mr. hull, why were you unable to give her guidance she guess i will abbreviate it by saying, were you waiting on answers from chief counsel and lois lerner and is that effectively what you're opening testimony said? >> [indiscernible] i was awaiting word from chief counsel on how to proceed. >> thank you. mr. hall, you testified you made recommendation in these cases, so correct? >> that is correct. >> under some caution, you're not prepared to tell us your recommendation at this time, correct? >> i am prepared to tell you one was an application that things should be exempt and one was an application i said they should be denied. >> the rap limitations -- there were applications recommended yes and no. were those heede? in other words, today agree and not act on it or not at on it? it is fair to say when you recommended yes, you got told, go get more information. box correct. >> you have 48 years of experience. throughout those 48 years, did you ordinarily for similar cases to the ones you're

mr. hull mr. cito one of your superiors in washington told committee staff that lois lerner sent him an e-mail saying that these cases need to go through a multitiered review and they will eventually have to to go to ms. lerner's senior visor and the chief counsel's office. is this consistent with the instructions you received? >> i don't recall seeing that memo, sir? >> is it consistent with the instructions you believe he received. >> yes. >> in your experience is that unusual. >> yes, that is unusual. >> particular the multitiered process of essentially suspension. >> oftentimes there was more than one reviewer put multitiered is unusual. >> ms. hofacre, to your knowledge do you know of anyone that you would say in your opinion had political motives in the role of treating of tea party groups? >> no, i do not. >> mr. hull do you know to your personal in washington and ms. hofacre's primarily cincinnati by free their view that new had political motives against tea party groups? >> no, sir. >> do

that's interesting that, mr. hull, as we thereon this morning and note his record, the tenure and service extensive service, 48 years, in fact. do you have any sense whether she has anywhere near the practical experience of mr. hull? >> we don't have anything on that, sir. >> she had four months. before being put in this job. she told committee staff in an interview that prior to july of 2011, she had no experience with 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) groups. applying for any tax exempt tax-exempt status. do you find it would be odd to transfer the tea party advocacy cases with someone with decades of experience to someone with little or no experience? >> we don't know, i mean, in the time we have -- the issue you're talking about, contribute to the delays that we describe in our report but we have no knowledge. >> but i would add, congressman, given the fiscal constraint facing the entire nation, especially those confronting the internal revenue service, i'm not surprised they would have made a decision like that. unfortunat

when you forwarded these to mr. hull then, which was technical and your responsibility, mr. hull, in all of the cases or only in a few of these to make decisions on the recommendations that were made by mrs. hofacre with regard to tea party? >> in the beginning it was a first -- applications came in. there was a manager that overlooked it with me. he decided at the end of the first group he didn't need to see anymore. i looked at all of the questions that mrs. hofacre -- >> how did it change? when did it change? >> how did what change? >> he decided he didn't need to see anymore. i'm presuming you made determinations, sent them down to cincinnati in the beginning as you stated with some of these cases, and that was the resolution, and it was either granted or appealed? >> i made suggestions to mrs. hofacre on the letters that were sent enough information. >> when did it change there was a requirement not simply to send it back down to her with the recommendations you had to send it to other places including chief counsel for resolution? i had to send it to chief council to fi

what mr. hull clear, the top of the irs, these reviews, this additional scrutiny only these tea party and conservative groups was unprecedented. he had been in the irs for decades. he has never seen anything like it. it's coming from the chief counsel's office. i think m mr. wilkins is the next one under oath. if he lawyers up and pleads the fifth perhaps others in the office can tell us what happened. there are a lot of document requests. >> and tea party groups are still not getting fair treatment by the irs, even now? >> by the way, let me say one thing thing about the hearings. amazing thing was the democrats and the way they roughed up the witnesses and roughed up the inspector general. this was almost unprecedented. the democrats originally said we want to get to the bottom of this. it became very clear that they treated this as kind of a partisan witch hunt beating up the inspector general. they don't want to transparency here. they want to sweep it under the rug. the issue by groups that we

this is going right to the top and what with mr. hull made clear is that -- >> top of the irs. >> top of the irs. these reviews, additional scrutiny only of these -- tea party and conservative groups was unprecedented. had was -- has been in the irs for decades and never seen anything like it. and it is coming from the chief counsel's office and so -- i think mr. wilkins is the next one to get under oath if he lawyers up and pleads the fifth as miss lerner did, perhaps others in that office can tell us what happened. there's also a lot of document requests from the hill that may shed light on it. >> the tea party group states -- they are still not getting fair treatment by the irs. even now. >> they haven't. let me just say one thing about those hearings this week which was that amazing thing was that democrats and the way they roughed up the witnesseses and roughed up the inspector general, you know, this was -- almost unprecedented. the democrats originally said we want to get to the bottom of this. it became very clear that they -- th

mr. hullothers -- the inspector general said, i'm sorry, she was the one that admitted that the irs was targeting conservatives. she has taken the fifth. we may call her back. she may... very well be held to answer responsibly. in the meantime have you to get to the people that she pointed to, which we have done. now we are getting people pointing to higher up in the cha¡Ñ of command with the irs. but have you to be thorough, do a good job and be responsible in the process. >> eric: you know, it seems this is step by step. first they say, no targeting and then they admitted that there was and apologized. they said there were rogue agents and they said, no, irs bosses knew about it and washington wasn't part of it. and then, oh, yes, washington knows and up and up. mr. wilkins -- do you expect to call him? he's been the lawyer for president obama? and for the trinity clurp, the pro bono lawyer when the church tried to invite candidate obama to speak there and mr. wilkins won that case, defendin

