im? what if the israelis using u.s. equipment, bomb the facility and some other iranian nuclear facilities, how would the u.s. respond to that? obviously, we have -- we have deals where we -- with israelis and almost any regional war if they create a regional war that we don't want them to in this case? >> well, gardner, i wouldn't want to speculate on that particular hypothetical beyond acknowledging that obviously israel -- the leaders of israel are entitled of course, to take the steps they believe are necessary for the defense of their country. they have a responsibility to make those decisions. but the president has also indicated that the military option on the part of the united states is one that continues to be available, but the more effective way, the best way for

us to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is through principle diplomacy and agreement that's structured exactly like this one, that requires iran to take some significant steps to curtail their nuclear program and to agree to have those steps be rigorously verified by the international community. >> ash carter is going to be in israel next week. he's going to be asking sort of what the israelis need. what if the israelis ask for these bunker-busting bombs and equipment that would allow them to do this bombing grade on their own. how would the u.s. respond to those requests? >> i don't want to preview those conversations at this point. as a general matter, i can tell you that part of the message that secretary carter will be delivering when he travels to israel, and i believe this will be his first trip as secretary of defense to israel, that the message he'll be delivering is that the united states and president obama himself is

committed to strengthening the security cooperation relationship that prime minister netanyahu himself has already described as unprecedented in its its scope and depth. >> as part of the deal iran can appeal to the security council if it feels that any members of the p5 are not abiding by the agreement. if congress votes this down, the u.s. of course, will not be able to abide by the agreement through sanctions if the u.s. does not lift its sanctions, iran could potentially appeal to the u.n. security council about the failure to lift those sanctions. would the security council vote, then, trump that of the united states congress? is that a concern in this? >> i'm not going to speculate what would happen if congress would devastate the united states and international community and essentially give iran the opportunity to give all the benefits of sanctions relief

without taking any steps to submit to international verification or any of the steps that are required to curtail their nuclear program. major? >> can we follow up on a couple of those questions. a potential military strike a step backward. will the president argue maybe even in a conversation with the prime minister with the deal it is now less necessary, iran is less threatening to israel in terms of nuclear question than it was before the deal? that any reason israel might entertain are less menacing than they were before. is that what the president would say? >> that is certainly part of the argument. that is because the foundation of this argument, as it -- what our intelligence analysts assess right now, is that the breakout period for iran is only two to three months. once this agreement is implemented, the breakout period for iran would be lengthened

significantly to a year. we would also be in a position to verify iran's compliance with the agreement. that means we'll have much greater insight into the details of iran's nuclear program. we do believe that when you sort of compare a nuclear armed iran versus a nonnuclear armed iran, we would much rather have the latter because it is not as dangerous as a nuclear armed iran would be when it comes to israel's national security. that doesn't downplay the concerns we have with other activities in the region. >> clearly you would expect a defense secretary to carry that very same message to israel based on this top line assessment right? >> that's correct. >> is it fair and logical, therefore, to assume that everything that corresponds between these two nations in terms of security cooperation would be informed by that judgment? meaning, if there were requests for some of the material, that

you were just asked about those requests would be viewed within this my context. iran is less threatening. the danger is diminished. therefore, that is context in which all the requests would be judged. not the one that existed before the deal. can we assume that? >> i think it is fair to assume that. however, what's also -- what i would also bring to your attention is that for some period of time now, the united states has been having conversations with israel about how we can further strengthen and deepen our security cooperation. these are conversations that have even been -- had between the two leaders of our countries. >> the fundamental question is, every discussion about whether it's within israel's right to strike, the materials it might have to carry that out are in a different context because you have this deal now. and the threat is diminished and, therefore, all the conversations that might come under that umbrella are in a

completely different context. >> what is true -- what is true is that the breakout period has been lengthened. that means that -- and we have assurance -- or we will have assurance, that iran is complying with the agreement. if at some point we determine that they are not complying with the agreement, we will continue to have the wide range of options in front of us that we do today. whether that means snapping back sanctions or even deploying a military option. the other thing i would point out about the military option is that if the agreement has been implemented, and iran has -- it will be implemented once iran has taken the steps to eliminate their income program. sanctions relief will not start until iran has taken all these substantial steps to begin to curtail their nuclear program. that's an important thing to keep in mind here the point is that over the course of this ten-year agreement at some point iran's leaders change course and they decide either they want to cheat or publicly indicate that they're going to break out and

try to obtain a nuclear weapon it would -- it would take a year for them to acquire enough fisile material to build a bomb. here's the key thing. the military option would remain on the table but it would be enhanced because we would be spending -- iran's nuclear. when it comes to targeting decisions made by military officials either in israel or united states, those targeting decisions would be significantly informed and our capabilities improved based on the knowledge gained in the intervening years through this inspection regime. >> if israel wants to contemplate, it should wait? >> again what we believe -- what we believe is the best way to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is through diplomacy and that's been achieved here. at some point down the line,

after the agreement has been implemented, if iran does indicate a willingness to cheat or they just announce they're going to go and sprint toward a nuclear weapon that distance would be much longer than it is today and the ability of the international community to respond would be strengthened because our political hand would be strengthened and the capability of our military planners would be enhanced because of our significantly increased knowledge of iran's nuclear program. >> i want to ask about the pollard situation because your predecessors have never hesitated on that question. i don't know if you were trying to convey something, but previously when pollard's name has been brought up, the answer has been swift and resolute. the crime is a crime. the conviction is a conviction. it stands. despite the fact there has been annual very intensity but every year from the government about pollard's release. did you hesitate because that is now at some level or another

being discussed or we just did not anticipate the question? >> i was not anticipating the question. but what i can tell you is i'm certainly not aware of any renewed discussions about what i previously -- had been previously discussed about releasing himself outside the normal department of justice procedures that are in place. there had been some discussion about releasing him primarily that had been reported on about releasing him prior to his next parole hearing. so i don't want to leave you with the impression that that position has changed. thank you. >> a new topic within the conversations and the aftermath of the iran deal or any other things that might sweeten israel's assessment of it? >> not that i'm aware of.

