criminal investigation technician was unsuccessful in recovering data. irs icht t. management determined additional recovery effort were not warranted. recovered data from miss learner's hard drive were not worth the expense. it is important to point out the irs does not track individual hard drives by the serial numbers. our investigation revealed that miss lerner's hard drive was more than likely sent for destruction with a shipment of other media on april 30th of 2012. the shipment was chased to the recycling facility in florida. we determined that this shipment of hard drives was destroyed using a shredder that cut the inserted hard drives into quarter size pieces. according to the facility manager, those pieces are then sold for scrap. understanding the limitation on the investigation without having the hard drive, our investigation did not uncover any evidence of sabotage of miss

lerner's hard drive. our investigation included attempts to determine if anybody entered her office prior to the date and time of her hard drive crash. unfortunately, those logs were erased after one year of retension. i will provide an overview of our efforts relating to the backup or disaster recovery tapdz. on june 30th, 2014, demand the irs provide all backup tapes used for the irs people act, specifically during the period january 1st 2008 through december 31 rs, 2011. on july 1st, 2014, the irs identified 744 backup tapes and took possession of all of them. initially, it appeared as though nine tapes may have contained valuable data but they turned out to be blank. the irs executive in charge of the irs e-mail backup program

and his staff identified the 13 specific backup tapes that would contain the earliest copies of lois lerner's e-mail. when we took the tapes to the recognized industry expert for electronic data recovery and extraction, they then provided us with exchange data base files from the tapes. at the conclusion of the process, they identified 79,840 lois lerner e-mails of which nearly 60% were in fact duplicates of copies of each other, leaving approximately 32,700 lois lerner e-mails. as was pointed in and out our february testimony, they compared the 32,700 e-mails to what the irs produced to congress in an effort to identify unique e-mails that had not been produced to the congress. due to technological challenges, the agents had to create a specialized program script that initially identified as many as 6,400 e- mails that appeared to

have not been previously provided to congress. it is important to point out at each stage when we identify e-mails we informed the recipients of that information that it was early in the investigation and additional technical work needed to be done. to further refine the population, we then manually compared the 6,400 e-mails that were previously produced to the e-mail that's were previously produced by the congress. to the congress by the irs. we removed the obvious spam e-mails and additional duplicates that we found during the manual process. at the conclusion of this review, we determined that over 1,000 e-mails that were recovered from backup tapes were not previously provided to congress. using the analysis of e-mail transaction logs, we estimate that there may still be 23,000 to 24,000 e-mails missing. another potential source of e-mail that's i will highlight

is the decommission new carolton e-mail server. our agents identified a8 new e-mails not previously produced to congress. the final source i will discuss is the backup tapes for the decommissioned e-mail server. as the ig stated, during our investigation, we obtained the 424 backup tapes associated with the decommissioned new carolton e-mail server and it is important to note that server was in operation until approximately may 2011. we determined that 422 of the 424 tapes were degauzed or magnetically erased and, therefore had, no data on them. this was done by irs employees in mart inzburg, virginia, on or about march 4, 20, one month after the irs realized it was missing e-mails. one of the 424 tapes contained

backup files created in 2011 but they did not pertain to lolois lerner. due to encryption or damage to the other tape, we were unable to read it. our investigation found no evidence to prove that the erasure of the 422 tapes was done in furtherance of an effort to purposely destroy evidence or to could be seal information from congress and law enforcement. sworn testimony and reviews of the involved irs employees e-mails indicate that the employee dz not know about, understand, or follow the chief technology officers may 2013 e-mail directive to halt the destruction of electronic media due to ongoing investigations. our investigation also revealed the irs did want put forth an effort to locate and preserve the backup tapes. lastly, there is a remote possibility as the ig pointed out that further review of the information obtained from the

initial set of 735 backup tapes could result in the recovery of additional e-mails that were not previously produced. we're also following up on a discrepancy in account of hard drives that we hope to have resolved prior to finalizing our report of investigation. chairman ranking member cummings, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss this matter and i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you. i'll recognize myself for five minutes. mr. camus, the irs had these e-mails. you said they didn't purposely destroy them. what did they do with these e-mails? they simply didn't look for the e-mails. so for the 1,000 e-mails that we found on the backup tapes, we found them because we looked for them. >> but there was a preservation order in place, correct? >> that's what we understand,

yes, sir. >> there was a subpoena in place, some seven months before, correct? >> correct. >> would you consider that these e-mails are evidence? it is what we're seeking. >> they would be -- we consider them responsive to the subpoena and the preservation order. >> is that fair to say that's evidence? >> when we looked through our investigation, e-mail that's are responsive to a subpoena may or may not be evidence. it depends on the contentst e-mails. there were certainly responsive to your subpoena and preservation order. >> and what did they end up doing with those in march of 2014? >> there were 424 backup tapes. >> what did they do with them? >> they erased them. >> is that destroying them? >> they have an unusual terminology at the irs. when they magnetically erase them, making them useless, they call that degauzing them. destroying them means they physically chunk them up into quarter size chunks.

