tax administration. utmost confidence in the career professionals. i know they will follow the facts wherever they lead and apply the law to the facts. i understand thank yo that you e investigation,he in order to protect the investigation, we disclose information about the investigation while it remains stand. and republicanic administrations, which is intended to protect the and independence of the criminal justice process as well as the interest of third parties. can, however, tell you that the investigation includes of thethe circumstances from lois lerner's

computer. produced documents related to the limited by criminaln attorneys with lois lerner who is head of the division at the i.r.s. we've taken the step of making available as fact witnesses, two prosecutors who explained with miss. lerner. following theve supreme court's decision in the versus the united f.c.c. meeting, ite of the became clear it would be difficult to bring criminal this area a no criminal investigations were

referred to the department of and no by the i.r.s. investigation was opened by the integrity session as a result of the meeting. it was both asked by the senate fromng and in a letter senator and the white house if submitted mechanism to the white house. out to miss. lerner occur. follow-up did not these two instances show that integrityin the section were fulfilling their as law enforcement

officials. were ensuring that the department remained vigilant in its enforcement of those laws. as we've explained to the committee previously, in 2010, in conjunction with the meeting i previously described the provided the f.b.i. with disks that we understood at the public contain only portions of file returns of tax organizations. as we've indicated to the letters in the committee, the that thesed us analyst reviewed the disks and them.thing with to the best of our knowledge, any were not used for investigative purpose. we provided you with copies of june 2, 2014. when it remained our diskstanding that the provided only public available information.

shortly there after, the f.b.i. notified the department the disks cliended a small amount of information protected by section promptly notified the committee by letter on june 4, 2014. provided our copies of the disks to the i.r.s. and that the committee do the same. in order for us to provide you with the best information, including the fact they were not any by the f.b.i. for investigative purpose, we have written the director of the answered questions about them from chairman jordan june 11 of this year. committee's the interest in this matter. we share that interest and thorough and analysis of the targeting by the i.r.s. frustratedw you are by the fact that i cannot disclose specifics about the

investigation, i do pledge to you, that when our investigation we will provide congress with detailed information about the facts that we uncovered and the conclusions reached in this matter. thank you, mr. chairman. i will now be happen to answer you questions. >> thank you the gentleman from recognized. >> we learned in congress on 2014, that two years e-mails lois lerner's were missing. when did the justice department that fact? >> we learned about it in the press accounts following the i.r.s.'s notification to congress. >> so you actually read about it press. so nobody in the i.r.s. ever went to the justice department knowing you conductedded the investigation that some evidence be destroyed?

>> not before the 13th of june. >> you said in your testimony that you share the interest and conducting a complete investigation in the allegations i.r.s., why by the rhode thatn't you have known these e-mails were missing? did you simply not seek to ofain those in the course the investigation or did the i.r.s. not provide documents that the justice department requested? >> again, it is difficult to get of thee details investigation but there is a number of different sources of i.r.s. in the there are lots of recipients and and we were looking at many different forms and sources not becomeand it did therent based on that were any missing e-mails. >> you are investigating a that agencyntity, has a duty once they are under

to preserven evidence, krejt? >> that is correct. to producee a duty those documents, correct? >> correct. head isgency responsible to make sure the complies with the investigation, right? >> i'm sure there are people further down that do the work. >> if you're investigating an entity and there is evidence that is destroyed and agency knows they are under investigation, don't they have a report that to the justice department so that you the evidence has gone missing? >> we would like to know that information. it depends on when they learn of it and it is information we have.like to >> let me ask you this, if you're in court and you make a evensentation to a judge, if it is in good faith, and you

representation is actually incorrect, you have duty as an attorney and member of the bar to go back to the them of theform mistake and correct the record, is that right? correct.s a do you think as you look in congressional investigation, if we have someone heading an anncy or involved with an agency and they provide information to us. iser that information determined to be incorrect, do they have a duty toy to congress record?ct the >> yes. >> there was a letter, we sent a subpoena and we received a .esponse in that, the department's aretion is saying there certain items that we requested

that the department is not going produce. is that accurate? >> that is correct. cited wasson for that confidentiality interests. is notto clarify, producing the documents, is the reason for that, is the asserting executive privilege in this matter? was anon't believe there executiveof privilege. decades,ally over those are not produced because are law enforcement sensitive items. >> my final question would be, congress held lois lerner contempt almost nine weeks ago. federal law requires when that attorneyhat the u.s. for the district of columbia take that to a grand jury. your understanding that u.s.hat is a duty that the

attorney must take that before a grand jury? laws understanding of the that it does not strip the u.s. attorney of the normal u.s.etion that the attorney has. he proceeds with the cases he believes to do so. >> so you're saying that actually, even though angressman dated a duty, prosecutor will be esirmly able that language by exercising discretion? >> i believe there are aspects that give any prosecutor discretion on how to run a case how to review a matter. i understand this matter is under review. it has been presented to the grand jury, that is information you can't disclose. understand that. my time is up. maybe we'll follow up on that. back.d

>> unfortunately, the republicans on this committee accused your committee of constructing with the committee i.r.s.spiring with the i. let me ask you directly, are any acquisitions true? not., that are "elicit registry" of taxpayer information to prosecute conservative organizations. their claim is based on the fact in 2010, the i.r.s.

provided 21 computer discs with annual tax returns or form 990's with taxnizations exempt status. according to your letter, these discs contain the forms of all groups that were filed between october 1,2007 and 2010 "regardless of political affiliation." is that correct? >> that is my understanding but myself.ot seen the list my understanding is it was us as public information. >> based upon your knowledge, so not just conservative organizations. not mythat is understanding. >> the vast majority of this accessible to the public. this public information is the what the i.r.s.

guidestart.org. is that right, to your knowledge? received the discs it was represented to us that it public information. >> so these forms were provided in 2010 but earlier this year, more than three years later, you a limited amount of confidential taxpayer information was stored on those correct? that >> that is correct. ofthis affected only 33 12,000 forms on those discs, less 1%. is that your understanding? iti don't know how much specifically was. >> do you have any reason to error wasis intentional? >> i have no reason to believe that other than that it was just a small amount in what was represented to us.

>> finally, to me, the most important point here is that these discs were never reviewed. is that right to your knowledge? >> that's correct. other than the index, basically the first page of it, they were never reviewed and never used. >> deputy attorney general cole, to conclude, i hear having dealt with the justice department so many years and dealt with the justice department so many times, some of the very best and brightest citizens go into that department, many of them could make a lot more money doing other things, but they decide that they are going to give their life to what i call feed their souls and make a difference for people. and then, just the idea to hear that the justice department is

accused of criminal activity -- the very department that has done so much to make sure that our laws are upheld -- i mean, it's very upsetting to me. i would like to give you an opportunity, since you represent so many of these wonderful people who have decided to give their careers to us, the idea that they are working hard, but then they give you these accusations. i want to know your reaction to that. >> well, ranking member, i represent all of them. the career people we have at the department of justice are really some of the best and most honest lawyers i have ever seen. the amount of integrity that is there is really quite outstanding. you are right -- they do sacrifice a great deal of money to work there. they work there because they

feel it is important to go after the pursuit of justice. they work to try to find out what the facts are, what the law is, apply the facts to the law, and let the chips fall where they may. there is no politics involved with all of these career people, and it's really impressive to see the work that they do and the results that the justice department is able to bring about and the credibility that the justice department has because of the wonderful work of the career lawyers that we have. >> it is my understanding that if you will find that the crash of ms. lerner's computer had any criminal elements in it, you would be looking into that and addressing it as you would any other criminal case, is that correct? >> that's what we do in everything. we look to determine if there are any criminal violations of any federal laws, and if there are, we act appropriately. that's the purpose of the justice department -- to find out what's going on, what the truth is, and to take action. >> thank you very much.

>> is it true that richard pilgrim met with lois lerner back in 2010? >> yes, it is. >> is it true that he got the information -- this 1.1 million pages of information -- in the format that he ask for it? >> i think there was a request of several different forms it could come in, as i understand it, and we were asked to pick which one the fbi would prefer. >> lois lerner said, "i'm getting you the disc we spoke about. does the fbi have a format preference?" he said raw format was best because they could put in into their systems like excel. you guys asked for specific information -- that's right? you guys asked for this data? >> am not sure. i have not seen an e-mail specifically asking for it.

>> sure looks like you asked for it. and then you get the data, right? >> my understanding is that we did get the data, that the requests were made before the meeting and that the data was delivered -- >> if it is publicly available information, why did you ask the irs for it, and why did you have to meet with lois lerner to get a? >> i don't have the answer to that right now. >> that is an important point. we would like an answer for it. you're the one who has said several times its public information, and yet you had to go to lois lerner and the irs and get it in the format you wanted, and mr. cummings says that's no big deal, and you had it for four years? >> the discs were in the possession of the fbi for -- >> 21 discs? one .1 million pages? >> i think that's correct. >> most importantly, it did contain 6103 information, correct -- >> we learned about that -- >> i did not learn about that --

-- i did not ask when you learned about it. i asked if it contained it. mr. cummings just at this is no big deal, but it is. the justice department asked for information you said was public information, but you go to lois lerner to get it. you say it is available publicly, but you do not get it publicly. you go get it from the irs, and the contents confidential taxpayer donor information. all those are facts, correct? >> they are not necessarily facts that are all linked together, mr. chairman. >> they are all in the database, correct? the irs told us it was confidential. i did not make that up. the irs told us there was confidential information in there. >> there was no request at the time. i'm not even sure if the justice department requested the information or the irs offered it. >> when you get it in the format you asked for, sure looks like you asked for it. >> i'm not sure how the actual idea of providing that information to the justice department came up, but it was provided after the meeting.

