alone. we'll go all across the country raising money, campaigning, and speaking to folks about why it makes a difference to have a republican governor in your state house, rather than one of the other party. of the 20 best performing states on the economy, in the country, 19 of them have republican governors. that is not a coincidence, everybody. [ applause ] and so now i've got a job to do.

not just to be the governor of new jersey, but also to be the person who tries to lead this group of governors to bigger and better things. and when i get to leave my state, and i'm doing today, and i get to come to a place where here in iowa, you have a republican house of representatives, i must say that it brings out a bad side of me. i get terribly envious. green with envy in fact. because i have an all democratic legislature. and it's governor branstad mentioned, i've had an all democratic legislature since the day i walked in. and while we get things done, and i've worked real hard, and it's the governor's job to work with the people they send you. people in new jersey have an extraordinary sense of humor. extraordinary. twice now they've elected a conservative republican governor. at the very same time, elected a liberal democratic legislature. new jerseyans are like the 13-year-old boys in the basement

doing a science experiment. they say, let's mix these two things together and see what happens. well, we've had some explosions every once in a while. we've had some real conflict between us. but we've also gotten things done. see, because the difference is, when you have an effective governor, when you have someone who understands what it means to try to work hard, and work productively for the people, you don't use those things as excuses. governor branstad's had a split legislature here. earlier in his tenure, he had an all democratic legislature. you never heard terry branstad use it as an excuse. oh, i can't get anything done because of the legislature, the people who sent me. that's not the way you do business. the way you do business is, whoever you send me, it's our job to make things harp. and so in new jersey, even despite those things, despite all the vetoes, and he's right, my first two years as governor i set a record for vetoes for a

two-year period. and then the two years after that, i broke the record for the first two years. and then the next two years, the pace i'm on, we're going to break another record. sometimes as a governor you have to say no. someone asked me if i'm staying in iowa tonight. i said, listen, part of my legislature was in town today without me there. they are not allowed in the state house without adult supervision. i have to get home. i need to get home and make sure i'm in the state house tomorrow to see what the heck they were up to today. but also, we've been able to cap property taxes in our state. we have 6,000 fewer employees on the state payroll today than when i got in office in january of 2010. we are spending $2.2 billion less today than we did in fiscal year 2008 on everything but our pensions and health care.

we have squeezed government to become smaller and smarter and more efficient. it's the conservative principles we all stand for, whether we're republicans who live in new jersey or iowa, whether we live in florida or georgea, we all stand for those things. those are the principles that unite us as a party and we have to continue to have unite us as a party. because believe me, whatever differences we may have once in a while inside our own party, they're very small. compared to the differences that we have with the other side. just remember, back to four years ago with governor colver sitting in the capital, how much different iowa feels today than it felt four years ago. so you've sat here through a lot of speeches. and a top ten list. i'm not going to wear you out tonight. i want to say one more thing to leave you with something to think about. because here in this room, all

these folks, all of you are people who are already on the team. you wouldn't be here tonight if you weren't on the team. you wouldn't be here tonight if you weren't willing to stand up for the people on our republican ticket here in iowa and do a great job for them. as some people would say, that what i'm doing tonight by exhorting to you is preaching to the choir. i talked about this earlier today in iowa. i'm married to a woman who is number nine of ten children. she has six older brothers. and two older sisters. and a younger sister. see, it's a small irish catholic family from the northeast. and what it means is, when i got married into that family, i have relatives everywhere in america. aunts, uncles, first cousins, second cousins, second cousins twice removed. we've got them all. they're everywhere. we have relatives in albany, new

york. i went up to visit my brother-in-law and sister-in-law a number of years ago in albany, new york. mary pat and i are catholics, my sister-in-law is a lutheran. they go to lutheran services. she asked if we would go. so we went with them. and i heard the best explanation that day from the pastor that i've ever heard about preaching to the choir. because tonight i'm here preaching to the choir. and we had this kind of popular sentiment about that phrase. that's wasting your time. he's just preaching to the choir. but this pastor explained it that day. he said, i preach to the choir, i plead guilty of preaching to the choir every sunday. i preach to the choir so they'll sing. and for the first time i really understood the power of briefing to the choir. see, because all of you are part of the choir for the republican team in this state. and i'm here to preach to the choir so you'll sing. you'll sing to your family and

your friends. so you'll sing to your neighbors and your co-workers. so you'll sing to the people that you see in the parking lot at church on sunday. so you'll sing to the people you see on the football fields this fall, on friday night or saturday afternoon. so you'll sing to the people you see in the supermarket checkout line. every place you go, you'll tell people that you're amongst the leaders in this state who will be able to look at others and say, i've met the governor, i've met the lieutenant governor, i've looked them in the eye. i've taken the measure of their character. and i not only voted for them, i'm working for them. 110 days to go. and the results in this election about whether we're going to expand republican gains in the house, whether we're going to take over the state senate for the republicans here in iowa, whether we're going to elect a republican woman to the united states senate and give us a republican majority in

washington, d.c. -- [ applause ] >> -- whether we're going to elect a new female congressman from right in this district -- [ applause ] >> -- i have to tell you the truth, at this point, given everything i've seen, it's not up to the governor, it's not up to the lieutenant governor, it's not up to these individual candidates. they're going to work hard, you know they are. i'm tired of hearing how hard working branstad is, i've got to tell you the truth. we've done five stops today, hardest working governor in america. i heard it, i know. hardest working governor in america. he's not going to let up now. he's going to work hard. kim's going to work hard. all the candidates are going to work hard. how about you? how about you? 110 days to go. [ applause ] there are two scenarios that i'm going to lay out for you, because i'm from new jersey, and

we're an hour ahead, so i can see into the future. here's the thing. i can see into the future. two different scenarios. scenario number one, wake up on the morning of november 5th. we come just a little bit short, one seat short in the state senate. we don't expand our margins in the house. we don't have a new republican united states senator from iowa, and we don't have new republican members of the house of representatives in washington. because we came just a little bit short. think about how you'll feel that morning when you wake up. make the clock radio wakes you up and you hear the news being reported about the slim losses by republicans in iowa. you wanted to lay there and think to yourself, if i had only done a little bit more. if i had only put aside some of my personal pursuits for that 110 days, and put my state first, put my country first, just for 110 days, if i'd done

that, maybe we'd have had a different result. governor branstad would have had a legislature who would have been moving fully in the direction of his bid for iowa's future. maybe we would have a republican united states senate and bigger majority in the house of representatives that would pressure the president of the united states to finally start leading and acting in this country, and not being a bystander in the oval office. [ applause ] but we didn't do it. we came up short. we'll have that feeling of regret. and those pangs of guilt. scenario number two. it's much better. you wake up on november 5th. the clock radio goes off. you're hearing the news reports. and we're talking about a new female republican united states senator who is the difference in a republican majority in the united states senate.

a new state senate that's controlled by republicans in iowa. a bigger house majority in iowa. a bigger house republican majority in washington. [ applause ] and you're going to know, you're going to know you did it. you're going to know you did it. it wasn't the 30-second tv ads, as nice as they are. it wasn't the mail in the mailbox. it was you. because you are still the most powerful force in american politics. you talking to friends and neighbors and others who look to you as a leader. you're still the most important force in politics. and you know what? i suspect iowa understands that better than almost any other state in america. you get the fact that you're the ones who can make a difference. so let's not fall short. let's not wake up under scenario number one, with pangs of guilt and regret. let's wake up after a joyful, celebratory evening on november 4th, where we have now set a record for the longest and

best-serving governor in the history of america, and his republican team showing the rest of america what strong conservative republican leadership can do to turn our entire country around. because when we get done, on november 4th, of 2014, we will all turn our eyes towards 2016 and taking our country back. but first things first, everybody. [ applause ] i'll end with one of my favorite quotes. from one of the great leaders in the history of this country. he was a really blunt, direct, outspoken guy. so you can't imagine why i might like him. he's one of the founding fathers, john adams. as he was nearing death, near the 50th anniversary of the country that he helped to birth,

he was concerned that america was moving in the wrong direction, concerned like many of us are today about our country. he was older, and weaker, and living up at his farm and didn't have the energy any longer to be able to travel to the nation's capital and speak out. so he wrote for us in his diary, in his dying days, and i think it applies to what i've just been urging all of you to do. his advice is very similar to the advice i just gave you. he gave it to all of us. he wrote this in his diary to his fellow countrymen. he said, you shall never know the sacrifices that we made to secure for you your liberty. i pray you will make a good use of it. for if you do not, i shall repent in heaven for ever having