so on march 4th, 2014, they magnetically erased all the tapes but they had not destroyed them, therefore, my agents were able to obtain them and that allowed us to conduct the analysis of those tapes. >> so the new irs term is that they degauzed them. they degauzed them is what they did. >> right. >> they had them. they were under subpoena they were supposed to give them to us. but they degauzed them. so that we wouldn't be able to see this. this is magically happened 30 days we're supposed to believe this happened 30 days after the president makes his public comments that there's not even a smigeon of evidence? what a coincidence. let me ask you about the potential electronic media backup that they could have. what happened with the learner loaner back top -- laptop. she had a loaner laptop. did they search for e-mails on that? >> there were actually ten

loaner laptops in service during that period of time. one of which should have been assigned to her as a backup. we took possession of all ten of the laptops used for that purpose. we were unable to find one assigned to her. >> did the irs look and search there? >> i'm not aware they did, no, sir. >> did they look at her blackberry, her phone? >> they did not. we took possession of her blackberry shortly after she left the irs. >> so the irs commissioner who assured there is this dragnet out there looking for all this, they're working hard. thousands of efforts and millions of dollars going out the door. but they didn't look at her blackberry? >> actually, we had possession of the blackberry as of june 13th, 2013. but they didn't look for it before then. so what about the irs server? did they look for it there? did they look for her backup there's? her tapes?

>> they did not. >> so you have a server. cheblg that out. they didn't look for it there. when you started to look for the e-mails, start to finish, remember, they had years to get this done. start to finish, how long did it take for you to find the tapes? when you started in june. i believe it was june of 2014. >> correct. >> we took possession of the 740 dsht initial set of backup tapes on july 1st. roughly 15 days after we started our investigation. so you guys -- paint the picture for me. it took you 15 days. that's it? >> that's it. >> and what happened when you went up there to go find the tapes? >> we were escorted to the the machine that makes the backups that uses the tapes and writes the e-mails to them. and when they open the machine that made the backups, they noted that nine of the tapes were in an unusual configuration

which led the witnesses, irs employee witnesses to believe that they may contain data that had never been overwritten. so we were initially very excited that those nine tapes would have everything the investigation needed. unfortunately, those tapes were defective and they ternld outturned out to be blank. then we had to figure of the 735 tapes which of those are the most likely to contain any lois lerner e-mail? once we determined that, we identified 13 tapes. we sent those off to the industry expert and within a couple months we had our first glimpse of e-mails. >> and they did -- there were e-mail there's? >> yes, sir. >> how many of the cages and place that's they store these tapes are there throughout the country? how many of those are there? >> generally in one time there were located many, many locations. but the irs is trying to consolidate their e-mail processing to the primarily to

the service centers. and martinsburg west virginia, is one of the service centers. >> so one place that they would put the tapes is one place that irs didn't think to look and go ask. my time expired. i recognize the gentleman from rhode island. >> you talk about that. now was that -- did they just degauze lerner tapes? >> no, sir. we found that they degauzed tapes before. they degauzed the lerner 424 tapes. and they degauzed tapes afterwards. they were degauzing tapes up until about june of 2014. >> now you mentioned earlier there was a directive that they didn't know about? is that what you sned. >> yes, sir, i did. >> so you -- and so you -- you are saying this was not something to obstruct or investigation or block information intentionally from getting to us? is that -- >> the directive was issued about it irs chief technology officer.

>> right. >> in his directive, he was advising his management team to stop destroying -- in essence, stop destroying backup evidence. he issued that directive in may of 2013. >> and you never answer mid question. zbh i'm sorry. >> people actually did the degauzing, you are saying that they did not -- they weren't intentionally trying to stop information from getting to us? >> as far as -- absolutely correct. the investigation did not show that any intent to do that. >> and you looked into that? >> yes, we did. >> and it would have been malpractice on your part if you didn't look into it, wouldn't it? >> that was a significant part of the investigation. >> mr. george, over the past year, i believe you and your staff have been highly irresponsible in speculating

about the number of new e-mails you recovered from lois lerner. i got to tell you, you heard my opening statement. it should concern all of us. we rely very heavily on the iag's information. you repeatedly put out numbers prematurely without verification. time and time again your numbers were just wrong. they were wrong. in february of this year, your office briefed this committee and other committee in the senate and you reported recovering as many as 80,000 e-mails to and from miss lerner. and in february 11 nch, the headline appeared in the press, "senator ron johnson to irs. why did they find 80,000 lost e-mails"? you didn't find 80,000 e-mails, did you? >> mr. cummings, what we did is we attempted to keep members of congress with relevant jurisdiction over this matter informed at every stage. i can assure you that at every opportunity where i participated, i made a request. i admonished staff that this is

