lot of other people. so give yourself as big, good hand. and thank you for being with us. that is all the time we have left. as always, thank you for being with us. let not your heart be troubled. we'll be back soon for another edition of hannity. drip, drip, drip. every day there's something new. >> they testified about matters of congressional interest. it's a broad question, but the answer is yes. >> in this white house is that the lights are on, but there doesn't seem to be anybody at home. >> none of the principals in any of these scandacascandals know about what's going on. >> if the president actually knew something, then clearly he's not being truthful and no

one around him is. if he didn't know anything, then i suggests a level of aloofness or perhaps incompetence that i think is pretty des tushing in its own right. >> once again, we have an administration that's lost focus on government. and that is very problematic going forward on all of these issues. >> this is a special edition of on the record. second term scandals. from the irs to the justice department to benghazi. the obama administration now trying to dig its way out. we begin with the irs. >> this is not just a scandal because of what was attempted, but the attempt succeeded. >> 25 of these groups have filed a lawsuit against the irs. and the attorneys representing them say that the abuse of power went a lot higher up than the white house first claimed. >> you don't expect that the government would use a neutral

instrument like the irs to go against political opponents. >> former commissioner schulman visited the white house 157 times, raising the question, just what was said during those prekwents visits? >> what would be some of the reaps you would be at the white house? >> the easter egg roll with my kids. >> the idea that the irs commissioner is coming to the white house every nine days ought to raise warnings right off the bat, because this is an agency that need does have des tans from the white house. it shouldn't be part of the white house. it should be distant from the irs. >> we're going to do our job on the oversight. i see it as the arrogance of big government. >> how high does the irs scandal go? could the white house really be oblivious? former adviser to president reagan joins us. he says he didn't learn about

this until sometime in may. do you believe them? >> yes, i do. i don't think -- i mean, they are in real trouble if they lied to the american people, but this is astonishing. the irs operation against the tea party started three years ago. it took a year to reach the top of the irs. a year to reach the top of the treasury and a year to reach the top of the government. now i do not believe that that is true. i think all up and down the line, if they're going after the tea party folks, people are saying they're really hammering the tea party guys. and that's what congress has got to investigate. but i will say this. i don't believe white house people, the counsel or the chief of staff or the president of the unit would deliberately lie, because they would have a more endowse problem if they did. now they've got a rogue agency over there that they knew nothing about that's got 100,000 employees. >> what do you make of the fact that the former commissioner of the irs was at the white house 157 times.

and at first i thought you know because they're implementing obamacare through the irs, i thought that would be a reason for them to make a number of appearances, but then you have less than 50 by hhs sa beal kbrus. she has less than 50 visits. is that a reason to be suspicious or not. >> it's inexplicable. the secretary of state doesn't go over there nearly as much as that. if he's got obamacare he's got to deal with, and if they're working on tax reform every day some package, i could see it. but i think he's got an obligation to explain it. >> what does it mean for him? >> here's the problem. he now has coming up on january 1, the irs, the least popular agency of fwort is going to be overseeing and enforcing the least popular program of the federal government. this train wreck as senator baucus called it is going to

occur on the first of january. i think they could have a hellish year with this program, and it will deeply discredit government itself. and the democratic party is the party of government. i think the president is headed for a very bad 2014. and i think the democratic party is. and i don't know how they avoid it. >> is this something he's shooting himself in the foot? the fact that this scandal has erupted on his watch? >> i think he created a climate with the demonization of the tea party. he found out about the irs scandal the same day you and i did. he knew nothing about what was going on with james rosen at the justice department or the ap at the justice department. in benghazi, he knew nothing. and one week after susan wright

goes out and gets egg on her face, he tells the same story to the united nations. i mean, the president seems to be clueless about all of these things. as an executive, there's no doubt it's a failure. but, again, i hope, and i believe he's telling the truth. i didn't know any of that. >> but is the failure of his chief of staff and down the road? should they have told him? he can't be watching every parking ticket that happens in the city. at some point the staff has got to serve him. >> not only the staff. the chief of staff should have told him, we've got a real problem. holder should have walked over there. said mr. president, we're going to have to go after the top reporter of fox news in washington, dc. we're going to have to go after his phone records and all the rest and we're putting a full-court press on the associated press. let the president know. he's got judgment. we elected him to say are we going a little too far here? but they didn't do it.