made the sacrifice at all. john adams understood how precious liberty was, because he watched people fight and die for it. he birthed a country that has produced the greatest economy, the greatest military, and the most compassionate people the world has ever seen. and he would say to us, if we let this opportunity go by, that we didn't really truly appreciate the price that has been paid for the liberty that we enjoy. he would want us make sure we expand that liberty, and that freedom, for everybody. not just for us, but for the next generations. so if we do what we need to do over the next 110 days, i guarantee i will travel to every corner of this country to get this message out there, and to get republican governors reelected and elected. and if you do what you need to do inside iowa in the next 110

days, two great things will happen. iowa will have a better and brighter tomorrow for your children and grandchildren, and john adams will not have to repent in heaven. for having made the sacrifice of giving us the liberty that we exercise here every day. [ applause ] so thanks for inviting me here today. we have had a full day. a full day across this entire great state with the governor and the lieutenant governor. i've enjoyed every minute of it. these press who follow me around asking me, do people in iowa love you, governor? and, you know -- [ applause ] and i say, heck, i don't know, we just met. but the early indications are good. the early indications are good, and i will tell you that i feel

so wonderful coming here. i've been here for governor branstad, i've been here for governor romney. and every time i've come to iowa, i've been greeted so warmly and so kindly, by all of you, and it makes me feel really good. to be able to get on the airplane and go home tonight knowing that i made a lot of new friends, and hoping that i did just a little bit to make victory on november 4th for people that i care deeply about, like terry a little bit more possible. so let's not let up. let's work as hard as we can the next 110 days. and i'll see you back here in iowa again very soon. thank you all very much. [ applause ]

>> thank you, governor christie. thank you, governor branstad. thank you lieutenant governor reynolds. thank you all for coming tonight. and i would just like to share one last story. governor christie was talking about waking up the next morning after an election. i've been involved for about 15 or 16 years, not always as the county chair, but i have had the opportunity to wake up feeling both of those scenarios. in 2012, several of us went back to the office the next morning to try to clean up, and we had a call from an elderly woman who said, she felt so bad about the election. and she just needed to talk to somebody. and i told her, ma'am, i know, i'm sorry, we all have our

hearts broken. we're all terribly feeling bad about what happened. and i said, we tried to work as hard as we could. and she said, i know you did. i know you did. i don't ever want to have that feeling, that gut-wrenching feeling in my stomach again. [ applause ] so i ask you to please join us, as a county chair i would be remiss if i didn't say, we have signup sheets over by the door. there are a number of ways you can help us, whether it's baking cookies for our volunteers, putting up barn signs, making calls, answering calls, door knocking, addressing letters. there is a spot for you to help us. so thank you all very much. i hope to see you. come to our headquarters across the north park mall and have a great evening. thank you, everybody. [ applause ]

coming up tonight on c-span3, a house oversight committee hearing on irs targeting of conservative groups. then, the acting veteran affairs secretary on va health care delays. that's followed by question time in the british house of commons. next, a hearing on the justice department's investigation into alleged irs targeting of conservative groups. this hearing of the house oversight subcommittee on regulatory affairs is about three hours. the committee will come to order.

we're going to welcome our guests and we'll get to our witness here in just a few minutes. subcommittee's hearing continues the committee's ongoing oversight of the irs's targeting of conservative tax-exempt groups. may 10th, 2013, lois lerner apologized for the irs responding to a question at an obscure tax event. four days later, eric holder called the targeting outrageous and unacceptable, vowed that the justice department would begin a criminal investigation. that was may of last year. here we are now, 14 months later, and we've heard virtually nothing from the administration about this criminal investigation. all we have heard is members on both sides of the aisle calling for concerns. barbara boxer is playing a leading role in the investigation.

miss bosserman is a substantial contributor to the president, now it's her job to investigate the targeting of people who opposed the president's policies. the attorney general then comes out and says, miss bosserman's not alone, she's working with the public integrity section and federal bureau of investigation. the fbi and public integrity section met with lois lerner to determine how to bring prosecution against the same groups that were targeted by the irs. these are serious apparent conflicts of interest, but the justice department just wants us to look the other way. no big deal they say. we have unnamed law enforcement sources who leaked to the "wall street journal" that no criminal charges were going to be filed in the irs targeting investigation. then you have the president of the united states going on national television and saying there's not a smidgen of corruption in the internal revenue service. if that's not prejudging the

investigation, i don't know what is. the house passed a resolution calling on the attorney general to appoint a special prosecutor. 26 democrats, i stress that, 26 democrats joined every single republican in the house of representatives in approving this measure. but the administration still won't do anything. they still won't appoint a special prosecutor. my question is this, what more will it take for the administration to appoint a special counsel. then we find out just last month that the irs lost two years of e-mails from lois lerner due to a hard drive crash. mr. cole's testimony says the justice department is investigating. that, of course, is good. someone in the administration recognizes that there's something rotten with missing e-mails. but more must be done. we have serious concerns about the administration's investigation, and serious questions for our witness today. we need to hold all wrongdoers accountable for targeting of

americans for exercising their first amendment rights to speak out in a political fashion. and that's why this hearing is so important. and with that, i would yield to mr. cummings. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> for an opening statement. >> i welcome to the hearing deputy attorney cole. the republicans claimed the white house directed the irs to target conservative groups. but now that we have conducted our investigation, we know the truth. there's no evidence to suggest that the white house played any role in directing or developing the search terms identified by the inspector general as, quote, inappropriate, end of quote, or any other aus expect of how irs

employees processed these applications. we have now conducted, ladies and gentlemen, 42 interviews. these were witnesses that were called by the republicans. and they make it very clear that in of the office in cincinnati, they developed these criteria on its own. we also know from his supervisor, who described himself as a conservative republican, quote, that he did this not for political reasons, but because he was trying to treat similar cases consistently. not one of the witnesses we interviewed, including senior officials at the irs, the treasury department and the justice department identified any white house role in this process.

our investigation also confirmed the findings of the inspector general, who was appointed by republicans, who stated that the irs employees reported that they were, quote, not influenced by any individual or organization outside the irs, end of quote. the inspector general has testified repeatedly before congress that he has identified no evidence of any white house role for political motivation. so now the republicans have a different argument. although they're still trying to somehow link this to the white house. now they claim the targeting of a conservative group is a massive governmentwide conspiracy involving the president, the irs, the securities and exchange commission, the federal election commission and numerous other agencies, all coordinated in

response to the supreme court's decision in citizens united. they claim that the justice department is a key player in the conspiracy. the they've accused the department in engaging in criminal -- they accused the justice department of the united states of america of engaging in criminal activity by obstructing the committee. they claim the department is delaying or even closing down its own investigation for political reasons. and they claim that the appointment of a special counsel is needed. mr. chairman, i stand prepared to submit the accusations against the department of justice. as well as specific responses showing why each one is unsubstantiated. and i ask unanimous consent this memo be entered into the official record. >> without objection. >> let me address one of these

allegations. last month chairman issa and chairman jordan sent a letter that the department conspired with taxpayer information in order to criminally prosecute conservative groups for their political speech. here is what that letter said. quote, the irs transmitted 21 disks containing over 1.1 million pages of nonprofit tax return information, including confidential taxpayer information protected by federal law to the federal bureau of investigation in october of 2010, end of quote. their letter then accuses the department of working with the irs to, quote, assemble a massive database of nonprofit groups, end of quote, which they called an illicit and comprehensive registry. these accusations are complete nonsense. there's no illicit registry. there's no singling out of conservative groups. the vast majority of information

was available to the general public. and this information was never used for any investigation or prosecution. in 2010 the irs provided form 990 not only from conservative groups, but from all groups regardless of political affiliation. and it wasn't until earlier this year more than three years later that the department discovered that a very limited amount of confidential taxpayer information was stored on those disks. this was an inadvertent error that affected only 33 of 12,000 forms on those disks. that's half of 1%. the bottom line as i close is that these disks were never even reviewed by the fbi or used as part of any investigational prosecution. on may 29th, the department wrote a letter to the committee stating as follows. quote, the fbi advises that upon receipt of the disks, reporting an index, which is set forth in

one of the disks, into a spread sheet, but did nothing further with the disks, and to the best of our knowledge, the information obtained on the disk was never utilized for any vettive purpose, end of quote. that's from the fbi. where is the so-called illicit registry. the fact is it simply does not exist. this is not the basis of a white house scandal. this is the latest example of republicans desperately searching for one, and then using any excuse they can to manipulate the facts until they no longer have any resemblance to the truth. our committee has now held ten hearings on the issue. and the irs has spent more than $18 million responding to congressional investigations. it is time to stop wasting millions of taxpayer dollars, and start focusing on reforms to help our government work more effectively, and efficiently for

