♪ imus in the morning ♪ >> look at this everybody, hearings into the irs targeting a conservative political groups. it's underway on capitol hill. you're going to see the outgoing head of the irs, steve miller, questioned about the targeting on his watch and who knew about it. and here he is, jay russell george, the man who wrote the report on the targeting. who did what? and this is the opening statement going on right now. but first, i've got this irs news development. fox confirmed that ingram who managed the office that targeted conservatives is now running the irs office that oversees the implementation of obamacare. the irs, obamacare office, has access to your most personal health information. front and center on "varney & company" today, the irs scandal. now, we're not going to neglect

the market, i'm going to tell you now, the market, the dow will open higher today, maybe up 50 points, what a week. monica is with me, charles payne is with me. and we're waiting, it should be a couple of minutes from now, that steve miller addresses, this is the house committee on ways and means. he's going to issue his five-minute opening statement and there is an issue here with his opening statement. that statement was supposed to be submitted to the committee 24 hours ahead of time. instead, he didn't do that. he gave them a six-page memo from somebody else. that memo was written more than two weeks ago for the inspector general. miller also provided the committee an on-line frequently asked questions page. that is bizarre. we don't know what he's going to say, but you're going to hear what he's got to say any moment from now. let's listen in now to jay russell george. >> examples of the unnecessary information requested included the names of past and future

donors, listings of all issues important to the organization and what the organization's positions were regarding such issues, and whether officers or directors have run for public office or would be running for public office in the future. months after receiving these questions, 12 of the 98 organizations either received a letter or a telephone call from the irs state that go their applications were approved and they know longer needed to respond to the additional requests. the irs informed another 15 organizations that they it not need to respond to previous requests for information and instead, they were sent a revised request for information. regarding the donor information received from applicants, the irs informed us they destroyed that information. in closing, our order felt clear evidence that each of the three allegations were correct. was the irs using an appropriate criteria in its review of organizations applying for tax exempt status?

yes. was the irs delaying their applications? yes. and finally, did the irs ask inappropriate and unnecessary questions of applicants? again, yes. these findings have raised troubling questions whether the irs has effective management oversight and control in the organizations function, so that the public can be reassured that the irs is impartial in at ministering the nation's tax laws. chairman kemp, ranking member levin, committee, thank you for the opportunity to present my views and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, mr. george. mr. miller, you are now recognized for five minutes. stuart: jay russell george just finished and repeated his inspector general report. because that's who he is. steve miller is about to start. we're going to listen to this one, go. >> i know this hearing within the last two days, the irs was unable to prepare written testimony. would i note that i have a very

brief statement before i take your questions. first and foremost, as acting commissioner i want to apologize on behalf of the internal revenue service for the mistakes that we made and the poor service we provided. the affected organizations and the american public deserve better. partisanship or even the perception of partisanship has no place at the irs. it cannot even appear to be a consideration in determining the tax exemption of an organization. i do not believe that partisanship motivated the people who engaged in the practices described, in the treasury inspector general's report. i' i've reviewed the treasury inspector general's report, i think what happened here foolish mistakes were made by people trying fob more efficient in their workload selection. the listing described in the report, while intolerable, was a mistake and not an act of partisanship. the agency is moving forward. it has learned its lesson.

we've previously worked to correct issues in the processing of the cases described in the report and we've implemented changes to make sure that this type of thing never happens again. now, that they've completed the fact finding and issued the report management will take appropriate action with respect to those responsibility. i'd be happy to answer your questions. >> all right, thank you, mr. miller-- >> very important right there. he says it was not an act of partisanship, it was a mistake, not an act of partisanship, okay, that's a very important statement from mr. miller. okay, your yeah we're going to get back to the questioning here, here we go. >> in november, in november of 2012. >> 2012. >> and if i'm not mistaken, you hold two titles, acting director of the irs and services and enforcement? >> i do, and in your role as

deputy for services and enforcement, you look at the tax exempt and government entity division? >> that's a division that reports through, to me through the tax exempting government entities office. >> so the website is accurate? >> yes. >> and then who do you report to in that position, actually in both of your positions? as the deputy commissioner for services answer enforcement. >> in the deputy commissioner role i would report to the commissioner, if there was one. without a commissioner holding both hats, i'd report to the deputy secretary. >> of? >> treasury. >> treasury. >> and is it not a violation of ir c6103 to disclose confidential taxpayer information? >> it is. >> and that really applies to all taxpayer information? >> i'm not quite sure what that means to be honest. >> in practice, it's basically-- it's not just the return. >> 6103, 6103 obligates us not to disclose taxpayer information.

>> were you ever made aware, in august of 2010, that a white house official in a conference call with reporters disclosed the confidential tax structure of a private company? >> i probably read it in the paper, sir. >> okay, were you made aware through news reports? >> i think that's probably it. it's a long time ago. >> did you take any steps when you learned of that? >> i don't recall. i don't -- i don't recall. i have to get back to you on that, sir. >> so you didn't inform the inspector general of that or your superiors that you recollect? >> i'm not sure why i would have to notify the superiors. it was in the papers. i don't remember whether we made a referral or-- i made a referral at that time. >> according to the inspector general audit, the targeting of conservative groups began in march of 2010. when were you made aware? >> i was aware of that on may

3rd of 2012. >> and how were you made aware? >> i was made aware of, not the targeting, but i was made aware of the process that was described in the report when i asked some of our people to go out and take a look at the cases subsequent to the public discussion of overbroad letters coming out. >> so that would have been in your role as acting director, as well as the deputy commissioner? >> no, i was deputy at that time. imus: you were deputy at that time. and when you say you asked some of our people, who would that have been? >> so, i asked the senior technical advisor for tax exempting government entities to lead a team and take a look and see what was going on in terms of cases that had gotten those letters. >> did you inform anyone of that action that you took, those

steps? >> so i did that -- i mean, i asked, i asked the senior technical advisor to do that in late march, march 23rd or 26th, something like that, and she and her team came back to talk to me in may and subsequent to that, i'm sure i informed the commissioner, but the commissioner was aware of the letters he as well. >> did you inform anyone other than the commissioner at that time? >> you mean up the chain, sir? -p>> yes. >> i don't believe so. >> or the inspector general. >> the inspector general was aware of it and had made it clear to us, he ththey were awa it and in looking at that time. >> okay. there is with an a time when you became aware of the irs launching audits against conservative donors? that would have been in about may of 2010? >> yes, that -- i don't remember the date, sir, but, yeah, in that time frame, again, there

are press accounts and ional co about that. >> and did you learn at thyou l from the press or from congress? >> i don't know, it could have been either, it came up in the meeting and hit the press, so i don't know. >> in any event, after learning of that information of the audit, did you-- what steps did you take? >> we investigated what happened. we took a look and ultimately, i issued a directive that said that the law in the area was not that clear, that we had not been enforcing in that area substantially since the period of, i believe, in 1982 or something like that, revenue ruling that talked about gift tax and c-4 organizations. and i said, let's not enforce right now. let's talk about it, let's study it and we will put out guidance