>> let's go to your testimony. your written testimony. you say on page two of the written testimony that there was a separate contact between this same lawyer and ms. lerner and 2013 in response to the comments in a senate hearing looking at ways to bring a false statement against the very groups targeted by the irs. follow where imad? >> it has nothing to do with the groups targeted by the irs. that is not correct. whether or not false statement groups could be brought -- >> they are the same groups. trust me. ms. lerner indicated that someone else with the iris would follow-up with succession, but that follow-up did not occur. why did that follow-up not occur? >> i don't know. >> let me give you a reason why i think it might not have occurred. because this correspondence,

this meeting took place on may 8 2013. you know what happened two days later? >> yes, i do. >> what happened two days later? >> ms. lerner gave a speech at an aba conference and talked about the issue. >> where she explained to the whole world that the irs was caught with her hand in the cookie jar and were targeting these groups. that's why the follow-up did not occur. two days before, the very lawyer who met with lois lerner in 2010 got the database in the format they want it, two days before ms. -- jump ahead three years later, two days before ms. lerner goes public, he's meeting with her again saying follow-up will take place, but it does not take place because ms. lerner goes public and says, "you know what? targeting did in fact happen. she tried to spin this in a way that blames good public service to good public services in cincinnati, which unit was false, and it's no big deal that you had all this information? give me a break. last question before i go to the next member.

this committee was told just a week ago that it was known in april of this year that a substantial portion of lois lerner's e-mails were lost, and he waited two months to tell us, and he waited even longer to tell you. if a private citizen does something like that under investigation, find out they have lost important documents and does not tell someone, that's a problem. is it a big deal to you? it's a big deal to the justice department that the head of the internal revenue service waited two months to tell the united states congress, two months to tell the american people, and most important, two months to tell the fbi and justice department that they have lost lois lerner's e-mails. >> this is matter were obviously we would like to know about the loss of the e-mails -- >> i'm asking if it was a big deal. circumstances were he knew in april.

i asked why he did not tell us, why he waited two months. >> i would like to know all the circumstances from him as to why there was the two-month wait -- >> i would like to know as well. >> before i answer whether it was a big deal. >> all right, the gentlelady from illinois. >> thank you. i believe that in his testimony, he actually -- the response to why there was a two-month wait was that he was informed and then for the next two months, they were attempting to recover the lost e-mails from other host computers where those e-mails were located, so that just because you lose the e-mails from ms. lerner's hard drive, where -- they from vendor, that they would exist in the to recipients. i believe over 80 other host computers where there were looking. that is part of the delay, but i

would like to know also the full extent of what was going on as well. deputy general cole, as i'm sure you are aware, the nature of the justice department investigation into irs practices regarding tax-exempt applications has been subject to lengthy discussions before various congressional committees. despite unsubstantiated allegations that the justice department has prematurely closed its investigation for political reasons, attorney general holder has repeatedly confirmed before both the house and senate judiciary committees that the justice department and fbi are still actively investigating this matter. on january 29, 20 14, the attorney general testified that the matter "is presently being investigated." interviews being done, analysis being conducted. several months later, the attorney general further testified before the house judiciary committee and confirmed that the department of

investigation was still an ongoing matter that the justice department is actually pursuing. deputy attorney general, can you confirm that the department still actively investigating irs practices surrounding tax-exempt applications? >> this is still an ongoing investigation. that's correct. >> thank you. accusations that the department has prematurely closed investigations are false. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> some have alto -- also limited the length of time this investigation has span. is it uncommon for him to >> investigations such as this one to take a substantial amount of time to complete? >> broke as a prosecutor and defense attorney, this is not an unusual amount of time for an investigation like this. >> thank you. is there anything unusual or troublesome about the length of time the department irs investigation is taking? you would expect another investigation of similar complexity to take a similar amount of time? >> this is normal, yes.

>> can you comment on reports that the justice department has decided not to bring charges against irs officials? >> no decisions have been made in this case. >> can you confirm no decision has been made yet about whether to criminally charge anyone in doj's ongoing investigation? i know you said that, but because it references the fact that the decision is still -- the investigation is still ongoing. >> there have been no decisions made as of right now. >> so there could potentially still be criminal charges if you were to discussions -- discover some cause? >> the whole range of options is open. >> i thank you for your cooperation, and i want to give you a chance to respond to some of the allegations come -- of whether the justice department worked with the irs to compile their database for illicit and comprehensive registry by law enforcement officials. was this something that was a collusion between the justice department and the irs? >> no, it was not.

>> did the doj or irs use this registry for the potential prosecution of nonprofits? >> we did not. as a matter of fact, we did not use it for any purpose. >> in a letter on june 2014, it was said that a special prosecutor is needed for targeting. do you support that? >> i do not. i do not think what is necessary here. -- i do not think one is necessary here. >> i'm going to give you time to respond to the accusations on how the doj is conducting the investigation and these allegations that you are colluding, delaying, lying. i only have 30 seconds, which is not a lot of time, but go ahead. >> short of saying we are not doing that, this is the same thing -- we are not talking about what we are doing in investigations either way.

if my answers would help us or hurt us, we are not talking about what we do in investigations. that's just how we proceed in investigations for a lot of very good reasons. >> name some of the good reasons why you would do that in general. >> first of all, you do not want people to prejudge when not all the facts are in. you want to make sure that you gather all the facts that are available so you have a complete and full record on which to make the determinations. you want to protect people's privacy because many times, people will provide us information, and you do not want to start going out and telling everybody who is talking to us, who is not talking to us. you do not want to have some witnesses infected by what other witnesses had said so that you can get the pure statements from each type of witness. some people, you may just want to make sure they are protected because there are allegations about them that turned out not to be true, and it is not fair for this to be published. you also just want to make sure that everything is done with fairness and thoroughness, and

you want to make sure that you have the ability to do that without the interference and glare of a public spotlight. that's not the way investigations are done well. >> thank you. >> would that include the president of the united states prejudging the outcome of the case when he said there was not a smidgen of corruption? talking about you did not wanting -- not want anyone saying anything, but the head of the executive branch prejudge is the entire investigation on a nationally televised interview. >> i'm talking about what the department of justice does -- >> you're talking that doing a good investigation, getting to the truth, and you do not want certain witnesses in certain people talking about it. i would think that would include the highest-ranking official in the country. >> mr. chairman, if i may, we do not want the justice department -- the justice department does not talk about the investigation. we are the ones who know what the facts are and the fact that we are gathering. lots of people have talked about the investigation on both sides. they are free to do that. that is part -- part of their

first amendment right. we do not do that. >> your boss is eric holder, and his boss is the president of the united. that's a completely different category than members of congress or a private citizen talking about it. you just went through a whole list of reasons why you cannot tell us what you are doing and cannot talk about who is involved in the case, but somehow we bring up the president, no big deal. -- the gentleman from arizona is recognized. >> i assume you are familiar with the portion of the code of federal regulations dealing with the prohibition of disqualification arriving from personal political relationships with regard to a criminal investigation, correct? >> yes. >> you surely understand that it explicitly states, "no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political

relationship with any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution or any person or organization which has a specific and substantial interest that could be directly affected by the investigation" -- do you understand that? >> yes, that is what it says. >> you probably also understand there is a carveout section that states employee assigned to or participating in a criminal investigation or prosecution who believes his participation may be prohibited shall report the matter and all attendant facts and circumstances to a at the level of section chief or the equivalent or higher. if a supervisor determines that a personal or political relationship exists, he shall relieve that employee from participation in less he determines further in writing after full consideration that the relationship will not have the effect of rendering the employee services less than fully impartial and professionally, and employee

participation would not create an appearance likely to affect public perception of the integrity -- you understand all the supplies to the department of justice, correct? >> yes, it does. this is the regulation and the guidance. >> do you believe the attorney of the department of civil rights division and major contributor to president obama campaign and democratic national campaign means the standard set forth in the code? >> you have to look at section c of that regulation, which defines those terms, and it defines a political relationship as close identification with an elected official, a candidate, whether or not successful, for elective public office or a political party or campaign organization arising from service as a principal advisor thereto or principal official thereof. >> would you not say a principal advisor is someone who contributes to that party? >> know, an adviser would not be

a person who makes a contribution. >> really? do you also believe that she should also have brought this forward as a conflict of interest? >> i believe that, as the definition states, she did not fall within the political relationship under the definition. >> let me ask you a question -- are you familiar with the impeachment of richard nixon? >> i am. >> article to exhibit one was the irs. in the public mindset, the power to tax is the power to destroy, so even more public scrutiny should be applied, would you not agree? >> we are applying a great deal of scrutiny. >> again, the same type of code should be very explicit in making sure that it is squeaky clean in regards to the perceptions of the public. >> i agree, and she did not meet the definition. >> sidestepping, i would say. i'm not an attorney, but i am a dentist. it is just the implication of that aspect in a public like

main street america which shows that there was a conflict of interest. from that 10 point, the public is the one we should be adhering to making sure it's a fair and equitable evaluation. i think that does not only to you, but also mrs. bostrom and in regards to her concept to the public, and i think they owe that further detail. would you not agree? >> i think you have to go through the regulations. you have to apply the law to the matter, and the law in this matter has a clear definition of what is meant by the terms, and those terms did not encompass her. >> i see. i want to go back to some of the comments you made. the president made a comment that there is not a smidgen of opportunity there's corruption in this case. would you agree with that? >> this investigation is open -- >> i'm going to cut you off there because how would you define "a smidgen?" small? >> congressman --

