mr. eastman, this is egregious. we're going to get to the bottom of it, and the irs can no longer withhold this information. we'll get it. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the question before us today is who decides who gets to participate in the public square? is it bureaucrats? is it the american people? i am heartenedded today, and i know there's an ominous feeling about what's going on, but i'm heartened by the camp of you six who came forward because you know what you did? you kept faith in america. you kept faith. no matter how big the swells were or the storm clouds, no matter how overwhelming the feeling was, you were faithful. god bless you wering if faithful. we're in a country where we are trying to reach out now, and we're all in this together, and we're trying to say, look, this is a great country that we have. it is worth celebrating, worth defending, worth articulating founding values, an i'm deeply appreciative of your willingness to keep faith when it was overwhelming, but, look,

mr. eastman?> my nature is to not be silenced by anything but the number one, and then i do something like this is thank you for standing up for us. you must be very brave kid and i don't think it's a brave. i think it is a citizenship duty that we stand at every chance we get. >> fight clich if we don't speak up now the time may be lost. without the aclj there was a time i was ready to say forget this whole thing. and it's very chilling. and i just think -- >> i know that it's going to come really quickly. you're first amendment rights are being violated. mr. kookogey, -- >> whether or not it was chilling is evidence today because some of the democrats on this kennedy implied what is social welfare to them but what might be to us is somehow negotiable. >> i yield back. >> thank you. mr. young is recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman. since the issue of groups targeted has come to light, i continually encourage everyone i speak to to let the fact lead us to wherever they may. we don't want to draw

mr. eastman, let me just say to you that this issue was raised at the hearing with the inspector general. and he indicated, mr. miller indicated in response to a question from you about the donor list, he said that he believes they made a referral to the inspector general. he was later asked about that and he said that those situations were t.i.t.t.a. i believe what they found were that those disclosures were inadvertent and that there had been disciplined in one of those cases for someone not following procedures. but obviously i will let mr. george speak to that. that was his testimony. and then our chairman asked mr. george about that. it would appear, from his testimony, that it was being investigated by the inspector general. that is all we know about it at this point. whether it continues to be investigated by the inspector general. so, let me just finish. i just want to emphasize, i said in my opening statement that we also need to look at the larger issue of 501 c 4, of the statutory language and how in fact it is now being utilized, but i want to finish by just reading the last p

mr. eastman question my >> let me put this in context. in the proposition 8 fight in california, the opposing sides raised roughly equivalent amounts of money. but with the gestalt test disclosure and the intimidation list andhe disclosure the intimidation, the last round of ballot initiatives last november, the pro-traditional marriage side was outspent by nearly $20 million. i think the chilling effect that has come from the intimidation of donors to the cause of traditional marriage is pervasive and having real consequences on the outcomes of elections on that key policy issue before the american people. >> mr. kind is recognized. >> thank you. i want to thank our witnesses here today. we do appreciate it. we have a problem on our hands. hopefully this committee will be able to move forward in a bipartisan fashion to fix it and fix it as soon as possible. true rot at the core of our democracy, it is a pervasive feeling you are being treated unfairly, singled out, discriminated in some fashion. i was not the biggest fan of referees on t

mr. eastman let me just say to you, this issue was raised at the hearing with the inspector general and he indicated, mr. miller indicated in response to a question -- jon: we are going to keep an eye on the hearings as they proceed today. for a little proceed specht any of now let's bring in nina easton, senior editor for fortune magazine and a fox news contributor. sometimes these hearings can be dry but this was powerful testimony this morning from ordinary americans in some respect putting members of congress in their place. >> powerful, and jon, shocking. i mean some of what these witnesses brought forward is truly shocking. there is sort of -- through all of the testimony there is this thread of the i.r.s. demanding huge amounts of information, 90 pieces in the case of one tea party group, and then putting a short timeline on it. so almost like you would just give up, that it would block you from even starting your organization. then we have these other amazing stories, which democratic congressman levyn just referred to, for example which was a pro-life group being told they better

mr. eastman? >> you know, my nature is not to be silenced by anything but the number one comment i get and every time i do something like this is thank you for standing up for us. you must be very brave. and i don't think it is brave. i think it is citizenship duty we stand up every chance we get. >> miss belsom? >> i feel if we don't speak now the time may be lost so i'm doing my best to speak up. without the aclj and knowledge of other groups being targeted i'm not sure what would have happened. there was a time i was ready to say forget this whole thing. it is very chilling and i just think. >> my time is running out. the point i want to make here, because i know it will come very quickly. >> sorry. >> that your first amendment rights are being violated. mr. kookogey, in time i have left? >> whether or not it was chilling i think was evidenced today, because some of the democrats on this committee actually implied that what is social welfare to them is social welfare but what might be social we