and that guidance will be prospective. i thought that was the fair thing to do. >> when you say we investigated, who would that have been? >> i'm not -- i don't remember, but we took a look at the issue and looked at how it happened and i believe were you looking at it as well, your committee, sir. >> when you say we, who-- >> the irs, the irs looked at the issue. >> i mean, what departments? >> would have been counsel -- i don't know if it was exempt organization, i'm sorry, sir, i'm not the going to be answer to particularity there. >> were you aware of the confidential donor list for national organization for marriage, a conservative tax exempt organization? >> i was. >> and when was that? >> that date i'll have to get back to you on, but i remember the issue. >> and how did you find out? >> don't remember. it might have been press, it might have been somebody coming to us with a congressional complaint. >> and when you learned of that

publication, did you take any steps? >> i believe we made a referral to tikta yes. >> you're not sure when that would have been made? >> it would have been in the same time frame. >> shortly after you became aware of it. were you aware of the irs leak of confidential applications of the tax exempt status of conservative groups to pro-publi pro-publica. >> when were you made aware. >> i'm not going to be able to give you a timeline. when it became public is when i became aware. so you would know that from the ti timeli timeline. >> did you inform anyone else of that? >> i believe the service informed at that time. >> and in each of these instances i've asked you about did you ever come forward and inform the congress? >> i don't believe so, unless it

came up in conversation or testimony. >> can i suggest something? >> just to let you know, this would be the national organization of marriage and pro-publica. >> those two situations we went to tigda and i think mr. george can speak to what they find, what they found and we made the referrals and i believe, i believe what they found was that those disclosures why inadvertent and there's been discipline in one of those cases for somebody not following procedures i'll let mr. george speak to that. >> you never informed congress of any of these things that i've asked, but this morning. >> they were in the press, sir. >> all right. all right. well, obviously, the irs mission statement says that the role of the irs to help america's

taxpayers understand and meet their tax responsibilities and enforce the law with integrity and fairness to all and i think clearly your condition is not being met, mr. george, i guess, i would just have one last question, mr. miller. when asked the truth and you know the truth and you have a legal responsibility to inform others of the truth, but you don't share that truth, what is that called? >> i always answer questions truthfully, mr. camp. >> all right. mr. george, were you ever made aware of the alleged disclosure of the confidential tax structure of a private company? >> we have been-- >> i think there was a moment right there, a moment of truth, talking about the truth. monica, were you watching. your thoughts? >> and when he said what is it called when you don't express the truth and are' aware of certain acts and he said, well, i always speak the truth and then there was a long pause.

it's actually called obstruction of justice. >> and the committee is trying to find out what did mr. miller do with the information as it came to him. did it go up the chain? did he make anybody up the chain aware. he has not answered that question yet, he said he just went up to the commissioner of the irs. charles, he said a lot of i don't know's. charles: a lot of i don't know's, but started out pretty firm saying that this is poor service not partisan. and almost made it at that they're more efficient and targeting the tea party and said he didn't remember anything else about it. stuart: and when talking about the release of the donor list to the conventional marriage supporters, and the release of an informational conservatives to the pro-publica group, he said that was inadvertent. that's very important, i suspect, monica. >> and pro-publica is financed by george soros, to believe what they've said so far, that it was not partisan, it was honest mistakes and all of these mistakes were inadvertent, that

strains credulity. >> and let's go back, dave camp still speaking, chairman of house ways and means committee. >> and they may have received that from someone i don't believe the commission are level-- >> you can't tell us for sure? >> at this time i cannot, sir. >> were you ever made aware of the alleged publication of a confidential 2008 donor list of the national organization for marriage? >> i both read in the newspapers, allegations to that effect, but i have to make it clear, mr. chairman, that the internal revenue code has very strict rules as relates to the way that confidential taxpayer information is revealed and we at tigta enforce those rules and i have to be careful as to how i respond and whether i can

acknowledge publicly some of these revelations that you're inquiring about. >> did you respond to that information? >> a review has been -- has been taken. >> is it ongoing? >> i will have to confer with my colleague, is it ongoing, yes or no. >> there are daily reports of irs misconduct, political targeting and it's clear that more work needs to be done, and is your office continuing to investigate these allegations? >> yes, we are, sir. >> thank you, mr. levin is recognized. >> thank you very much. i want to go on to other things, but the incidents that mr. camp has been talking about, disclosure, what years were those? mr. miller? >> again, sir, i apologize for not having the date at hand.

they have been a couple of years now, i believe. >> a couple of years. who was the commissioner at that time? >> i believe it was mr. shulman. >> who appointed mr. shulman? >> mr. bush. >> all right, let me start with two key issues. there's he no question about the inappropriate criteria, i want to focus on that, but let me first ask right upfront, if i might, mr. russell, during the course of your audit, were you allowed access to everyone you requested to interview? >> to my knowledge we were not denied access to anyone. >> did you interview employees in both cincinnati and in d.c.? >> correct, yes, we did, sir.

>> on page 7, mr. george, of the ig report, it states and i quote, all of these individuals stated that the criteria were not influenced by any individual organization outside the irs, is that correct? >> this is the information that we received, correct, sir. >> did you find any evidence of political motivation in the selection of the tax exemption applications? >> we did not, sir. >> mr. miller, during your review of this matter you indicated when you started it, did you find any evidence of political motivation on the part of employees involved in processing the applications at issue? >> we did not, sir. >> if we could put on the screen the organizational chart, is that possible? from the report?

someone going to do that? it's called high level organizational report. stuart: while we're waiting for that chart to appear. we should break in to tell you that there was something important just announced. the investigator, mr. russell george, said that in his investigation there was -- he found no evidence of political motivation on the part of those who had done the targeting. that's a very interesting statement. >> and a very important statement. stuart: yes. >> because he is the investigator. now he's under oath in front of congress saying according to his investigation he saw no partisanship driving the targeting here. it's interesting because when you're listening to mr. miller, there were a lot of i don't know's, i can't remember, and i can't recall and i have to get back to you on that. if he's so unfamiliar with what actually happened, how can he be so sure there was no partisanship involved? >> we want to know why did these people did this? why was this, this targeting?