but for the details of his current incarceration, i'd encourage you to check with the department of justice. they may have more information. >> the president said -- after meeting with some of the inmates that they were there after doing some stupid things, makesmy tas, he said. there but for the grace of god suggesting that -- and i want to ask you about this. did he mean to suggest that the people in there that he met with were arbitrarily arrested, prosecuted because it was sort of an accident or such a low level mistake they shouldn't have been there in the first place or that their sentences should be dramatically reduced? if the latter is the case my reading of the durbin and lee legislation, which this white house has endorsed doesn't take away mandatory -- but in the main it keeps most of the sentencing guidelines and the prosecution of the past in place. does the president want to go

farther than that? >> well, there are a number of factors that influence the sentences that are given to individuals who are charged and convicted of serious crimes. well, i should say of serious crimes but also of crimes that relate to nonviolent drug offenses. they're flewed by a number of things mandatory sentences but also the policy that's in place for prosecutors who are trying to make charging decisions. there are significant decisions that need to be made by prosecutors when it comes to how serious a crime that individuals should be charged with based on their conduct. so the point i'm making,there are a variety of things that influence the kind of sentence that is handed down and it is those variety of things that will be considered in the discussions with congress as we sort of work toward some criminal justice reform. as it relates to the president's comments, i do -- let me give

you -- the president wasn't trying to make either of the points you suggested. the point the president was trying to make is that for him -- in some ways this -- the point he's trying to make is even outside the context of the criminal justice system that these individuals did things that landed them in prison. because they didn't influence from the benefit of good parents or good schools or carrying teachers or people in their community that could provide some structure to their lives. even if they did make a mistake, that they didn't allow one mistake to put them on a path that had them end up in prison. the point the president is making is that he has acknowledged and has he wrote about in his book made mistakes from in his own life. he benefitted by having grandparents in hawaii, teachers at his school, obviously a very

devoted mother who worked hard to keep him on the right path despite his mistakes. the point he was making is that if he didn't have that kind of support structure in his life it is not hard to imagine that he would have ended up on a same -- on the same path that led these men -- >> talking about the structure, not necessarily the underlying crime itself the adequacy or the fairness of the prosecution or the sentences meted out. >> clearly all those things are related but the point the president is making is this very specific one about the kind of of -- for young men of color. this is part of my brother's keeper initiative the president has spent a lot of time talking about. trying to put in place these support structures for young men of color that may be coming from a single parent home and may not be coming from the highest rated school in their community, they will benefit from additional

support. even if they make one mistake it could prevent them from going down a path that ends them in a prison cell. >> thank you, josh. i wanted to follow up on something you said earlier, give you another run at it. i was trying to understand, secretary kerry was saying during the conversation with the iranians that he repeatedly would bring up the american captives that have been held there. and yet the president made it very clear it was not part of the deal because it would give iranians more leverage in some ways, it would make the deal more difficult. i'm trying to make sense of the two. can you help me out? >> actually, the point that -- the point the president was making kevin is that if we included the well-being of these americans as bargaining chips in the nuclear deal, it would only make it harder to secure the release of these american citizens. the reason is simply the successful completion of a final nuclear agreement was not a foregone conclusion.

we had gotten these -- the case of these americans wrapped up in a nuclear discussion that ultimately didn't come to an agreement. the ability of the united states to secure their release had been significantly set back. so what president and secretary kerry did, they worked acidulously to keep them separate. to not allow these american citizens to be used as bargaining chips in a nuclear deal with iran. but what secretary kerry did in the context of these meetings is insist on the release of these americans who had been unjustly detained in iran. we're not going to make concessions for iran. we just think they should turn out right now. they should be given the opportunity at home and be reunited with their families. and that shouldn't be contingent on anything. >> i want to talk to you about the tragedy in chattanooga. there's been some discussion about the fact that perhaps, if military personnel were able to be armed they could have better

protected themselves. if that were deemed appropriate by d.o.d. would the white house support that? >> obviously these decisions about how best to ensure the safety of our men and women in uniforms our decisions are made by the department of defense as you alluded to, there's a department of defense policy that's been in place for quite some time that sort of in a workplace like a recruiting station here in the united states that would prevent military personnel from carrying weapons. but those are security decisions that made by the department of defense and they will be made not with politics in mind but with the safety and security of our men and women in uniform in mind. obviously, those are the kinds of policy decisions that the commander in chief -- >> given the proxy wars that have been happening with the

iranians and what can the president do to assuage their concerns that anything you do to either elevate iran economically or even politically makes them a bigger player in the region and, therefore, a bigger threat to the saudis and other gcc partners? >> there's no scenario where iran is a bigger threat than when they have a nuclear weapon. and that is why the president has gone to great lengths and supported nearly two years of negotiations to prevent them from obtaining a nuclear weapon. that's the case the president made to not just members of congress but to our partners all around the globe. that in no way is intended to diminish the significant concerns that our partners and our allies in the middle east have with iran's support for terrorism, their support for proxies that destabilize countries in the middle east and we're going to be responsive to those concerns and we're going

to continue to work closely with those countries to deepen our security cooperation and more effectively counter israel's efforts to support for example, hezbollah rebels operating in lebanon or houthi rebels that are operating and destabilizing the issue in yemen. >> last tyke i talked about glass/steagall, there was concern about bringing that back. i think that would be a good idea. does the president believe with that? >> we believe wall street reform has been incredibly effective in reforming our financial system in a way that looks out for the interest of middle class taxpayers. wall street reform created consumer financial protection bureau. for the first time middle class families have an independent wash dog in washington, d.c. that's not beholden the corporate interest but is actually focused on standing up for the interest of middle class families. this has led to important reforms in both the mortgage

banking system but also to the student loan system and a variety of other reforms that have protected the interests of middle class families against the interest of larger financial institutions. wall wall street reform also included were restrictions on big banks that prevent them from making risky bets that would result in taxpayers having to bail them out. if those bets go south. and that's why the president is pleased with the important progress that's been made when it came to implementing wall street reform. the implementation of a lot of these rules was aggressively fought by some of the highest paid special interests in washington, d.c. pp it's because of the tenacity of the president and his administration that these rules were put in place in a way that maximizes the benefits, not just for middle class families, not just for taxpayers, but for the broader

economy. >> glass/steagall, thumbs up? >> at this point we believe the kind of ongoing implementation of wall street reform is the most effective way for us to protect our economy and for us to protect both middle class families and taxpayers. >> who do we have in the back here? jarrett. >> i wanted to ask about cuba. the president -- administration make anything headway getting congress to at least lift the embargo? >> not that i've heard of. >> and i ask because monday we were told, you know, the opening of amnesty is that going to usher any new push from the administration to try and get particular opponents in congress to re-evaluate their position? >> there exists bipartisan support for advancing the policy that the president announced to normalize our relations with cuba. but there have been some entrenched partisans that have tried to block this in congress so far. fortunately, there are a number of steps the president can take to use executive authority to

make these changes. the president is implementing these changes because he's he believes it's in the broader strategic interest of the united states. we have removed a chief sticking point in our ties with countries throughout the western hemisphere. we have effectively isolated cuba and the international -- or the concerns of countries in the western hemisphere and focus them on the treatment of the cuba people and the failure of the cuban government to protect the basic human rights of the cuban people. the second thing we know is this is a policy overwhelmingly supported by the cuban people themselves. that they recognize this is a tremendous opportunity for them to have a government that treats them with the respect for basic human rights and allows them to -- or at least makes it more likely they can achieve the ambition they have laid out for themselves.

and so that's the reason that i think many people are pretty unpersuaded bit objection raised by some in congress. they claim to have the best interest of the cuban people at heart, but when you look at some of the public data, more than 90% of the cuban people actually support the policy the president is trying to implement. so, this is why we're going to move forward using all the authority that we can to try to implement this policy change. i don't anticipate this is going to cause a significant change in the mind of that small but vocal minority in congress that opposes this policy. >> vocal minority it would be he's eastcy to lift the imbar goe. >> if only the united states senate worked that way. but as we've seen, it doesn't. i think there continues to be some confidence that this vocal minority in congress -- or in the senate could filibuster this legislation.