mr. eastman and his group is a felony, whoever knowingly leaked information from the files to anyone, can be prosecuted for a felony, the question is, who is going to do the prosecuting? that is the reason you need an independent council. neil: because irs cannot police itself, this is some rogue irs leaking this information we can assume. >> irs does not have indictment seeking authority, only justice department does, congress does not have the power. neil: you need a prosecutor? >> correct. >> they go beyond the scope of the case, be careful when you wish for. it could become a circus. >> that is the counter veiling argument. guess who decides whether or not there will be a special council? eric holder. for all of these issues, for benghazi, for the associated press, for james rhones rosen, r knocks news, and irs -- fox news, and irs scrutiny, eric holder makes that decision. does anyone think that he will unleash a special prosecutor that could be knocking on the door of the west wing of the white house. neil: didn't during watergate they do that? >> yes. janet reno, appointed a prosec

mr. eastman, thank you so much for being here.piece of sound that we used going into the break where you said to destroy or redefine an institution means that all of society is going to be harmed. can you look at the 13 states and the district of columbia, who have approved same-sex marriage, who have carried out same-sex marriage and tell me where the harm has been? >> sure. you know, this is part of the evidence in the trial direct of david boies's case. they relied on massachusetts that said we haven't had any harm in the couple of years since we've performed these marriages. i think that's the wrong question. the harm that's going to happen here is the weakening of the bonds of the institution designed around the unique proceed creative abilities of men and women, and that's not going to be something that happens overnight. it's going to take root over time, just as the harm that's flowed from loosening the divorce laws and going to no-fault divorce and just kind of utter weakening of the cultural institution behind marriage a

mr. eastman, let me just say to you this issue was raised at the hearing with the inspector general, and he indicated, mr. miller indicated in response to a question from you, mr. chairman, about the donor list that he said he believe -- i believe we made a referral to the inspector general. he was later asked about that, and he said, i quote: those two situations we went to, the igta -- tigta, and i think mr. george can speak to what we found, what they found. we made the referrals, and i believe what they found was that those disclosures were ip add very tent and that there had been discipline in one of those cases for somebody not following procedures, but i will, i will, obviously, let mr. george speak to that. that was his testimony. and then our chairman asked mr. george about that, and it would appear from his testimony that it was being with investigated by the inspector general. and that's all we know about it at this point. whether it continues to be investigated. so i just want to emphasize. i said in my opening statement that we also need to look at the lance armstronger issue

mr. eastman, actually fought back against this congressman. >> let's stop this charade of pretending these are social welfare organizations and admit they are political. treat them as such and play by the same rules that everybody on the committee plays for when we're involved in politics. >> it's your kind of statements that have empowered i.r.s. agents to make determinations about which organization qualifies for the public good and which do not. [applause] >> the notion that defending traditional marriage doesn't qualify as a defense of the public good is beyond preposterous. >>brian: he went on to say to john eastman he has also proven too that he believes because he hired a forensic specialist to find out who published his donor list and how that came forward. it went back to the i.r.s. there's two things that came up here. anyone who says we should use this moment for tax reform is khrougd the issue -- clouding the issue. anyone who used this moment to say do they deserve to be a tax exempt organization is clouding the issue. the i.r.s. went after organizations who are legally settin

mr. eastman. a felony. that's equivalent to who? murders are felons. robbers are felons. the law has been declared we're going hold this type of behavior accountable to the level of the seriousness of a felony. and yet what we have heard so far is it was a mistake. does that make you feel better? does it make you feel better that's the standard we're going to live with as the accountability measure for us in washington? >> when the claim is so divided and apart from what we know to be the truth, it doesn't make me feel better at all. >> and also, i would like to end with your words on this. you are the individuals that have stood up and come here. i applaud you. how many of your colleagues do you think that came are similar to ones that came up to me during the week when i was back home working the district i said, hey, you know, i want to tell you what happened to me. don't use my name. how many do you think are out there? any of you offer any hazards to guess? >> just last week, i had one of our attendees say please, take my name off the e-mail. i'm afraid. there's a lo

mr. eastman, let me just say to you that this issue was raised at the hearing with the inspector general. and he indicated, mr. miller indicated in response to a question from you about the donor list, he said that he believes they made a referral to the inspector general. thats later asked about and he said that those .i.t.t.a.s were t i believe what they found were that those disclosures were inadvertent and that there had been disciplined in one of those cases for someone not following procedures. but obviously i will let mr. george speak to that. that was his testimony. and then our chairman asked mr. george about that. it would appear, from his testimony, that it was being investigated by the inspector general. that is all we know about it at this point. whether it continues to be investigated by the inspector general. me just finish. i just want to emphasize, i said in my opening statement that we also need to look at the larger issue of 501 c four, of the statutory language and how in fact it is now being utilized, but i want to finish by just reading the last part of my opening st