we've got found that out yet. and how far up did it go in the chain? they're talking about the cincinnati office now, we're going back to sander levin. >> orders the criteria changed and it was changed in 2011 to no longer refer by name tea party or patriot. mr. george, is that correct? >> that is correct, sir. >> mr. miller, as then deputy, were you aware with the problem with the criteria in june and july of 2011. >> i was not, sir. >> and in 2012 the criteria were changed to again, i quote, organizations involved in limiting expanding government, educating on the constitution of the bill of riggts, and socioeconomic reform movement. the ig's report indicates that this change was again made in the cincinnati determination's

office without executive approval. mr. george, is that correct? >> this is correct, sir. >> it was changed without executive approval? >> that is our understanding. >> the may, 2012 criteria are in place today, it states organizations with indicators of significant amounts of political campaign intervention. the ig report states that in quotes, it moore clearly focuses on the activities permitted under the treasury regulations. mr. george, is that correct? >> that is correct, sir. >> i have no further-- my time is up. >> at this time i'll yield to the chairman of the oversight subcommittee, dr. sustani. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. miller, on march 22nd of 2012, he oversight committee held a hearing in this room and i specifically asked then

commissioner shulman about reports that the irs had been targeting tea party groups and other conservative groups and i would like to play the video of his response. can we have the video? >> there's absolutely no targeting, this is the kind of back and forth that happens when people apply for 501 c4's. >> this was in march, march 22nd of 2012. knowing what you know now, was commissioner shulman's response truthful? >> it was incorrect, but whether it was untruthful or not, look, when you talk about targeting and we should really get into this, doctor, because when you talk about targeting it's a pejorative term. what happened here was -- and i'm not defending the list, but what happened here and would i like to go through the application process, what happened here is that someone

saw some tea party cases come through, they were acknowledging that they were going to be engaged in politics. this was the time frame in 2010 when citizens united was out, there was a lot of discussion in the system about the use of c-4's, people in cincinnati decided let's start grouping these cases, let's centralize these cases. the way they centralized it, troublesome, the concept of centralization not. we're not targeting these people in that sense. what we are doing is making sure that we bring them in and have people-- >> let me ask you this, you said incorrect, but not the untruthful. >> yeah, i don't-- >> you mean he was not informed, was he not informed of this process? >> to my knowledge, i don't believe he knew at the time. >> because in march, you sent a technical advisor to cincinnati. there were press reports, there were letters from chairman camp and myself dating back to 2011,

and so clearly there was congressional interest in this issue and press reports, and you're saying he was not informed of this? >> so let's divide the world in a couple pieces here. there was the list that was used and there was the processing of the cases. at that time we were worried there were issues in the processing of the cases, we were not aware of the list. i asked in late march, actually after the hearing, i believe, for us to go in and take a look because i thought there were problems in processing of the cases they came back with both pieces, yes, there were problems with the processing of the cases and problems with the listings. >> so you were given a complete briefing on this improper selection based on political beliefs and this briefing was, i think you said may 3rd of 2012, is that correct? >> so i would recharacterize your question, sir. i was informed of what we had found out to date, tigta was in

there at the time. i was told that there was a use of the list. the list seemed obnoxious to us, as it does to you, okay, and we were going to take actions on that and yet, that was in may. >> and you say, it was not targeting, but why was only one side of the political spectrum singled out in this? >> so, i think what happened was they were-- look, they get 70,000 applications in there for 150 or 200 people to do. they triage those. people look at them and they send them either through the system because they're okay, into a mix of folks so that they can get technically fixed up, and some go for substantive questions. politics is an area where we always ask more questions, it is our obligation under law to do so, as mr. george indicated. >> right, no, i understand the process. >> the reorganization can't do it and a c-4 organization can do some of it.

it's our obligation. >> mr. miller, we've received letters describing process, but we're trying to get to the heart of this matter and at the briefing in may of 2012 you were told that tax exempt applications were being targeted, if they contained terms such as tea party, we the people, patriots, and so forth, many of the terms that chairman camp referenced and knowing these practices and knowing you sent letters to congress acknowledging our investigation of these allegations, but consistently omitted that such discriminatory practices that are alleged were actually in fact taking place. why, why did you mislead congress and the american people on this? >> mr. chairman, i did not mislead congress nor the american people. i answered the questions as they were asked. >> why didn't you tell us about the terms? >> time has expired. mr. crowley is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. george, you are the

inspector general of the treasury, is that correct? >> actually, there are three inspectors general within the department of the treasury, i'm the inspector general exexclusively focused on the irs. >> over the irs, very good. and you were appointed by then be president bush, is that corrects. >> yes, correct. >> and you states in your report, that no one outside the irs was involved in this political targeting of not for profit organization. stuart: i just want to jump in here while they're talking about process and what exactly jay russell george does. lets me go back to the doctor's analysis with mr. miller for a moment. mr. miller, the outgoing acting irs guy, he denies targeting. and to some degree, russell george has backed him up by saying, there was no proof of political motivation. this is getting heated at this point with the irs guy kind of stonewalling. >> yes, and remember, this is

all under oath. they are testifying in front of congress, so anything that's said could subsequently be proven false, they would be subjected to perjury. so, we will have to see how this shakes out. stuart: very interesting, charles. charles: i find miller having gravity for the situation and the hearings and sort of what eric holder displayed earlier in the week. two follow-up questions for levin, the motivation wasn't political, what was the motivation. and the doctor, why was a group singled out. if it wasn't so bad why were you fired? this is a big deal and-- >> we're not going anymore so far. >> and when they claim they don't know where the leaks come from out of the irs, every irs from the top to the lowest agent ail of their computer,tracked and e-mails and digital communications, it's impossible they wouldn't know where the links came from. stuart: they're back to questioning steve miller, let's go back. >> you were not a political

appointee. >> i am not a political appointee. what i'm trying to point out and basically to debunk is the notion or the idea of the political statements and i believe nonfactual statements by chairman camp to link these scandals to the white house or solely the targeting of conservative groups. i was the person last week who asked the question of ms. learner as to whether or not the irs were investigating political, not for profit organizations and at that hearing we were not given a proper-- we were not given an answer. i think that mr. bustani would agree, the world only learned after she was asked a question at a press event and that's simply unacceptable. but what i also think is important it to keep this in a

-- at least at this point in time i would hope, in a nonpartisan and maybe a bipartisan context because we want to find the facts. stuart: breaking away for a second ap i'm going to congressman scott garrett, a republican from new jersey. 's been listening to what's going on inside that committee room. congressman garrett welcome to the program. real fast, we don't think we're getting answers to the questions that are being asked by this committee. what's your reading? >> it's been riveting testimony and i agree with you 100%, we're not getting answers. they're simply going through the process and saying that rightfully so, when you're dealing with political organizations you're going to look at them closer, but the ultimate question, how come it is only or primarily those on the right or conservative organizations seem to be targeted as opposed to the left, one example in the media, they apply under a conservative name, no good. come back under a more liberal sounding name all of a sudden it

goes through. stuart: j russell george who wrote the report says he's not found any evidence of political motivation on the part of the people doing the targeting. one last point to you, sir. >> so, that's what they say so far, but as in any of these investigations, this is just the beginning and i think as we begin to dig deeper and i do say the e-mails are out this, we will probably find there are some starting from the top creating a culture of the direction these people go in these things. stuart: congressman scott garrett, thanks very much indeed. i'll go back to the hearings, they are in progress, here we go. >> in my compute, the founder of small business woman recently filed for tax exempt status in july of 2010, fully 20 months later, in february 2012, she received a letter from the irs with numerous follow-up questions and she answered every one of them and returned it well within the two week time limit. now, almost three years to the day that she first filed her

application is still pending. but let's look at what happened to her in the three years since she applied. beginning in december, 2010, she was visited by the fbi domestic terrorism unit. her personal returns and her business returns were both audited by the irs. she received four fbi inquireies, and her business received unsolicited audits, unscheduled audits by osha, the commission on environmental quality and the atf twice. now, this is a citizen and a small business woman never audited by the irs or any of these agencies until she applied to you for tax exempt status for her tea party. the broader question here, is this still america? is this government so drunk on power that it would turn its

full force, its full might to harass and intimidate and threaten an average american who only wants her voice and their voices heard? mr. miller, who in the irs is responsible for targeting conservative organizations? >> so let me first say i cannot speak to a given case in that we've talked about 6103, but that's-- >> this is not just one case, you know we're talking about the whole list inspector general put up there. who is responsible for targeting these groups? >> again, i'm going to take exception to the concept of targeting because it's a loaded term. the listing was done-- >> this was not a listing, you created a be on the lookout list. that's not a centralize d government mandated or directed listing.

