too much, they did not redact or follow the procedures for redacting. >> they did not describe the redaction properly but they did not take it and they did not redact more than they should have. the redactions were two parts, were they okay. and second did they do them properly? >> right. >> is it better in two in >> i read the sunshine ordinance, 67.26. only deals with redaction. and it does not deal with whether or not the redactions are appropriate. >> that has nothing to do with 67.26. >> 67.27, is the one that focuses on whether this reduction was proper. all right? and so, that one could one, and i am not sure that we have a basis for saying whether the redaction was proper. because the city attorney is saying, yeah you can redact it, and the sunshine task force saying that we don't i think that it is appropriate and he is saying that somebody address is not private information. and it may or may not be, it has been... the individuals involved. and but the point is, it seems to me that the clearly they did not follow 67-26 in making the redactions. they did not follow the procedure in

withouter reference to whether or not the redactions, the redacted material was properly redacted. but they did not do what 67.26 required them to do. >> i would second that motion, if you added a phrase something like appropriate notice in justification. >> you may have another second who may take the motion >> that is fine. >> i think that it would be helpful to clarify. i would like to add that. >> second. >> further discussion? >> a motion now, it puts the language... >> can you read that back to us, please? >> the motion is to find that the arts commission did not comply with the requirements of section 67.26 in making its redactions, and then i believe commissioner studley added without the proper or appropriate notice and justification. >> okay that is fine. >> public comment? >> commissioners ray hartz director of san francisco open government. i think that the important part of 67.26 reads as follows, information that is exempt from disclosured shall be masked in order that the non-exempt portion of the record may be released and keyed by footnote or other clear reference

should not have been redacted but i don't have a i don't know what they redacted. >> what they redacted were addresses. mailing or street or e-mail addresses. what i feel that i don't have is it our responsibility to make a legal determination and get a legal memo from the city attorney on this, or to say that they were entitled to rely on the city attorneys' opinion that these were private pieces of private information that did not need to be disclosed and that may be the end of the subject. >> there is a motion on the floor but not seconded? >> no. >> no? >> pushp >> i thought that there was a motion that he was working towards? >> it was not complete. >> yes. >> then i will repeat it my motion was that the commission find that the arts commission did not comply in making its redaction did not comply with the requirements of 67.26. withouter reference to whether or not the redactions, the redacted material was properly redacted. but they did not do what 67.26 required them to do. >> i would second that motion, if you added a phrase something like appropriate notice in justification. >

>> if i come here could you redact it or pass it out? >> i mean, the very, if you listened to your own arguments and your own discussions, that is the real question. what is right? what does the law require and what does it prohibt. >> you are willing to take these very vague things about we think that we know what was redacted and we are told what the city attorney said and we don't have anything in writing to actually say that. we have a memo that refers to the constitution. but, is there any legal statement as to what part of the constitution and what specifically had addresses? and as a result, you may, and in this case, you may decide that it is as far as this particular matter and this particular arts commission, they were okay. and if there are five other ones out there and they are given out the information and could i file a sunshine complaint and file it for giving it out and you have set the precedent and no, the city attorney said that the city attorney would hold it and they followed the advice and we are saying that they we

or must be redacted. the address of somebody, whether it is the street address is not one of those things, if you go to the property office, anybody owning property is listed there and at their address and this is an argument of par noya, and if you are worried about someone who will be stab to death, maybe you should have a meeting as a secret. >> maybe if you publish the room, someone might come in here and do something bad and it is a paranoya argument that has no end. it is never ending, the law says what may be redacted. and the law does not say that this material can be redacted. and other bodies recognize that, for example, the board of supervisors say that if you give this to us it is a public record and they do the same on the agenda so that the people will know if you send us a letter, don't include something that you don't want the public to see. keep off our address, or hand it in without any mailing address whatever you want. but whatever you give us is a public record. and that is the law. >

with the fact that you redacted information. now before we get to that, did you advise the sunshine task force or anyone before you provided the information that you would in fact redacted the information? >> yes. >> that is standard practice, every time that we need to make a redaction, we... >> how did you give that advise? >> i gave it to mr. warfield what he has an issue with is thatdy not itemize the redactions and provide rationale and so it was presented in a general fashion. >> and after the task force held its hearing and came to the conclusion that you were wrong, did you, consult with the city attorney. >> yes, i did it late, but i did consult again to double check that we acted appropriately and was advised the same advise essentially. >> further public comment? >> is that necessary? >> i don't know that we need for you to respond. >> miss patterson said that they indicated that there were redaction and that is one of the unfortunate things that they did not. you will see that she showed you a speaker card with someo