the american people. with that, i yield back. >> i would also ask for unanimous consent to enter into the record a couple of e-mails from 2010 from mr. pilger in the justice department. e-mails to lois lerner. and i'll just quote. thanks, lois, the fbi says raw format is best because they can put this into their systems. again, the point that ranking member was just talking about, 1.1 million pages, 21 disks of information. the fbi got an exact format they wanted, had this information for four years. i'm aware of the testimony from the justice department that they did not use this information. but what i also know is they had it for four years and it did contain 6103 confidential taxpayer information. i ask that we enter this in the record as well. >> i would ask that mr. cole, since we want to be effective

and efficient and not be caught up in distraction and dysfunction, that when he answers his questions, that he be allowed to answer what you just stated. i want to hear the answer to that, too, all right? >> i do, too. i hope he does answer and say it's not an yog gn investigation. that's why we've got him here. >> very well. >> thank you. >> anybody else wish to make an opening statement? mr. cartwright? the gentle lady is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm reading this on behalf of mr. cartwright. on may 14, 2013, inspector general russell george released a report stating irs employees used inappropriate criteria to screen out tax-exempt status. republican and democratic members including myself condemn the irs mismanagement identified in the inspector general's report. the concern expressed by some

members had even begun to investigate, chairman issa went on national television and declared the irs was involved in the targeting of the president's political enemies. the inspector general has repeatedly refuted this base lot allegation. he reported that senior leaders at the irs said the criteria were not influenced by any organization outside the irs. then on may 17th, 2013, the inspector general was asked before a ways and means committee, quote, did you find any evidence of political motivation in the selection of tax exemption applicants? his response, he responded, quoit, we did not, sir. after interviewing 42 employees in the irs, treasury department and doj and receiving more than 680,000 pages of documents, the committee has not found any evidence of white house involvement, or political bias. despite these facts, republicans continue to invent partisan election season conspiracy theories. one of the latest allegations is

that the supreme court's decision into the citizens united prompted president obama, democratic members of congress, and the irs, doj and other agencies to launch a governmentwide effort of targeting conservative groups. it severely undermines our campaign laws allowing dollars to drown out the voices of average americans, republican attempts to characterize these concerns as evidence of political pressure for agencies to target conservative groups lack merit. these preposterous accusations have also been contradicted by the committee's own investigation. we already know that the inappropriate criteria started with irs employees in cincinnati. the inspector general's report said, and i quote, that they developed and implemented inappropriate criteria. the irs screening group in cincinnati confirmed this fact in a committee interview. he explained his employees first came up with inappropriate search terms, not for political reason, but to promote

consistency. he proved his point by telling us that he is a conservative republican. former irs commissioner doug schulman, in a 2008 president bush appointee was asked, did the citizens united case in any way affect the irs process by handling tax exempt applications. his answer, no. to the best of my knowledge, it did not. likewise, the head of the elections crime branch said it is the law, so no, i am not aware of any effort or part of any effort to fix a problem from citizens united. while republicans continue to promote their unfounded allegations, they conveniently overlook the furnling of dark money into elections. 501-c organizations are not barred from participating in political campaigns. but the regulations are clear, they state political activity must be a substantial amount of the group's activity less than 50%. these groups can already gain tax exemption as a section 572

organization. that would require them to disclose their donors rather than keeping the american people in the dark about where they're getting their money. as i repeatedly stated, anonymous money in politics disrupts the democratic process. that is why ranking member cartwright introduced the open act, which would require corporations and unions to disclose their political spending to shareholders and members. this legislation will shine the money on the funding of political activities. i commend chairman lee and udall for advancing sj resolution 19, proposing an amendment to the constitution restoring reasonable limits on financial contributions, and expenditures in elections. thank you, mr. chairman, and i yield back. >> thank the gentle lady. members have seven days to submit opening statements for the record. we now welcome our witness, the honorable james m. cole, deputy

attorney general of the united states. mr. cole, you know how this works. if you would stand up and raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? thank you. pleased to have you with us. you've done this a few times. you've got five minutes, or less, but around five. you get to go. and then you've got to answer our questions. fire away. >> i'll take less than that, mr. chairman. and before i start, i want to thank the chairman for accommodating the request i made to have a rescheduling of the date of this hearing. when it was first scheduled, i was already scheduled to be down at the southwest border looking into the mccallum station and dealing with the issues down there and meeting with the united states attorneys on the southwest border trying to deal with the issues we have there as well. so thank you for accommodating that. >> you bet. >> i'm here today to testify in response to the committee's oversight interest in allegations that the internal

revenue service targeted conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status. when the allegations of irs targeting surfaced in may of 2013, the attorney general immediately ordered a thorough investigation of them. that criminal investigation is being conducted by career attorneys, and agents of the department's criminal and civil rights division, the federal bureau of investigation, and the treasury inspector general for tax administration. that's known as tinta. i have the utmost confidence in the career professionals in the department and in tikta. i know they'll follow the facts wherever they lead and apply the laws to those facts. while i understand you are interested in the results of the investigation, in order to protect the integrity and independence of this investigation, we cannot disclose nonpublic information about the investigation while it remains pending. this is consistent with the long-standing department policy.

across both democratic and republican administrations, which is intended to protect the effectiveness and independence of the criminal justice process, as well as the privacy interests of third parties. i can, however, tell you that the investigation includes investigating the circumstances of the lost e-mails from miss lerner's computer. in response to your requests, we have undertaken substantial efforts to cooperate with the committee in a manner that is also consistent with our law enforcement obligations. we have produced documents relating to the limited communications regarding 501-c organizations, by criminal division attorneys with lois lerner, who is the head of the exempt organizations division at the irs. we have also taken the extraordinary step of making available as fact witnesses two career prosecutors from the department's public integrity section who explained these contacts with miss lerner. in 2010, for the purpose of understanding what potential

criminal violations related to campaign finance activity might evolve following the supreme court's decision in citizens united versus the s.e.c. a public integrity section attorney reached out to the irs for a meeting and was directed to ms. lerner. in the course of that meeting, it became clear that it would be difficult to bring criminal prosecutions in this area, and in fact, no criminal investigations were referred to the department of justice by the irs, and no investigations were opened by the public integrity section, as a result of the meeting. a separate contact between the public integrity section and ms. lerner occurred in may of 2013. when the department of justice had been asked, both in a senate hearing, and in a subsequent letter from senator sheldon whitehouse, whether the department and the treasury department had an effective mechanism for communicating about potential false statements submitted to the irs by organizations seeking tax-exempt status. an attorney in the public

integrity section reached out to ms. lerner to discuss the issue. ms. lerner indicated someone else from the irs would follow up with the section, but that follow-up did not occur. in sum, these two instances showed attorneys in the public integrity section were merely fulfilling their responsibilities as law enforcement officials. they were educating themselves on the ramifications of changes in the area of campaign finance laws, and ensuring that the department remained vigilant in its enforcement of those laws. as we have explained to the committee previously, in 2010, in conjunction with the meeting i previously described, the irs provided the fbi with disks that we understood at the time to contain only public portions of filed returns of tax-exempt organizations. as we have indicated in letters to the committee, the fbi has advised us that upon their receipt of those disks, an fbi

analyst reviewed only the index of the disks and did nothing further with them. to the best of our knowledge, they were never used for any investigative purpose. pursuant to the committee's subpoena, we provided you with copies of the disks on june 2nd, 2014. when it remained our understanding that the disks contained only publicly available information, shortly thereafter the irs notified the department that the disks appeared to inadvertently include a small amount of information protected by internal revenue code section 6103, and we promptly notified the committee of this fact by letter by june 4, 2014. we promptly provided our copies of the disks to the irs, and suggested that the committee do the same. in order to provide you with our best information regarding the disks, including the fact that they were not used by the fbi for any vinvestigative purpose, we have sent the committee

several letters regarding the disks and the fbi answered questions about them in a house judiciary hearing on june 11th of this year. we recognize the committee's interest in this matter. we share that interest, and are conducting a thorough and complete investigation and analysis of the allegations of targeting by the irs. while i know you are frustrated by the fact that i cannot at this time disclose any specifics about the investigation, i do pledge to you that when our investigation is completed, we will provide congress with detailed information about the facts we uncovered, and the conclusions we reached in this matter. thank you, mr. chairman. i will now be happy to answer the questions. >> thank you. the gentleman from florida is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good morning, mr. cole. mr. cole, we learned in congress on june 13th, 2014, that two years' worth of lois lerner's e-mails were missing. the irs would not produce those. when did the justice department