you had a "be on the lookout list that you acknowledged and the request remains, who is responsible for targeting conservative organizations? >> so, again, and i think if you look at-- take the report, it answers your question. >> there are no names in the inspector general's report. so, aim asking you, not only as the acting commissioner, but as the deputy commissioner over this organization, who is responsible for targeting these individuals? >> so i don't have names for you, mr. brady and i'm willing to try to find that out. i think that tigta is looking at that now. i don't think that-- targeting again is wrong. >> you're telling us you have no knowledge of who initiated or who approved this targeting of conservative organizations? >> i will stand by what the tigta report has put out there as the facts. >> it you assure this committee that none of the information provided to the irs by these

groups was shared or given to any other federal agency? >> that would be a violation of law and i do not believe that happened. >> you can assure us there was absolutely no sharing of this information to other government agencies. >> tigta and others would look at that. i would be shocked, congressman if that happened. >> if your earlier answers are any indications, we will all immediate about it in the media. we ought to be getting the truth from you. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you, mr. rangel is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. [inaudible] >> occurred under the bush appointees as well as the obama appointees? >> there were no obama appointees, so, under, under mr. shulman, i'm not sure-- i apologize mr. rangel, i'm not sure what -- are we talking about-- >> the people that were -- once it was discovered that people

were put under a list, a lookout list, that type of thing, regardless of what you call it, were the people responsible in treasury department appointed by president bush as well as continuing service under president obama? basically the question is that mr. crowley was asking about. >> at the irs, the commissioner was appointed under the bush administration. obviously, at treasury, those would be at main treasury, those individuals would be obama appointees. >> what i'm trying to say, this outrage is not democrat and republican, it's -- it involves the credibility of government as relates to american citizens. now, the president has indicated outrage. you have indicated outrage. so, i would assume that we're on

the same side in trying to determine how did this happen? who was responsible for it, how far does this cancer go, how quickly can we cut it out so that tens of thousands of irs employees have the stigma of corruption taken away from them, that you, mr. miller, who is a career employee, don't have to explain to your kids and friends that you are not involved in a scandal, that all of the people that serve the government, it's too late for the congress, but it's not too late for the government to try to get its reputation cleaned up for america. so, i don't want to see anger with you two, but i certainly hope before this hearing is over that you share with us how you were intend to have your voices heard so that america would know

that whether this was criminal activity or mistake, i don't know, but we have to get on with it. now, under 501 c-4 we're supposed to allow political activity to take place, meaning that you can make political donations without saying how much and who made the donations, right? >> i'm -- if i could restructure it, under ruck sure it, under 501 c 4 organizations, donors and their contributions are not public information, if that was the question. >> you can make political contributions. >> you can make contributions to 501 c 4 for political purposes. >> you can do this as long as it is not the primary -- for 49% of whatever the activities are without technically violating the law. is that correct? >> the test is whether your

primary activities are social welfare in nature. >> primary means technically you could do 49% political. >> we have never been that precise. >> i am asking you could say that. after the supreme court decision there was -- what? citizens united, whatever. the application falls for this type of corporation increase dramatically. >> they did bubble. >> you don't have to be a political expert to know there was an increase in political donations given to 501 c 4s. >> if one looks at the reporting on the forms 990 of political activity and the money spent it will show an explosion in that money as well. >> so again it is almost as if invitation as the law is written for abuse in terms of political

activities for corporations that primarily as opposed to doing a social service work. is that not correct? >> it is something we have to look at closely. >> you should have wanted to look at this earlier before what my friends call a scandal, this is wrong to abuse the tax system. this screams out for tax reform, does it not? >> it is an area ripe for redefinition and reform. >> regardless whether democrats or republicans did something like this, the outrage should still be there. is that not correct? >> the outrage as to -- >> the abuse. >> yes. >> use by government employees, not by all of them, but by some of them, and our job is to find out who they are and all i want to get from you is your integrity is on the line, the

president, the administration, the irs employees that work hard each and every day, and unfortunately the congress gets involved in this, people are losing confidence in our government and i hope you feel the same sense to find out what caused this, how it could happen and help us to restore the confidence that americans should have in their government. i yield the balance of my time. >> mr. ryan is recognize. stuart: charles rangel, both asking the same question, who was responsible for targeting? doug schoen is with us, getting no answers. >> you get people under penalty of perjury being interviewed. bottom line, their lawyers that if you don't know it, don't say it and give you do know it try to answer as narrowly as possible. stuart: i'm getting no answers. >> not so far.

charles: absolutely not. stuart: paul ryan is asking the question, former vice presidential candidate, see what he is going to say. >> that they were taking place? then, took place may of 2012, you can hear to a subcommittee hearing on this issue on july 25th. we are investigating discriminatory 501 c 4s applications of groups, specifically, these conservative groups felt they were being harassed and you were asked, quote, what kind of letter or action taking place at this time that you were aware of and knowing full well these filters were being used, you said, quote, i am aware of some 200 applications fell into this category that the determination letter process, we did group these organizations to get it to ensure consistency, quality, we continue to work those cases.

that was your answer to this committee after you had received the briefing that these targetings were occurring which you acknowledged was outrageous. the law governing how you must respond to congressional inquiry requires you not only tell the truth but the whole truth. you, quote, cannot conceal or cover-up by any trick, scheme or device a material fact. how was that not misleading this committee? you new targeting was taking place, you knew the term tea party patriots were being used, you admitted they were outrageous and when asked about this after you were briefed, that was the answer you gave us. how can we not conclude you misled this committee? >> that was a lot of questions. >> how can we conclude you did not mislead the committee? >> committee, i stand by my answer

then, i stand by my answer now. harassment and discussion was part of that, implies political motivation. there is a discussion going on, no political motivation. >> let me ask it again. >> i will give you some clarity. here is the question you were asked. what kind of letter or action taking place at this time that you are aware of? >> so the discussion of the context of that and we need to go back and look at the context, there was the listing, there was the treatment of the cases. my understanding of the question is the treatment of the cases because all of the letters, talking about, i am hearing people complaining about letters. my response was to that. we found out about those letters, we dealt with them as has been explained we gave more time and went and talked to them

about expanding the way they could answer it and we have dealt fairly and successfully with the donor or mist issue. >> you knew of the concern of the targeting and allegations reported to this committee, we brought you here to talk about that, you had received a briefing this targeting was taking place but you did not divulge that to this committee when asking questions about this. you said in your answer that you were aware of 200 applications that fell into this, quote, category, we did these groupings together to ensure consistency and quality and work those cases, you didn't mention targeting based on ideology, didn't mention targeting based on buzz words like tea party or patriots, you knew that but it mentioned this to the committee, was that nodding complete answer? >> i answered the question truthfully. >> you gave us a list the other day of approved applications for

advocacy organizations through 2009. we don't know how long these applications staff or how long it took to process them. from earlier testimony the irs was doing this because they were concerned about political activities by nonprofits. that is taking place here. some of these that were approved for chattanooga organize reaction, progressive leadership alliance and progress of u.s. a. did you have targeting lists that contained words like progressive or organizing in their names? >> let's step back and let me walk you through the process. we centralize cases based on political activity evidence in the file, took a shortcut on some of it but collected to be. more than tea party cases.