the fact is there are a number of republicans who have come and spoken to us about this policy change. >> any travel announcement as far as the president potentially making a trip to havana? >> no updates at this point. julia? >> just following up on that, obviously the president has talked about the questionable human rights record in cuba. can you talk about what for example, the administration would need to see from cuba in order for you to even consider having the president -- what kind of would be the bottom line or benchmark this administration would apply to key countries like that when deciding whether it needs a presidential visit? >> for a detailed answer to this queshgs i would refer to you the state department but i can tell you, in general, that some of the things we would like to see is -- we would like the -- we would like to see the rights of political opponents of the cuban government inside of cuba not be thrown in jail just because of

their political views. that would be one step. the second would be the -- respecting of the basic rights of independent journalists in cuba. there is evidence to indicate that there is not free speech in cuba. even independent journalists who want to say things that could be perceived as critical of the government, are muzzled by the government. so, respect for a free and independent media would be another step we would like to see them take. those are a couple examples. for more specific benchmarks, to the extent they exist i would refer you to the state department. >> i think mitch mcconnell said it would be unlikely they would approve an ambassador to cuba. is there a way around that and do you have someone whose name you want to -- >> i don't have any personal announcements at this point.

there are probably good candidates in mind. i'm not aware of any intent to nominate anybody soon. looks, we've seen republicans in congress use all kinds of excuses to not act on nominees put forward by the obama administration. even when they have important and noncontroversial roles in the government. so you'll recall a couple weeks ago i talked about the plight of adam zuben, the individual responsible for putting in place sanctions and targeting the financing activities of isil. this is a career civil servant who served in -- he's someone who's unquestionableably afternoon excellent lawyer and re skilled at the technical job that he has. but yet we've seen congress -- republicans in congress block him from even having a hearing. there's no reg mat answer for that.

it represents a dereliction of duties in congress when we have hundreds of thousands of military. all we're asking congress to do is to hold a simple hearing. a basic responsibility of the united states congress bet yut that's something republicans are unwilling to do. base on the kind of inection mrikxmrik -- inexplicable introduction for nominees like mr. zubin, i would not expect any rapid progress in the republic-dominated senate when it comes to the consideration of a nominee to be the ambassador of cuba. >> an embassy but no ambassador? >> it certainly seems possible, but that would be -- for that rather unique scenario to exist, that's something that would require the bipartisan structure of republicans in congress. i guess you'd have nor exhibit

that probably numbers in the tens of thousands at this point. it's certainly possible. i wouldn't rule it out. victoria, you'll get the last one. >> i've heard -- in which it's expected he'll respond to the iran deal which does cross several office red lines, including inspection of military sites. what are your concerns he's going to come out strongly against the deal or come out against it at all? >> i wouldn't predict at this point what the ayatollah may say tomorrow. >> do you have concerns? >> i'm not particularly concerned about it, no. >> let's go to the week ahead. well, this is weird. let's see if i have a week ahead. this is the week ahead for this week, actually. >> ichsz about to tell you about

the white house conference on aging which i know you covered with a lot of attention this week. let's go to the week of july 20th. there are some interesting things on here. president will host nigerian president at white house. it will underscore long standing relationship with nigeria, and our support for the nigerian people following their historic elections and peaceful transfer of power. the president will hold a reception for the 25th anniversary of americans with disability act. on tuesday the president will travel to pittsburgh pennsylvania to address the 115th veterans of foreign wars national convention. we'll have a little preview of those remarks early next week. we'll have something interesting to say there. following the convention, the president will travel to new york city and will take appear an answer for "the daily show

with john stew." wednesday the president will meet with small business owners to discuss the reauthorization of export/import bank. later that evening the president will travel to nairobi, kenya. the president will spend most of the day friday en route to kenya. with that, i wish you all a good weekend. this weekend on the c-span networks politics books and american history. a road to the white house coverage features nearly all of the presidential candidates and begins tonight in iowa. at 8:00 eastern we're live on c-span from cedar rapids iowa, for the democratic party hall of fame dinner. all day saturday starting at 11:00 a.m. eastern, we're live at the family leadership summit in ames, iowa. sunday evening, a little after 6:30 eastern interviews with two republican presidential candidates.

first south carolina candidate lindsey graham and then john kasich. on c-span's book tv saturday morning beginning at 11:00 eastern we're live from new york city for the harlem book fair with author talks and panels with african-american identity, race and politics with journalist pamela newkirk and more. sunday night at 10:00, ann coulter says the greatest issue facing the u.s. is immigration. and on american history tv on c-span3, saturday afternoon starting at 1:00 eastern, we're live with the warren g. harding symposium on modern first ladies from florence harding to michelle obama. speakers include author cynthia bidder and director of first ladies library, patricia citer. we show how the u.s. government uses propaganda -- get our

complete schedule at c-span.org. labor secretary thomas perez is our guest on news makers this weekend. he'll answer questions about increasing the minimum wage overtime pay, family leave and employment numbers. news makers is on c-span sunday at 10:00 a.m. and again at 6:00 p.m. eastern. this sunday on q&a artist and journalist molly crabapple on her use of drawings to tell invegs gatetive stories from around the world. >> gang affiliation may be reading a book by a black panther, aztec drawings or having a tattoo. pelican bay isn't alone in this. around the country you can land in solitary for your art your readings, your belief, your sexual orientation or your friends. >> i go around with a sketch book and draw. a lot of times that's not necessarily to show the finished drawing, it's also to build

rapport with people. very often when you have a big camera it puts a difference between you and the person. you have an insect looking thing in front of your face. you have images they can't see. even though you're producing beautiful things later. whereas when you draw it's a vulnerable thing. they can see exactly what you're doing. if you suck, they can tell you so. it's more of an interchange. most people haven't been drawn before. most people are delighted to be drawn. and so a lot of times i just draw people because i like to and because i like talking to them when i do it. >> on c-span's q&a sunday night at 8:00 eastern. >> for the last two years the house oversite committee has been eninvestigating allegations the irs targeted conservative political groups. late last month the committee heard testimony from the irs inspector general about the e-mails of lois learner, former head of the irs exempt organizations unit.

utah congressman jason chaffetz chaired this 2 1/2 hour long hearing.utah congressman jason chaffetz chaired this 2 1/2 hour long hearing. without objection the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. today's hearing is about the irs and the targeting that has happened there.

we have had updates from the inspector general's office and we're here for another such update. we appreciate mr. george, mr. camu suchlt for being here with us. as we start this hearing i would like to walk through why we're here at this particular time. it was -- there was targeting of people who were trying to exercise their first amendment rights. this is done because of their political beliefs. dave camp of the ways and means committee did exceptional work unearthing this work. talking to them, the irs commissioner, mr. schulman about this. he had assured the committee and assured the congress, which when you talk to congress, you're talking to the american people, that none of this targeting had ever occurred. that's when the inspector general's office started to get involved and they started to look at it. later they came back and provided a report.