>> smidgen, small -- is the big? is it small? >> i'm not sure the context the president meant. >> you were watching the super bowl? you did hear that. you are a literate person. a smidgen would be what? >> a smidgen is small. >> in this case, there's not an opportunity for something to be wrong and corrupt it in this aspect in your professional judgment? >> i'm not going to comment on the findings we have made so far and the fact we have gathered in this investigation. we do not do that. if somebody else wants to render an opinion -- >> i'm going to cut you off right there. you made a comment of the ranking member that these individuals that work as criminal attorneys are fantastic people. are they human? >> of course they are. >> so they do make mistakes? >> of course they do. >> thank you very much. >> the german from pennsylvania is recognized. >> thank you for being here

today. i do hope we can use this opportunity to lay to rest some of the more outrageous allegations that have been circulating about the department of justice. chairman issa and chairman jordan's letter to attorney general holder noted they were "shocked to learn" that the justice department and irs had a meeting attended by lois lerner in early october 2010 to discuss the criminal enforcement of campaign finance laws. in that letter, they claimed that testimony about the october 2010 meeting "reveals" that the justice department contributed to the political pressure on the irs to "fix the problem" posed by the citizens united decision.

do you have any reason to believe that the october 2010 meeting between irs and doj representatives was improper in some fashion? >> no, i do not. >> i also wanted to say during the transcribed interviews, committee staff asked about that october 2010 meeting. the chief of doj's public integrity section had the following exchange with committee staff -- "at the october 8, 2010, meeting him and did you or anyone else at the department of justice suggested irs employees that they should fix the problem posed by citizens united decisions?" answer -- no. "in your opinion, does the citizens united decision pose a problem?"

the answer was -- "my job is to enforce the law. citizens united is the law of the land. that was the answer that was given. do you agree that citizens united is the law of the land and that it is doj's role and responsibility to enforce that law? >> yes, it is, and to enforce all the other laws that are involved in that area. >> all right. the director of the election crimes branch of the doj's public integrity section was asked about citizens united during his interview. in response, he said the following -- "citizens united is not a problem. it is the law, so no, i am not aware of any efforts or part of any effort to fix a problem from citizens united. i am aware that it changed the

law, though, and that law enforcement reaction to such changes must be vigilant about the opportunities they present for lawbreaking." my question for you, deputy attorney general cole -- are you aware by any attempt of the justice department to "fix" a problem posed by citizens united? >> i'm not aware of any such effort. there was no problem, particularly. that was the law. >> now the statements from doj witnesses and the deputy attorney general himself have directly refuted the chairman's allegation that doj contributed to the political pressure on the irs to fix the problem posed by the citizens united decision, i want to say i hope this claim is put to rest once and for all. it's time to stop creating fake scandals and start focusing on conducting real oversight, which

is the charge of this committee, and i yield back. >> i would ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a statement made by ms. lerner at a speech eight days after the meeting mr. cartwright just referenced at duke university in 2010 where ms. lerner said, "everybody is screaming at us right now fix it now before the election." forgot what mr. cartwright said, but we do know ms. lerner gave a speech eight days after that meeting and said everybody is asking me to fix it. >> i thank the chair. since we are putting stuff in the record, i would ask unanimous consent that the full transcript of the staff interview with the director of the election branch of doj -- >> i object. mr. chairman, is not the policy of this committee to put

transcripts in the entirety out. i respect the gentleman's right to take any and all pertinent areas, but putting questions and answers of transcripts has proven to be used to coach witnesses, and the coaching of witnesses later on i'm sure mr. cole would tell you is not productive in an investigation. >> mr. chairman, i have a second unanimous consent request. since we do not want to cherry pick around here, i was simply trying to avoid that because i know that the committee chair frowns on that. that this may 29, 2014 interview with the chief of doj's public integrity section also be entered into the record. >> again, i object and lets the gentle man can cite appropriate items -- he is certainly welcome to. but the policy of this chair is that it is destructive to ongoing investigations to do entire transcript and for the most part has been avoided. >> mr. chairman, then i will

cite two sections of the interview that i hope the chairman would not be -- would not object to being in it into the record at this time. >> i'm afraid i have to read them because otherwise you'll not know. >> the director said, "since i join the public integrity section, i have never encountered politically motivated decisions. to the contrary, it's been my consistent experience the section is active on a strictly nonpartisan basis and all of its decisions and actions. in my experience, politics plays no role in our work as prosecutors." the second one, mr. chairman, and then i will cease -- on may 29, john kennedy's birthday this year, the chief of doj's public integrity section explained to us that, "since i have been

chief of the section, i have never encountered, nor will i tolerate any politically motivated decisions. politics does not and cannot play a role in our work as prosecutors." i thank the chair. >> i thank the gentleman. we will take two more before we have a couple of votes on the floor. i'm going to get the two more because we have two votes. >> would you agree that it would be wrong to continue an investigation for any length of time if there is not a smidgen of evidence of wrongdoing? >> if you have completed the investigation and you have satisfied yourself that there is no wrongdoing in the investigation then the investigation is done. >> that was not my question, mr. cole.

if you begin an investigation and you go through weeks, months, basically now one year, and you do not have a smidgen of evidence of a crime, is it appropriate to continue spending taxpayer dollars? >> it depends whether or not you think there is a chance you will find additional evidence of crime. >> you have an ongoing investigation that has been going on now for one year. you have confirmed an ongoing investigation. it is appropriate to say that your answer is that there are either has to be evidence of crime or a belief by your investigators that there is, in fact, a crime that has been committed that you're investigating. isn't that correct? >> there has to believe that there is still evidence necessary to be looked at to determine whether or not a criminal statute has been violated. >> mr. cole, i really appreciate your dodging on behalf of the koran, but my question needs to be answered. you cannot -- dodging on behalf of the crime. that would be a frivolous

investigation at some point, wouldn't it? you continue looking into crimes for years of innocent people when there is not a smidgen of evidence. you continue a criminal investigation with months or years without any evidence just because in the long run you think it might happen? that is a yes or no. do you do that? i outlined a rather repugnant comment that has been made about this chair and this committee that we are continuing to investigate wrongdoing in cincinnati and in washington led by lois lerner. we continue to investigate

because we believe and we have referred to you criminal allegations. we are not talking about whether or not you will get a successful prosecution or conviction. we understand that all of that, sometimes you go for years and you never get -- like organized crime, you do not necessarily get a conviction, but would you continue investigating as you have if you did not have, if your investigators did not have a belief that a wrong doing had occurred for which you were trying to build a case. please, that is yes or no. >> mr. chairman, unfortunately it is not quite yes or no. >> oh, yes it is. we will continue to have this conversation. would you continue to take people's time and money, force them to get attorneys, investigate, subpoena, interview? would you do that if you did not have a belief that there was a possibility of a crime and one you thought worth investigating? >> can i give you my answer? >> you can give a yes or no and

then further explain. your boss, the attorney general, is a bad witness. please do not be a bad witness. would you continue to investigate people without a smidgen of evidence? would you continue to spend taxpayer dollars when in fact there was no reason to believe that a crime had been committed? >> sometimes you investigate to ensure you have evidence that one was not committed. >> mr. cole, that means you could be spending the time and money to prove that lois lerner is innocent and this committee was wrong and accusing her. you could be doing that. >> we are not trying to prove anything. >> i'm trying to find out what the facts are and determine whether or not --

>> i issued you a lawful, constitutionally mandated subpoena. i issued a subpoena to the attorney general. we asked for all documents and communication between lois lerner and apartments of the -- employees of the department of justice. you say we also have not included documents including internal liberations about law enforcement matters -- fine -- in which we have substantial confidential interest as we believe that this closers would chill exchange of interviews that are important to sound decision-making. you recognize those words? the man behind you shaking his head yes signed the letter. >> that is standard procedure. >> the standard policy in the department of justice is you don't give us the queue and day of your interviews because it could have a chilling effect -- give us the a&a's of your interviews because it could have a chilling effect. >> that is correct.