mr george's own report -- >> use for targeting. >> we collected more people because any time it was seen political activity is part of the file, and -- >> mr. mcdermott is recognized. >> can't agree where the sun is shining. stuart: they are fixing a buzz, we have three congressman with us, fireworks, asking specific questions and not getting any answers. they were asked specifically who was responsible for this targeting. how can we include you did not mislead this committee, asks paul ryan. he said no political motivation by mr. miller. fast response. >> the language they use for targeting, tea party progressive know, pretty clear to me that is

political. >> those buzzwords were used. >> paul ryan nails mr. miller, you were not responsible does for telling us the truth but telling us bow whole truth. stuart: why we put this on, we don't normally go to hearings, the last three congress planned to ask relevant and dynamite questions and did get an answer. back to the hearings. >> determination unit stated they consider the tea party criteria as a shorthand term for all. will -- potential political cases. these applications were singled out for their names and policy decisions, not for their activities which they should have been singled out for. some of these political groups were delayed in getting taxpayer status and that was wrong. much as i dislike the right i think it is wrong to be uneven

handing government application. inspector general's report said no one acted out of malice or political motivation. i want to know, do you still stand by that? >> we have no evidence at this time to contradict that assertion. >> we really want to root out the causes of this we need to talk about campaign finance laws and citizens united decision in 2010 which is when this all started. in all started right after citizens united. people saw the door open, we could get in and do political advertising and won't have to report anybody's name, applications for secret money, political organizations increased by fourfold after the supreme court. the group of people in the cincinnati office screwed up. they simply screwed up. but the congress, this committee makes up by not giving any clear

criteria for what real charitable organization is. the law is not clear and people have to make judgments which means they need to collect a lot of data to figure out what people are up to. clearly there's a problem in determining an organization's primary purpose. i want to ask about that and think about it while i am talking. as i watch this conversation shift, find out what is right or wrong, and let's repeal it. could have revealed that with the obamacare, and also about republicans story line in this agenda. we need to find some truth here and talk about it. the irs, can't access medical

files. is that true? >> correct. >> cannot find out your private medical information. their job in obamacare is to correct hade financial information on determination is made as to whether somebody can get a subsidy for their premiums. is that true? >> that is what we would be getting. >> it is not a fascist takeover going on here of the health care system the irs is one of the hardest -- stuart: the buzzing is back the we will break away. you are watching the ultraliberal jim mcdermott from washington state shifting the argument to discussion of the irs role in obamacare and shifting it towards campaign reform and away from the idea of targeting political groups by

the irs. quick comment? before he started this whole thing by saying as much as i dislike the right -- pretty much the same, build a boat around president obama but he has gone a step further and bringing up some things that will be challenged big time. >> blame the irs the first step. and ultimately make the case that we need political reform, new legislation that that is the way to spin against the republicans. stuart: when this big increase in applications for tax-exempt status came in to the irs and when the targeting was actually done. there is a difference. >> the irs tried to explain this by saying we had a huge spike in applications for 501 c 4 tax exempt status group so we were trying to deal with this huge influx and that is why they ended up targeting these groups

but what we know from the time line is this started targeting of conservative groups as the tea party was really taking off. march of 2010, that is before the spike in 501 c 4s could be perceived. stuart: i wish the subcommittee members knew that. republican california now asking mr. miller questions. >> i don't know whether we knew at that time or not. >> could she have known before this committee -- >> don't know that. >> did you know that mr. lerner was going to appear last friday, may 10th on a panel called news from the irs and treasury at the american bar association conference? >> i knew she was appearing. i did not know the topic. >> did you or your subordinates direct lois lerner to make a public statement that the panel discussion acknowledging the targeting of tax-exempt groups? >> it was unprepared q&a.

>> do you know miss cme a roadie, a member of irs's council and government entities? >> i do. >> was the question to ms. lerner about targeting conservative groups planned in advance? >> we talked about that. >> did you ever have contact by e-mail, phone or in person with the white house regarding targeting of tax-exempt groups from 2010 until today? >> absolutely not. >> how about the department of treasury? >> i certainly would have had some conversations with treasury in my role as acting commissioner because i reported to them. on this topic it would have been -- i have to go back and looked at very recently that conversation would have taken place. >> what about president obama's reelection campaign? >> no. >> did you ever have, and with

anyone associated with organizing for america or its nonprofit successor organizing for action? >> no. e.u. ever have contact with anyone associated with pro publica? >> i don't believe so but there was, when this whole thing came out, that was previously referenced, the irs might have talked to them. >> it would probably clarify your involvement in this, mr. miller, would be if you submitted to this committee your e-mails, phone records and personal schedules from 2010 until you resign would you be willing to do that? >> i will have to see what is legally appropriate. >> we could subpoena those records. >> i understand. i have to talk to my lawyers and the agency. i don't know. you are asking me and we will talk. >> i would suggest we work hard to get those records and i would

encourage you to contact miss roadie and miss and lerner to testify before this committee at our earliest possible time. i have one last question, mr. miller. you really are not taking any acknowledgment that you knee anything, that you didn't do anything wrong, you said that numerous times on the record today that you did nothing wrong. i find it hard to believe, why did you resign? why are you resigning? >> i never said i didn't do anything wrong. what i said is it contained the questions, i resigned because as acting commissioner, what happens in the irs whether i was personally involved or not stops at my desk. i should be held accountable for what happens. whether i was personally involved or not, very different question.