>> in the past working for president reagan, is this the kind of information that would have passed their plates? >> it would have come to me, i would have called the president and said this is what's coming. you go and talk to the president if necessary. and i think the president's been terribly served here being kept in the dark. really ought to be tremendously angry executive if he sees himself as the chief executive of the united states. can you imagine that? you're the chief executive of the government, and boom, boom, boom, nobody told you anything about it? >> what do you think is going on behind the scenes? >> i don't know the president personally, but i've worked for three presidents, and i think that heads would roll. i can see what would happen if i

hadn't told the chief of staff or al hague, something i had known. you'd be in real trouble. you'd be called in, why in blazes didn't you tell us that. >> is the silver lining now that everybody's going to be on board, a lot of people want rae form of the irs. nobody understands the code, is this like a universal, we've got to do something in. >> well, he think you're going to investigate the irs. but let pea tell you, this is going to demoralize the good people in the irs. it's going to put government itself into disrepute. i mean, and the idea that this could take three years to reach the level of the chief executive of the government and two years to reach treasury, this is astonishing. i mean, it really is an indictment of the size and the distance of the various agencies of the government of the united states from their own leader. >> pat, nice to see you, sir.

>> pleasure. >> and a former irs commissioner calling it catastrophic. we spoke to him about the scandal and how the irs has changed since he ran it. >> how many visits did you make to the white house when were you commissioner? >> oh, i don't have an exact figure in mind, but what i said last year when i testified before the same house committee chair by mr. issa was that to my recollection i only went over there once to discuss policy matters. the contrast what i was getting to at the time, greta was that i was concern conceed about the p that the service plays in the affordable care act. when you have the commissioner having to meet on a regular basis with officials over in that part of the government. >> what has happened to the irs?

how do we have the situation where they're now being accused, and the evidence has been quite, is quite powerful that there's some targeting. and there's a lot of question whether it's low level or higher up. how does this happen? >> well, let me first say that my experience in the service was that from top to bottom people try to do their job impartially. they they try to get to the right answer and try to steer clear of politics. having said that, it's very serious, because one, for the service, and secondly, for the whole country, because the irs interacts with so many citizens, and it's such a fundamental part of the government. there are three things, though, to get to your question. first, i think there were some people down in cincinnati who just sort of for lack of a better term lost their minds. and they used criteria to review applications for exempt status that were just wrong. and they were biased.

sendly, at the intermediary level, it took two years to get this right. that's unconscionable. there were clear problems starting in march of 2010. and they should have been resolved promptly. and then the third thing, what was happening in the front office. there was no secret here. greta, i was getting calls at 11 and 12 saying what's going on. i didn't know much about it. obviously it was a great interest to many people, with congressional letters going in. the front office should have learned about it. testimony before ways and means should have been different and the record should have been corrected as soon as they knew that the testimony had been incorrect. >> and does the targeting go beyond conservative groups? congressman sam grace wants to

know if the irs also targets small businesses. what gives you reason to think that small businesses have been targeted? >> well, we know that the irs was targeting conservative groups. and at first, of course denied it, lied about it. and then when they were found out, basically, they leaked the information out and apologized. but we also know that in april of 2011 the obama administration had a draft executive order in which they were going to require any small business that was doing business with the government, procuring business with the government to have to disclose their political contributions over the previous two year period of time. now why would they want to know who small businesses that want to do business with the government, who they made contributions to? well, there's only one reason that makes any sense.

they wanted to reward their friends and punish their enemies. and that's completely inappropriate, probably illegal. and weigh need to find out whether it was occurring or not. we know that they had drafted that executive order. whether it was ever implemented, when the irs was doing what we know it now was doing. and douenying it, there's reaso to brief they may have been doing this as well. we need to find out. >> the draft executive order, it was never implemented or at least small businesses have never said they've been asked that. if the irs also targeted small businesses, it sounds like equal opportunity targeting, because they targeted conservative groups, small businesses i guess we need to find out whether they targeted any liberal groups. but if they targeted small businesses, it sounds like they're obnoxious and they want to make people's lives run. >> the way that you have to look