>> however, when we subpoena the documents between the department of justice and lois lerner we got one tranche. that tranche shows that, in fact, just this one to the goods on lots of people including information that was not publicly available, taxpayer information, or lois lerner sent that information in the department of justice did not want it. when we subpoenaed all the information was there any reason why you would not and have not delivered to us all of those documents? that is our investigation of you, you being the department of justice in addition to lois lerner since there obviously was a relationship there in which documents inappropriate to be sent were sent? >> i would have to go back and look. there's a difference between documents created at the time and documents that have been created in determining how to

respond, as is described in the letter. i don't know which documents are being withheld, so we would have to look to see what they are. >> would you commit today and the case of documents that would have been exchanges between lois lerner or documents that lois lerner may have asked to be sent back-and-forth, communications during those periods of time before you were debating to give us information or not, but the documents related to or activities and the irs activities, will you agree either to give us all the documents related to correspondence back and forth between the irs and anyone at the department of justice in this time that may have been related to the ongoing investigation, 501(c)(3), 501(c)(4)'s and so one or give us a privileged log understanding as an attorney that one or the other is due to us? >> we will commit to give you the documents are an indication

of what types of documents we are not providing you as we have done in the past so you that you will understand. >> will you do it in the form of a privileged log so it has enough specificity to make the claim of why there is a specific privilege not a blanket? >> my understanding is we have not given privilege logs in the past and we have seen a reason to start that now that we will give you information to allow you a to understand the nation of the -- the nature of the documents not being provided. >> my understanding is her boss has been held in contempt because he refused to give us documents related to laws being broken by lying to congress and the people who knew about it for 10 months and those internal documents have yet to be produced despite the fact that it is before the court two years later. i don't care about your history. i don't care about anything except the constitution. when the discussion was going on about citizens united, i almost

interrupted for one reason. it's not about the law. citizens united is a constitutional decision. it is not a law that can be fixed. you cannot fix a constitutional decision. the constitution was a decision that the president objected to. it was the one he truly failed to have decorum as well as the u.s. house of representatives when he reprimanded the supreme court for their decision in citizens united and lois lerner thought and said publicly that they want us to fix it. lois lerner went about trying to fix it by going after conservative groups for what they believed. working with the department of justice to try to get audits and further prosecutions of people who essentially were conservatives asserting their constitutional free-speech.

mr. cole, i hope that you would never investigate lois lerner or the crimes related to this if there was not a smidgen of evidence. i would hope that you were doing it because, in fact, as we know on this committee crimes were committed, regulations violated, rules broken, and america can's constitutional rights were violated by lois lerner and perhaps those around her. i would hope that's the reason your investigation is ongoing and i look forward to this privilege logs. >> the gentleman from nevada is recognized -- we're going to come back. we have three minutes and 40 seconds left. >> i ask unanimous consent under rule nine that the minority be given equal time based on the fact that the chairman went over an additional five minutes. >> i have been very lenient with the time and i would happy to let you go over if you want. go right ahead. >> thank you. thank you, mr. general, for being here today.

i want to start by, again, just reiterating the fact that the chairman asked at the beginning of this hearing for you to swear under oath that you were telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth before this committee. throughout the questioning, you have indicated that this investigation is ongoing by the department of justice. is that correct? >> correct. >> is there any reason for this committee or millions of americans to believe that is not the case or to believe otherwise? >> there is no reason. >> after the press report was released in january 2014, has attorney general holder explicitly stated to the public that the investigation is ongoing? >> i believe he has. >> thank you. i want to bring to the committee's attention the fact, again, that many of us agree that there was absolutely wrong

doing by the irs in the handling of the tax exempt status and the process was unacceptable and that people do need to be held accountable. the president famously referred to the irs mishandling of these applications on super bowl sunday as consisting of "bonehead decisions." the president went further and said there was "not even a smidgen of corruption." much has been made of the president's statements. chairman goodlatte asked during june 11, 2014, judiciary hearing, "how can we trust that this investigation is being carried out when the president claimed no corruption occurred?" during the same hearing, chairman goodlatte asked fbi director, "can you explain why

there is an investigation given that the president said there was not even a smidgen of corruption?" the director responds, "i mean no disrespect, but i don't care about anyone's characterization of it. i care and my troops care only about the facts. there's an investigation because there was a reasonable basis to believe that crimes may have been committed and so we are conducting that investigation." deputy attorney general cole, do you agree with the assessment that outside characterizations, even by the president, have no bearing on a particular investigation? >> that's correct. people don't know what it is that we know. we do our job to try to lock out whatever people say on the outside. >> is it accurate to say that the department does not take direction from the president on how to conduct ongoing investigation?

>> we do not. that is a very specific line that is drawn. >> i understand we have less than one minute. i don't know whether you're coming back -- are you coming back? can we resume this questioning? if you don't mind? we would like to be able to vote. >> does that make sense? i just want to make sure we get answers. >> 300 people have not voted. >> i'm not going to be one of them. >> i'm going to let him finish. >> i will ask one more question. one quick question before i go so i reserve my time until we return. >> you will be given your full whatever you had left. we will recess but before we do, is the department of justice, are they investigating why they waited two months to disclose the loss of lois lerner's

e-mails? >> i don't know if men specifically what we are investigating. >> i'm asking you specifically that if you will look at the fact that the head of targeting of conservative groups did not tell us and did not tell you for two months? will you look at that fact? >> i think that is whether the inspector general refers that to us or not. this is a scenario that we will probably want to satisfy. >> what does the inspector general have to do with it? it's certainly a problem. the american people think it's a problem. i would hope the justice department would think it's a problem. why would you not look into the two month lag? >> we would have the potential if there is a potential criminal violation. we do not just investigate for no reason. there has to be some sort of basis or thought that it might implicate a federal criminal statute. we would have to look at that first.

>> all right. we will resume. we will take a recess. we will be back in probably 30 minutes. thank you. we stand in recess. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> committee will be in order. the gentleman from nevada is recognized for the remainder of his time. i think he was approximately three minutes or so. i will give you a few extra. how about that? the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. attorney general, thank you for continuing to be with us. as i was concluding my questions before we recessed, i was asking

about the fact that regardless of statements made by outside groups or characterizations that the department of justice approaches its investigations in fair, impartial, uninfluenced ways. if you could just answer for the record whether it is the case to say that the department does not take direction from the president on how to conduct ongoing investigations. >> we do not take any direction from the president. that is a time-honored restriction and a barrier put in between the department of justice and the white house. it is independent in its investigation and that is honored very scrupulously. i think director komi put it very well. we investigate to find out what

the true facts are. that is what we do. no more, no less. >> as the president's statements in any way, the statement that there was "not a smidgen of corruption or influence" influenced the department in any way? >> it has not. >> i wish this committee would approach our oversight function in the way that the department of justice is approaching its investigation which is to do so fairly, impartially, without prejudging the facts. the attorney general here today has indicated that is definitely the approach that they take. we want the facts as well. there are those of us who believe that there was

wrongdoing and that there should be a count ability -- there should be accountability. we just do not believe that we should prejudge the circumstances before all of the facts get out. despite the approach by others. i would like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record opening statements from two department of justice employees who were interviewed in the course of the irs investigation. >> wait, wait. opening statements, you said? >> the chief of public integrity section in the director of the private branch. >> what are you asking? >> to enter their statements -- >> is it the full transcript? if so, i would object. >> it is not. i want to say for the record the republican armed services chairman just released 100% of the transcripts from benghazi.

i'm not clear from the standard being used by this chair -- >> we're going to try to move. i think i'm going to object. i will take a look at it afterwards. >> can i ask a point of order as to the reason? >> you need unanimous consent. >> what rule? >> i want to try to move to get to as many of our colleagues as we can. >> i have not finished my time that was allotted to me. >> i think your time is over. >> the chair was over five minutes. i had additional time. we agreed to that. >> i gave you more than the time you had left. i think you can talk to anyone and i have been pretty generous with the time and i will continue to be generous with the time. i want to get to everyone who is here.

>> under rule 9 -- >> the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. >> so the gentleman is not recognizing my parliamentary -- >> i give you two and a half minutes. >> you will not recognize my point of order. >> i objected. you don't have a valid point of order. you asked for unanimous consent. >> you have not given the majority equal time. >> you do not have as many members on the committee. you will get equal time for the members you have. >> the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. he has already been recognized. if you yield, you can be recognized, but for right now -- >> will the gentleman yield for 30 seconds? >> yes, i will be glad to yield for 30 seconds. >> chairman issa was given a full 10 minutes prior to representative horsford.