that report happened in, i believe, 2013. now, keep in mind, when we had this information going on, there was a preservation order that was put in place. asking and requiring the irs to preserve these documents. governor issa issued a subpoena asking for this information and these documents. then you move forward and this is where it just sort of starts to get unbelievable. it stretches the imagination beyond comparison. that we're supposed to believe this wide array of facts just happened to come together in such an odd and peculiar way. again, remember, the irs commissioner said, quote, there's absolutely no targeting, end quote. when this came together, the president was very good on this topic. he said he would work with congress. and then somehow magically

concluded, even though the department of justice had not completed their investigation, the inspector general had not concluded their investigation, the united states congress had not concluded an investigation, either in the house or the senate, but somehow magically the president came to the conclusion that there was, quote, not even a, quote, smidgen of corruption. now, interesting thing about that timing. that happened to be super bowl sunday. so super bowl sunday in 2014, the president makes his comment. we have heard from an irs official where she says that is the exact same day that i remember looking and realizing that there were some e-mails missing. this thing's gone on for years. just coincidental that the president's on national television and she says, and has told us that, oops, there's some e-mails missing.

again, remember for ten months there was a preservation in place. for seven months there was a subpoena in place. we have been assured multiple times by the irs that they were doing everything bending over backwards, giving us all kinds of stats and metrics about how many e-mails and how many people working hard on this, but the one thing we wanted to have, evidence to let the facts take us wherever they may be, not one thing just went missing. the exact same times within hours of the president making that comment. but what we're going to hear today makes it even more stunning because what the inspector general has evidently learned is that that evidence on that day that the president said that, on the day that the inspector general -- or the day that the irs person said there

are missing e-mails, they weren't missing. they were destroyed. what we're going to hear from the inspector general's office today is that those e-mails were destroyed 30 days later. february 4th super bowl sunday -- or the 2nd super bowl sunday excuse me they get, you know they're missing but they weren't missing. they got destroyed about 30 days later. 22 days after that, the irs commissioner on march 26th i remember because it's my birthday, irs commissioner comes here and testifies and tells us essentially they had the e-mails. it's going to take years to provide them but they will get us those e-mails. in direct question to the -- that i had asked him, but they had destroyed them 22 days prior. they knew there was a problem back in february supposedly.

it wasn't until june that the irs then confirmed or buried in the back of a letter to the united states senate, senator orrin hatch's committee, senator widen's committee that oops we think there's a problem with the e-mails. then the inspector general that catches their attention, they put a team together and they say, you know what let's see if we can find those e-mails. at this point the irs has had years to do it and they couldn't find them. we think there's a problem. the inspector general's office puts a team together and within two weeks they go and find them. they show up at this so-called cage and go ask and look for these e-mails. nope, they've been sitting there the whole time. has anything happened to those? nope. nobody asked us for them. that was the testimony we heard. we're supposed to believe this in the context of an fbi

investigation that's led by a max out donor to the obama administration a contempt from lois lerner holds lois lerner in contempt. a statute that says they shall refer that to the grand jury. the u.s. attorney for the district of columbia looks at it for ten months and two days or so roughly, before he steps away from that job and says, you know what we just think it shouldn't be referred. even though the statute says it shall. that's a potential hearing. we'll look at it later. part of what we're going to find today is that there are some 24,000 e-mails, potential e-mails that were destroyed. it's a destruction of evidence. we want to pursue the facts. i know there are democrats on the other side of the aisle that

say, there's nothing here. let's move on. it's no big deal. let the evidence speak. but when there's a destruction of evidence, that goes to a whole other level. one of the things we'll hear from the inspector general today is that five of the six sources where they could find this e-mail, the irs didn't look. yet, we've heard multiple, multiple testimonies from the irs commissioner saying, we're working so hard. we have all these people. we're spending millions of dollars. taking all these resources. they didn't even look in the most obvious places like their phone phone. you add this all in combination. it just defies any sense of logic. it gets to the point where it truly gets to be unbelievable. somebody has to be held accountable. imagine if this was all reversed imagine if you were on the receiving end of an inquiry from

the irs and they ask you for documents. and they issued you a subpoena. and you destroyed the evidence. and you have that evidence. what would happen to you? you would be prosecuted to the fullest. you'd end up in jail. you probably should. that's what we're dealing with here. this should have been disposed of a long time ago but we have been misled. there has been evidence that has been destroyed. and so we appreciate this hearing today. these two men who are here for us have done exceptional work. they're supported by a great number of people on their staff who do very important impartial work. we count on their opinions. let me be fair in this conclusion. part of what they're going to say today is they have found no evidence that this was done

willfully, that was some purposeful direction from any one person, whether it be the white house or below. understood. the bottom line is they have the evidence. there was a preservation in place. there was a subpoena in place. and that evidence was destroyed. we're going to hear this testimony. my understanding is next week they're going to issue a rather lengthy report. we look forward to seeing that report. given that next week is the fourth of july recess, we thought it appropriate to bring them before us here to get their verbal comments and opportunity to question them. we look forward to hearing and reading the report in its totality. and then we're going to have to figure out a way moving forward. but people need to be held accountable and we are going to get to the truth. with that i'm going to yield back and recognize our ranking member, mr. cummings. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and very glad we're having this hearing. and very glad at the end of your

statement, you said that there would be testimony i take it from mr. george, that these documents were not destroyed willfully. i'm glad you said that because you said a number of things already, and i think there are many irs employees who are working very, very hard short of staff giving it everything they've got. they can do their job so that we can have the resources as a government to exist. and i want to take a moment to thank all of those employees who are working so very hard. this oversight, now holding our 22nd irs hearing. 22. some people tuning in today may

not realize that this investigation is still going on. they also may not realize that they, the american taxpayers have spent more than $20 million on this investigation so far. $20 million. the total doesn't count the millions of additional dollars spent by the inspector general who was here to testify yet again. and i want to thank you, mr. george for your hard work and all the work you've done in regard to this investigation. this investigation has squandered tens of millions of taxpayer dollars in a failed scavenger hunt to -- more than

250 irs employees have now spent more than 160,000 hours producing more than a million pages of documents to congress. 250 employees. who could be doing audits making sure that people are paying their rightful share of taxes, making sure that the collection process is done properly pp, answer properly, answering questions of our constituents as they try to make sure that they're doing the right thing, but 250 folks, 160,000 hours. yet the inspector general will testify again today that its conclusions remain the same. the chairman said let the

facts -- let the evidence speak. i agree with that. there's still no evidence to support republican allegations that the white house was involved, that ms. lerner ordered the targeting of conservative groups for political reasons or that she intentionally crashed her computer to conceal her e-mails. today the inspector general will testify -- the number of, and i quote, new, end of quote e-mails they recovered from backup tapes and other sources. in february -- and we need to listen to this. in february, officials from the inspector general's office

briefed our committee and others reporting that around 80,000, 80,000 e-mails, a fact that was leaked to the press with great fanfare, headlines, 80,000. then on february 26th the deputy inspector general for investigations testified before this committee that many of those e-mails were actually duplicates duplicates, so we went from 80,000, and he testified there was only 3,000, february. last week on june 16th the inspector general's chief counsel sent a letter to this committee stating that the total number of new e-mails went down again -- keep in mind from 32,000 -- this time explaining that only 6,400 e-mails and i