the individual's right to privacy under the california constitution article one, section one, we redacted the personal addresses but not the business addresses that have been written on the cards before making pdf files and photo copies and also provided mr. warfield with paper copies of the same documents. >> on the advise of the city attorney we have a standard practice of redacting in order to protect privacy, we are careful to site the constitution article one section one as a rationale for these edits by redacting this the arts commission was in no way trying to obstruct his right to assemble and gather support, we are protecting those who had not consented with us sharing the information with someone who is interested in soliciting them with the private e-mail telephone number and residence, despite the finding, the arts commission main that i should that it acted appropriately by redacting the personal information of those who filled out the speaker cards at past meetings because of the at the time it was unclear to the arts commission and to the individuals in question, that they

the redaction we were -- has the irs code on it. so we know that this came from within the irs. >> greta: do you know who did it? >> we don't know who did t. we have asked for an investigation and we have been stonewalled. >> greta: do they have an investigation ongoing? >> well, do hey now refuse toion acknowledge whethhere is one or not. but back in april, last year, oe they acknowledged and gave us a complaint number for the investigation. they investigated us to try to prove thate it came from someone within our that was the last wedi heard of the the heainvestigation. >> greta: kevin, anything sur >> what surprised me what was the democrats did. i agree that they did a disservice, they attempted to malign us as ifs our ideas didnt matter. constitutionally acceptable, but ours not worth the protection of the co titution. >> greta: i think congressman mcdermott said that it was a mistake. was that fy unacceptable? >> to identify us as a mistake, this is a fundamental american issue. first amendment liberties for a reason. they ar

the -- senator baucus earlier because they do not need the redacted version. extenthe greatest possible, we would appreciate that. lex i understand the request. >> i understand the request. we will look into it and get back to you. >> we would like to prioritize the documents we need sooner rather than later. tothat is helpful to us understand what key search terms, the better clarity we have on that, the quicker the information starts flowing to you. >> i appreciate that. mr. meadows will be recognized. you are good? i amnot going to be -- closing. i want to thank you, this is a good start. it is a tough matter. i feel like you are coming in the day and trying to bring back the reputation. no doubt something bad happened, it did not happen on your watch. you are the person we are looking to to take decisive action. i want to personally thank you to the extent you have so far. i tell my constituents, there are moments in life that are placed there to become a movement. a moment to a movement. i think we have a moment where we have seen so much that needs to be

copy of our tax returns and list of donors that was posted there was redacted.orensic people was get the redacted parted and discovered the original documents had originated from within the irs. >> let's stop the charade of being social welfare organization and admit they are political, play by the same rules that everybody on the committee plays when we are involved. >> representative, it's your kind of statement that have empowered irs toogh make determinations about which organizations qualify for the public good and which do not. >> in order to raise money, i filed an application with the irs in january of 2011 seeking to obtain 501 c 3 status. as of today i've been waiting for 29 months without status. in the interim i launched $30,000 launch grant from a reputable nonprofit which director never seen this treatment of an applicant in his 25 years in authorizing grants. >> people that make donations to a 501c4 that is not a tax deductible amount. we're not getting any money from the taxpayer. we're saying if we want a group or make a donation that at the end

they have been redacted to the point* of absurdity. we have knowledge there is information in these two documents that is not subject to the 61 '03 protection so the entire section should be set aside. what i am suggesting is the fear that animates when they look at you is that we're not getting a straight answer. we see bureaucratic doubletalk, a bunch of nonsense and how can we possibly pierced through this? so low level of anxiety and the concern that you hear from committee members is the recognition of the of the abuses of power but now with the investigation comes up the committee based on a lawful request now doesn't get the type of the answers. can you assure us this type of nonsense where i know beyond a shadow of a doubt, this information in these documents that should not be subject to 61 '03 that the irs is planning to assert as some levels this means to be protected? can you assure us based on your 30 days on the job that this nonsense will stop? >> i will give field several assurances, the first is the information you're

o ordered it, who autho it, disclosed it and put the redactions on, all are felonies. we need to get to the bottom of it. >> thank you, gentlemen. >>> for almost two years, house ways and committee member, charles bustani tried to get answers from the irs. today, he heardrom the irs >> how did you find out that yo to the irs? >> it aared on asite by the human rights campaign, our rial politicalopponent. somebody called it to our tenti. we saw hat. redactions.wa a this was march 30thof 2012. within a few days, our compr forensic peopeen able to it came fromwithin the irs itself. >> i would say w hav seen egregius abuse, dation and mismanagement. this cannot be tolerated. we have to get to the bottom of this. we have to get to the facts of what happened. those responsible will be held the ccount under the fully under >> nice to see you, sir. good to be wth you greta. >> you had the exchange back in march, 2012n then commissioner shulman there was no targeting going on with th irs? >> it is amazing isn't it? he had an opportunity to come clean at that point in time. at th