at this, greta is that they wanted to know what political contributions they had made. so -- >> well, that's a different issue. >> excuse me? >> that's a different issue, because as far as i know, that was never implemented, was it? >> we don't know. there was fire form that came out, a lot of heck was raised by a lot of members of congress when this was proposed by the administration back in april of 2011. and of course we don't know for sure what they did about it at that time. we know they were no longer public about it. and i support chairman sam graves who has sent a letter to the irs to find out whether the irs was doing this or not. now the problem is, is a lot of the confirmation we've gotten back hasn't been truthful. >> rather tn going to the potential guilty party, the irs, would it not be more effective to say to smul businesses across the country, have you ever been asked for your political dough

ma nati nations in the last few years. >> we do know that small businesses have been targeted unfairly, discrim na torl. and we feed to know this too. the american people have a right to know. >> let me send a message out to small businesses. if the irs is asking about your political dough makes, contact the congressman. >> and straight amed, the republican committee is suspicious of funny business. so suspicious the rnc is doing something. chairman is here and he'll tell you what he's doing. that's next. also eric holder trying to play nice with the media. why wouldn't he make the meeting on the record? dana perino is on the record up next.

candidate state department have communication with obama's reelection campaign after the benghazi terror attack. that's what the republican national committee wants to know. >> hey, good evening. >> first of all, what have you

done to try to find out whether or not the state department had communication with the obama campaign? >> every citizen is entitled to open records requests. so we took our right to ask the state department to release any and all e-mails that relate to benghazi or libya that came from any e-mail address at barack obama or the dnc. and i think it's a reasonable question. there's so much consternation. >> based on what? is there any, is there any sort of, you know, evidence or suggestion or even a smijion or anything? or is this a fishing expedition? or is this just something like your sixth sense? >> no, i think it's just a matter that we're in the closing days of the campaign. there was so much talk about these talking points and what they would say and not say. and the fact that the caa called it an act of terrorism almost

immediately. but then all of this was switched up and changed. and susan rice's talking points were changed. she came out on the talk show singing a different tune. i think it's a reasonable question for us to ask, which is was the campaign or was anybody at the dnc involved in any way in communication with the state department on this issue. you know, listen, circumstantial evidence, i think, is certainly there to suggest that somehow some political decisions were being made, but unless we ask the question -- and you've seen plenty of subpoenas and subpoena duces tecums. and it's a simple question and it could be a very simple answer. the state department could answer in two sentences. >> here's your major problem. because in this city, we all pretty much know the dangers of e-mail. i suspect if there was any sort

of funny business going on between the state department and the dnc, most likely it was done in a non-dastate department e-mail. if you go to the dnc, which is not a government entity, and see if they had any communications with the state department, it might be more likely, if there is anything there, to catch something. >> in court and litigation you make your record, too. so if people don't comply with an open records request. or there's been rulings, too, just because you don't use a state department e-mail doesn't mean you might be subject to an official request that you're otherwise using on a personal e-mail address. >> the honor system. so you think there's an honor system. if you're doing all this stuff you're not supposed to be doing

on your private e-mail account and you work for the government, you think they're going to say oh, you know what, i didn't use the state department e-mail, i used my personal one. so here it is. >> that could be. but i've also been involved in cases in my previous life where eventually, you can get to those e-mails. so i think it's also posing the question, posing the question to the washington beltway, which is, is any one thinking about the campaign? is anyone thinking about the dnc? now i don't believe it's our role to tart getting involved in what did the cia say to the doj, i think that's totally up to the members of congress and daryl issa, and i think they're doing a great job. but i do think it's reasonable for the national party on the republican side to ask the question as to whether or not the campaigns were involved in shaping the talking points in benghazi. and i think it's an important question and we asked it.