quote, appear to not have been produced to congress, end of quote. you guessed it. but today we've gone from the 6,400, only nine days ago, and the inspector general will testify that the total has plummeted to a little more than 1,000 e-mails that congress did not already have. that's a hell of a drop. from 80,000 to 1,000. inspector jens are not supposed to provide speculative, unconfirmed and inaccurate information to congress. i think mr. george would agree with that. they're not supposed to provide information they know is not credible. yet that is what happened in this case. based on this record i do not

know why anyone would have confidence in any of the numbers issued by the inspector general. for those who want to cut to the bottom line, you need to turn to to page 6 of inspector general's written testimony for today's hearing. it's buried. i tell you, it's buried. but it says, and i quote a review of these e-mails did not provide additional information for the purposes of our investigation. and i hope that mr. george will explain that. so after all of this work and after spending millions of dollars, republicans still have no new information to support their allegations. some people may be wondering if these new e-mails do not advance the investigation in any way then what are they? what are they? let me give you a few examples which inspector general provided

to us this week. i didn't do this. the inspector general gave them to us. on december 25th 2012 christmas day ms. lerner received an e-mail from e-bay with an advertisement for holiday shopping deals. in another newly discovered e-mail sent a few days earlier, on december 22nd ms. lerner received an offer from the website flowersshopping.com for some very nice bouquets. not quite the smoking gun the republicans alleged. the fact is that ms. lerner's computer crashed. and we need to keep this in mind. the fact is that ms. lerner's computer crashed before she was informed that irs employees in cincinnati were using inappropriate criteria to screen tax exempt applicants. this is not my finding. it's not mine.

that is the finding of mr. george, our inspector general, in his original report from may 2013. more than two years ago. today this hearing is our 22nd on this issue. 22. and i cannot imagine what possible reason there might be to have a 23rd. so i hope we will finally be able to move forward and focus on bipartisan investigations that will help the american families in their daily lives. and to the irs employees, i hope that all of these efforts do not have a chilling effect on you doing the job that the american people have paid you to do. and expect you to do. and the job that you want to do. and with that, mr. chairman i yield back. >> i will hold the record open for five legislative days for any member who would like to submit a written statement.

will now recognize our panel of witnesses. pleased to welcome the honorable jay russell george inspector general at the treasury inspector general for tax administration. and mr. tim camus, deputy inspector general for investigations at the department of inspector general for tax administration. we welcome you both. appreciate your work. pursuant to committee rules all witnesses are to be sworn before they testify. if you will please rise and raise your right hands. do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth? thank you. please be seated. and let the record reflect that the witnesses both answered in the affirmative. we would appreciate your verbal comments and any additional comments or written statements will be obviously made part of the complete record. do you have one statement, or are you going to combine that? >> i have a very brief opening statement, mr. chairman. and then i'm going to defer to mr. camus to provide more

substance to the facts. >> very good. mr. george we recognize you and then we'll turn it over to mr. camus and go from there. >> thank you ranking member chaffetz, members of the committee. we are here to report on our efforts to recover former irs exemption ms. lois lerner's e-mails. with me is tim camus deputy general for investigations. he led this investigation initiated on june 16th 2014. this was shortly after the irs reported gaps in a production of lois lerner's e-mails citing as the reason a crash of her computer's hard drive. one week later, as was noted, then chairman widen and then ranking member hatch of the senate finance committee requested that the matter be investigated including us to, quote, perform our own analysis of whether any data can be

salvaged and produced unquote. this morning's testimony will provide you with information about the extent of our investigative efforts as well as the evidence we have gathered to date. at the outset it is important to note that even as we believe we have reached certain conclusions and determinations in our findings this investigation is not yet concluded. should anything of note be discovered, we will review it for its impact on the investigation, produce a supplemental report and provide the new information including e-mails to all appropriate parties. overall this investigation included interviewing over 118 witnesses, extensive document reviews and the processing and analysis of over 20 terabytes of data. as a result of these efforts we have determined the following. successful in recovering over 1,000 e-mails that the irs did

not produce to congress the department of justice or office of investigations. we have also determined that prior to our investigation and our efforts to recover ms. lerner's missing e-mails the irs did not search for review or examine the backup tapes server hard drives or sources that ultimately produced new previously undisclosed e-mails. 422 tapes that likely contained ms. lerner's e-mails from the years 2010 and 2011 were erased and most likely will never be recovered. these 422 tapes were magnetically erased around march 4th 2014. as was printed out, this was one month after the irs realized they were missing e-mails from lois lerner and about eight months after this committee requested all documents and communications sent by received by or copied to lois lerner.

as was noted our investigation did not uncover any evidence that the ratio of these 422 backup tapes was done to conceal information from congress or law enforcement. in addition, it is important to note that it is remotely possible that our continuing review of data from the initial set of 735 backup tapes could result in discovery of additional e-mails not previously provided to congress by the irs. i will now turn to mr. camus who will provide a detailed discussion on the findings of our investigation and the search for the missing e-mails. >> thank you. chairman chaffetz, ranking member cummings and members of the full committee i appreciate the opportunity to come here today to provide updated testimony on my agency's investigation of the internal revenue service's production of the e-mails of the former director of exempt organizations

as well as our efforts thus far in recovering missing e-mails. throughout our investigation we have updated the tax writing and oversight committees of congress including this committee, concerning our progress in recovering e-mails. as the inspector general noted, we are now in position to provide information about our investigation. my special agents determined that there were six possible sources of information in order to recover missing e-mails. those sources are ms. lerner's crashed hard drive the backup or disaster recovery tapes a decommissioned irs e-mail server, the backup tapes for the decommissioned e-mail server, ms. lerner's blackberry and loaner computers that may have been assigned to her while her laptop was being repaired. my testimony will provide an overview of some of those sources, all of which are covered in the written testimony. with respect to ms. lerner's crashed computer hard drive, we determined that on saturday june 11th 2011 between 5:00 p.m.