first statement what you're seeing today is in the testimony from the lady from cincinnati and from mr. hull, was that this thing was systemic. it was baffling to the people who had been doing the job forever and it was obvious that this was a new class of treatment for people. the tea parties and the patriots. >> so what does targeted mean. you applied for 501(c)(4), i believe. what was the pushback? tell us about it. >> our group specifically was told by our lawyers don't bother filing right few because the irs isn't granting any. but in my talking with the ohio liberty coalition and people who testified in the previous hearing, i have seen their applications and their line of questions, and clearly it's kind of obvious. if you look at the first round of questions that came into the group, they look logical. questions about your political involvement. whether or not you participated in campaigns. it's not until they submitted the answers to those questions and then a second round of questions came out, which today we found out came from d.c., that you were getting into things like tell us

the more people that come forward, like mr. hullrviewed eight people in ohio, eight people in washington. one thing we know for sure, even jay carney should be aware of this by now, it wasn't two rogue agents in ohio. the district of columbia office's fingerprints are all over this scandal. we've interviewed eight in ohio, eight in the district of columbia. we need to keep interviewing folks. people that have knowledge and are willing to come forward. but you know, we had two former soldiers, two public servants today who did have to withstand congressional questions while lois lerner invokes her fifth amendment privileges, falsely accuses them and never has to give an accounting for her role in it. i'm understanding of people reluctant to come forward, but if we're ever going to find out everyone involved, then anyone with firsthand knowledge has to come to the oversight committee. >> congressman, thank you. i'll see if there's a discussion about a special prosecutor as this gets investigated. thank you, sir. >> yes, ma'am. >>> com

. >> what we now know from you and mr. hull definitively, under oath, is that that was not true. stopped this investigation previously, we would just have the answer that this was some rogue employees in cincinnati. how did you feel when they said that when you knew that that was not the case, that it was just rogue agents down in cincinnati? >> sir, i was deeply offended. i mean, it impugned my reputation and the reputation of other agents and, basically, all federal employees. jon: so when you digging a little deeper into this, a.b., there are stories besides what lois lerner and some of the others have told. >> yes, it's clear that there are employees who, like ms. hofakre, who have indicated they were under direction from the white house. democrats will maintain they've spoke toen to irs employees who said this was simply an overwhelm of the system from the suicides united decision that -- citizens united decision that resulted in this extra scrutiny. that actually stands up only until you know, as i said, that 100% of the tea party, 9/12, you know, various groups were scruti

but could it be that it was actually carter hull's boss, a gentleman named mr.ed to see these particular applications from tea parties. now it would go up to the chief counsel in washington. today could we find out that there has been a link between that person and the white house? that is the $25 million question today. >> steve: so when we heard this story in the beginning, oh, it's just some rogue low level people, rogue agents in cincinnati, some of those agents in cincinnati are going, wait a minute. we're not rogue. we were just following orders. in fact, elizabeth hofacre is one of the agents in cincinnati. she will be testifying. carter hull will be testifying. what's different about what they're going to say than lois lerner is reportedly mr. hull is not going to take the fifth. he's going to name names and tell people what happened. >> brian: according to the depositions, they're indicating they're going to name names and show that lois lerner slow rolling the tax exempt status of conservative groups. you say what's the big deal? we had an election. we

mr. hull has been doing it for 40 years. he's been doing it since the year i was born. is he having to send to washington to get permission to approve an application that he's been approving for 48 years? >>steve: on the pages of the "wall street journal," peggy noonan writes this is a political bombshell. we're talking about the i.r.s. chief counsel -- that is one of two political appointees in all of the i.r.s. william wilkins, did it just spring into his head, i should go ahead and target these people for extra layers of scrutiny? did he get word from somebody else he should do that? did he get word from somebody at the white house? we do not know yet. we know he is a life long democrat who in 2008 helped lead the defense on jeremiah wright's church when he was being investigated by the i.r.s. he did that work, mr. wilkins said, on behalf of the case absolutely free pro bono. >>brian: this guy has an expertise in 501-c-4 and c-3 applications. yet people testified he was out of the loop on this. you have to be skeptical that he was out of the loop on this if this is h

that's mr. hull who fingered mr. wilkins. now, what exactly was mr.ust before the guidelines on how to target organizations came out? >> brian: how this? on april 24, doug shulman goes to the white house, meets with the chief of staff, who by the way, the former chief of staff, jeff sites, who is still in south africa on vacation. he would have a lot to say. they meet for 8 1/2 hours. the next day, april 25 and after that they give out guidelines for analyzing and green lighting or red lighting or putting into the delay of game category all those 501 c 3 organizations that might have tea party affiliations. the next day in comes william will conditions convince who -- wilkins who met with the president and put additional comments on the draft for guidance. it all goes into play the 24 and 25th of april where these two head, showman and wilkins go into the white house. >> gretchen: yet the white house is telling reporters asking questions that those two gentlemen were there not to discuss the targeting of tea party. >> brian: they were there for the ea

we're showing right now where the top portion of the hull was burned out, here it appears as though people were able, you know, in maybe large numbers, mr. tillmon, if you're still with me -- >> yes, identify am. >> -- able to escape that plane with that smoke. so, perhaps this is a good sign that a number of people were able to escape unharmed perhaps. >> most of the smoke and fire seems to be on the starboard side, the right side of the aircraft. that's why the slides, you know, were deployed for the most part on the left side of the airplane. flight attendants pretty much take care of the rafts so the passengers know the safest way to get out of the airplane in an emergency like this. it appears they did a really good job of getting everybody off of there. there's one slide that i see deployed on the rear portion of the right side of the airplane. >> yes. >> of the things we've seen here over the past few minutes, number one, the engine on the left wing of the airplane is completely missing. that was -- that came off somewhere in that sequence of cartwheeling. and you had a shot earlier of the landing gear that had completely been ri