>> it was not represented i would give him an extra five minutes. i gave him extra time. >> i'm reclaiming my time. i'm reclaiming my time. >> i am reclaiming my time. i thank the chair. let me ask mr. cole a few questions. one, in your verbal testimony today, you said the you have the utmost confidence in their investigation. do you stand by that? that is a direct quote. >> yes, i do. the team that is investigating. >> let me ask you, is it normal procedure to have a member of management in on a personal interrogatory discussion with their employees? would you normally do that in your investigative mode? have managers in the majority of

those interviews? >> a lot of those take place before -- >> would you? >> i just want to put it in context, congressman. >> so when the interviews were happy ending in 2011, how would you put it in context? >> if you would let me explain, i think you would understand. inspectors general have different investigations other than just criminal investigations. >> right. >> they are working on a criminal investigation. >> i understand that. >> prior to this, they were investigating on their own, without us -- >> so your utmost confidence is about the investigation before? >> sometimes different agencies have union rules that apply. i'm not sure what the rules are here at the irs on this particular procedure.

>> all right, since you were not there, we will go on. may of 2013, you started an investigation, that correct? >> the justice department. >> and that continues today? >> yes. >> missing e-mails that we have now discovered, does it not concern you that your exhaustive investigation did not uncover the fact there were missing e-mails, that you had to read about it in the press? should we be concerned that your investigation is not exhaustive if it took you more than 13 months and you had to read about it in the press about the e-mails? does that concern you? it concerns me. >> i understand concerns you. >> does it concern you? >> as we looked at the records in this case, there was not a gaping hole because these e-mail come from a lot of different sources. >> ok, that's reasonable. but the individual who knew

about the fact there were missing e-mails in october of 2012, did you talk to him? because he apparently didn't tell you and he knew about it. why would he not have told you if you have this ongoing, exhaustive investigation with somebody you have the utmost confidence, and they would not tell you there were missing e-mails? >> if i understand your question, the person i believe who knew about it early on was in a much different context. i don't know how much they knew about how it related to our investigation at the time. >> listen, you are insulting the american people -- >> i don't believe that. >> and if you are indicating that somebody involved in the tigta the investigation did not know there was all this going on and the american people were concerned, is that we are saying?

>> i don't know if that person was involved in this investigation. >> we found out about it in october 2012 -- actually, how we found out about it is you gave us the e-mail and we said why didn't the irs give us the e-mail, and then it was, shazam, here are the missing e-mails, when somebody actually already knew about it. >> i would have preferred the dots get connected earlier, but i think the agent in october was investigating something quite different, and not this matter that tigta was in. >> oh, really? because reportedly he went back and found notes there may have been a problem. so let's go further. the irs commissioner knew in february there was a problem. he said he did not tell you. are you concerned about that. >> i would have liked to have known. >> i would have, too.

you found out about it in the newspaper? >> that's correct. >> ok, so how exhaustive is your investigation, then, mr. cole, if you would have liked to have known about it? how can the american people have confidence in your investigation if the things that you would like to know about are not getting answered? are you not having interviews back and forth? has anybody interviewed the irs commissioner? >> as i said, we have not talked about who we have interviewed -- >> but you think he was being truthful with congress? >> it is certainly part of looking into the e-mails. we look into all of that as well. >> well, when, 13, 14 months, if that's not enough, when is enough? >> we just found out about this last month, congressman, and we are looking into it. >> i yield back. >> are you saying that you will interview the commissioner? >> we don't talk about the steps

we take in the investigation, but we will look into it is part of the e-mails all the issues surrounding it. >> the gentleman from south carolina. >> thank you, mr. chairman. deputy attorney general cole, you have been done a tremendous disservice when the president pre-judged this. it is not fair to the department of justice or the people investigating this, the witnesses, the potential victims. it is really unheard of for somebody to reports to be an expert and congressional law to prejudge an investigation. i will start with that. i know you cannot provide names or details, but you have on a number of different occasions this morning sought to reaffirm there is an ongoing investigation. so i'm going to ask you about some of the traditional investigatory tools and make sure those are in play.

again, i'm not asking for names or specifics, but when you say the matter is being investigated, i think that -- and by the way, back in the old days you cannot even confirm there was an ongoing investigation. that was the policy back in the old days. i don't know if the policy has been waived for this particular fact pattern is such that you are willing to confirm the ongoing investigation, but that is policy. that is not law. there is no law that prevents you from answering these questions. have witnesses been brought before a grand jury? >> as you well know, representative, we cannot talk about anything that takes place before a grand jury. that is not permitted under rule six-e. >> have subpoenas been issued? >> that is also grand jury -- >> have administrative subpoenas been issued? >> with all due respect, congressman, we don't talk about the steps we take in our investigation. >> mr. deputy attorney general, i understand that, but when the

chief law enforcement officer for this country, the chief executive prejudges an investigation that you are seeking to assure us that investigation is ongoing and vibrant and being professionally done, i think it is ok in this instance for you to reaffirm to us that all the traditional tools available to prosecutors are being used. administrative subpoenas are not covered by rule 6-e, so you can answer that question. >> we are using every tool that is appropriate to be used. we are using every facility we can to find out the facts in this matter as thoroughly and as completely as we can. >> how many witnesses have you interviewed? >> i cannot answer that question. >> more than 20? >> i will not go into a guessing game with you, congressman.

i will not go into the details of the investigation, i'm sorry. i know that's frustrating. when this is over, we will be providing you with -- >> how will we know when it's over? obviously if there is an indictment, it's over for that person until prosecution, but you have a constitutional responsibility to do your job. with all due respect, so do we. it's different. our job is not to prosecute criminal code violations, but we set policy and determine whether an agency is worthy of the appropriation it received the year before. we cannot do our jobs if we are constantly told not because of the law but because of policy we will not answer any questions related to the investigation. so how will we know when the investigation is over? >> we will let you know. either through an indictment that comes out, and you will see that, or through us telling you it's over and providing the information.

>> you don't know how many witnesses have been interviewed? >> i don't know the exact number, no, but i wouldn't tell you if i did, with all due respect. >> do you know the full percentage of witnesses that have been interviewed, at of those you have identified? >> i will not go down that road, congressman, sorry. >> have any plea agreements been signed? >> i'm not going to go down that road. >> mr. deputy attorney general, i asked you the last time before you were before the committee if you would please in the quietness of your own conscious consider whether this fact pattern is appropriate for a social prosecutor, and i'm sure you did, but you said you reach the conclusion it would not be appropriate. can you give me the fact pattern where it would be appropriate? if prejudging an investigation that has political overtones and undertones and the selection of -- and i am not prejudging this.

i'm sure she is capable of doing a very fine job. i just find it stunning, at of the full universe of federal prosecutors, to pick out a maxed out donor i think was shortsighted. if it was not this fact pattern, what fact pattern would be appropriate to ever use a special prosecutor, given the fact that your boss drafted the regulation? >> it is very rare in the justice department to use special prosecution. >> give me a fact pattern that would trigger to you in your mind the appropriateness of a special prosecutor. >> i cannot go down and dream up a fact pattern, mr. gowdy, but one time was in the waco investigation. >> well, the regulation is in place.

you have politics infecting this investigation. you have a prejudgment by the commander-in-chief that there is not a smidgen -- and i will substitute the word scintilla -- smidgen is not a legal term, there is no evidence of wrongdoing. you talk about compromising the jury pool, again, out of fairness to you, i will not ask you to comment because he's the boss. but really, that was a tremendous disservice to be done to people who dedicate their lives to law enforcement, to prejudge an investigation and to do it for a cheap political score during the super bowl. so, if not here, when? if not this fact pattern, when? >> each individual matter will have to be judged on its own individual and unique facts. i cannot set out a prescription for when one would be appropriate. all i can tell use we have analyzed this, we have looked at the applicable regulation, and this does not warrant a special

counsel. >> when you say it has been analyzed, this is a determination that is ultimately made by the attorney general himself? >> along with myself. >> did you seek outside opinions? did you consult anybody else who's legal opinion you value when asked, hey, this is an interesting fact pattern, maybe this is appropriate? to find a career prosecutor who has not maxed out to the rnc or dnc? did you seek other people's opinions? >> the internal deliberations, as you know representative gowdy, are not things we talk about, but it did not see of a special standard to ward a special counsel. >> my time is up. i will end the way i and it last

time, this is bigger than politics, this is bigger than election cycles. the one entity in our culture that is universally respected and represented by a woman wearing a blindfold is the department of justice. and when we start playing games with that, we are in trouble. >> i thank the gentleman. mr. cole, when a criminal investigation is started, isn't usually one of the first things that happens is you gather and protect, get hold of the evidence? >> that usually happens fairly early on, yes. >> ok, when this investigation was started -- let's back up. may 22 last year, lois lerner came in front of the committee and would not answer our questions. she has been a central figure in this whole thing. may 23, the day after, did the fbi and department of justice look into going into lois lerner's office and seizing all

of the documents are going and getting her computer or files. did you attempt to do that in may of last year? >> i may sound like a broken record, but we are not at liberty to talk about what we did in this investigation. >> well, it would seem to me if you had done that, if you had done that, maybe we would have learned about the loss of e-mails a lot sooner. so how are you getting the evidence? are you just waiting for the irs to give it to you, like we have to wait for requested documents and e-mails? >> we are doing what we need to do to get the evidence, mr. chairman, and we are getting the evidence we need in this matter. >> so you cannot say if you got a search warrant or court order to go and get those documents from ms. lerner's office of the irs? >> as i've told you before, and i know it's frustrating to you, but we cannot talk about the nonpublic aspects of the investigation.