preliminary information and we requested that they not repeat this information publicly. and unfortunately that, was done. so while we were in the process of refining, trying to keep congress informed because we've been criticized in the past for not keeping congress informed, so we made an effort at my direction to do so. with every new discovery and every time my investigative staff was able to parse out, find duplicates, find things that were not necessarily responsive, the numbers changed. >> so you recovered these e-mails but you had no idea how many had already been turned over to congress. that's why you say it was on going? >> precisely. we made it quite clear that at the outset there was a good chance that many of the were duplicates and had been turned over to congress and would take

a process by the irs to help determine what had already been turned over. >> so a few weeks later on february 26th, you testified before this committee that you found 32,000 unique e-mails that were unique e-mails. that were backed up from lois lerner's e-mail box. and he added you were still in the process of determining how many of these e-mails had already been produced to congress. is that correct? >> that's correct. i think i also said if any, if there were any of those that turn out to be new. we're still trying to determine that, yes, sir. >> so meanwhile, the headlines continue. they continue. one of them reads, and i quote, thousands of new e-mails found end of quote. then on june 16th about, a week ago, chief council sent a letter to this committee with yet another new number and she wrote

this, i quote, "the recovered e- mails that appear to not have been previously provided to congress total approximately 6,400 but you didn't find 6,400 new e-mails. in your testimony today, you talk about 1,000. is that right? over 1,000 from the backup tapes. so we've gone from 80,000 to 1,000? is that right? >> that is accurate. so you talked about 23,000 still being out there. is that right? >> that's correct. >> how do we know that number is accurate? that is pretty steep drop. wouldn't you agree? >> i would totally agree, yes, sir. >> so i mean, where did that 23,000 come from? because i guarantee through is going to be a headline.

we might as well try to get the facts to match up the headline. that determined that government operation security center or government security operation center at the department of the treasury logs every single e-mail incident in or out of the irs.gov domain. we thought that was important to determine the total universe of e-mails. so we obtained that log and we compared it to what is already been produced to congress and that's how we came up with our estimate of the log activity, compared to what is already been produced and the estimate is between 23,000 and 24,000 e-mails that we can't find. >> and last but not least mr. george, i think you already said it. but you -- the reason why you put these numbers out there is because you want to keep congress informed.

but you see what -- you see what it does, right? i mean it really -- it really -- i mean i understand what you're saying. i know you've given the caveats in red and gold and, you know, bold print. but you see how it ends up in print. hello? >> i do. >> so why give any number? >> you may recall, sir, because you were ranking member when the and read me drn -- >> no, i remember the previous chairman. >> and read me the riot act because he said i wasn't complying with the seven day letter rule pursuant to the ig act. and while we strongly disagree with his interpretation of that provision, it's -- this was a way to try to draw up some compromise because we know of the intense interest of congress in the subject both by committees with direct authorization over the irs as

well as general oversight. >> in fairness to you, then can you -- is there a caveat that goes with that 23,000 that you're talking about? >> most definitely. >> tell us so we'll know so that when the headline is written we got all of the caveat that goes it with. go ahead. >> sir, the 23 to 24,000 estimate involves just simply e-mail headers. that's what the transaction log record. when you take that limited amount of information, they have the transaction log which is the header of the e-mail and the subject line and maybe one or two features underneath. it does limit your ability to compare. but i've been assured by my staff that we went through the process, we chebcked it twice and that is a fair at the same time of the e-mail activity that went through the domain. >> will the gentleman yield? >> of course. >> i'm sensitive to the idea that we want to have as accurate of information as we can possibly have.

but let's remember why we're here. there was a preservation order in place. there was a spp in placeubpoena in place. we hadsome from the irs commissioner we would get to find out they've been degauzing the tapes and they destroyed evidence. that's what they did. and that's why we continue to have this. we haven't even got into the content of the e-mails. we're just trying to get them. so we can actually read them and figure out what was going on. >> yeah. >> just one and i'm so glad you said that. one of the things that i've always done with the committee and 20 years since i've been on this committee is when we talk about employees and where there is an issue of their credibility, whether it's a possibility that they're being accused, i'm not saying this happened yet. i try to make sure that's clear. because it sends a -- because it has a tremendous impact on that individual and a chilling effect on the entire agency. and so one of the things i'm concerned about is that while there have been degauzing, the destruction in west virginia and

whatever, there was nobody who did anything intentionally to hinder our investigation. i want to than what i just said. is that right? >> that would be accurate. our investigation found no purposeful destruction by the employees who put the tapes through the degaussing machine. >> thank you very much. i'll yield to you. >> we have thousands of irs employees in utah. they work hard. they're patriotic. most of the irs employees are. when the irs commissioner comes and says, there's no targeting, and the inspector general says there is, when the irs commissioner says, we'll provide you all the tapes, and meanwhile, they're degaussing them, then you can understand, we're not trying to pick on the rank and file here.