and 7:00 p.m. ms. lerner's irs laptop was more than likely in her office and it stopped communicating with the irs server system. the following monday june 13th 2011 ms. lerner reported she found her computer inoperable and the malfunction reported to the irs information technology staff. the assigned i.t. specialist determined the hard drive has crashed and following standard protocol placed a new hard drive in ms. lerner's laptop. a hue let packard technician also worked on the laptop for other repairs. when interviewed both technicians reported they did not note visible damage to the computer itself. because we are unable to locate and examine the hard drive we do not definitively know why it crashed. on july 19th 2011 ms. lerner requested irs i.t. to attempt to

retrieve, quote, personal information, unquote. after receiving the hard drive from the irs technician an irs criminal investigation technician was unsuccessful in recovering data. irs i.t. management determined additional efforts to recover data from ms. lerner's hard drive were not worth the expense. it is important to point out the irs does not track individual hard drives by their serial numbers. our investigation revealed that ms. lerner's hard drive was more than likely sent for destruction with a shipment of other irs electronic media on april 13th of 2012. the shipment was traced to the uni-corp recycling facility in florida. we determined 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 ms. lerner's hard drive. our investigation included attempts to determine if anybody entered ms. lerner's office prior to the date and time of her hard drive crash. unfortunately, those logs were erased after one year of retention. i will now provide an overview of our investigative efforts related to the backup or recovery tapes. on june 30th 2014, irs provide backup tapes used for ms. lerner's irs e-mail account particularly january 1st 2008 to december 31st 2011. the irs identified 744 backup tapes and tig 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 those tapes to the recognized industry expert for electronic data recovery and extraction, they then provided tigna with the exchange data base files. at the conclusion of the process 79,840 lois lerner e-mails of nearly 60% were in fact duplicates or copies of each other leaving approximately 32,700 lois lerner e-mails. as was pointed out in our february testimony, we compared those 32,700 e-mails to what the irs has already produced to congress in an effort to identify unique e-mails that had not been produced to the

congress. due to technological challenges, tigna created a script initially identified as many as 6,400 e-mails that appeared to not have been previously provided to congress. it is important to point out at each stage when we identified e-mails we informed the recipients of that information that it was early in the investigation and additional tech technical work needed to be done. we then manually compared the 6,400 e-mails previously produced to the e-mails previously produced by the congress, to the congress by the irs. we removed the obvious spam e-mails and additional duplicates we found during the manual process. at the conclusion of this review we determined that over 1,000 e-mails that were recovered by tigda 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

23,000 to 24,000 e-mails still missing. another potential source of e-mails i will highlight is decommissioned e-mail server. based on our review of this source, our agents identified 58 new e-mails not previously produced to congress. the final source that i will discuss is the backup tapes for the decommissioned e-mail server. as the i.g. 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 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 -- the eraser was done by the irs employees in martinsburg, west virginia on our about march 4th 2014 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 lois 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 eraser of the 422 tapes was done in furtherance of an effort to purposely destroy evidence or to conceal information from congress and law enforcement. sworn testimony and reviews of the involved irs employees e-mails indicate that the employees did not know about understand or follow the chief technology officer's may 2013 e-mail directive to halt the destruction of electronic media due to ongoing investigations. our investigation also revealed that the irs did not put forth an effort to locate and preserve the backup tapes. lastly, there is a remote

possibility as the i.g. 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 are also following up on a discrepancy in the count of hard drives that we hope to have resolved prior to finalizing a report of our investigation. chairman chaffetz, 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. and i'll recognize myself for five minutes. mr. camus, the irs had these e-mails. and you said they didn't purposely destroy them but what did they do with these e-mails? >> to the best we can determine through the investigation they just simply didn't look for those e-mails. so for the over 1,000 e-mails we found in 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 is 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 yes sir. >> is it fair to say that that's evidence? >> when we looked through our investigation e-mails that are responsive to a subpoena may or may not be evidence. it depends on the content of the e-mails. they were certainly responsive to your subpoena and your 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 the irs commissioner told us he was going to get everything 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 smidgen of evidence. what a coincidence? let me ask you about the potential electronic media backup that they could have.

what happened with the lerner loaner laptop? she had a loaner laptop. did they search for e-mails on that? >> there were actually ten loaner laptops that were 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 those laptops that were used for that purpose. we were unable to find one that was assigned to her. >> did the irs look and search there? >> i'm not aware that 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 in june of 2014. >> so the irs commissioner who assured us there was 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 her 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 backups there? her tapes? >> they did not. >> so you have a server seems like a logical thing to do go check that out but 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 initial set of backup tapes on july 1st roughly 15 days after we started our investigation. >> so you guys -- paint the picture for me. they're sitting around the table, hey we should probably go see if we can find these e-mails and it took you 15 days? that's it? >> that's it. >> what happened when you went up there to go find those tapes? >> we were escorted to the machine that makes the backups that uses the tapes and writes the e-mails to them.

and when they opened the machine that made the backups, they noted that nine of those 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 turned out to be blank. so then we had to go back and figure out of the 735 tapes which of those are the most likely to have contained 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-mails there. >> yes, sir. >> how many of these cages in places that they store these tapes are there throughout the country sdm country? how many of those are there? >> generally at one time they were located in many, many locations, but the irs is trying

to consolidate their e-mail processing made primarily to service centers. and martinsburg, west virginia is one of the service centers. >> so the one place where they would put the place is one place that the irs to go look and ask. my time has expired. i yield back and recognize the gentleman from maryland. >> to the degauzing you talked about that. now, 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. and they were degauzing tapes up until about june of 2013. >> now you mentioned a little earlier there was some type of directive that they did not know about. is that what you said? >> yes, sir, i did. >> so you're saying this was not something to obstruct our

investigation or block information intentionally from getting to us? >> the directive was issued by the irs chief technology officer. >> right. >> and in his directive he was advising his management team to stop destroying -- in essence stop destroying electronic backups and evidence. he issued that directive in may 2013. >> uh-huh. and you never answered my question though. >> i'm sorry. >> the people who actually did the degauzing, you're 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 they had any intent to do that. >> and you looked into that? >> yes, we did. >> and it would have been malpractice on your part almost if you didn't look into it, wouldn't it? >> that was a significant part of the investigation. >> well, 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 in my opening statement, it should concern all of us because we rely very heavily on the i.g.'s information. you repeatedly put out numbers prematurely without verification. and time and time again your numbers were just wrong. were wrong. in february of this year your office briefed this committee. and other committees in the senate and you reported recovering as many as 80,000 e-mails to and from ms. lerner. and february 11th the headline appeared in the press quote, senator ron johnson to irs why did i.g. find 80,000 lost e-mails, end of quote. mr. george 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.

and 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. and it was during the process of keeping congress informed 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 said it was

ongoing? >> precisely. we made it quite clear that they were at the outset. that there was a good chance many of these were duplicates, had already been turned over to congress and that it would take a process not just by us but also by the internal revenue service to help determine what had already been turned over. >> so just a few weeks later on february 26th you, mr. camus, testified before this committee that you and i quote found 32,774 unique e-mails that were unique e-mails backed up from lois lerner's e-mail box. and he added that you were still in the process of determining how many of these e-mails had already been produced to congress, is that right? >> that's correct. and i think i also said if any if there are any of those that turn out to be new we're still trying to determine that. yes, sir. >> so meanwhile the headlines continued. they continued. one of them reads, and i quote thousands of new e-mails found,

end of quote. then on june 16th about a week ago, your chief counsel sent a letter to this committee with yet another new number. and she wrote this, and 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 a thousand is that right? somebody talk to me. a thousand? >> over 1,000 is correct, sir from the backup tapes. >> so now we've gone from 80,000 to a thousand, is that right? >> that would be accurate. >> and so the -- you talked a bit earlier about 23000 still being out there possibly, is that right? >> that's correct. >> now, how do we know that number's accurate? we went from 80000 to 1,000 that's pretty steep drop.