>> i think there are a lot of important unanswered questions in the city. and hopefully all of them get answered and then we can go on. but anyway, thank you very much, chairman. >> you bet, thank you, greta. >> growing call for attorney general holder to resign. can he survive the scandal? if so, what is his strategy. and zeroing in on hhs secretary sebelius. you're going to hear from senator oren hatch coming up. take theseags to room 12 please. [ garth ] bjors small busiss earns double miles on every purchase every day. produce delivery. [ bjorn ] just put it on my spark card. [ garth why settle for less? ahh, oh! [ garth ] great businesses deserve limited reward here's your wake up call. [ male announcer ] get the spark business card from capital one and earn unlimited rewards. choose double miles or 2% cash back on every purchase every day. what's in your wallet? [ crows ] now where's the snooze button?

did attorney eric holder mislead or even lie to congress? many lawmakers demanding the attorney general step down as the justice department snooping scandal heats up. and then there's the media

giving him the cold shoulder. >> i don't see how the american people have kf against in the attorney general. >> the few news outlets who did show up say holder is pledging to change some guidelines, but is this too little, too late. >> i love holder, he's my running buddy, but he's hurting our administration and it's team for him to go. >> he's now become a drag shoe on the president. and if the president continues to stand by him, then he's complicity. >> that is not something that i've ever been involved in or heard of or would think would be a wise policy. >> there's only two explanati s explanations, either he lied or he has one of the worst memories in history. >> we want to know what the toernl general's involvement was

in the issue of the search warrant for mr. rosen. and we're going to follow this until we get the answers. >> i've gt a copy of the application they had for search warrant. they say in this application that there was probable cause that mr. rosen had committed a crime. if there was not even the potential for prosecution, whoever filed this application needs to not only lose their job but lose their license to practice law. >> the five co-host dana perino joins us. dana, is there any rhone that you can imagine that this meeting between between the justice department, eric holder and the media had to be off the record? >> unless they were revealing something that was classified, y i can't imagine why they would.

in this case, they had significant that willed that they wanted the attorney general to come out. they got good press about that for about a day. then when it was revealed it had to be on background, some of the media organizations said they wouldn't go, i think it looked very sloppy. and at the end of the day, the reporting out of the meeting has been that it was very constructive. i think they could have put it on the record at the beginning, and then they wouldn't have had this messy week. >> the ones who said it were constructive are the ones who went. of course they're not going to say it was a stupid idea to go. i'm expecting those who went are going to say it was constructive. the discussion was about guidelines. those aren't classified. and this is an administration that said it was transparnlsy. and the whole job of the press is to put the spotlight on the

government. i can't see in any way how this was beneficial to the attorney general and i think it smacked him right in the face. >> i don't think i would have even thought of putting it on background. if they have guidelines and they're revised then let's just have them. why can't everybody have them all at once. that didn't make sense to me. >> do you suspect that there would be a discussion at the white house about whether he should stay or not stay or is it too premature? he's getting a lot of heat this week and next week the temperature could guay down? >> probably in the most high up chamber in the oval office or in the chief of staff office they're having that discussion. lower down people keep their mouth shut and says okay. the press secretary says the president has confidence and i have confidence. but the confidence has been eroded. they'll get through this week. they'll go through the weekend. in about six to eight weeks unless something else dramatic happens you'll see a

resignation, and a new cabinet secretary be confirmed in the fall to lead the justice department. >> what's the strategy for him to stay on to rectify all that's happened. >> i don't know he's got a lot of repairing to do. if he doesn't have any problems with the president, the president's confident and that's okay. if everybody on the hill, even your friends and ally the think that the toernl general is hurting your ability to put forward your domestic agenda, then you're going to have to make the decision that putting loyalty aside and friendship aside, the best thing to do for the government is for him to resign. >> i think as the highest law enforcement in the country he better be able to explain his conduct. >> technically getting out of something, i agree, it's the same thing. >> we don't expect the toernl general to be slick. but if he has a good

explanation, let's hear it. >> attorney general eric holder is no stranger to scandal, but he has a long and respected lyle career. bernie, he had a great reputation on the bench as a judge. >> you were using the word flick. no one would ever have that in a sentence when they were talking about eric holder as a judge, as the u.s. attorney or the a.g. he's a regular guy. he's got children. he goes to pta meetings. i know this because his daughter went to the same school my daughter did. >> if you rewind this, i probably would have put him in probably the top five of the most respected, most decent to lawyers, most respectful to lawyers, most respectful to clients, never losing his temper, never being unfair, he was extraordinary how much he was liked. >> yeah. weigh were both trying cases at