>> i hope you would be willing to submit your e-mails, phone records, personal meetings that you had in the next four years, that would keep your reputation in good standing. >> we will talk about that. i just don't know. >> thank you, mr. miller, i yield back my time. >> mr. chairman, earlier you reference to an article and for the purpose of this hearing to insert an article from bloomberg news that appeared on may 14th indicating their democratic leaning organizations, a focus of the irs. >> without objection. >> when i woke up this morning as they do every morning i went to my phone and i was curious

what the word of the day would be and the word of the day because merriam-webster is located in my home town and you have rejected the term targeted. is that correct? >> it is a term that implies something that didn't exist here. >> let me draw you into the weeds, by sheer irony, suggested they used the term of litmus test which they defined as a single factor as an attitude event or fact that is decisive in choosing these organizations. would you say there was a litmus test? >> no, the litmus test if any was political activity. >> one of my constituents who contacted my office yesterday outlining a pretty egregious situation, he is treasurer of a small nonprofit in massachusetts, a volunteer organization i should note and their association was told by the irs employees they were not required to file a form 990

because of their small size so they did and file one. this past november they received a letter from the irs saying their tax-exempt status had been revoked for failure to file the necessary forms without it vance notice so the irs told them they no longer needed to file the forms but instead of notifying them first about the problem and allowing them to fix it, especially in light of the advice they were given, the irs went ahead and revoked their tax-exempt status, they have to reapply and pay. this is a nonprofit that has been around 60 years. taxpayers should not be intimidated by the irs. there's broad agreement on that today. the american people should not be afraid of the irs. there is broad agreement on that today. we should be able to rely on advice they provide and not be punished for it. i hope we have an opportunity to work in this specific issue but i want to turn to a topic of recent focus by the irs and that is obviously the question today.

stuart: something important just happened. i missed it, maybe mr. monica crowley and mike huckabee did not. would happen? >> it was assumed when was lerner from the irs last friday made an off-the-cuff comment, that in fact this was coming and wanted to apologize that the irs had been targeting conservatives and conservative groups. this exchange mr. miller just admitted that they discussed it ahead of time so her disclosure was preplanned. >> in advance of the report, indicating they wanted to leak this out and on friday how convenient of course they did. i never believed for a moment that it just happened that the american bar association this question just happened to be posed and they have confirmed. stuart: what is the implication of this? >> the implication is lead get out quietly on friday where debt is buried in the news cycle of the weekend and raise the balloon and see how big an issue

this becomes, much bigger than they ever hope for mentioned. stuart: you have been listening to this. i don't think we're getting answers to our specific questions that are being asked. >> you can't get answers when a person says we didn't target anybody even though it just happened coincidentally put all the people we didn't targets were all of the same political stripe and we made some mistakes but we didn't really do anything criminally or fundamentally wrong. that is like john villager saying i didn't really robbed the bank, i wrote the wrong thing on that note. i meant to say i would like to make a deposit and they took it that i was trying to make a withdrawal and i made a mistake. i used the wrong language. stuart: mike huckabee making a good joke about this. i want to know who did this, why did they do and how far off of the food chain did it go and i have not been told. >> you are not going to be told long as this goes on because there's a clear attempt to hide the truth from us and to say

mistakes were made but they were low, low down in the agency. that is nonsense none of us believe. stuart: stay with us a little longer because this is good let's go back to it. >> discipline directly related to this development review approval and you saw inappropriate criteria. any corrective actions put in place to ensure that this is not going to happen again. >> let me walk through. the answer to that is yes. what happened in may when i was told this, i asked the management to reassign an individual who had been involved in these letters that were objectionable. i also asked oral counseling given to the person we thought at the time was responsible for the listing. i also was aware that we be looking at this and as i mentioned in my statement now that they are out with the facts we would be able to look again.

just because -- have to be very careful, the oral counseling that was provided turned out that person may not have been involved so what was done in lieu of that was all the managers in that group were brought in and walked through the new processes and explained that this was no way to behave. the left is in terms of the future the listing cannot be done and cannot be changed to the high level of approval at the executive level. >> thank you. >> mr. miller, in january of 2010 and organization called liberty town should tea party in ohio applied for tax-exempt status. there is no resolution of their application to this day. liberty town cit tea party received 35 questions in march

of 2011 but really there were 94 questions. the letter direct the applicant to provide under penalty of perjury some of the following information, copies of all like to the on facebook and recoverys of all past and present employees, whether a past or present employee or their family members plans to run for office in the future. i would like to submit a copy of the dispatch article or from yesterday that references this and in fact, mr. chairman, in the article i quote a board member from liberty township tea party who is in the audience today, quote, we are an educational group. we don't have a paid staff. we don't endorse candidates. we don't man phone banks, we don't do any of those kinds of political activities. >> without objection the article will be placed. mr. miller, questioned 26 of the

irs questionnaire to the tea party group is as follows, quote, provide details regarding your relationship with justin bennett thomas, an american citizen, who is in the audience today who still doesn't know why he was questioned number 26. the dispatch article goes on to say thomas said he was shocked when he found out the irs was asking questions about him of a group he barely knew. he had been involved in a cincinnati tea party, even served as spokesman but had not worked with the liberty township tea party, quote, the obvious question that comes to mind is why am i being targeted? where does this information go in this end? does it get shared with other government agencies? july get an audit? if i do is against my business? all of those things go through your mind. to this day he doesn't know why

his name is question no. 26 for an organization who still hasn't received approval since january of 2010. the article goes on to state democratic governor ted strickland, a former governor of ohio, his top aides, very political, filed for tax-exempt status as 5013 c organization in august of 2011, they were approved nine months later. mr. miller, another organization in ohio, ohio liberty coalition, this is part of their document in response to irs requests. this is only part of it. all these documents weren't enough for the irs to approve their application and in fact a former president of the organization who is here today said they applied in june of

2010, they finally received approval. this wasn't enough, by the way, in december of 2012, one month after the november election. there's another lady i met in the audience from ohio who indicated her group had a book club and they demanded a list of all the books they had read in a book report from the book explaining what was in the books that they read. you can't make this stuff up. this is unbelievable. mr. miller, i don't know how you can teach any of this or say it is not political when the liberal group they get got exempt status in three didn't for over two years. who was your boss in 2011-2012 that he reported to? >> i believe it would have been

-- >> terror in from? >> part of that time and part of that time another gentleman. >> the other gentleman submitted his resignation? >> i believe so. >> what is missing from doing today? what is her job title? >> she works on implementing the affordable care act. >> who promoted her to that position? >> i would have moved her into that position. >> why would you promote someone into that position was in charge of the exempt organization division which certainly has had some controversy over the last couple years under investigation? >> she is a superb civil servant. >> yet nothing to do with this. >> i wouldn't imagine so. >> i can speak to individual cases but generally we provided horrible customer service here. i will admit that. we did. horrible customer service. >> whether it is politically motivated is another question. >> an american doesn't know why he was question no. 26.