learn of that fact? >> i think we learned about it after that, from the press accounts that were in the paper following the irs's notification to the congress. >> okay. so you actually read about it in the press, and nobody in the irs ever went to the justice department to give you a heads-up, knowing that you were conducting the investigation, that some evidence may have been destroyed? >> not before the 13th of june. >> now, let me ask you this. if you said in your testimony that you shared the committee's interests and conducting a thorough and complete investigation, and analysis of the allegations of targeting by the irs, if that is the case, i guess my question is, why wouldn't you have known that these e-mails were missing? did you just simply not seek to obtain those in the course of the investigation, or did the irs not provide documents that the justice department requested? >> again, it's difficult to get into the details of the investigation, but there's a number of different sources of

e-mails in the irs. there's lots of recipients and senders, and we were looking at many different forms and sources of those e-mails. and it didn't become apparent based on that that there were any missing e-mails before that. >> let me ask you this. if somebody -- you're investigating an entity, government agency, whatever, that agency has a duty, once they know they're under investigation, to preserve evidence, correct? >> that's correct. >> and they have a duty to produce the relevant documents that are requested in the course of that, correct? >> that's correct. >> that would fall ultimately to the agency head to make sure the agency complies with the justice department, right? >> i imagine the agency ultim e ultimately bears responsibility. but there are people further down who actually do the work. >> in the course of investigating a case, if you're investigating an agency and entity, and there's evidence that is destroyed, and that agency knows that they're under investigation, don't they have a

duty to report that to the justice department, so that you know -- so that you know that the evidence has gone missing? >> we would like to know that information. depends on when they learn of it. and it's certainly information we would like to have. >> let me ask you this. if you're in court, and you make a representation to a judge, even if it's in good faith and you later find out that the representation you made is factually incorrect, you have a duty as an attorney and a member of the bar to go back to the court and follow a duty of candor to inform the tribunal of the mistake and correct the record, is that right? >> that's correct. >> do you think, as you and the justice department look in a congressional investigation, if we have somebody heading an agency, or who's involved with an agency, and they provide information to us, and that information, later they determine to be incorrect, do they have a duty of candor to

the congress to correct the record? >> yes. >> very well. let me ask you this, mr. cole. there was a letter -- we had sent a subpoena for documents, and we received a response on may 28th, 2014, it was signed by peter kadzig. and in that, the department's position is the same, there's certain items that we requested that the department's not going to produce, is that accurate? >> that's correct. >> and the reason for that cited was substantial confidentiality interest. i wanted to clarify, is not producing the documents, is the reason for that, is the president actually exerting executive privilege in this matter? >> i don't believe there was an aversion of executive privilege. there's law enforcement sense tich documents, and documents involving ongoing investigations that traditionally over decades, that accommodation with the department and the congress is that those are not produced.

because they are law enforcement sensitive items. >> my final question would be, this congress held lois lerner in contempt. geez, almost nine weeks ago. federal law requires when that happens, that the u.s. attorney for the district of columbia take that to a grand jury. is it your understanding of that law, that that is an only ga tory duty that the u.s. attorney must take that before a grand jury? >> my understanding of the law is that it does not strip the u.s. attorney of the normal discretion that the u.s. attorney has. he proceeds with the cases that he feels are appropriate to do so. >> usc 194 says it shall be the duty to bring the matter before the grand jury. so even though congress mandated a duty, a prosecutor would essentially be able to trump that language by exercising discretion? >> i believe that there are --

there's aspects of it that give any prosecutor prosecutorial discretion on how to run a case and review a matter. i understand this matter is under review. as far as whether or not matter. as far as whether it's been disclosed to a grand jury, that's something you can't disclose. >> i understand that, my time is up. >> the gentleman from maryland is recognizes. >> i want to thank you for being here, i wish it were under more constructive circumstances. the republicans on this committee has accused your department, the justice department of engaging in criminal conduct, obstructing the committee and criminally conspiring. are any of those accusations true? >> no, they're not. >> let me focus on one specific

accusati accusation. chairman issa and chairman jordan have accused the department of justice to create an illicit registry to prosecute conservative organizations. the claim is based on the fact that back in 2010, the irs provided to the fbi 21 computer disks with annual tax returns or form 990s from organizations with tax exempt status. according to your letter, these disks contain the forms of all roots that were filed between january 1, 2007 and october 1st, 2010, and i quote, regardless of political affiliation, is that correct? >> that's my understanding, representative cummings, i have not seen the list myself. my understanding is it was

presented to us as public record information and not selected on the basis of any sort of political affiliation. >> based on your knowledge, there were -- they were not just conservative organizations? >> no, not -- that's not my understanding. >> as i understand it the vast majority of this information is accessible to the public. it's the same as what the irs provides to the nonprofit organizations guidestart.org. is that right to your knowledge? >> when we received the disks, it was represented to us it was all public information. >> so these forms were provided in 2010, but earlier this year, more than three years later, you discovered that a very limited amount of confidential taxpayer information was stored on those disks, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> this area affected only 33 of 12,000 forms on those disks,

that's less than 1%. is that your understanding? >> i don't know how much it specifically was, i knew it was a small amount. >> do you have any reason to believe that this error was intentional or that these redactions were done incorrectly or on purpose? >> i have no basis to be able to conclude anything on that. other than it's a small amount and what was represented to us. >> finely, to me the most important point here is that these disks were never reviewed. >> the first page of it they were never reviewed and never used. >> the attorney general called to conclude when your claims, and having dealt with the practice of law for so many years and having dealt with the justice department so many, many times. i mean, some of the very -- our

best and brightest citizens go into that department. many of them could make a lot more money doing other things, but they decide they're going to give their life to what i call feed their souls and make a difference for people. and then to -- just the idea to hear that the justice department is accused of criminal activity. the very department that has done so much to make sure that our laws are upheld. i mean, i just -- it's very upsetting to me and i'd like to give you an opportunity, since you represent so many of these wonderful people who have decided to give their careers to us, and the idea that they would -- they're working hard but then they receive these accusations.

i want to know your reaction to that. >> well, i represent all of them, and the career people we have at the department of justice are really some of the best and most honest lawyers i've ever seen. the amount of integrity that's there is quite astounding, you're right they do sacrifice a great deal of money to work there, but they work there because they feel it's important to go after the pursuit of justice, they work to try to find out what the facts are, what the law is, apply the facts to the law and let the chips fall where they may. there's no politics that's involved with all of these career people and it's impressive to see the work that they do and the resultses the justice department is able to bring about, and the credibility the justice department has because of the career lawyers we have. >> if you all find that this

crash of miss lerner's computer had any criminal elements, you would be looking into that as in any other criminal case, is that correct? >> that's what we do in any criminal case. we act appropriately, that's the whole purpose of the justice department, to find out what's going on and take appropriate action. >> isn't it true that richard pilger met with lois learner in 2010? >> yes, it is. >> and he got this information in the format that he asked for? the nib wanted it in? >> i think there was a request of several different forms it could come in, as i understand it. and we were asked to pick which one the fbi would prefer. >> lois lerner said we're getting you the disks we spoke about. does the fbi have a format

preference? while format is best because they can put it into their systems like excel. pilgrim meets with lois lerner. you asked for this date tdata? >> i'm not sure -- i haven't seen an e-mail -- >> it sure looks like you asked for it, and then you got the data, right? >> we did get the data, but the requests were made before the meeting, and the data was delivered. >> if it's publicly available information, why did you ask the irs for it, and why did you have to meet with lois lerner to get it? >> i didn't ask for that. i'm going to take it back and try to find it. >> it's public information, yet you had to go to lois lerner to

get the information you wanted. you had this information for four years? >> the disks were in the possession of the fbi -- >> 21 disks? >> that's correct. >> and it contained 6103 information, correct? >> we learned -- >> i didn't ask when you learned it, i asked if it contained it. mr. cummings just made this big deal about, this is no big deal, well, in fact it is. the justice department asked for information that you said is publicly available. you go to lois learner to get it, you get it in 2010 in the format you want it. it's 21 disks, 1.1 million pages, you say it's available publicly, you don't get it publicly, you get it from the irs, and it contains confidential taxpayer information. all those are facts, correct? >> they're not facts that are linked together, though. >> they're all in the database, correct? the irs told us it was confidential. i didn't make that up.

the irs told us it was confidential information in there. >> there was no request at the time. i'm not sure if the justice department requested the information or the irs offered it, i'm not sure how the idea -- >> when you did it in the format you asked for, it sure looks like you asked for it. >> i'm not sure how the actual idea of providing that information to the justice department came up four years ago, but it was provided after the meeting. >> let's go to your testimony, your written testimony? you say on page two of the written testimony i got, that there was a separate contact between this same lawyer in 2013 in response to senator white house's comments in a senate hearing, looking at ways to bring a false statement action against the very groups who wound up being targeted by the irs. follow where i'm at in your testimony? >> no, it has nothing to do with the groups targeted by the irs. that's not correct.

