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 to have that be criminal. >> okay. so, depending on a duty but that would be something to look into. you would investigate if they

had a duty to disclose they had lost those documents? >> we would. >> that's something you would investigate. >> we would. >> so you said emergency roarli relative to -- it depends, it depends on whether there's a problem with the fact that the commissioner at the irs knew in april and waited two months to tell us the american people and more importantly you. so you're going to investigate that aspect, as well, just like you would for a private citizen? >> all the issues relating to those e-mails will be wrapped up in the investigation that we do. >> including delay? >> including delay. >> so the delay, the fact that the commissioner at the internal revenue service delayed telling the congress, the american people, the fbi and the justice department is a matter that you are going to investigate? >> we are going do look into what the circumstances were around that, yes. >> well, that's important. i would recognize the ranking member for his question.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i'll go with whoever wants to go. if mr. cummings is ready. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. chairman issa, chairman jordan alleged that prominent democrats, mr. cole, pressured the department of justice and the irs to single out conservative groups for potential prosecution. both chairman allege in a may 22nd letter to the attorney general that a hearing held on april -- in april of last year by a democratic senator, quote, led to the justice department reengaging with the irs on possible criminal enforcement relating to political speech by nonprofits end of quote. a press release accompanying the letter allege that department officials and lois l erner quote, zusz eed singling tax

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

which to get that information to the justice department? is that what you're trying to tell me? >> that's correct. there was no targeting or anything like that. it was whether or not we had the proper communications and mechanisms if it was discovered by the irs if false statements were made, are they going to the justice department? >> does the department take the direction of prosecution decisions from members of congress? >> no. your statements is consistent with the statements of the committee. on may 29th, committee staff asked the public integrity section chief the following question. did you receive any instruction from any member of congress to target tea party or conservative groups for prosecution? end of quote. he responded, quote, no. end of quote. may 6th, committee staff asked the leader of the crime branch

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

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

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

recommendations. they may ask if more information to be gathered because certain facts may not be have been developed. they may agree or disagree with the recommendation. any number of thing cans happen in those process but they're done by the career people. usually with input from the investigators. and through the line and division and section chiefs in the divisions that we have in the department. by career people. >> so, so that the record is clear, so all of this now going to miss lerner, there is no decision that have been made, i assume you can answer that question -- >> no decisions have been made. >> no decisions have been made. everything is wide open. is that correct? >> that's right. >> i have nothing. thank you. >> gentleman, recognize the chairman of the full committee. >> thank you. i can understand that no decision's been made but let's

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

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

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

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

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

change it to make it clear you're wrong. >> we will. >> i have one last question. do you know a person named virginia seitz? >> yes. >> did she work for the justice department for approximately 90 days. >> more than 90 days. >> how long? >> i don't know. >> was she working on criminal areas including wire fraud. >> she was the virginia seitz was i believe the assistant attorney general in charge of legal counsel. >> okay. is there any chance that during her tenure policy changed as to the enforcement of internet con line gaming illegal activity? is there any chance any policy changed under her? >> i would have to go back and look. i don't know offhand. >> this committee is interested in knowing during her relatively short tenure apparently what role she played in evaluating

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

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

statements before this committee under oath, asserted her fifth amendment rights and made more statements under oath and then reasserted and was held in contempt by the u.s. house of representatives so we are talking narrowly about somebody who came quite frankly not in any particular role. she's a former employee of the government. but she came and was held in contempt. not someone in which the president claims any executive or, you know, similar privile privileges. >> i understand. >> mr. chairman, thank you for your indulgence. we'll follow up with a letter. >> mr. cole, we know that e-mails lerner sent odds the irs are missing. we know that she had communications with the justice department on several occasions in e-mails and we know that you are withholding certain documents from the committee. is it fair to assume that some of those documents you're withholding actually are e-mails that miss lerner has -- e-mails from miss lerner to people in

the justice department. >> i don't know if it's fair to assume it. i don't know which documents are withheld and i don't know if it's fair to assume -- >> can you guarantee us that none of the documents the justice department is withholding from congress are lois lerner e-mails? >> i can't guarantee. i haven't looked at all the documents. >> we would like to give yhave documents. we have all kind of e-mails where it's lois, can you send it to us in the format the fbi? you have documents, the only e-mail that is are missing, frankly, this is why i raised the question earlier and nice if you would have -- maybe you have, but you won't tell us. got a swasht, got a court order, seized the files right at did get-go. maybe we would have known that all these e-mails were missing a year ago. but the fact that e-mails she's sent outside the irs are