but when you lie to congress, you mislead us, we're going to hold you accountable. so, yeah, our focus is on them, and it mystifies why, with all these orders in place, a subpoena in place, these get destroyed. >> mr. chairman, that's fair. my last comment, and i appreciate this dialogue, as you know, you and i have joined in on many instances where we felt that we were not getting the information that we were supposed to get. i backed you up, and you backed me up. as a matter of fact, yesterday you did that, and i appreciate that. i'm concerned, too, as to why things were not looked into. that really does concern me, and i'm hoping we'll get some answers to that. >> would the ranking member yield one more time? >> we need to move on. thank you. recognize the gentleman from ohio for five minutes. >> thank you. i want to walk through the timeline real quick.

may 10th, 2013, lois lerner goes to a bar association three days before you issue your report. they wanted to get ahead of it and get their spin on it. from the get go, the irs is not being transparent or helping the american people get to the truth because she lies. may 10th, 2013. 12 days later, there is a preservation notice sent to people in the irs. wasn't followed. may 22nd, 2013, notice that says, don't destroy any evidence, right? we want all the e-mails. we want all the documents preserved. is that right, mr. camus? >> yes, sir. >> okay. august 2nd, 2013, there is a subpoena for the same documents that are supposed to preserve, there is a subpoena to give them

to congress, right, mr. camus? >> yes, sir. >> february 2nd, 2014, the irs learns, not just anybody at the irs, the chief legal counsel learns there is a problem with lois lerner's hard drive and e-mails are missing. one month later, despite the subpoena, one month after the chief counsel knows we're missing some e-mails, 422 tapes containing those e- mails are destroyed. right, mr. camus? >> that's right. >> and three weeks after that, march 26th, 2014, the head of the irs, commissioner sat where you are, mr. camus, and tells this committee, we're going to get you every single e-mail lois lerner has sent. right, mr. camus? >> that's my understanding. >> so preservation order. subpoena, don't destroy anything. they destroy it. three weeks later, the guy in charge tells us, we're going to get you everything, and they've already been destroyed.

here's the question. how in the world could that happen? this is the biggest story in the stinking country at that time. how in the world, with the preservation order and a subpoena, do they destroy 422 tapes containing, according to your investigation, potentially 24,000 e-mails? how does that happen, mr. camus? >> it's an unbelievable set of circumstances that would allow that to happen. it is going to be fully documented in our report, and i'm not sure i can describe it to you in five minutes. >> the reason you can't describe it is because there is no explanation for that, other than they were trying to not help the american people get to the truth. they were trying to hide something. they were trying to hinder. i don't know any other explanation. unless it's the most -- i mean, it's unbelievable.

when you have a subpoena, preservation order and you destroy 24,000 e- mails? who is responsible ultimately? might it be the guy, mr. camus, who sat where you're sitting, the commissioner of the irs, and assured this committee, and assured the american people, they'd get us all the evidence? might he be the guy responsible? >> it's possible. the management team -- >> might it be the head of the irs who didn't look at the sources for potential lerner e-mails? is that correct, they didn't look at the sources? >> they did not. >> might it be this guy who said under oath in this committee, we will get you every single lois lernesr committee? doesn't the buck stop at the top? >> that could be said. >> i think it should. what's next, mr. camus? >> we're going to generate our report of investigation that will delineate step by step how this occurred, where the breakdowns here, and it will provide the evidence that i've been describing in both our written and oral testimony here today. >> you believe that -- do you

believe there is criminal activity here, mr. camus, because it looks like it to the american people in our judgment. >> our investigation did not uncover any. >> do you believe you might uncover that? >> there are always times at the conclusion of an investigation, especially when an investigation gets a public forum, that someone comes forward with new information. >> it might have helped if we had 24,000 e-mails to look at, might it? >> that would have been useful to have that material. >> i'd think so, too. with that, i yield back. >> thank you. recognize mr. cartwright for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. george, i want to ask you about your ever-changing estimates of the new e-mails that you recovered from mrs. lerner. your numbers started at 80,000 e-mails in february. then it dropped to 32,000 e-mails at the end of february. last week, it fell to 6,400. nine days later, now, it has sunk to about 1,000.