that time in front of him. the measuring stick for me, is one, sort of how i feel, but more importantly, what does my client feel like? when clients found out they were indicted to judge holder's calendar they thought it was going to be fair and down the middle. >> what do you make of this latest round? >> you can't marry those things. not only did he say he was not involved in the rosen investigation but he has never been involved in any investigation regarding any reporter. three days later the justice department says he was involved in the details of that subpoena. >> so what happened? he drank the political kool-aid? what happened? if there's a great explanation and i'm totally wrong, but if there's no explanation for his testimony, what happened in the time between you and i tried

cases before him and now. >> why is a person who was a major partner in a law firm, why would you leave that and go into public service? >> i can definitely see that. he wasn't money motivated. and this was a challenge. i could see doing that job. >> i don't know. i don't know. i have too many children. if i had that job, i wouldn't leave it, not that it's being offered to me. the person they're describing here is not the person we know. the justice department says they have an explanation for it. there is to explanation for it. the justice department says he was involved. >> let's have it. >> the republicans are being accused of sort of trying to cripple the obama administration as it limps to the finish line. but i don't know. these statements and every a.g. has been under attack in the past 10, 15 years, but this is nix onian.

>> would you give attorney general holder another chance or should he go? go online and vote in our poll. can the obama administration really dodge all the scandals or will there be real casualties? we'll look at that next.

this is a fox news alert from los angeles. the oklahoma city area in the path of deadly tornados again late friday. the twisters killing at least five people. two of the victims, a woman and her baby found near their vehicle outside union city. another person was killed around el reno. the twister is injuring about 50 people. five of them are said to be in critical condition.

new video shows severe damage to homes and several flipped over cars. scores of people have been trapped in their vehicles trying to make it home. at will rogers airport, passengers were ushered into underground tunnels and flights were canceled. violent weather ripping through the st. louis area. >> one of the tractor-trailers blew over. kind of rolled over his car. got about four or five trucks that are damaged. we've got some furniture that was stacked up in there for sale that blew over. dividing wall between the two buildings, chunks of it are just gone. the roof must have lifted up and then the wall itself just collapsed. >> the governor of missouri declaring a state of emergency.

but so far there are no reports of deaths or injuries in the state. tornado watches are still in effect for several counties in oklahoma, illinois, missouri, arkansas and kentucky. several twisters hitting oklahoma and missouri. so far at least five people confirmed dead. i'm anita vogel. president obama and eric holder taking hits. but it is jay carney coming under rapid fire almost every day. >> is the white house satisfied with the responsiveness of congressional interest. >> the broad answer is yes. if it's specific to this matter the answer is yes. >> even if the attorney general ruled out that he was going to

prosecute rosen, this is not something that i've ever been involved in or heard of, we know he was involved in it at the very least. that's the question. was he not telling the truth? he was involved in it. >> involved in what? >> he signed off on the search warrant. you're not involved after signing on the search warrant? >> you guys are conflating, you know, the subpoena with prosecution. and i think that it is -- again, i would go by what the attorney general said. >> is it a technical accuracy you're holding on to? >> i'm saying based on what i've seen in published reports and what the attorney general said i don't see the conflict, but i would refer you to the justice department. >> so are these passing scandals, or will there be real political consequences? i was sort of sorry for jay karn

eye. it's almost a love affair between the media and the president seems to be over. >> i think so, especially with the doj probing the e-mails of james rosen and others. i think the love affair is sort of over. i think eventually the media will come over. people who are concerned about civil liberties they've hooked the other way over the past few years. liberals always come back to the president. but it seems like they're on the rocks right now. >> i think we look at the political implications of these scandals, he's going to be one of the victims of it. because he said with the benghazi e-mails, he said there were stylistic changes. i don't know what he is going to do when he leaves this job. >> it would be easy to throw him under the bus. if they want to sacrifice somebody he would be an easy

one. >> what do you think that the democratic party is feeling the most going into the 2014 midterms? >> i think the irs has to be the biggest issue. it's easy for people to understand benghazi. it's been complicated to get that message across. we haven't gotten the answers right now. but with the irs they've already admitted wrongdoing, and we've seen a pattern developing where it's worse than simply saying well, they accidentally flagged the tea party and patriots and some other people got extra scrutiny. right now we have pro-life groups, you have pro israel groups. i think that is a spread that could be bigger. and if it does reach anyone in the white house that could be a huge deal. the biggest issue i can see is the irs you can tie that to obamacare. one of every ten provisions in obamacare is overseen by the irs. they're going to be able to rally their base on this issue, tie it to obamacare and that's