missing. she had direct correspondence with people in the justice department and withholding documents from the committee, the congress and more importantly the american people. seems to me there's lerner e-mails in the documents you're withholding. >> i'm not sure there's a valid assumption of lern ere e-mails we are withholding. i don't think that's a fair assumption. >> but what is fair to say is you cannot guarantee there are not. >> i have not looked at all the -- >> first of all, it is important for you to look at it testifying maybe give us more information about it but nice to get them. with that i'll recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> first off, general cole, would you like to respond to that last statement? >> i'm not sure i heard completely the last statement. >> fair enough. a couple of issues i want to touch on. and the prejudging and the screaming issues. first of all, i share something with mr. gowdy of south

carolina. i prefer technical, legal terms and when we talk about pre -- you know, when we talk about smid jons, scintilla might be better and prejudging, prenlgsing might be better and i want to talk about whether anything has been done to prejudice the investigation of the justice department. my colleague mr. horseford touched on this earlier. last month the judiciary committee held a hearing and they brought in fbi director james comi and went over there and chairman goodlotte asked him, can you explain where there's an investigation given that the president said there was not even a smid jon or a scintilla of corruption? and director comi, the director of the fbi said i mean no disrespect to the president or anybody else who's expressed a view about the matter but i

don't care about any -- 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. now, deputy attorney general cole, do you agree with the fbi director's assessment that outside characterizations, even by the president of the united states, have no bearing on a particular investigation? >> that's correct. outside characterizations by anybody have no bearing on your investigation. >> when you talk about career prosecutors, line prosecutors, career investigators, does this apply to these people? >> it does. these are all career justice department investigators, attorneys, none of them are political appointees. >> is it accurate to say that the department of justice does not take direction from the president on how to conduct ongoing investigations?

>> we do not and we would not. >> all right. there was also an allegation of screaming going on by the oj, screaming at the irs. and i'm going to invite your avit your attention to the testimony of jack smith who as you know is the chief of the doj public integrity section. this was testimony taken on may 29, 2014. representative jordan was present. and i'm going to brief to you a brief quote from that. question, and this was a question to mr. smith. if you direct your attention to the second sentence of the second paragraph below the block quote it roads, quote, by encouraging the irs to be vigilant in possible campaign finance crimes by 501c41 groups the department was among the entities, quote, screaming, unquote, at the irs to do something in the wake of citizens united before the 2010 election.

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

of pressure on the irs? >> no, mr. cartright. not at all. this is not something we would be doing. we're looking for criminal cases to be made or not. and that's it. >> not aware of any screaming? >> no screaming. >> and you didn't do any screaming yourself i take it? >> i did not. >> thank you, mr. cole. i yield back. >> mr. cole, when the president of the united states makes a statement, a speech, does that have meaning, bearing, influence? >> on a criminal investigation -- >> when the president talks, he does an interview, givers speeches all the time. sometimes talks in a way designed to send a message even to foreign heads of state so when the president talks, does that have meaning and influence? >> as a basic matter, it can, certainly. >> sure. so when the president gives an interview where he's not telling a story, a joke, commenting on a serious subject matter, that has influence, that has impact, that has fans. correct? >> not on a criminal investigation. >> i'm just saying in general. i'm asking you, you're a smart

guy. lawyer done very well in life. an important position in the united states government and justice department. whether the president talks, it has impact. >> it can. >> it should. he's the president of the greatest country in the world. it should have impact. >> he asked congress to do a lot of things and seems not to have any impact. >> we heard him. we think he's wrong. here's my point then. and i respect -- i'm like everyone else on this panel. i respect the good professionals who work in the department of justice, but don't you think it's possible maybe even likely that in the back of even the best professional, in the back of their mind, they know that the president has said in a public way, in a very public way, nationally televised interview that there's nothing there? there's nothing there. don't you think that just somewhere deep back in there, may have just a -- to use the term my colleague, a scintilla

of impact, just a bit of impact on the decisions of these great professionals who work in your agency? >> i'll echo the director. no, it doesn't. these people put it out of their minds and they go after the facts. that's what they care about. and particularly in high profile cases like this, that happens quite a bit. and they're very expert at putting out of their minds anything but the facts and the law on the case. >> so barbara boserman doesn't take this into account that the guy she gave a max-out contribution to, his campaign, goes on national cam pane an say there is's nothing there, it's not anywhere in the back of her mind that this thing's already been prejudiced? >> her job is to do that and she does -- >> gave to the president's campaign and the democratic national committee hears the president who could be potential

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

tell about but they depend on the circumstances. >> so if you were, doj issued subpoenas asking for e-mails over a specific period of time and then that company responded saying we'll comply with it but if they had reason to believe they wouldn't be able to fulfill that request then that would be a problem if they had represented that to you, correct? >> why. if at the time they represented that, knew they weren't cop plying, that's a problem i if they didn't know at the time and then after sending you the response, they dpig youred out they were wrong, they have a duty to come to you and amend that response. correct? >> yes. they should come back and tell us. >> okay. here's an issue that i just -- i was confused about. the doj was not informed that e-mails had been lost or destroyed. congress, obviously, wasn't until june. but according to irs commissioner the treasury department and the white house were informed in april.