>> time has expired. stuart: things of importance just happen. the name sarah in groom was entered into the testimony, she is the lady who ran the tax-exempt office and then was transferred to run the irs obamacare office. mr. miller was asked who promoted her, he said i did, his because she was a superb civil servant even though she had been involved right in the middle of the targeting of these conservative groups. the other point, learning more about the actual practice of abuse, getting answers to questions. >> it is stunning to find out the irs asked these conservative groups tell us who you associated with, tell us what kind of speeches you gave, what was the content of the speeches, what books have you read, this is what you see people do stepping in jackboots down the street and coming after, you don't want to be over the top about it but this were happening to the left from the right there

would be a public outcry and a demand for heads to roll. stuart: it is orwellian. >> i don't know that orwellian was this over the top. don: 1984. >> i am doing hyperbolic but i get it. charles: once again miller doesn't remember a lot of things but sarah in rome was an exceptional civil servant and she deserves a promotion. full of contradictions. stuart: a hiatus on the fireworks, is that correct? a hiatus on the fireworks. you take the move away when there's a fire and brimstone going on but we have christopher whiteand. he sits on the board of a group that was targeted. are you with this? >> yes, sir, good to be here. >> i want to ask, what did you go through?

is it comparable to what we saw moment ago? >> there are distinct similarities. and more than two years ago, a greater period of time, questions, more back and forth than you expect with the nonprofits and i can tell you that confidential information about our organization was provided illegally by the irs, the left-leaning -- stuart: information about your group was provided to a liberal group while waiting for a tax-exempt status for your group. that is accurate? >> that was given confidential information. stuart: that is flat out illegal. >> that would violate the privacy act.

and there are criminal acts here, but i'm glad we're getting to it. and not just irs. stuart: we are asked to leave the irs when it gets hold of our personal health care information would not make a similar release to anybody. they would not do that with our health care information with our tax exempt stuff. >> there is no credibility, we learned the prison in charge of the criminal activity is now in charge of obamacare, no white house influence, and this needs to be investigated by congressional hearings like independent held. stuart: thanks for joining us. >> the couple weeks ago, secure american now organization is a benign organization trying to make sure we take care of things in the middle east. stuart: with a title like that?

investigate! >> tweeting this reveals. they are crimes and let me use the term deliberately, the crime is not only of targeting groups specifically because of the content of their speech and to they assemble with but to misuse the information and then to allow that information to be leaked to sources that would be unfriendly to the group than friendly to the administration. that is equally chilling to me as the accumulation of data to begin with. stuart: still no answer to the question which is if there is no evidence of political motivation as to why these people did it, why did they do it? charles: what is the motivation? stuart: we were told there was a flood of applications following citizens united, a flood of information requests came in that you pointed out this targeting was done before that flood of -- >> targeting conservative groups, christian groups, jewish groups, an organization that imposes president obama and his

policies, started in march of 2010, maybe even earlier. that is before the irs got this 501 c 4 application. stuart: what is the lead on your radio show? >> we don't have much to talk about. we will talk about movies and sports today because there's nothing n the world of politics. stuart: stock markets of 57 points on the dow. >> will be a seven our show today. stuart: thanks for taking time. much obliged to you. back to the hearings, good stuff. here we go. >> 15 minutes to question you but i only have five. i am disappointed. i am hearing i don't know, i don't remember, i don't recall, i don't believe, you don't even know who investigated the case but yet you say it was investigated but you don't know who investigated. i am puzzled by that. you are not assuming a lot of confidence in this panel and the people across this country but i

want to go back to your aversion to the word targeted. you said there was no targeting because there was no intent. notwithstanding the intent of irs personnel would you not agree certain groups were treated differently because of their name or policy position? >> i believe that -- >> treated differently, that is the question, because of believe, policy position or their name? that is a yes or no question. >> no. >> no one was treated differently? >> may i answer? i would like to be a little broader than a yes/no. i understand your view. my understanding of the cases that went into this q is that it included elements throughout the political spectrum. that of the 300 cases that were looked at by the treasury

inspector general, 70 of the 300 had tea party in the name. i understand the organization's -- >> mr. miller, it is my time and i would take it back for now. i am not going to be delayed here so your answer was no, no one was treated differently. i take you back to mr. ryan's question you new groups with the term tea party had been automatically subjected to extra scrutiny. you have admitted that day. you acknowledge your investigation to whether certain groups were being treated differently, whether there was intent or not, didn't this committee didn't have a right to know. >> i answer all questions truthfully. >> to this committee have a right to know groups were being treated differently? a group of 300, did not this

committee have the right to know? >> i answered all the questions i was asked. >> it was a non answer once again. >> it is an easy question. the thing congress has a right to know all the information that you know? >> the committee -- >> does this committee have to know the information that you knew? yes or no? >> this committee is always going to get that information. >> you testified -- >> mr. miller, you testified before this committee and you did not provide the information, you did not share the information, you did not believe, that you are accountable for, accountable to the people, the american citizens across this country. do you believe it is your job to

provide us with information that you know so that you said the people of this country can be properly served honestly? url law-enforcement agency, i was a cop for 33 years. you raise your right hand today. did this committee have a right to know? >> i answered all questions truthfully. >> i will go to mr. george. you are not going to cooperate with me, you have been uncooperative during this hearing. mr george, we heard an early draft of your report indicates you were unable to determine who initially directed the irs employees to target groups based on political beliefs. is that true? >> that we were unable to. >> you are the commissioner. who is responsible?

you conducted the investigation. who was responsible? >> i don't have that name. >> why don't you have that name? have you asked anybody? >> yes. >> to the u.s.? >> i don't have that amy there. i will be glad to provide those names. >> let him answer the question. >> washington state's time. >> who did you ask? >> i asked the senior technical advisor. >> with the advisor at name? >> nancy marks. >> what did nancy do you? who is responsible? >> i don't remember. >> you don't remember again. all right. time has expired. the committee, there are votes on the floor, the committee will recess for 15 minutes. stuart: what a morning. fireworks front and center and you saw some of them. steve miller getting out of his chair right now, he is the departing acting irs commissioner. he was in the hot seat very much

today. i counted three congressmen who asked the same specific question, who was responsible for targeting? three times he said i don't have a name. he was pressed and eventually came up with one name but then said he doesn't remember the rest of it. david webb is with us, tea party guy. with the make of this? you angry?than angry, the amerin people should all be angry. we have got to take on our federal bureaucracy. stuart: we heard a lot of detail, a lot of talk about process, a lot of talk about time lines, i see that stonewalled. i am not getting the answers to the questions. >> no answers who did what, when, where. data timeline back to 2010 of specific people, specific knowledge but yet everyone who is supposed to know doesn't

know. the bigger danger is does the irs act independently as the oppressor of any organization they choose to? this is not a 1 office thing, not about lowest lerner alone, but how they operate and how they choose to target certain groups. stuart: i want to carry this forward to the debate about obamacare because this hearing relates to the irs policeing of obamacare specifically through sarah hall in grim. she is the lady as we all know, let me keep viewers informed, she was a lady who from 2009 through 2012 was a tax exempt commissioner, overseeing this operation which included the targeting of conservative political groups. she then has shifted and becomes the irs person in charge of policing obamacare. she is the person to whom the

information goes about your personal health care. she was in that position with political targeting. now she is in a position with iris obamacare. that came up. mr. miller, who promoted her? he did. he promoted her. the answer was because she was a superb civil servant. >> unbelievable. look at the bonuses she got. $103,090. on one side the barack obama foundation goes through in one month, gets a retroactive assignment of status in june of 2011 to december of 2008. over 300 groups were targeted. some don't have their status on top of this criminality. they released information for groups that were not already processed which is blatantly illegal, this is criminal

behavior. stuart: the president's half brother runs the foundation. he got tax-exempt status in three weeks, it was made retroactive for three years, getting money together to build a madrasah and then the mom's house in kenya. >> he admitted he didn't have the people do the forms properly into the press. >> this quickly a point in the testimony mr. miller said miss ingram who is in charge of the division that the targeting just said she wasn't involved in the targeting. he said that under oath. stuart: coming up on our break. irs hearing as promised, fireworks after this. >> is this the american? is this government so drunk on power that it would turn its full force, its full might to harass and intimidate and threat and an average american? in today's markets,

a lot can happen in a second. with fidelity's guaranteed one-second trade execution, we route your order to up to 75 market centers to look for the best possible price -- maybe even better than you expected. it's all part of our goal to execute your trade in one second. i'm derrick chan of fidelity investments. our one-second trade execution is one more innovative reason serious investors are choosing fidelity. now get 200 free trades when you open an account.