going to be the focus. >> it's interesting to see how many democrats who are up for election hide under the desk. some of them are jumping on it saying they want an investigation too. it putting them in a tough position. >> and maybe it's too early to say how much impact this is going to have on president obama. just this week quinnipiac saw president obama's numbers tanking quite a bit. >> virtually no one likes the irs. so it's not like anybody's out there defending the irs, saying the poor irs. >> people know the irs. they don't like it when they get a letter from the irs. they can only imagine this is what they did to their political opponents. is this health insurance good enough? >> nice to see you. straight ahead. donation gate.

did hhs secretary sebelius break the law. we talk about gop efforts to find out. that's next.

when some people struggle with their mortgage payments, they become frozen, petrified. not knowing what to do, they do nothing, but the people who do something, the people who take action, are far more likely to get e most positive outcome. making home affordable is a free government program. call now to talk one on one with a housing expert

about the options that are right for you. real help, real answers right now.

congressional republicans stepping up calls for an investigation into sebelius. they want to know if she broke the law by seeking donations for obamacare. senator orrin hatch joins us. nice to see you. >> nice to talk with you. we appreciate you. >> what is it you're concerned about in terms of secretary sebelius' efforts to fund

obamacare. >> under the constitution, the agency should be funded only by the appropriations clause. the appropriations policies. and frankly, when they can go out and talk to companies that they overview, a nonprofit foundation they overview, and pharmaceutical companies and so fort and ask for money for the implementation of the so called affordable care act, that raises trchd ethical questions. i would say that the senator from tennessee, we wrote a letter to levinson who is the head, the inspector general of the department, wrote a letter to the comptroller general and all republican members of the committee wrote a letter to

secretary sebelius saying what's going on here, how can you do this? and do it through an outside entity by many who say who helped effect wait obamacare while she was in the white house. >> is the obama administration in somewhat of a bind in that they have to go to congress to get money to fund obamacare. the house is dominated by republicans who don't want obamacare. they don't have the money to fund it. that's why they've gone outside. but now they're seeking it from people who might have reason to fund it. >> hhs has a tremendous amount of money. they're not short of money in my opinion. the fact of the matter is that obamacare is such a disastrous bill that it's eating up all the money they have. and now they're trying to put the arm on others who they overbilled. that may be a violation of the

an antideficiency act as well. i'm not willing to make judgments until we get some answers. but we're not getting the answers right away either. >> are they answering anything? it would seep to me that they know that republicans are upset about that. it would be pretty easy to pick up a phone and call your office and talk to you and say this is what we're doing. is there any communication back is there any communication back >> not that i know of. frankly she should have known better. it certainly -- it raises the question of ethics whether what was done is ethical but it also raises questions of the law. was it illegal what they are doing? we just want to find out and straighten things out and get our country back in its good graces. i found out today the increase in costs of the so-called affordable care act or obamacare in california is raised well over 140% this year. that is what i saw in the press

today. i don't know whether that is accurate. it is going to be a whopping cost to the country and it isn't going to work. >> greta: senator, nice to see you. nice to talk to you. >> nice to talk to you, greta. keep doing a nice job. >> greta: we could soon learn more about what really went on at the irs and who really knew about it. find out what is ahead in the irs investigation. that's coming up.

>> greta: the second term scandals are far from over. next week we could find out a lot more about the irs. congressional investigators getting ready to grill employees at the irs cincinnati office. the one at the center of the scandal and on capitol hill several irs hearings. on monday the house appropriations committee will hear testimony from the acting irs commissioner and treasury department in is spector general jay russell george. then on tuesday targeted tea party groups will talk to the house ways and means committee and on thursday the house oversight committee will hold a

hearing on a newly released audit that uncovers excessive spending at irs conferences. we will bring you the latest. thanks for joining us. good night from washington. >> we're going to die! >> good morning, everyone. i'm alisyn camerota. we are up you early to bring you the latest on massive twisters that tore through the midwest last night leaving at least five people dead. >> what you saw there was brian sullivan a storm chaser as he tries to get away from a massive twister. good morning, everyone. >> take a look at exactly what he was running from. a view from inside his car. this is real, not a movie.