your new number today is 98% lower than the first number you gave us. you know, there's -- this is a room where we like to hear the truth. there was a great justice of the supreme court of the united states, oliver wendell holmes, and he talked about the truth. he said, the truth is tough. it's not like a bubble that you can prick and it'll explode. it's more like a rugged football that you can kick around all day, and it doesn't lose its shape and doesn't lose its form and it stays the same. the truth doesn't change. when you're talking about a story that's true, mr. george, it's the same the first time you tell it, the second time you tell it, the third time you tell

it and the fourth time you tell it. the truth doesn't go 80,000 and then 32,000 and then 6,400 and now 1,000. in fact, in the last nine days, you dropped from 6,400 discovered e-mails to 1,000. i'm looking at the letter dated june 16 from your office. in the not from you. from hernan dezdez, your chief counsel. is she your chief counsel, mr. dezdez, your chief counsel. is she your chief counsel, mr. ezdez, your chief counsel. is she your chief counsel, mr. zdez, your chief counsel. is she your chief counsel, mr. dez, your chief counsel. is she your chief counsel, mr. george? >> yes, she is. hello. gladis. thanks for the letter. mr. chairman, i ask for consent to enter this letter into the record. >> without objection, it's so ordered. >> i was reading the letter, mr. george, from attorney hernandez, that says 6,400. there's no caveat. there's nothing in there that says, oh, this could be fewer. could be fewer than 6,400. there's nothing in there. it doesn't say, there could be duplicates in here.

stand by for the next number. could be coming next week. we didn't hear that from you either. now, this is not new to you, mr. george. you were a republican staffer for this committee. you understand that headlines are generated out of this committee. you understand how irresponsible it can be to throw out numbers with little or no basis because you know they'll work their way into headlines. folks who like to make insinuations, like the previous questioner, will throw that into headlines intentionally. there was also a question about the prior chairman pressuring your office, pressuring your office to come up with quick, fast turn around information. well, news flash, the previous chairman is the previous chairman. he is no longer here.

you are no longer under that kind of republican pressure to turn over headline information to this committee. it certainly doesn't say anything about that in ms. hernandez's june 16th letter. the question is why, mr. george, would you send out letters and put out numbers that you hadn't fully checked, knowing full well as you do, that these numbers will work their way into these fabulous headlines that we see every day? the breathless reporting of all of these huge numbers of e-mails that have been discovered. why, mr. george? why do you do that? >> first of all, i would like to point out that when i had the honor of serving here, it was with the late congressman horn from california who admonished us. we never leaked information prior to a hearing in the course of investigation. i made a request of staffers

during the course of this investigation to act like wise. they did not do so. i cannot control their behavior. secondly, this was a response to a request. this was a transmitted letter, and i haven't seen it. it was from our counsel to the committee. i would request the opportunity to review this and to respond precisely, but thirdly -- >> you've heard of oliver wendell holmes, haven't you? >> i went to law school, yes. >> you agree with the truth, don't you? >> yes. >> when you keep changing your story the way your office has, you lose your credibility and people stop believing they're telling the truth. >> congressman -- >> i yield back, mr. chairman. recognize the gentleman from michigan, mr. wahlberg, for five minutes. >> thanks to the panelists for the work you've done. it's been intimidating, it's been held up, frustrated all

across the many, many months we've been dealing with it. i would also start with a quote from a famous chief justice of the supreme court. as well as one of the most famous trial lawyers and former members of congress, daniel webster and justice marshall, who both said the power to tax is the power to destroy. i'm not sure they were talking about degaussing, but they were certainly talking about the power of a taxing entity to impact the lives of people. that's something we've had here. i also want to remind our whole committee again, as we talk about numbers and we talk about degaussing and we talk about tapes and we talk about hard drives, remember the fact of the matter that lois lerner sat at that very table and pled the fifth. what does the fifth amendment refer to? the right to not self-incriminate. that says to me, lois lerner was

worried about the fact that what she had done could be construed as illegal at the least. she didn't kick the football. she walked off the field. we're left with trying to deal with tapes that have been degaussed -- sorry. i understand it. my people understand it. they've been destroyed. when congress began its investigation in may 2013, the irs issued a preservation notice to ensure the documents relevant to the investigation were not destroyed. is that not correct? >> that is our understanding. >> we want to rehearse this again. cut through the clutter to get back to what the situation is. who sent out this preservation notice? >> that was the chief technology officer. >> so based on your investigation, what efforts did the irs or anyone else make to ensure the ctos e-mail notice to cease routine destruction of electronic records was followed

by low-level employees? >> very -- there was very much confusion, and i'm not sure there was appropriate management oversight of the director. >> who was responsible for the preservation of the e-mails? >> every irs manager, in my view. >> every irs manager. >> yes. >> every irs. plenty of them could have followed this out. has anyone been reprimanded for e-mails being destroyed, despite the preservation notice? >> in as much as we're finishing our investigation, we have not provided the irs with the results of what we found during our thorough investigation of the matter. >> they know the laurelw relative to the preservation notice. they should know it. >> i believe they do, and they'll get our report. >> we don't know of reprimand they've taken. if these instructions would have