stuart: here is what has been happening as we are watching the irs hearing, gas up a penny overnight, national average $3.61. check the price of oil, back to $95 a barrel. up it goes. earnings fell 79%, another sign of the lagging pc market, shares

of 15, no change at all. google glass has not even hit the store shelves yet but has already raised concern in washington. congressional leaders as caboodle's chief about privacy concerns with the new technology. no word from google but shares at $909. facebook a year ago monday, shares down very cents, 26 right now. we have a lot to talk about. the irs hearing this, charles and monica, back in a moment. i want to make things more secure.

[ whirring ] [ dog barks ] i want to treat mo dogs. ♪ our business needs more cases. [ male announcer ] where do you want to take your business? i need help selling art. [ male announcer ] from broadband to web hosting to mobile apps, small business solutions from at&t have the security you need to get you there. call us. we can show you how at&t solutions can help you do what you do... even better. ♪ from capital one... boris earns unlimited rewards for hismall business. can i get the smith contract, ease? thank you. that's three new paper shredders. [ boris ] put 'em on my spark card. [ garth ] boris' small business earns 2% cash back on every pchase every day. great businesses deserve unlimited reward read back the chicken's testimony, please. "buk, buk, bukka!" [ male annouer ] get the spark business card from capital one and earn unlimited rewards. choose 2% cash back or double miles on every purchase every day. told you i'd get half. what in your walle

stuart: we were watching the irs on the spot in washington, stock market has moving hire. 62 points up for the dow jones industrial average right around 153, charles payne is here. he watches the market and the irs and i want to know why we are again. charles: we had a consumer report number, consumer sentiment number one above the estimate and -- stuart: i wonder what consumer sentiment is about the irs. that is it? been is printing money, profits are ok? charles: we sold off on a hint that ban may not be printing money. i believe a lot of people in this market would love to see ben stopped printing money, take the lumps and get this bill a bonnet coin. stuart: it will come down first. boeing, i know it is up, how much? nicole: taking a lump on a

record day on wall street, the best performers on the dow jones industrials which includes boeing, united technologies and alcoa, boeing is a 2.2% and is the no. one performer in the dow, the dow broke through the 15,300 mark and traded as high as 15,000 so the bulls are saying go and they loved it, so keep on going higher. stuart: it is all good stuff on a friday morning. more good stuff. we often don't cover these congressional hearings on "varney and company". we find the mason or theft but today very different, the ira's on the hot seat about a scandal involving political targeting. i am going to backtrack and bring you a quick sound bite from a republican from washington state. >> i am disappointed. i'm hearing i don't know, i don't remember, i don't recall, i don't believe, you don't even know who investigated the case

but yet you say it was investigated but you don't know who investigated. i am puzzled by that. stuart: a lot of people were. you are tea party guy. tea party 365. were you harassed? >> not the we know of. our file went through fine but here's the broader context of the irs doing this. when you have an agency gone out of control, where do they stop regardless of administration? reno that this has to end and my advice to the republicans, follow the evidence where it leads. continue the prosecutorial process as representatives have gone. stuart: hold on. members of this committee have been asking steve miller all day long who was responsible for targeting and they have not done an answer. they asked who else knew? who did you report to? who did you tell? we have not gotten an answer to

that. >> they are not going to give us one. these are the smartest guys in the room who are supposed to do the job but they know nothing. i you willing to suspend your disbelief that they are that incompetent and if they are they still don't belong there. they know, they refuse, thereunder rose, an important point monica made. stuart: when he did go to prison. >> there has been criminal behavior whether it is civil and criminal or combined, we have a real problem every amerrcan should pay very close attention to. stuart: i don't see these investigations going away. i think we will see them all the way through the summer and the i think that will interrupt the president's agenda. >> this is why you are getting these non answers. these guys are all lawyers up and the lawyers have told them you got to parse your answers and keep your answers as narrow and as tight as you possibly can and when in doubt say i don't know, i don't recall or i don't remember.

breaking news this morning, democrat max baucus who is head of the senate finance committee said this morning there is more to come. he said mark my words, there's more to come. that being the case you wonder who else knows what else is coming, that is why you think mr. miller and so many others testified. i don't know, i don't recall, i don't have the name. >> always comes down to e-mails, whose sense what to where. stuart: a demand from congressman one has, mr. miller, we want all your e-mails. >> shadow e-mail accounts, this is where it is. stuart: you need to go to break right now please.

are you still sleeping? just wanted to check and make sure that we were on schedule. the first technology of its kind... mom and dad, i have great news. is now providing answers families need. siemens. answers. [ babies crying ] surprise -- your house was built on aancient burial ground. [ ghosts moaning ] surprise -- your car needs a new transmission. [ coyote howls ] how about no more surprises? now you can get all the online trading tools you need

without any surprise fees. ♪ it's not rocket science. it's just common sense. from td ameritrade.

pingback. ♪ >> you know the truth and you have a legal responsibility to share it with others. what is that called? >> i always answer questions truthfully. stuart: we were expecting a different answer. an extraordinary headlines concerning the irs scandal. monocoque brought it to us. she will repeat it. >> here is what he said "i have

a hunch that a lot more will come out, frankly. i suspect we will learn more in the next couple days, maybe in the next couple three weeks which adds context to all of this." stuart: it only takes one memo, one e-mail, one call between the irs and campaign or the white house to make a complaint. i believe some did go to the chief counsel. what does that mean? >> the closest person knows about this though plausible deniability has no connection to obama because he is a lawyer. however, this leads, because it is congressional testimony we do not have the evidence yet.

follow it. it will go to the white house. stuart: we are in the iris hearings today. charles: this pro- public a thing, i think it probably needs to be played up a lot more. why wouldn't the white house get it if he got it. stuart: pro- public the received information. flat out illegal. thank you everybody. great coverage of the irs hearings which will continue shortly. right now, dagen and connell, it is yours. connell: thank you very much, stuart varney. dagen: you can see the congressmen filing back in. and just moments we will hopefully talk to congressman charlie rangel.

you can see stephen miller there. the acting commissioner. connell: as he checks in from d.c. we will have plenty of analysis throughout the hour. let's start with nicole petallides and the stock market. good morning. a market that just will not quit. another record all time intraday high here on wall street. right now we are at 15,284. our highest was 15,305. the tech heavy nasdaq also moved to levels that we have not seen since 2000. you are seeing gains of roughly about a half% for two of our averages. the drug index is to the downside. the dollar is very strong and the majority of the dow components do have off