>> whether or not false statement cases could be brought -- >> they're the same groups, trust me many. >> the integrity section. they reached out to miss lerner -- someone else would follow up with the section, but that follow-up did not occur. why didn't the follow-up not occur? >> i don't know. >> you don't know? >> i don't know. >> let me give you a reason why i think it might not have occurred. this correspondence this meeting took place on may 8, 2013. you know what happened two days later? >> yes, i do. >> what happened two days later? >> miss lerner gave a speech at the ava conference and talked about this issue. >> where she explained to the whole world that the irs was caught with their hand in the cookie jar and they were targeting conservative groups. that's why the follow-up didn't occur, two days before the very lawyer who met with lois lerner in 2010 got the database in the format they wanted. two days before -- jump ahead three days later, his meeting

with miss lerner again says the follow-up will take place about but the follow-up doesn't take place. targeting did in fact happen. she tried to spin this in a way that blames good public service in cincinnati, which we know is false. mr. cummings said this is no big deal? give me a break. one last question i have, before i go to the next member. so john coskinen told this committee just a week ago, he knew in april of this year that a substantial portion of lois lerner's e-mails were lost. and he waited two months to tell us, and he waited even longer to tell you. if the private citizen does something like that, under investigation, finds out they've lost important documents and doesn't tell someone, that's a problem.

so, is it a big deal to you, mr. cole, that the head of the irs waited two months to tell the united states congress. two months to tell the american people, and most importantly, two months to tell the fbi and the justice department that they had lost lois lerner's e-mails? >> we would like to know about the loss of the e-mails. >> is it a big deal he waited two months. >> he knew in april. when i asked him questions just last week, he said he knew in april. why didn't you tell us. but he waited two months. >> i would like to know all the circumstances from limb as to why there was the two-month wait. >> i would like to know as well. >> before i answer the question whether it's a big deal. >> the gentle lady from illinois. >> i believe in his testimony he actually -- the response to why there was a two-month wait is that he was informed. and then for the next two months, they were attempting to recover the lost e-mails from other host computers, where

those e-mails were located, so that just because you lose the e-mails from miss lerner's hard drive, where she was the from sender, they would exist in the two recipients computers -- i believe over 80 other host computers where they were looking. so that is part of the delay. i would like to know the full extent of what was going on as well about. as i'm sure you're aware, the nature of the justice department's investigation into the irs practices regarding the tax exempt applications has been lengthy discussions. despite unsubstantiated allegations, that the justice department has prematurely closed its investigation, for political reasons. attorney general holder has repeatedly confirmed before both the house and senate judiciary committees that the justice department and fbi are still

actively investigating this matter. on january 29, 2014. the attorney general testified before the senate judiciary committee that the matter is presently being investigated. several months later in april, on april 8th of 2014, the attorney general testified before the house judiciary committee. it was an ongoing matter that the justice department is actively pursuing. can you please confirm the department is still investigating irs practices? >> this is still an ongoing investigation, that's correct. >> accusations that the department has prematurely closed its investigations are false, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> some have also lamented the length of time this investigation has spanned. in your experience, is it uncommon for complex investigations such as this one to take a substantial amount of time to complete?

>> both as a prosecutor and a defense attorney, this is not an unusual amount of time for an investigation like this. >> in your opinion, is there anything unusual or troublesome about the lengths the irs investigation is taking? >> not that i've seen, no. >> this is other investigations of this complexity, you would expect would take a lengthy amount of time? >> this is normal, yes. >> can you comment on reports that the justice department has decided not to bring charges against irs officials? >> no decisions have been made in this case. >> can you confirm no decision was made to criminally charge anyone -- i know you said that, in reference to the fact that the investigation is ongoing. >> there are no investigations in this case right now. >> if you were to discover in the investigation some cause -- >> the whole range of options are still open. >> thank you.

>> i thank 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 the massive database for illicit and comprehensive -- illicit and comprehensive registry of law enforcement officials. was this something that was a collusion by the irs? >> no, it was not. >> did they use this registry for the potential identification of nonprofits? >> we didn't. we didn't use it for any purpose. >> both chairman issa and chairman jordan have said that in the letter on june 10, 2014, a special prosecutor is needed for truly independent criminal investigation of irs targeting. do you support that? >> i do not. i do not think one is necessary

here. >> now, i'm going to give you a little time to respond to the accusations on how the doj's conducting his investigation and these allegations that you're including, delaying, lying. i only have 30 seconds, it's not a lot of time, but go ahead. >> short of saying we're not doing that, this is the same thing, we're not talking about what we're doing on investigations either way. if my answers would help us or hurt us, we're not talking about what we do in decisions, that's just how we proceed with investigations for a lot of very good reasons. >> why would that? why would you name some reasons? >> you don't want to prejudge before all the facts are in. you want to make sure you have a complete and full record upon which to make the determinations. you want to protect people's privacy. many times people will provide us information. and you don't want to start going out and telling everybody

who is talking to us, who is not talking to us. you don't want to have some witnesses infected by what other witnesses said. so you can get the pure statements from each type of witness. you want to make sure they're protected because there are allegations about them that turn out not to be true. you want to make sure that everything is done with fairness and thoroughness and you want to make sure that you have the ability to do that without the interference and glare of a public spotlight, that's not the way investigations are done well. >> thank you. i'm out of time. >> would that include the president of the united states predisposing there's not a smidgen of corruption? the head of the entire branch assumes what's going on. >> i'm talking about -- >> you're talking about getting to the truth, and you don't want

certain witnesses, certain people talking about it. i think that would include the highest ranking people in the country. >> if i may, we don't want -- the justice department doesn't talk about the investigation, we're the ones that know what the facts are. lots of people have talked about this investigation on both sides of it. they're free to do that, that's part of the first amendment rights, we do not do that, because we're the ones with the actual facts. >> the president's different. your boss is eric holder, his boss is the president of the united states. that's a completely different category than members of congress or a private citizen talking about it. all i'm saying is, you went through a whole list of why you can't -- you can't tell us who's involved in the case. but somehow we bring up the -- no big deal. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. >> given the topic of this

hearing, i assume you're familiar with the code on disqualification arising from personal relationship with regard to qualifications, correct? >> yes. >> you surely understand that it explicitly states, and i quote. no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution, if he has a personal or professional relationship with any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution. or any person or organization which he knows has a specific and substantial interest that could be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation of prosecution cushion. do you understand that? >> yes, that's what it says. >> you probably understand that there's a carveout section that states, an employee assigned to or otherwise participating in a criminal investigation believes that his participation may be prohibited by paragraph a of the section, shall report the matter and all attended facts at the

level of the section chief or the equivalent or higher. if the supervisor determines that a personal or political relationship exists, he should relieve that employee unless he determines 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. and the employee's corporation would not create the integrity of the investigation. you understand all of that, correct? >> yes, it does. >> this is the regulation and guidance under the federal regulations? >> this is the regulation and guidance, yes, sir. >> do you believe that barbara bosser man, the attorney of the civil rights commission and major contributor to president obama's campaign set forth in the code. >> you have to look at section c of that regulation, which defines those terms. and it defines the political

relationship which means a close elected official, a candidate whether or not successful for elected political office or a campaign organization arising from service as a principle adviser there to or a principled official there of. >> wouldn't you say a principle adviser? >> do you believe she should have brought this forward? >> i believe that as the definition states, she didn't 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. >> this was poignant. the power to destroy, even more screwed you shoucrutiny should

applied to this? >> yes. >> it's squeaky squeaky clean in regards to the perception of the public? >> i agree. and she did not meet the definition. >> sidestepping, i would say. >> i'm not an attorney, but i'm a dentist, and just the implication of that aspect would show that there's a conflict of interest. i would think from that standpoint the public is one we should be adhering too, the perception to make sure it's a fair and equitable situation. i think they owe that further detail. would you not agree? >> i think you have to go through the regulations, you have to apply the law to the matter. and the law in this matter has a clear definition of what is meant by the terms. and those terms did not