been taken, would more lerner e-mails be available for the investigation? >> i believe there would be. >> that's a fact of the matter. how many potential sources for recovering the e-mails existed for the irs? >> we believe, six. >> namely? >> the hard drive would have been a source. blackberry, source. backup tapes, a source. server drives, a source. the backup tapes for the server drives. finally, the loaner laptops. >> how many of these six did the irs search? >> we're not aware that they searched any one in particular. they did -- it appears they looked into initially whether or not the hard drive had been destroyed. but they didn't go much further than that. >> they found out it had been destroyed. but the other six, we don't know that they even attempted a search on it. did the irs personnel ever state a reason why they did not attempt these alternative methods of retrieving lerner's missing e-mails.

>> they believed at a high level that attempting to get e-mails off the backup tapes was a futle attempt. they would have yielded the very e-mails everybody has been interested in. >> they wouldn't do this with a common citizen taxpayer, would they? i'm not asking you to answer that one. i'm suggesting that they would not have followed their pattern of course with lois lerner's tapes and e-mail records with any of us in the room. given the irs's failure to attempt the methods to recover the e-mails, would you characterize the irs efforts as extraordinary? >> i would not. >> the power to tax is the power to destroy. i yield back. >> thank the gentleman. the gentleman from virginia. >> i would remind my friend another quote from a distinguish ed holmes, tax is a price we pay

for civilization. they're not always bad things. >> would my friend yield back? >> briefly. i agree with you. we're not talking about that. we're talking about destroying people's lives. >> well, i don't know that any lives have been destroyed. we can assert it, but it doesn't make it true. mr. camus, we submitted questions to you on march 4th after the last hearing. the committee informed you and mr. george those answers were due march 18th. we were -- i find it interesting that we're complaining about responsiveness. let's start with the ig's office. if you're not pure in this, you have no credibility or business testifying about somebody at irs. you need to but punctuillus.

your questions, mr. camus, we were informed were ready on march 27th. nine days late, but ready, is that correct? >> i dill gently worked on the questions and i prepared them and i submitted them for review. >> why was there a three-month delay between the completion of your answers to those questions and delivery to the committee two days ago? >> i don't know. >> would you call that responsive? >> i don't know the circumstance for the non-delivery. >> i do. i can give you -- >> i'll get to you in a second, mr. george. i promise. don't worry. i won't leave you out. i found it interesting. i would think that would be a declarative answer one way or the other, responsive or not. i'll ask you this, in any way, shape or form, were your answers with that delay changed or suggestions made to be changed

in order to conform to somebody else's answers. >> no, sir. >> so to your knowledge, they remain unchanged but just delayed. >> that's correct. >> mr. george, why did you delay this process? because we only got your answers two days ago, and i just heard you assure the chairman and this committee your commitment to making sure congress and everything it wanted, except from you. why did we have to wait three months for your answer, and why did you delay mr. camus' answers. >> the request came to both of us in a single document, so we wanted to respond in a single document, one. two, as - >> excuse me, even if it delayed, by three months? >> i have to beg your indulgence and express this with chairman chaffetz. my mother had a severe stroke and is in an intensive care unit now for two and a half months nearing death.

yes, i've had to put aside some of my professional responsibilities while attending to her, my elderly mother, who is states away. i have that primary responsible, sir. >> i'm very sympathetic. i have elderly parents, too, who suffer health issues. >> that is the explanation. my apology to the committee for the delay. >> could that not have been communicated? we had nothing but silence. >> there are certain parts of my life i don't want communicated. >> you could have said because of personal concerns. i can't do my job for three months. with respect to responding -- >> but there were reviews to make sure that privacy act and 6301 was addressed. the primary responsibility was my personal family situation. >> again, i'm always sympathetic to someone's personal circumstances. >> i appreciate that. >> but there is a concern, frankly, as you know, and mr.

cartwright and i filed a complaint about you, with respect to your behavior throughout this entire thing. and the latest delineation of e-mail numbers that mr. cummings provided -- cumis provided is troubling. you met with members of the staff without democrats present. you talked to the chairman and took direction without consulting with the democrats, even though standards of conduct for igs specifically say you should always have not only the appearance but the reality of non-partisanship non-partisanship, so your credibility is adhered to. from our point of view, there are real questions about whether you actually lived up to that standard. you've indicated that your own answer to the investigation common exonerated you but you refused to provide that answer to the committee.