>> ok, i'm going back to this point that several members have talked about. if there is a private citizen who was under investigation by the justice department and they withheld information, willfully withheld information about the loss of evidence and documents, for two months, would that be a crime? >> depends on if they had a legal duty to disclose that. when you are dealing with somebody withholding something as opposed to affirmatively making a false statement, you need to find a legal duty for them to have the disclosure. >> ok, but that would be something you would look into. you would investigate whether they had a duty to disclose to you in an appropriate time fashion they had lost a document? >> we would, yes. >> you said earlier that relative to mr. cotman, it

depends on whether there is a problem with the facts that the commissioner at the irs knew in april and waited two months to talk to the american people and, more importantly, you. so you are going to investigate that aspect as well? >> all the issues related to those e-mails will be wrapped up in the investigation. >> including the delay? >> including the delay. >> so the fact the commissioner at the irs delayed this will be talked about? >> we would, yes. >> that's important. i recognize the ranking member for his question. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i will go with whoever wants to go. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman.

chairman issa and chairman jordan have alleged that prominent democrats, mr. cole, pressured the department of justice and the irs singled out coservative groups for potential prosecution to the attorney general and the hearing that was held in april of last year i a democratic senator, "led to the justice department re-engaging with the irs on possible criminal enforcement related to political speech by nonprofits." the letter alleged the department officials and lois lerner, "discussed singling out and prosecuting tax exempt applicants at the urging of a democratic senator." general cole, i would like to give you an opportunity to address this allegation.

did the department discuss singling out and prosecuting tax exempt applicants at the urging of a democratic senator? >> no, what happened in that regard was trying to answer a question of whether we had a mechanism for whether applicants for tax exempt status, if they had lied on their application for that status, if there was a mechanism for the irs to refer those types of false statements to the prosecutor, to the justice department for consideration of prosecution. that's all that was. >> in other words, we've been sitting here talking about crimes here quite a bit. if someone allegedly committed a crime, again, i said alleged, would there be a mechanism by which to get that information to the justice department? >> that is correct. there was no targeting or anything like that. it was whether we had the proper communications and mechanisms that if it was discovered by the

irs, false statement were made, were those going to the justice department for consideration. >> does the department take the direction of prosecution decisions from members of congress? >> no, we do not. >> your testimony today is consistent with testimony in front of the committee. on may 29, the section chief was asked, "did you ever received any instruction from any member of congress to target tea party or conservative groups for prosecution?" he responded, "no." on may 6, the committee asked the director of the election crimes branch, a letter from a democratic senator, "targeted them," and he responded, no, it did not. are you aware of the department receiving direction from

democratic members of congress to target or prosecute a conservative organization, or any member of congress trying to get you to target any organization? i'm curious. >> i'm not aware of it, but to the extent any such request is made, we would ignore it. >> so when you say you would ignore it, certainly a lot of investigations are started by newspaper articles. i guess you see something in the article, the fbi may see it, and certain allegations are made like that, but isn't it a fact that sometimes things that may appear in the newspaper may start the ball rolling with regards to an investigation? i'm wondering, taking a natural extension of that, if someone were to say something, that seems to indicate that perhaps some criminal activity had taken

place, alleged, would you not pursue that? >> if somebody brought to our attention evidence of a crime, we would of course look into it. but if somebody wanted us to target somebody because of their political beliefs, we would not go down that road. >> so i'm hoping those accusations we can put to rest. going back to some questions, mr. chairman asked you, a moment ago, with regard to the investigation of ms. lerner, when you look at the facts, and i'm not asking you to get into that, but just talking generally, and you pursue those facts, whatever they may be, what happens? does a group of attorneys get together and say, you know what, move forward with the case? just talking in general.

what usually happens, at what point do you determine you're going to proceed and how does that come about? >> generally the way it works is the line attorneys are involved in, learning the facts of the investigation, the investigation is conducted largely by law enforcement agents, many times the fbi. they may be working with the line attorneys, working to figure out what the information is that is needed. when they have gathered the facts, they look at the facts in light of the applicable law. then recommendations are made to their supervisor as to what the resolution should be of the case. there could be any number of resolutions. the supervisors then review those recommendations. they may ask for more information to be gathered because certain facts may not have been developed sufficiently, they may decide they disagree with the recommendation or agree with a

recommendation, any number of things can happen in that process. but these are all done by the career people. usually with input from the investigators. and through the line and division and section chiefs in the divisions we have within the department, by career people. >> so the record is clear, so all of this relating to ms. lerner, there is no decision that has been made -- i assume you can answer this question -- no decision has been made, everything is wide open? >> that's correct. >> have nothing further. >> i recognize the chairman of the full committee. >> thank you. i recognize no decision has been made, but i think it's important. the ways and means committee did a criminal referral. you are in receipt of that? >> that's correct. >> and that gives you a basis of a number of allegations to investigate, correct?

>> that's correct. >> you took those allegation seriously, is that correct? >> we do. >> you have serious accusations from the ways and means committee, voted on by that committee referred to you in which you were continuing to consider wrongdoing by lois lerner and have not made a final decision? >> yes. >> additionally, this committee and the u.s. house of representatives on a bipartisan basis referred contempt to the u.s. attorney. >> that's correct. >> the statute says the u.s. attorney shall prosecute that , is that correct? >> that is the wording of the statute. >> and at the current time the u.s. attorney has not prosecuted that? >> at the time, no charges have been brought. >> and that referral for contempt is a separate event from any other allegations and is not subject to double

jeopardy, is that true? >> i'm not sure which you mean by subject to double jeopardy. >> that all charges need to be brought in a related matter at one time, otherwise there is a question of piling on sequentially. contempt was in fact and is in fact a separate event that can be go forward with separate from the ongoing criminal investigation of lois lerner, is that true? >> i'm not sure if i agree with the first part, but contempt is separate. >> so it does not have to wait for the other charges in the investigation. so today can you explain to was why the u.s. attorney would not go forward with a contempt? it has all ready been evaluated, voted on by the u.s. house on a bipartisan basis, and bring it? she came, she talked, then she decided to lawyer up, if you will, taking the fifth. then turn around and talk some more and asserted the fifth amendment. the contempt information is available to you one video one line. why did the u.s. attorney not

bring it? what lawful right does he have not to obey "shall bring the case"? >> i don't think it says "shall bring the case." >> shall prosecute. >> i don't think it's shall prosecute. >> it's not "may," it's "shall." ok, "shall have a duty to bring it before us." i'm not a lawyer. i don't try to play one. it's very clear this is not a statute where he gets to think about deciding he's going to do it. this should be brought forward for consideration. the only question would be, what is a reasonable timeline? do you believe there is a reasonable timeline, and if so, would you name that for us? >> every case has its own time and needs its own review.

>> this does not say he could review it and look at it and think about it. it says we have already made the decision. she has been held in contempt. it is a question when "shall" applies to bringing the case. >> well, "shall" does not say that he shall bring case. the prosecutor retains discretion about whether or not a case should be -- >> let me read verbatim, because apparently only verbatim will do. "to the appropriate u.s. attorney of the district, whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action, shall bring it before the grand jury." there is no discretion there, is there? >> i believe the office of legal counsel, when ted olson was in position, rendered there is discretion. >> would you grant us a yes or no?

in absence of justice, because you may think you may not have to enforce the constitution, you may not have to deliver information pursuant to crimes committed by the justice department in bringing fraudulent statements before the congress and covering it up for 10 months, the only thing we ask for, and mr. cummings i'm sure would join me, if you don't think "shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its actions," if you don't think that is in a reasonable time to do it that he shall do it, if you think it's discretionary, would you please give this back to us in a legal opinion so we can change the law to make it clear you're wrong? >> we can provide you with that. >> please do. i would appreciate having a legal opinion. i have one last question. do you know a person named

virginia seitz? >> yes, i do. >> did she work for the department of justice for 90 days? >> she work longer. >> was she working on criminal areas including wire fraud? >> virginia seitz i believe was the assistant attorney general in charge of the office of legal counsel. >> ok, so is there any chance during her tenure that policy changed as to the enforcement of internet online gaming, activities, any chance any policy changed under her? >> i would have to go back and look. i don't know offhand. >> this committee is interested in knowing during her relatively short tenure, apparently, what role she played in evaluating any policy change related to going after online gaming. we can follow-up with appropriate demands if that's necessary, but we would hope

that you would inform us as to any policy change, as to going after internet and essentially online gaming, and any role she may have played in it. >> if you communicate your request to us -- >> we will do so. >> if the gentleman would yield? >> of course i would yield. >> i want to join the gentleman, i, too, and you mentioned my name, i am interesting in seeing the opinion. there is something else i want you to do, too. i want you to provide us with the history of how contempt has been dealt with through republican and democratic prosecutors, u.s. attorneys. and any information you may have with regard to this. i understand the gentleman's concern. you have the word "shall," but i just want to know the history.