encompass miss bosserman. >> there's not a smidgen of opportunity that there's corruption in this case. would you agree with that terminology? >> congressman, this investigation is open and -- >> well, i mean, i'm going to cut you off there, because how would you define a smidgen, small? >> congressman, i am -- >> smidgen, small? is it big? is it small? what's a smidgen? >> i'm not sure the context and the meaning -- >> you were watching the super bowl? >> i was. >> you did actually hear that, so i mean you're a literal person, a smidgen would be what? >> a smidgen is small. >> in this case there's not an opportunity for something to be wrong and corruptive in this aspect? from your professional judgment? >> i'm not going to comment on the findings we have made so far, and the facts we've

gathered in this investigation. we don't do that, if somebody else wants to render an opinion. >> i'm going to cut you off right there. you made a comment that the individua individuals, career attorneys are fantastic people. are they human? >> of course they are. >> they do make mistakes? >> of course they do. >> the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. >> mr. chairman, deputy attorney general cole, thank you for being here today. i hope we can use this opportunity to lay to rest some of the more outrageous allegations that have been circulating about the department of justice. chairman issa and chairman jordan's may 014 letter to general holder noted they were shocked to learn that the justice department and the irs had a meeting attended by lois

learner in early 2010 to discuss the criminal enforcement of campaign finance laws. and that letter, chairman issa and chairman jordan claimed that testimony about the october 2010 meeting, reveals 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 representatives was improper in some fashion? >> no, i do not. >> and i also wanted to say, during the transcribed interviews of the doj witnesses, committee staff asked about that october 2010 meeting, the chief of doj's public integrity

section had the following exchange with committee staff. at the october 8, 2010 meeting, did you or anyone else from the department of justice suggest to irs employees that they should fix the problem posed by citizens united decision? . and the question was, in your opinion, does the citizens united decision pose a problem? the answer was, it is not my role to comment on the law of the land. it is the law of the land. my job is to enforce the law, citizens united is the 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 doj's role and responsibility to enforce that law? >> yes, it is. to enforce the other laws that are involved in that area. >> all right. >> now, the director of the

election crimes branch of the doj's public integrity section was asked about citizens united during his interview in response, he said the following. so citizens united is not a problem. it is the law. and so no, i am not aware of any effort or part of any effort to fix a problem from citizen's united, i am aware that it changed the law, though, and that law enforcement and reaction to such changes must be vigilant about the opportunities they present for law breaking. so 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'm aware of no such effort. there was no problem. particularly, that was the law. >> now that statements from doj

witnesses and deputy attorney general himself have directly refuted the chairman's allegation that doj contributed to the political pressure on the irs to fix the problem posed by citizens, by the citizens united decision, i want to say, i hope this claim is put to rest once and for all. it's 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 to consent to enter into the record a statement made by miss lerner at a speech eight days after the statement mr. cartwright just referenced. miss lerner said, everyone's screaming at us right now, fix it now before the election. what we do know is that miss

lerner gave a speech eight days after that meeting and said, everybody's asking me to fix it. >> unanimous consent request? >> i think the chair -- i would ask it's a full transcript of the staff interview with the director of doj. i object -- >> it is not the policy of this committee to put transcripts in their entirety out. i respect the gentleman's right to take any and all pertinent areas, but putting the questions and answers of transcripts has been proven to be used to coach witnesses. and the coaching of witnesses later on, i'm sure mr. cole would tell you is not productive in an investigation. >> gentleman from california? >> i would just. i have a second unanimous consent request. i would further ask, since we don't want to cherry pick around here, i was trying to avoid that. i know that the committee chair

frowns on that. the may 2014 interview would also be entered into the record. >> i object unless the gentleman can cite appropriate items. he's welcome to. the policy of this chair is that it is destructive to ongoing investigations to do entire transcripts. >> mr. chairman, at the invitation of the chairman, i will cite two sections of those interview, i hope the chairman would not object be entered into the record at this time. >> that's fine. but i -- i'm afraid i'm going to have to read them. the director on may 6th, 2014 said, and i quote, since i joined the public integrity section of 1992, i've never encountered politically motivated decisions, to the contrary, it's been my

consistent experience, on a strictly nonpartisan basis on all of its decisions and actions, politics plays no role in our work. that was part of his interview, i would ask without objection. and then the second one mr. chairman and i'll cease, on may 29, john kennedy's birthday of this year, he told -- the chief of doj's public integrity section explained to our staff, since i've 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. i thank the chair. >> we're going to try to get to two more, we have a couple votes on the floor. >> would you agree it would be wrong to continue an investigation for any length of

time, if there isn't a smidgen of evidence of wrongdoing? >> if you've completed the investigation? and you have satisfied yourself that there is no wrongdoing in the investigation? then the investigation is done. >> my question was, if you begin an investigation and you go through weeks, months, now, basically a year, and you do not have a smidgen of evidence of a crime, is it appropriate to continue spending taxpayer dollars. >> there's a chance you may find additional evidence of crime -- >> mr. cole, you have an ongoing investigation. it's been going on now for a ye year. you have confirmed an ongoing investigation, it is appropriate to say that your answer is there either has to be evidence of a crime or a belief by

investigators there is a crime that has been committed that you are investigating, season the that correct? >> there has to be a belief that there's still evidence that is necessary to be looked at, to determine whether or not a criminal statute has been violated. >> i really appreciate you're dodging on behalf of de core um. my question needs to be answered. >> the purpose -- >> you cannot spend taxpayer dollars if you do not have a belief it's going to lead to a crime. that would be a frivolous investigation at some point, wouldn't it? >> you continue look for crimes for years on innocent people, when, in fact, there isn't a smidgen of evidence? you continue looking at somebody for criminal investigation for months or years without any evidence just because you -- in the long run think it might happen? >> you start investigations based on -- >> no, that was a yes or no, really. do you do that? i outlined a rather repugnant

accusation that the minority has made about this chair and this committee that we're continuing to investigate wrongdoing by the irs both in cincinnati and particularly in washington, led by lois learner. we continue to investigate it, because we believe and weighs and means has referred to you criminal allegations. do you continue to investigate. not whether you're going to get a successful prosecution. sometimes you go for years and you never get -- you don't necessarily get a conviction. would you continue investigating as you have, if you did not have -- if your investigators did not have a belief that a wrongdoing had occurred for which you were trying to build a case? >> that's a yes or no. >> mr. chairman, unfortunately, it's not quite a yes or no.

>> yes, it is. would you continue to take people's time, money, force them to get attorneys investigate, subpoena, grab information, 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? >> can i give you my answer? >> you can further explain. that's how -- your boss, the attorney general is a bad witness. please don't be a bad witness. >> i'm trying not to be. >> that was a question that you have to answer yes or no. would you continue to investigate people without a smidgen of evidence. would you continue to spend the taxpayer dollars when there was no reasonable belief that a crime had been committed? >> sometimes you investigate to ensure that you have evidence that one wasn't committed.

>> mr. cole, that means you could be spending the time and money trying to prove that lois learner is innocent and this committee was wrong in accusing her, you could be doing that? >> we're not trying to prove anything. >> i didn't ask what you were trying to do. i'm trying to find out what the facts are -- >> let me get to my obligation to get to the facts. i issued you a lawful constitution ali mandated subpoena to the attorney general. >> in it, we asked for all documents of communication between lois lerner and employees of the department of justice. you responded and said, we also have not included documents reflecting the department's internal deliberations about law enforcement matters. in which we have substantial confidential interests because we believe disclosures would chill candid exchange of interviews that are important to sound decision making. do you recognize those words?