another evasion. we're having a hearing, ironically ironically, about whether irs was transparent, whether there was any attention or attempt to prevent information to the committee, and you're guilty of the same thing. you have not been transparent. you've refused to provide information. you've been unresponsive, for whatever reason. you held up mr. camus' answers in the process, which could have partially satisfied the committee demand. i renew my request to you. you claim it's a violation of the privacy, your rights under the privacy act. if, indeed, your answer exonerated you, why would you want to keep it secret? >> the gentleman's time has expired. i want the gentleman to know that mr. george had informed the committee, had informed me, that he was dealing with a personal

situation. it's hard to communicate that with everyone in mass, but i was aware of that. >> i want the gentleman to know, too, that he did inform me. on more than one occasion that he was going through this. certainly, mr. george, we all wish your mother well. but you definitely kept this side informed also. thank you. >> sorry you are going through that. as chairman, i'd like to inform you there is a vote on the floor. i'll recognize mr. desjarlais for five minutes. then we will recess. upon recess we won't reconvene again before 10:45. sometime after that, a few minutes after the last vote, then we will resume. but we will have too adjourn briefly. but for now, let's recognize the gentleman from tennessee mr.

desjarlais for five minutes. >> thank you. mr. george, how long has this investigation been ongoing? >> at least since -- well, it depends on how you -- the investigation of the missing e-mails as opposed to the tax exemption organization? >> both. >> two years? >> tax exempt was may 2013. investigation was 2014. >> since may of 2013, the exempt organizations, and roughly june 2014, the exempt missing e-mails. >> and apparently, according to the ranking member, we've had 22 hearings and spent $20 million. sometimes it's hard to remember what the focus is of why we're here because it's drug on so long. it's drug on because the irs has not been cooperating with us. also, i have to wonder as investigators like yourself, how hard it is to conduct an investigation when the president informed you there's not a bit

of corruption. does it make it difficult to conduct an interview when the leader of this country, the leader that was benefitted by the fact that the irs admittedly targeted conservative groups that were going to work against his presidency says there is not a smidgen of corruption. does that make it difficult for you? >> i will say that there is a drip, drip, drip here. with every new uncoverry of information, whether it's from testimony, interviews finding of backup tapes, this extends the course of the investigation. that is why this has been still ongoing. >> and there was a comment of the number of hearings. watergate had 250 hours of aired testimony gavel to gavel. we have not approached that yet. watergate cost more than this. in today's term. we have an incident that's every bit if not more serious than watergate. it disheartens me we have

opposition to these hearings. eventually, democracy affects all of us regardless of party. maybe at some point, we'll get to the bottom of something that'll matter to people on the other side of the aisle. there's been a lot of comments today about the numbers of e-mails you're throwing out there. 10,000, 30,000. you're being criticized for that. as investigators, how many e-mails does it take to incriminate somebody of wrong doing? >> one. >> yeah, one e-mail. what does it matter how many numbers are being thrown out there? we're trying to get to the truth. i commend you guys for working hard and doing that. who at the irs was overseeing the destruction of the backup tapes, or who was in charge of that? >> there was a group of individuals. the first-line manager was a manager out of west virginia named charles stanton. >> what was kate duvall's role? >> she was in charge of the e-mail production to the congress.

>> okay. did you interview ms. duvall? >> we did. >> was she aware there was a problem with the collections of the e-mails? >> yes, she was. >> and what was her response? >> well, they realized because he was running the effort at that time to gather the e-mails and produce them, when they realized there was a hole in the production, she's the one that informed the treasury that they were having difficulty with the e-mails. she is also the one that informed the commissioner that they were having trouble gathering the e-mails. >> was she held accountable for the fact that these have been destroyed? >> ms. duvall, i understand, is no longer at the internal revenue service. i believe they'll take appropriate action based on what we found in the report concerning individuals. >> do you feel that, in your investigation to this point,

knowing the irs has admittedly targeted conservative groups, they admitted wrong doing. lois lerner took the fifth, didn't want to incriminate herself. do you agree with the president's statement that there is not a smidgen of corruption in the irs? >> it's difficult to agree with a broad statement at any time. our job is to root out corruption at the irs. whether it's this matter or any other matter, we take great pride in conducting thorough investigations. if there is corruption, we're determined to find it and root it out. >> i certainly appreciate the work you're doing, and i know the american people appreciate the work you're doing. this was an assault on democracy, the democratic process and the way elections are conducted. i commend you two gentleman and yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. we'll recess and reconvene no sooner than 10:45.

honestly, probably going to be a little longer. we stand in recess. .