wouldn't you agree? >> i would totally agree yes, sir. >> so where did that 23,000 come from? because i guarantee there's going to be a headline so we might as well try to get the facts to match up the headline. >> the 23,000 number was derived when my staff shortly after opening our investigation determined that the government operation security center or gsoc at the department of the treasury logs every single e-mail incident in or out of the irs.gov domain. we felt that was a critically important source of information to determine the total universe of e-mails. so we obtained that log and we compared it to what has already been produced to congress. that's how we came up with our estimate of the log activity compared to what has 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 mean why -- i think you already said it but the reason why you put these numbers out there is because you want to keep congress informed. but you see what it does, right? i mean, it really -- i mean, i understand what you're saying, but that's not how it's used. i mean, i know you've given with all these caveats and in red and gold and, you know bold print. but you see how it ends up in print? hello? >> no, i do. >> so why give any number? >> you may recall sir, because you were ranking member when the previous chairman was here -- >> oh 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 i.g. act. and while we strongly disagree with his interpretation of that provision, this was a way to try to draw some compromise because

we know of the intense interest of congress in this subject both by committees with direct authorization over the irs as well as general oversight of the irs. >> in fairness to you, is there a caveat that goes with that 23,000 that you're talking about? >> most definitely. >> talk about, tell us so we'll know when the headline is written we've got all of the caveat that goes with it. go ahead. >> sir, the 23000 to 24,000 estimate involves just simply e-mail headers, that's what the transaction logs can 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 checked it twice and that is a fair estimate of the e-mail activity that went through the irs.gov domain and has not yet been produced to congress. >> thank you very much,

gentlemen. of course, of course. >> i'm sensitive to the idea that we want to have as accurate information as we can possibly have, but let's remember why we're here. there was a preservation order in place. there was a subpoena in place. they've never complied with it. we've had testimony from the irs commissioner that we would get all this only to find out they'd been degauzing these 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. >> gentlemen -- >> sure. >> i'm so glad you said that. one of the things that i've always done in this committee -- oh, my god, 20 years since i've been on this committee, is make sure that when we're talking about employees and where there's an issue of their credibility whether it's a possibility that they're being accused, and i'm not saying it's

happened yet, of a crime i try to make sure that's clear. 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 the degauzing the destruction in west virginia and whatever, that there was nobody who did anything intentionally to hinder our investigation. i want to make sure that's clear. for no other purpose 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 degauzing machine. >> thank you very much. mr. chairman. i yield. >> we got thousands of irs employees in utah. they work hard. they're patriotic. and most of the irs employees are. but when the irs commissioner comes and says there's no targeting and the inspector general says there is targeting when mr. coskin comes here and

says we will provide you all the tapes and meanwhile they're degauzing 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. and so yeah, our focus is on mr. schollman and really does mystify why with all these orders in place a subpoena in place these things get destroyed. >> mr. chairman. >> is that fair? >> that's fair. my last comment, mr. chairman. and i appreciate this dialogue. is that 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. and as a matter of fact just yesterday you did it. and i appreciate that. i agree. 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. thank you very much. >> would the ranking member yield one more time? >> we need to keep -- we need to

move on. thank you. now recognize the gentleman from ohio. >> thank you mr. chairman. i want to walk through the timeline here real quick. may 10th 2013 lois lerner unprecedented goes to a bar association meeting here in town, three days before you're going to issue your report. >> correct. >> want to get ahead of it, get their spin on it. so right from the get-go the irs has not being transparent, not helping the american people get to the truth because she goes and lies and she says it's line agents in cincinnati may 10th 2013. 12 days later there is a preservation notice sent to people in the irs. so 12 days later may 22nd 2013, notice it says don't destroy any evidence, right? 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 they 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. right, mr. camus? >> that's correct. >> 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 sits right where you are, mr. camus, and tells this committee, we're going to get you every single e-mail lois lerner has sent. is that right? >> yes, sir. >> 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. so 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 more importantly 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 lois 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 lerner e-mail? might it be that guy? >> the management team is certainly a place to look. >> 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 clearly delineate step by step how this occurred, where the breakdowns were, 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 at this time. >> 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. but after a very thorough investigation, we have not uncovered any 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. >> thank you. now recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania, 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.

then 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. and i'm looking at the letter dated june 16 from your office. this is not from you. it's from gladys hernandez, your chief counsel. is she your chief counsel, mr. george? >> yes, she is. hello, gla gladys. how are you? 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. and there's no caveat. there's nothing in there that

says, oh, this could be fewer. you know, could be fewer than 6,400. there's no proviso 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. and 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. and it certainly doesn't say anything about that in gladys 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 as a staffer here, it was with the late congressman horn from california who admonished us. we never leaked information during the course of an investigation prior to a

hearing. i comported myself in that way. i made a request of staffers during the course of this during the course of this investigation to act likewise. they did not do so. i cannot control their behavior. secondly, this was a response to a request we received. in awe all candor this was a transmittal letter i hadn't seen before. 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 win wendell holmes haven't you? >> i went to harvard 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 that you're telling the truth. >> congressman -- >> i yield back, mr. chairman. >> recognize the gentleman from michigan, mr. wahlberg, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and 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 is 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 very least. and she chose not to share the truth with us. she didn't kick the football. she walked off the field. so 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. to 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 that the ctos e-mail notice to cease routine destruction of electronic records was actually followed by low-level employees? >> very -- there was very much confusion, and i'm not certain there was appropriate management oversight of the directive. >> 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 very thorough investigation of the matter. >> they know the law relative to the preservation notice. they should know it. >> i believe they do, and they'll get our full report. >> we don't know of reprimand they've taken. if these instructions would have been followed, 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 ms. learners 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. and then 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 did look 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 futile attempt. but they did not determine that the very backup tapes that would have contained the e-mails still existed and 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 they used to recover the e-mails, would you characterize the irs's efforts as extraordinary? >> i would not. >> the power to tax is the power to destroy. i yield back. >> thank the gentleman. recognize the gentleman from virginia, mr. connelly for five minutes.

>> i would remind my friend another quote from a distinguish holmes, tax is a price we pay for civilization. taxes aren't always bad things. >> would my friend yield back? >> real briefly. >> real 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. but thank you. 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. because if you're not pure, you have no credibility or business testifying about somebody at irs. you need to be punctual.

i heard mr. george say my goal is to be responsive to congress. your questions, mr. camus, we were informed were ready for delivery on march 27th. nine days late, but ready, is that correct? >> i diligently worked on the questions and 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. okay. i just found it interesting because 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 had 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? >> well, because 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 i've expressed this with chairman chaffetz. my mother had a severe stroke and is in an intensive care unit

for now 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 to the committee? 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 issues were addressed. the primary one was my personal family situation. >> again, i'm always sympathetic to someone's personal circumstances. >> i appreciate that, sir. thank you.