>> that's a standard policy of -- >> okay, i just want to make it clear, the standard policy of the department of justice is, you don't give us the q & a of your interviews because it could have a chilling effect on or adversely affect your ongoing investigations, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> i wanted to make sure we understand, that's what good investigations do. however, when we subpoenaed the documents between the department of justice and lois lerner, we got one tranche, that tranche shows that in fact either justice wanted the goods on lots of people, including information that wasn't publicly available. taxpayer i.d. information. or lois lerner sent that information and the department of justice didn't want it, it's only one of the two. when we subpoenaed all the communications, was there any reason that you would not and

have not delivered to us all of those documents since that is not your investigation to lois lerner, but our investigation of you? >> documents inappropriate to be sent were sent. >> i would have to go back and look. documents that were created at time, and documents that were created in determining how to respond. i don't know which documents are being withheld at this point -- >> would you commit today in the case of -- this is before obvious li before you were debating whether to give us information or not, but the documents related to her activities and the irs's activities. will awe degree either to give

us all the documents related to correspondence back and forth between the irs and anyone at the department of justice in this time period that may have been related to the ongoing investigation, 501 c 3s and 4s or so on or give us a privileged log. one or the other is due us, will you commit to that? >> we will commit to give you the documents, or we will give you an indication of what 250i7s of documenting we are not providing you as we have done in the past. >> will you do it so the documents have specific specificity to make the claim why there is a privilege, not a blanket we're giving you some, not others. >> we have not given privileged logs in the past, and i see no reason to start that now. we will give you information that will allow you to understand the nature of the documents that are not being provided. >> my understanding is that your boss is held in contempt because

he refused to give us documents related to the laws being broken by lying to congress and the people who knew about it for ten months. those internal documents have yet to be produced, in spite of the fact that it's before the court and two years later, 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's 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 failed to have de core um in the well of the u.s. house of representatives when he reprimanded the supreme court for their decisions for citizens

united. and lois lerner thought 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 conservatives and asserting their constitutional free speech. mr. cole, i hope that you would never investigate lois learner or the crimes related to this if there wasn't a smidgen of evidence. i would hope crimes were committed, regulations were violated. rules were broken and americans constitutional rights were violated by lois lerner and others around her, and i would hope that's the reason your investigation is ongoing, and i look forward to those privileged logs. >> gentleman from nevada is recognized -- we're going to come back, we're going to recess, if you want to go now,

we have 3:40 left until the vote. >> i ask for unanimous consent under rule nine that the minority be given equal time based on the fact that the chairman went over an additional five minutes. >> i've been very lenient with the time and left the ranking member go over if you want. go right ahead. >> thank you, mr. general for being here today and i want to start by again just reiterating the fact that the chairman asked at the beginning of this hearing for you to swear underoath if you were 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's correct. >> is there any reason for members of this committee or for millions of americans to believe that that is not the case or to believe otherwise? >> there's no reason, no.

>> 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 yes. >> thank you. >> i want to bring to the committee's attention the fact again that many of us agree that there was absolutely wrongdoing by the irs on the handling of the tax exempt status and the process was unacceptable, and that people do need to be held accountable. i believe that the president famously referred to the irs mishandling of these applications on super bowl sunday as consisting of "bone head decisions. the president went further and commented there was not even a smidgen of corruption. much has been made of the president's statements.

chairman god lack asked during a june 112014 judiciary hearing, how can we trust that if this passion investigation is being carried out, when the president claimed no corruption occurred, during the same hearing chairman goodlack asked fbi director can you explain why there's an investigation given that the president said that there was not even a smidgen of corruption? the director responded, i mean no disrespect to the president or anybody else who's expressed a point of view about the matter. but i don't care about anyone's characterization of it. i care and my troops care only about the facts. there's an investigation because there was a reasonable basis to believe that crimes may have been committed and so we're conducting that investigation.

deputy attorney general cole, do you agree with the assessment that outside characterizations even by the president have no bearing on a particular investigation? >> that's correct. people don't know what it is we know, and they have -- we do our job and try to block out whatever people say on the outside. >> is it accurate to say that the department does not take direction from the president on how to conduct ongoing investigations? >> we do not. and that's a very specific line that is drawn. >> the gentleman yields. >> mr. chairman, i understand we have less than a minute. i don't know whether you were coming back -- were you coming back? can he resume his questioning when he comes back? i mean, if you don't mind. i want us to be able to vote. >> yeah, yeah. >> does that make sense? >> i want to make sure we get answers. >> we're out of time, we have to get to the vote. >> there are 300 people that haven't voted, so -- >> i'm not going to be one of them. >> it's totally up to.

>> five minutes, recess. >> i'm going to ask one more question. i won't take your time, one quick question before i go. >> i reserve my time until we return. >> you'll be given your full two and a half, three minutes, whatever you had left. is it the department of justice investigating why the irs waited two months to disclose the loss of lois lerner's e-mails? >> i don't know if that's specifically -- >> i'm asking you specifically. are you going to look at the fact that the head of the agency targeted conservative groups and didn't tell us and didn't tell you for two months. are you going to look at that fact? >> i think that depends on whether or not the irs resisters the inspector general refers that to us. this is a scenario we want to satisfy -- >> why should the inspector general have to do with it? you think that's a problem, i certainly think it's a problem. the american people think it's a problem.

i would hope the justice department would think it's a problem. so why wouldn't you look into the two month lag? >> we would have to determine if there's a potential criminal violation before we look at that, we don't just investigate for no reason, there has to be some sort of basis or thought that it might implicate a federal criminal statute. we'd have to look at that first. >> all right, we'll resume. we're going to take a recess. you can obviously -- we'll be back in probably 30 minutes. thank you. >> we stand in recess.

>> the gentleman from nevada is recognized for his time. >> i'll give you a couple extra minutes, how about that? the gentleman's recognized. >>. >> thank you for continuing to be with us this afternoon. i was concluding my questions before we recessed, i was asking about the fact that regardless of statements made by outside groups or characterizations, that the department of justice approaches its investigations in fair impartial and unflunsed ways. if you could just answer for the record whether it's the case, that the department does not take direction from the president on how to conduct ongoing investigations. >> we do not take any direction from the president.

as a matter of fact that's a time honored restriction, and barrier that's put in between the department of justice and the white house. it is independent in its investigations and it's honored very scrupulously. the department of justice 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 apply those facts to the law and make a determination about what the appropriate resolution should be. that's what we do, no more and no less. >> has the president's statement in anyway -- the statement that there was not a smidgen of corruption influence the department's investigation in anyway? >> no, it has not. >> mr. chairman, what i'd like to say is the fact that i wish that this committee would approach our oversight function and the way that the department of justice is approaching it, its investigation which is to do

so fair, fairly, impartially, and without prejudging the facts. and 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 to enter into the record opening statements of two department of justice employees who were interviewed in the course of this irs investigation. >> wait, wait, wait, wait. opening statement? >> the chief of the public integrity section jack smith and the director of the crimes branch. >> what are you asking? >> i'm asking to enter their

statements from their -- >> it's the full transcript, i would object -- >> it's not, however, i want to say for the record, mr. chairman, buck mckeon just released 100% of the transcripts from benghazi, i'm not clear on the standard being used by this chair. >> we're going to try to move on. i think i'm going to object. i'll take a look at it afterward. >> can i ask the point of order as to the reason -- >> unanimous consent. >> what would be the rule that -- >> i'm going to recognize. i want to try to move and get many of our colleagues as we can. >> the next vote. >> i have not finished my time that was allotted to me -- >> i think you're 42 seconds over. >> the chair was over 5 minutes,

i had additional time, we recessed, i am not -- >> i gave you more time -- >> under rule nine. >> i've given mr. cummings more time than five minutes. talk to anyone, i've been pretty generous with the time, but i do want to get to everyone who's here. >> under rule nine i'm asking for a parliamentary inquiry. >> the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for his five minutes. >> so the chairman will not recognize my parliamentary? >> you're now 1:16 plus the additional time -- >> because you will not recognize my point of order. >> i said i object to your point of order. you don't have a valid point of order. it's a unanimous -- >> you asked for unanimous consent. >> has the minority been given equal time? >> yes, they have. >> absolute time, you won't get as much, you're not going to be given as much time, because you're the minority. >> i'd like to be recognized and

if he'll yield you can be recognized. >> the gentleman yield for 30 seconds? >> yes, i'll be glad to yield for 30 seconds. >> mr. chairman, i'd like to point out that the chairman of the full committee, mr. issa was given a full ten minutes prior to mr. hortzberg's line of questioning. it was represented by you that he would be -- >> it was not represented -- i give you an extra -- >> i'm reclaiming my time. >> i'm reclaiming my time. >> i think that the chair and let me go ahead mr. cole with a few questions. one, in your testimony, your verbal testimony here today, you say you have the utmost confidence in their investigation. do you stand by that? i mean, that's a correct quote of you. >> yes, i do. >> the entire team that's

investigating. >> let me ask you, is it normal procedure when tigda investigates somebody to have a member of management in personal interrogatory discussions with other employees. why would you -- would you normally do that in your investigative mode to have members of management in the majority of those interviews? >> a lot of those take place before -- >> i want to put it in context, congressman? >> were you there when the interviews were happening back in 2011? how would you put it in context? >> i'm trying, if you'll let me explain, i think you'll understand. >> inspectors general have different types of investigations they do, other than just criminal investigations. >> right. >> we're working with tigda on a criminal investigation. >> i understand that, prior to this, they were doing an investigation on their own without us --