oversight and government reform committee will come back to order. we're in the midst of the hearing regarding the irs and appreciate the inspector generals being with us. there was a point of clarification. i believe mr. camus wanted to make it. i'll recognize him to clarify a previous statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. when i was asked the name of the manager at the irs at the time the tapes were erased or destroyed, i said charles stanton. he wasn't actually the manager at that time. we're working on getting that name. we'll provide it for the record. stanton has been very cooperative. >> thank you. appreciate the clarification. we'll recognize the gentleman from south carolina for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. george, i'll start by encouraging you to take heart. when the other side makes ss attacks, it's because they don't

have the facts, law or, frankly, logic. i know it is difficult for you to sit there and absorb those attacks, but the reality is, that is kind of the last of what folks have left to argue. i'll ask questions, and either one of you can answer them. i'm a simple man, so i'm going to start kind of simply. with respect to the irs investigation/targeted investigations, were there at some point subpoenas in place? >> there were. >> okay. were there requests to preserve evidence in place? >> yes. >> were there ongoing congressional investigations? >> there were, sir. >> were there ongoing ig investigations? >> definitely. >> and purportedly, there was an ongoing doj investigation, although we've seen scant

evidence of that, at least that's the allegation, right? >> yes. and i'll ask mr. camus to further respond. >> that's correct. >> okay. so you have subpoenas in place, you have requests to preserve evidence in place, you have ongoing congressional investigations, you have ongoing ig investigations, and you may very well have an ongoing doj investigation, all of which leads me to ask, what does it mean, do not destroy/wipe/reuse any of the existing backup tapes for e- mail? what does that mean? >> that means, do not destroy, rewipe or do anything to that material, as it could be evidence or of import. >> so it means exactly what it says? >> yes, sir. >> there is no hidden meaning? >> no, sir. >> even i can understand that sentence. don't do it, right? you can call -- you can use

fancy words like degauss if you want to, but don't destroy, wipe, reuse any of the existing backup tapes. now, was that done? >> yes, sir. >> was it done after any of the following were in place: subpoenas, requests to preserve, ongoing congressional investigations, ongoing ig investigations, or purported doj investigation? >> yes, sir. it was done on or about march 4th, 2014, well after the commencement of all those activities. >> wow. now, i want to ask you about an individual in a minute, but i want to ask you this: sometimes things can be done accidentally. let's go ahead and rule that out. are we talking about a misstroke on a keyboard? is that what causes these things to disappear and be wiped?

you're typing in a word and hit the wrong key. does that do it? >> no. the destruction we're talking about required the employees involved to actually pick out tapes and place them into a machine, turn the machine on so it magnetically destroyed and obliterated the data. >> sounds like it'd be hard to accidentally do that. >> that's correct. >> we can rule out accident. that leaves negligence or in iintentional. willful, wanton. do you know whether it was sheer negligence, incompetence, or was it a higher level? >> our investigation has shown the two employees who physically put those tapes into the machine are lower graded employees at the martinsburg, west virginia, facility. they didn't conclude erasing these until june 2014. when interviewed, they said, our

job is to put these pieces of plastic into that machine and magnetically obliterate them. we had no idea that there was any type of preservation from the chief technology officer. >> was mr. costkin in charge of the irs at that time? >> yes, sir. >> have you heard the name kate duvall? >> yes. >> who is that, because i think i've heard that name, too. >> the chief counselor of the irs concerning the production to congress. she was the lawyer making sure that counsel made production to congress. >> she's in charge of making sure that e-mails and other matter is produced? >> yes. >> is she still with the irs? >> she is no longer. i don't recall the date that she left, but she is no longer --

part of the internal revenue service. >> do you know where she's at now? >> i can get that information for you. >> no. i know where she is now. she's at the department of state, in charge of their e-mail productions. wow. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. recognize the gentleman from kentucky, mr. massie, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i ask about the date that lois lerner's hard drive failed. you gave us more specificity today here and i appreciate that. what day did her hard drive fail? >> we believe it failed on june 11th, which is a saturday, between 5:00 and 7:00 p.m. >> this hard drive failed conveniently. do you know where it was when it failed? >> we believe, based on log activity, that the laptop was in her office at the time that the hard drive failed. >> so on a saturday, it was just sitting there and it just sort of failed on its own, on a saturday. on june 11th.

can you tell if there was any computer activity at the time that it failed, from log activity? >> there was. we were unable to determine if a program was in place that would remove another program from the computer. it was a silent deployment, if you will. that deployment was scheduled to occur between two dates, but we weren't able to a definitively say there was computer activity on june 11th when it was deployed. >> on june 3rd, the chairman ways and means sent a letter to the commissioner of the irs at the time. you're familiar with that letter? >> i'm not. >> june 3rd, briefly says, as chairman of the committee of ways and means -- this was sent by mr. camp, the chairman at the time -- he was concerned that the irs appears to have selectively targeted certain

taxpayers who engaged in political speech. not only does this threaten political speech and cast doubt on the irs credibility.