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

people who have advised us saying, you know, we got da da from the challenger explosion, 9/11, all this stuff and a lot of people in the data community i.t. say you can get the e-mails. so how would you characterize the department of justice? do you greet did irs's claim that these e-mails are simply lost because the hard drive crashed with skepticism? >> we're trying to find out if there is any way to recover them and do what we can to do that. >> is it safe to say that if you were investigating a private entity and you wanted specific documents if they simply said, sorry, the hard drive crashed, that would be not -- that probably would not be something to simply accept at face value? >> generally we ask the circumstances and facts behind a statement they couldn't be recovered. >> let's follow up with the shall bring it. people are using different terms. bringing something before a grand jury is not the same as prosecuting it at trial. correct? >> that's correct. >> so the statute does not

impose a duty on the u.s. attorney to bring the case to trial. right? >> that's correct. >> a duty on the u.s. attorney to bring it to a grand jury. is that accurate? >> the language of the statute and i don't mean to be just kind of fine point lawyerly you business there's a ted olson opinion from -- >> the statute to me is crystal clear and obligation to bring it before a grand jury and olson is saying, look, article ii, you're the executive branch. you can't force someone necessarily prosecute a case. i think generally that's true. if we told you to prosecute every money laundering case, you may get cases that are not merit or the you and this is a little bit different because we in congress have found reason for contempt. it was voted on behalf of the american people. so us imposing a duty to bring it to a grand jury and allow them to make a decision i think is a little bit different. let me ask you this. the fact that we impose the duty

to bring it to a grand jury, let's say you accept that. do you think that imposes a duty on the prosecutor to ask that a true bill be returned or could you as a prosecutor consistent with that statute go into a grand jury proceeding? i don't necessarily think this is what should happen but could you go in in your judgment and ask the jury not to return a true bill? >> well, obviously, there's an assumption in the question that it has to be brought before a grand jury and this ed toll son -- does -- >> aggress that for a second. >> doesn't necessarily say that's the case. bringing a matter before the grand jury for action, which is, i believe, the wording of the statute, leaves open any number of different resolutions that the grand jury could be asked to bring. >> thank you. i yield back. >> miss kelly is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. chair. republicans allege that efforts to target conservative groups in the screening of applicants tax exempt status is a result of an

overarching government conspiracy with the white house, the irs, the justice department, securities and exchange commission, the federal election commission, as well as other agencies. according to the republicans it's vast conspiracy originated at the supreme court 2010 citizens united decision. chairman issa in my opinion issued a partisan staff report concluding that the justice department and the irs had, quote, internalized the president's political rhetoric lambasting citizens united and nonprofit political speech. deputy attorney general cole, to the best of your knowledge, did the president's political rhetoric about citizens united cause the department to conspire against nonprofit political speech? >> it did not. >> wait. the gentle lady, are you asking about the irs or the justice department? >> i haven't yielded. >> the question was did the irs conspire? of course they did.

>> i haven't yielded but do you have any reason to believe that citizens united prompted the unwarranted prosecution of political organizations? >> no. >> your answer does not surprise me because despite ten hearings, hundreds of thousands of pages of documents and conducting over 40 transcribed interviews, the committee has been unable to gather any actual evidence of this vast conspiracy. my republican colleagues claim exists. if fact, the evidence by the committee and the ig show that the inappropriate search terms first used by an employee in the cincinnati determinations unit and inspector general's report concluded that the inappropriate criteria, quote, were not influenced by any individual or organization outside the irs. deputy attorney general cole, in the written testimony that you

submitted to the committee, you wrote and i quote, i have the utmost confidence in the career professionals in the department and the tigta and i know that will follow the facts wherever they lead and apply to the law to those facts which you have said here. is that guiding principle that the department uses in conducting all of its -- is that the guiding that the principle the department uses in guiding all of the investigations? >> yes, it is. >> i think the committee should follow the same principles to the investigation of the irs. it is quite clear that the facts do not lead to the conclusion that citizens united prompted a government-wide conspiracy. thank you for your testimony. >> wait. the genting lady yield? >> yes. >> gentleman from -- >> i want to go to what mr. desantis was just asking you. you referred to the olson case. and i have the olson case in front of me. the olson opinion, rather. and what it