the history. the olson opinion is just one part of that history. the question of whether the statute usurps prosecution over discretion. i hope that people can get something back to us so we would have that in our body of law. so whatever you have been doing, the tradition, so we will know what republicans and democrats have been doing. >> and i would only admit that ever so slightly to say please leave out of this or put separately questions in which executive privilege has been claimed. in the case of lois lerner, we are talking about what we believe to be a criminal based on referrals from the ways and means committee who made statements before this committee under oath, asserted her fifth amendment rights, then made more statements under oath, then reasserted and was held in contempt by the u.s. house of representatives. you're talking narrowly about somebody who came, quite frankly, not in any particular

role to that she is a former employee of the government. she came and was held in contempt. >> i understand. >> mr. chairman, thank you for your indulgence. this has been very informative, and will follow up with a letter. >> we know that e-mails are missing. we know that she had communication with the justice department on several occasions in e-mails, and we know you are withholding certain documents from the committee. is it fair to assume some of those documents you are withholding actually are e-mails from ms. lerner to people in the justice department? >> i don't know it's fair to assume it. i don't know which documents are being withheld, but i don't know if it's fair to assume. >> can you tell me if those are documents the justice department are withholding from congress or

lois lerner e-mails? >> i can't guarantee. i have not seen all the documents that have been withheld. >> we will like to see the documents is what we would like to see. >> we will give you the ones that we can give you. >> you very well could have. you can have all sorts of e-mail from lois lerner, "lois, can you send it?" we have extensive correspondence back and forth. the only documents that are missing are the nights that you would have went in -- maybe you have and didn't tell us -- got a search warrant or got a court order and seized her files at the get-go, maybe we would have known all these e-mails were missing a year ago. but the fact that e-mails she has sent outside of the irs are missing, she had direct correspondence with people within the justice department, and you are now withholding information from the committee and congress and the american people, it seems to me they are the documents you are withholding.

>> i'm not sure it is a valid assumption they are lois lerner e-mails we are withholding. i don't think that is a fair resumption. >> but what is fair to say is you cannot guarantee they are not. >> i have not looked at all the documents. i cannot answer the questions. >> we would like you to look at a see you can give us more information. it would be nice to get them. i will recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> first off, general cole, would you like to respond to that last statement? >> i'm not sure i heard completely the last statement. >> fair enough. a couple issues i want to touch on, the prejudging and the screening issues. first of all, i share something with mr. gowdy of south carolina. i prefer technical, legal terms. when we talk about a smidgen, a scintilla may be better. when we talk about prejudging, prejudicing may be better.

i want to talk about if anything has been done to prejudice the investigation of the justice department. my colleague touched on this earlier. last month, the judiciary committee held a hearing and they brought in the fbi director and went over this. the chairman asked, can you explain, given the president said there was not a smidgen or scintilla of corruption. the director of the fbi said, "i mean no disrespect to the president or anybody else who has expressed a view about the matter, but i don't care about anyone's characterization of it. i care and my troops care only about the facts. there was an investigation because there is a reasonable basis to believe crimes were

committed, so we are conducting that investigation." now, deputy attorney general cole, do you agree with the fbi director's assessment that outside characterization even by the president of the united states has no bearing on a particular investigation? >> that's correct, outside characterizations by anybody have no bearing on our investigation. >> and when you talk about career prosecutors, line prosecutors, career investigators, does that apply to these people? >> it does. these are all career justice department investigators, attorneys. none of them are political appointees. >> is it accurate to say the department of justice does not take direction from the president on how to conduct ongoing investigations? >> we do not and we would not. >> there was also an allegation of screaming going on by the doj, screaming at the irs. i will invite your attention to the testimony of jack smith, who

as you know is the chief of the doj public integrity section. this was testimony taken on may 29, 2014. representative jordan was present. i will read a brief quote from that. a question to mr. smith. "if you direct your attention to the second sentence of the second paragraph load the block, by encouraging the irs to be vigilant and possible campaign-finance crimes by 501c-4 groups, they were among one of the entity screaming at the irs to do something in the wake of citizens united before the 2010 election." and the question was, "are you aware of the department screaming at the irs to do something in the wake of citizens united before the 2010 election?" and the chief of the doj public

integrity section said, "no." the next question will, "at the october 8, 2010 meeting, did anybody at the department raise their voice at the irs, speak and strident tones, make demands of the irs?" the answer was "no," by jack smith. and then, "are you aware of anyone at the department of justice placing pressure on the irs to influence the 2010 elections?" and the answer was, "no." i will put that question in front of you, mr. cole. are you aware of anybody at the department of justice screaming at anybody at the irs to fix citizens united or put any kind of pressure on the irs? >> no, mr. cartwright, not at all. this is not something we would be doing. we are looking if there are criminal cases to be made or not, that's it. >> not aware of any screaming?

>> no screaming. >> and you didn't do any screaming yourself? >> i did not. >> when the president of the united states makes a speech, does that have bearing or influence? >> on a criminal investigation by the department? >> the president gives speeches all the time. he will sometimes talk in a way even with foreign heads of state. when the president talks, does that have meeting or influence? >> as a basic matter, it certainly can. >> so when a president gives an interview in his not telling a joke, he is commenting on a serious matter, that has influence, that has impact, that has significance, correct? >> not on a criminal investigation. >> i'm just asking in general. you are a smart guy, you are at the justice department. when the president talks, it has impact. >> it can. >> it should, he is the president of the united states,

the greatest country in the world. they should have impact. >> he has asked congress to do a lot of things. it seems to not have much had it impact. >> it has impact. we just think he's wrong. i respect, i am like everyone else on this panel, i respect the good professionals that work in the department of justice, but don't you think it's possible, even likely that in the back of even the best professional, in the back of their mind, they know the president has said in a public way, in a very public way, nationally televised interview, that there is nothing there, there is nothing there? don't you think somewhere deep back in there, it may have -- just to use the term of my colleague, a scintilla of impact, a smidgen of impact on the great professionals that work in your agencies? >> i will echo the director statement in that regard, no, it does not. these people put out. when people say they put it out

of their mind and they go after the facts, that is what they care about. particularly in high-profile cases like this, that happens quite a bit. they are very expert of putting out of their mind anything but the facts that are in the case. >> so barbara bosserman does not take into account that the guy she gave a maxed-out contribution to, to his campaign, goes on national television and says there is nothing there? it is not anywhere in the back of her mind that this has our to been prejudiced? >> her job is not to do that, and she does a good job. >> she gave 750 dollars to the president's campaign and the dnc. here is the president, who could be a potential target of the investigation. that does not impact her at all? >> it does not. she does her job professionally. >> you can say that for sure, you can speak for barbara bosserman? >> i have confidence in the judgment of the career people and --

>> that is amazing. >> deputy attorney general cole, if the department is investigating an individual or entity, when is it ever acceptable, if it is at all, that evidence sought by law-enforcement has been destroyed? i can see a civil case where you are asking for specific things, criminal case where a search warrant has been issued. is it acceptable to not disclose that to law enforcement? >> again, as i said with chairman jordan, it depends on the circumstances. they should not conceal it. they should not lie about it. there may or may not be, depending on the circumstances, duty to tell about it, but it depends on the circumstances. >> so doj is prosecuting a civil matter against a company can't issue subpoenas asking for e-mails over a specific time, then that company responded saying, yep, we will comply with

it. if they have reason to believe they would not be able to fulfill that, that would be a problem if they had represented back to you, correct? >> yes, if at the time they were representing that to us they knew they were not complying with us, that would be a problem. >> if they did not know at the time but after sending you the response they figured out they were wrong, they have a duty to come back and amend the response, correct? >> yes, they should come back and tell us. >> ok, here is an issue i was confused about. the doj was not informed e-mails had been lost or destroyed. congress obviously was not until june. but according to the irs commissioner, the treasury department and the white house were informed in april. so what would be the reason to disclose that to the treasury and white house, but not disclose it to either doj or congress who are conducting investigations in the matter? >> i don't know, that is

probably a question you should give to the irs. >> does it bother you they would have told the treasury department about telling the justice department? >> they are part of the treasury department, he would have asked their reasons. >> what about the white house, telling the white house but not the doj? >> i would want to know the circumstances and who at the white house and what was told. i don't know enough information to answer. >> is that something that you think is appropriate to investigate? >> this will all be part of our looking into the e-mails, yes. >> recently, two federal judges have granted the irs claim of lost e-mails with suspicion, forcing the irs to come in and substantiate their claim these things are somehow lost and not recoverable. we have people who have advised us to say, yeah, we have data from the challenger explosion, 9/11, all these things, and a lot of people in i.t. say, well, you will be able to get these e-mails.