>> 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 is very troubling in terms of credibility. 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 avoid that. you should always have not only the appearance but the reality of 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. and you've indicated that your own answer to the investigation exonerated you, but you've

refused to provide that answer to the committee. another evasion. we're having a hearing, ironically, about whether irs was transparent, whether there was any attempt to prevent the release of relevant material requested by the committee while you yourself have been guilty of the same thing. you have not been transparent. you've refused to provide information. you've been unresponsive, for whatever reason. and you held up mr. camus' answers in the process, which at least could have partially satisfied the committee demand. i renew my request to you. you claim that 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? why wouldn't you share it? >> 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 that there is a vote on the floor. it's my intention to recognize mr. desjarlais for five minutes. then we'll have a recess. we won't reconvene before 10:45, sometime after that. a few minutes after the last vote, we will resume. we'll have to adjourn briefly.

but for now, let's recognize the gentleman from tennessee for five minutes. >> thank you. mr. george, how long has this investigation been ongoing? >> at least since -- well, it depends upon 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 june 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 now and we've 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 so long 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 that there's not a smidgen 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 has informed you that there is not a smidgen of corruption. does that make it difficult for you? >> i won't address the president's comments congressman, but i will say there's a drip, drip, drip here. with every new uncover ri of information whether it's from testimony or interviews to finding of backup tapes this extends the course of the investigation. so that is why this has been -- is still ongoing. >> there was a comment about the cost of the hearings, number of hearings. watergate had 250 hours of aired testimony gavel-to-gavel. we have not approached that. watergate in today's terms cost more than this.

we have an incident that's every bit if not more serious than watergate. it disheartens me that 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 will 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 wrongdoing? >> 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. so 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. but the first-line manager was a manager out of west virginia named charles stanton.

>> what was kate duval's role? >> kate duval was in charge of the e-mail production to the congress. >> okay. did you interview ms. duval? >> we did. >> and was she aware that there was a problem with the collections of the e-mails? >> yes, she was. >> and what was her response? >> well, they realized, because she 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 they are missing, that these have been destroyed? >> ms. duval, i understand, is no longer at the internal revenue service. at the conclusion of the investigation, the irs will get the report and 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, admittedly targeted conservative groups, they admitted wrongdoing, lois lerner and came here and sat in your chair and took the fifth didn't weigh to incriminate herself, do you agree with the president that there is not a smidge of krupg going on in the irs. >> it is difficult to agree with a broad statement at any time. our job in investigations is to root out corruption at the irs. so whether it is this matter or any other matter we take pride in conducting thorough investigations and if there is corruption we're determined to find it and root it out. >> all right. well i certainly appreciate the work you're doing and i know the american people appreciate the work that you're doing. this was an assault on democracy, the democratic process and the way things are

conducted and i yield back. >> committee will stand in recess we will reconvene no sooner than 10:45 but honestly probably going to be a little bit longer. we stand in recess. [ hearing in recess ]

the over site committee will come back to order. we were in the midst of the hearing for the irs and we appreciate the inspector generals being here today. there is a point of clarification mr. ca would like to state. >> when they asked for the name of the manager at the time the tapes were erased or destroyed, i share the name charles stanton. he wasn't the manager at the time. we're working on getting that name. we'll provide it for the record. stanton has actually been very

cooperative. >> thank you. we appreciate the clarification. we recognize the gentleman from south carolina, mr. gowdy for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. george, i want to start by encouraging you to take heart. when the other side makes attacks it is because they have neither the facts nor the law nor frankly logic so i know it is difficult for you to sit there and absorb add hominen attacks but that is the last vestage of folks who have nothing else left to argue. i'm going to ask a serious questions and mr. camous and mr. george either one can answer them. and i'm a simple man so i'll start simply. with respect to the irs investigation slash target 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 i.g. investigations. >> there were. >> and reportedly there was an on going investigation, although we've seen scant evidence of that. >> yes. and i would ask mr. cammous to answer that. >> there is an on going d.o.j. investigation. >> so you have subpoenas in place. request to preserve evidence in place, you have ongoing congressional investigations, you have ongoing i.g. investigations and you may very well have an ongoing d.o.j. investigation, all of which leads me to ask what does it mean do not destroy/wipe/reuse any of the existing back-up 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. >> oh, so it means exactly what it says. >> yes, sir. >> there is no hidden meaning? >> no, sir sir. >> even i can understand that sentence. don't do it. you can use fancy words if you want to but don't destroy, wipe, reuse, any of the existing back-up tapes. now was that done? >> yes, sir. >> was it done after any of the following were in place -- subpoenas, request to preserve ongoing congressional investigations, ongoing. >> g. investigations, or purported d.o.j. investigations? >> yes, sir, it was done on or br march 4th, 2014, well after the commencement of all of 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 accidentally. let's go ahead and rule that out. are we kind of talking about a misstroke on a keyboard is that what causes these things to disappear and be wiped? you just type 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 up tapes and place them into a machine turn the machine on to magnetically destroy and obliterated the data. >> it sounds like it would be hard to accidentally do that. >> that's correct. >> so we can rule out accident. that leaves negligence or intensional, willful, wanton. do you know whether it was sheer negligence incompetence or was it a higher level of scienter or mens rea. >> the two employees who

physically put the machines into the team are lower employees at the martinsberg computer center. they continued to erase media throughout the period of time and as a matter of fact they did not stop erasing media, including the 14 tapes, until june of 2014. when interviewed the employees said that our job is to put these pieces of plastic into that machine and magnetically obliterate them. we had no idea there was any type of preservation from the chief technology officer. >> what mr. koskinen in charge of the irs at the time? >> yes, sir. >> i want to ask you about another name. have you ever heard of the name kate duval? >> yes, sir. >> who is kate duval. because i think i've heard that name before too. >> she was the chief counsel representative, the irs counselor concerning the production issues to congress. she was the lawyer in charge of

making sure that counsel made production to congress. >> so she's in charge of making sure that e-mails and other matters get produced? >> yes, sir. >> is she still with the irs? >> she is not. i don't recall the date that she left but she is no longer -- >> do you know where she is now. >> i can get that information for you. >> i know where she is now. she's at the state. in charge of their e-mail productions. wow! i yield back. >> thank the gentleman. will now recognize the gentleman from kentucky mr. massey for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. i want to ask about the date that lois lerner's hard drive failed. you gave us more specificity and i appreciate that. when did it fail. >> on a saturday between 5:00 and 7:00 p.m. >> so this hard drive failed

veteranly -- do you know where it was when it failed. >> we believe the laptop was in her office at the time 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 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 definitively say there was any computer activity on that computer on july -- or i'm sorry, june 11th, 2013 -- or 2011 when it was destroyed. >> here is what i find interesting, on june 3rd the chairman of ways and means sends a letter to the commissioner of

the irs, doug shullman. are you familiar with that letter? june 3rd briefly says as chairman of the committee of ways and means sent by mr. camp, the chairman at the time he was concerned that the irs appears to have selectively targeted certain taxpayers who engage in political speech. this threatens political speech and cast doubt on the irs credibility. he sent that on june 3rd which i looked it up on a calendar, a friday. so it is likely they didn't receive it at the irs until monday. which would have been june -- what would that make it -- 6th? so june 6th they received this letter and her hard drive magically fails on its own in her office alone five days later. before we thought there was