>> so your utmost confidence is really about the investigation now, not what happened before? >> it's the different types of rules that may apply. sometimes different agencies have union rules that apply, and control the way an inspector general may talk to people. i'm not sure what the rules are. >> since you aren't there, we'll go on. may of 2013 you started an investigation, is that correct? >> the justice department. >> started an investigation. and that continues today. >> yes, sir. >> missing e-mails that we've 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 reads about it in the press? should we be concerned that your investigation is not exhaustive if it took you more than 13 months and you had to read about in the press or missing e-mails?

does that concern you? >> it concerns me. >> i understand it concerns you. >> as i've explained, as we looked through the records in this case, it was not a gaping hole. these e-mails come from different sources. >> that's 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 didn't 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 wouldn't tell you there were missing e-mails when he knew about it? >> if i'm -- if i understand your question, the person who i believe knew about it earlier on was in a much different context, and i don't know how much they

knew about what related to our investigation at the time. >> listen. >> you're insulting the american people. >> i don't believe -- >> and if you're indicating that someone that was involved in the tigda investigation didn't 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 investigation. >> yes, they wrote notes that's how we found out about it in october of 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 these e-mails, and then it was shazam, here we found out that these missing e-mails when actually someone with tigda already knew about it. >> i would have preferred the dots got connected earlier, i think that agent was investigating something quite different and not this investigation, this matter that

tigda was in is my understanding. >> oh, really? he went back and found notes that there may be a problem. so let's go on a little bit further. the irs commissioner knew in february that there was a problem. and he says he didn't tell you. are you concerned about that? >> would have liked to have known? >> yeah, would have liked to have known. we would have too. and so you found out about it in the newspaper. >> that's correct. >> so how exhaustive is your investigation then, mr. cole if you would have liked to have known about it, how can the american people have confidence in your investigation, if the things you would like to know about aren't getting asked? are you not having interviews back and forth? has anybody interviewed the irs commissioner? >> as i've said, we don't talk about who we interview and who we don't interview. >> he says you haven't. would you think he would being truthful with congress? >> i'm not going to comment on what we do in our investigations. as part of looking into the

e-mails, we will luge into all of that as well. >> well, when? >> 13 or 14 months is not enough, how -- when is enough? >> we just found out about this last month, congressman. and starting to look into it. >> i'll yield back. thank the patience -- >> are you asserting you are going to interview? >> i didn't say what we were going to do, mr. chairman. as you know, we don't talk about the steps we take in investigations but we'll certainly look into part of the issues of the e-mails surrounding. >> gentleman from south carolina is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. deputy attorney general cole, you have been done a tremendous disservice when the president prejudged this investigation. it's not fair to the people of the department of justice, the people investigating. it is not fair to the complaining witnesses, the potential victims. it's really unheard of for somebody who purports to be an expert in constitutional law to prejudge an investigation. so, i'm going to start with that and i know that you cannot

provide names and i know that you cannot provide details, but you have on a number of different occasions this morning sought to reaffirm that there is an ongoing investigation. so i'm going to ask you about some of the traditional inve investigatory tools at play. i'm not asking you for names or specifics but when you say a matter is being investigated, i think it -- by the way, back in the old days you couldn't confirm there was an investigation. that was the policy back in the old days. i don't know if the policy is waved or this particular fact pattern is such that you are willing to confirm an ongoing investigation. be that's policy. there's no law that prevents you from answering these questions. have witnesses been brought before a grand jury? >> as you well know, representative gowdy, we can't talk about anything that takes place before a grand jury.

that's not permitted under rule 6e. >> have subpoena been issued? >> that's -- >> have administrative subpoenas been issued? >> not grand jury. >> with all due respect, congressman, we don't talk about the steps we take in the investigations. >> mr. deputy attorney general, i understand that. but when the chief law enforcement officer for this country, the chief executive, prejudges an investigation and you are seeking to assure us 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 the traditional tools available to prosecutors are being used. administrative subpoenas aren't covered by rule 6e so 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. >> because you don't know or because you choose not to answer the question? >> it would be both. >> more than 20? >> i'm not going to into a guessing game with you, congressman. >> have any proffers been -- >> i'm not going to go into did details of the investigation. i'm sorry. i know that's frustrating but when this is over, we will be providing you with details. >> well, how when we know when it's over? obviously, there's an indictment it's over nor that particular until the prosecution. how are we -- look. you have a constitutional responsibility to do your job. with all due respect, so do we. it's different. 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 appropriation that it received the year before. and we can't do our jobs if we

are constantly told, not because of the law but because of policy, we are not going to answer of the questions related to the investigation. 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. or through us telling you that it's over and providing you with information. >> you don't how many witnesses have been interviewed? >> i don't know an exact number, no. but i wouldn't tell you if i did with all due respect. >> do you know what percentage of witnesses have been interviewed out of the four universe of witnesses you have identified, how many have been interviewed? >> i won't go down that road, congressman. sorry. >> have any plea agreements been signed? >> i'm not going to go down that road. >> mr. deputy attorney general, i asked you the last time before our committee that i had the privilege to serving on if you would please in the quietness of your conscious consider whether this fact pattern is appropriate

for a special prosecutor. and i'm sure that you did. but this morning you said you have reached the conclusion that it would not be appropriate. can you give me the fact pattern where it would be appropriate if prejudging investigation that has political overtones and undertones, and the selection of -- i'm not prejudging ms. boserman. i find it stunning that she would be picked. out of the full universe of available federal prosecutors to pick a max-out donor, i just think it was very shortsighted. so if it's not this fact pattern, what fact pattern would it be appropriate to ever use a special prosecutor given the fact that your boss drafted the regulation? >> it is very, very rare. n the history of the justice department to use special -- a special prosecutor. >> give me a fact pattern where it would trigger to you in your mind the appropriateness of a special prosecutor. >> i can't go down and dream up

a fact pattern, mr. gowdy, but i know the one time we appointed a special investigator was waco investigation. >> well, the regulation is in place. it's pretty plainly written. the interest of justice, potential conflict, you have politics infecting this investigation. you have a prejudgment by the commander in chief that there's not a smidge jon and i'll substitute -- you talk about jeopardizing investigation, compromising a jury pool, i mean, again, out of fairness to you i won't ask you to comment because he's your boss. but i -- really, that was a tremendous disservice to be done to people who dedicate their lives to law enforcement, to prejudge an investigation and to do it for a cheap political score during the super bowl.

so, if not here, when? if not this fact pattern, when? >> each individual matter will have to be judged on its own individual and unique facts. i can't set out a prescription for when one would be appropriate. all i can tell you is we have analyzed this one. we have looked at the applicable regulations and this does meet any standard that would come to any point of warranting a special counsel. >> when you say it's been analyzing, this is a determination that's 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, this is an interesting fact pattern. maybe this is appropriate to go find a career prosecutor who hasn't maxed out to the rnc or the dnc. did you seek other people's opinions? >> the internal deliberations as well know, representative gowdy,

are not things we talk about in public but we made a review of this case and didn't warrant a special counsel. >> my time is up, mr. cole. i'll end the same way as last time. this is bigger than politics. it is bigger than election cycles. the 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. >> i thank the gentleman. mr. cole, when a criminal investigation is started, isn't usually one of the first things that happens is you go gather and protect and get a hold of the evidence? >> that usually happens fairly early on, yes. >> okay. so when investigation was started, did you guys go -- well, let's back up. may 22nd of last year, lois

lerner came in national correspondent of this committee and exercised the fifth amendment right. not answer our questions. been a central figure in whole thing. mac may 23rd, the day after that, did the fbi and the justice department look at going to mrs. lerner's office and seizing and getting hold of the documents, the computer, the files? did you attempt to do that in may of last year? >> i don't mean to sound like a broken record, mr. chairman, but we're at liberty to talk about nonpublic information of what we did in this investigation. >> well, if you -- it seemed to me if you had done that, let me ask it this way. if you had done that, maybe we would have learned about the lost e-mails a lot sooner. let me ask this. how are you getting the evidence in this case? you just waiting for the irs to give it to you like we have to wait for them to give us the documents and the e-mails? >> we're doing what we need to do to get the evidence, mr. chairman. and we're getting the evidence that we need in this matter.

>> so you can't tell me whether you went and got a search warrant, a court order to go and get those documents from the office or from the irs? >> as i've told you before and i know it's frustrating to you but we can't talk about the nonpublic aspects of the investigation. >> all right. i'm going do go back to this point that i again several members have talked about it. if there's a private citizen under investigation by the justice department and they withheld, willfully withheld information about the loss of evidence, the loss of documents, for two months would that be a crime? >> depends on if they had a legal duty to disclose that as when you're dealing with somebody withholding somebody opposed to affirmatively making a false statement, you have to find some sort of legal duty for them to make the disclosure t