how would you characterize the department of justice, do you agree the irs' claim these e-mails are lost because of the hard drive has crashed, do you agree that with skepticism? >> we're trying to recover them and do what we can to do that. >> is it safe to say if you weren't investigating a private entity and you want it specific documents come if they said sorry, the hard drive crashed, that probably would not be something that you would accept at face value? >> generally we would ask the circumstances and the facts behind the statement if they cannot be recovered. >> let me follow up about this u.s. attorney, what they shall. i think people are using different terms. bringing something before a grand jury is not the same as prosecuting it at trial, correct? >> that is correct. >> the statute does not impose a duty on the u.s. attorney to bring the case to trial. >> that's correct. >> it imposes a duty on the u.s. attorney to bring it to a grand jury, is that accurate? >> the language of the statute,

and i don't mean to be a fine point lawyer, but there is this ted olson opinion from -- >> i think what olson is saying, the statue to me is crystal clear, an obligation to bring it before a grand jury. i think olson is saying, look, article two, the executive branch, you cannot force someone necessarily to prosecute a case. i think generally that is true. if we told you to prosecute every money-laundering case, you may get a lot of cases that are not meritorious, so it would impact you. we in congress have found reason for contempt, voted on behalf of the american people, we also have a duty. i think it's a little different. let me ask this -- the fact we impose the duty to bring it to a grand jury, let's say that you accept that. does that impose a duty on the prosecutor to ask that it be returned, or would you as a prosecutor consistent with the

statute going to a grand jury proceeding? would you actually go in come in your judgment, if you don't think contempt was meritorious and asked the jury not to return that? >> obviously there is an assumption in your question that has to be brought before a grand jury. i would say that's not necessarily the case. bringing a matter before the grand jury for action, which i believe is the wording of the statute, leaves open any number of different resolutions the grand jury could be asked to bring. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. speaker, mr. chair. the republicans allege that efforts to target conservative groups in the screening of applicants' tax-exempt status is an overarching government conspiracy involving the federal election committee and other agencies. according to the republicans, that conspiracy originated at the supreme court in the

citizens united decision. chairman issa, in my opinion, issued a partisan staff report including the justice department and the irs had, "and analyze the president's political lambasting of citizens united." deputy attorney general cole, to the best of your knowledge, and did the rhetoric of the department to conspire against nonprofit political speech? >> it did not. >> the gentlelady, are you asking about the irs or the justice department? >> i have not yielded. >> about the question was had the irs conspire. of course they did. >> i have not yielded. do you have any reason to believe that citizens united has prompted the unwarranted investigation of political commissions? >> no, they have not.

>> despite 10 hearings and hundreds of thousands of documents and conducting over 40 transcribed interviews, the committee has been unable to gather any actual evidence of this vast conspiracy my republican colleagues claims exist. in fact, the evidence gathered by the committee and the i.g. show that the inappropriate search terms that were first used by an employee in the cincinnati determinations unit and the inspector general and the 2013 report concluded the inappropriate criteria, "were not influenced by any individual or organization outside of the irs." deputy attorney general cole, in your written testimony you said, "i have the utmost confidence in the career departments in the department and i know they will follow the facts wherever they lead and apply the law to those facts." is that guiding principle at the

department, is that the guiding principle the department uses in conducting all of its investigations? >> yes, it is. >> i think this committee should follow the same principles into the investigation of the irs. it is quite clear that facts do not lead to the conclusion that citizens united prompted a government wide conspiracy. and thank you for your testimony. >> does the gentlelady yield? >> yes. >> i want to go to what mr. desantis was just asking you. you referred to the olson case. i had the olson case in front of me. the olson opinion, rather. what it says is, "we believe congress may not direct the executive to prosecute a particular individual without leaving any discretion to the executive to determine whether a violation of the law has occurred."

that's what the opinion says. a 1984 opinion, dated may 30. and this was a contempt citation coming from congress that he was talking about. so i guess this is consistent with what you were saying. so this olson case, in the u.s. attorney's office is this well-known -- i mean, this olson opinion, is this something that is well-known, something that you all -- >> it's known. i don't know if it's well-known, but it's known. >> will the gentleman yield? >> of course. >> i'm confused. is mr. olson, is he a judge? what opinion are we talking about?

i yield back. i thank the gentleman from maryland for yielding. >> he was not a political appointee. the office of legal counsel has asked many time and has authorized for the executive branch of government to provide legal opinions which are binding upon the executive branch of government to interpret various aspects of law the government has to abide by. >> thank you very much. so you are saying a reagan appointee? >> yes. >> very well. since we have talked about this opinion, mr. chairman, i would like to enter into the record. >> without objection. >> very well. it's all i have. >> the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. cole, let me come back to

really what -- i guess i'm a little concerned, in the public integrity section you say reached out to the irs, is that correct? in 2010? >> in 2010, yes, my am standing is they made contact with the irs. >> ok, what was the nexus of why they reached out? >> just looking at the accounts i have heard from jack smith and richard pilger, who have testified, given transcribed interviews to the committee about what they were doing at the time. >> all right. >> i take their purpose as what it was. i think mr. smith had seen an article in the newspaper about what appeared to be perhaps a misuse of the tax-exempt organization laws and wanted to find out -- >> is that your opinion? >> no, just my understanding of the facts. >> as part of the investigation, wouldn't it be important to

understand the nexus of them reaching up to the irs, e-mail, motivation, wouldn't that be important to understand? >> i think we are in the process of providing that to you, and you talk to both of them about what their motivations were. >> isn't it important for the doj to look at that as part of the investigation? >> that's not necessarily part of the irs investigation. >> why wouldn't it be? >> nothing happened. there was a brief meeting, there was a discussion about how would be very difficult if not impossible to bring cases. there were no investigation started. there were no referrals made. nothing happened after that. >> so you say nothing happened, how can you give me that kind of specificity with regards to what happened and did not happen if you are really not familiar with what went on? how can you be so precise in nothing happening? >> because we have had people look at whether or not the public integrity section. any referrals from the irs as a result. >> support of the investigation

looked into that? >> we asked if that happened. >> ok, do you have an open investigation on april sanz, who to be with the ftc? >> i'm not aware one way or another. april sanz? >> she was the one who actually violated the hatch act, used to work with lois lerner. you are not aware of that? >> not offhand. >> i would encourage you to be aware of that because she admitted that she violated the hatch act. and that, quite frankly, some of the asking for donations while at work have been alleged. wouldn't that be important as you look at that from the department of justice? >> she worked at the fec? >> yeah. >> i'm not sure that's part of the irs investigation.

>> let me just tell you, ms. lois lerner, it was reported that lois lerner and april sanz actually work together. what part of your investigation -- >> i'm not going into all the details, as i said before, in our investigation, but -- >> i find it interesting you've never heard of april sanz. >> not sitting here today. i don't know about every single case the justice department has investigated. we have 112,000 employees. >> i have been led to believe you guys are not going to look at it, and it's startling because this gets to the very heart of what we have been talking about. would you commit here today to look at april sanz and what violations of the hatch act may or may not have occurred? >> i will find out what the story is and see if it's a matter worthy of looking into. >> all right.

so let me close with this. you have done an exhaustive, i think according to your words, and exhaustive research into the missing e-mails, is that correct? >> i don't know if i use the word exhaustive. we have been very thorough trying to find documents. >> ok, so if you have been that thorough, does it not trouble you that it's very slow in forthcoming and you have to read "the washington post" to figure out what's going on in terms of the irs employees telling you what may or may not have happened over the last 4, 5 months? >> i would have preferred to have learned earlier. >> ok, so with that be subject to investigation by the doj? >> as i said, that will be part of looking at the e-mails, all the things that surround it. >> so the fact the commissioner of the irs did not tell you until months later, that troubles you?

>> we will be finding out what happened. >> does that trouble you? >> not until i find out all the facts, congressman. >> if that's true, it troubles you? >> i'm not afraid to say it. i just don't deal with hypotheticals. >> thank you, i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me say from the outset, i still find it astonishing the lack of courtesy the chairman continues to show to members of this committee. the fact that members continue to not receive equal time, that the chair interrupts members during our time, the fact that you badger witnesses and make judgments upon employees and their motivations without any evidence. i think all of this does a disservice to the role of the oversight function, which is very serious and has a very clear responsibility to the american people for providing an oversight to federal agencies.

and in this particular case, because there is so much concern about the wrongdoing that occurred at the irs. i'm also alarmed by the ongoing efforts by some members of the committee to treat this process like a courtroom. we have three branches of government for a reason. first in the law and may have previous careers in that arena, this is not a courtroom. who continue to try to treat it as such -- i want to speak to the issue of the special prosecutor and to ask for your response. , in itsrney general

january 8, 2000 letter -- chairman issa and chairman that a career attorney in the civil rights division at the department of doj fbiis leading the investigation. this allegation was refuted by the attorney general. i will not read the full testimony. stone leftre is no unturned, deputy attorney cole, i would like to ask you the same question asked of mr. holder. attorney in the avestigation a member of larger team? >> she is a member of a larger

team. she is not the leader of the investigation. >> despite the fact that she is not the lead investigator, they continue to assert that her political donations have created a startling conflict of interest. this supposed conflict of interest is key justification for some republican members for a request that a special prosecutor be appointed to conduct a criminal investigation. days before introducing a resolution requesting special counsel, chairman jordan said we needed special counsel to help us get to the truth. it has no credibility because it is being headed by someone financially interested in the president's.