they have been redacted to the point of absurdity. now, we have knowledge that there's information in these two documents that is not subject to 6103 protection, and so the entire section 6103 question should be set aside. and by suggesting is the fear that animate and hearts of my constituents when you look at you is they say we're not getting a straight answer. we are seeing bureaucratic doubletalk. were seeing a bunch of nonsense. how can we possibly here's through this. and so the level of anxiety and concern that you hear from committee members is a recognition of an abuse of power, but it's a gratuitous abuse of power. now, even when the investigation comes up, the committee, based on lawful requests, is now not getting the type of answers. so can you assure us that this type of nonsense where i know beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is information in these documents that should not be subject to 6103, that the irs is claiming to an absurd level that somehow this needs to be protected ask can you assure us based on your 30 d

report back to heavily redacted documents released by th faa after a freedom of information request by california privacy groups show the fbi applied for and got permission at least four times since 2009 to fly surveillance drones in this to the fact they are heavily redacted is incredibly significant showing the culture of secrecy in the way the drones are ooerated in the united states. >> revealing they are flying a drone while referring specifi questions to the fbi the california manufacturer tolold x it is highly portable carries a color and thermal videocamera to send live surveillance data to its operator with a two-hour flight limit. earlier thisee fbi director robert mueller went on the record. speaker does the fbi currtly use our n drones and if so, for what purpose? >> yes, for surveillance. >> 's real estate a gathered within the.s., he says it is a work in progress. >> we are exploring not onlythe use, but also the necessary guidelines for that. it >>> the fbi confirms the usef drones. the fbi emphasized the use of uavs by existing aircraft regulations and faa rules. we are

find out who introduced the redactions and hid the irs information. find out who received it from the irs. and most importantly, find out who from the irs disclosed this information. the head of the human rights campaign had recently been named the national co-chair of the obama re-election campaign. this just smells, and i hope this committee get toss the bottom of it. thank you for allowing me to testify. >> thank you, dr. eastman. our next witness is dr. cain kenney -- karen kenney, dr. kenney is a licensed psychotherapist practicing in southern california, and she assists returning veterans who suffer from ptsd. dr. kenney, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. john adams knew that facts are southern things. -- sovereign things. they get used as tools or weapons, but they wait for us. we must seek them with the lamp of truth and put them into words, but you and i speak different languages in this republic. you speak the language of power be, of pen, purse and gavel. i speak american grassroots, the language of liberty, th

read it, it was redacted.couldn't even read it -- >> jimmy: so brian ruined it for everyone. >> by the wa>> jimmy: by the wak you are a fantastic actor, there are so many great actors on the show. brian paul, there are so many great actors on the show that sometimes people may not recognize how good you are. but i do, i want you to know that. and that is most important. >> i love your show, too, by the way. >> jimmy: and also, you have been at this for a long time, haven't you? >> i have. >> jimmy: and you have played cops a lot of times? why do you think that is? >> i don't know, i think because i am bald, maybe, because every third cop you see is bald. >> jimmy: well, cops have short hair generally? >> and i have a copiness -- >> jimmy: you went to harvard? >> i did go to harvard. >> jimmy: did you go there to become an actor? >> i went because i got in on a typo, if you get in, you go -- >> jimmy: what were your grades in high school? >> straight a's. >> jimmy: isn't it nice at this age you can still get a

from the committee. >> to the extent that there is a notion and a concern that there is over redaction, that's something we need -- >> over -- this is junk. this is junk. this has no meaning. >> reporter: after the hearing ways and means democrats sent a letter to camp urging them to have him back to answer questions under noet. they want to know why he didn't mention liberal references on the be on the lookout list until now. >> mike, thank you. >>> the number of people lining up to buy existing homes reached its highest level in six years. consumer spending was up in may. the dow surged above the 15,000 mark today. the industrial average gained 114. the s&p was up 10. the nasdaq up 26. another apparent course correction for president obama tonight. he's insisting he will not go out of his way to bring nsa leaker edward snowden back to the u.s. today the president was almost contemptuous of the man who has eluded efforts to bring him home. ed henry is traveling with the president is africa tonight. >> no, i will not scramble jets to get a 29-year-old hacker. >> reporter: ruling out th

people were able to unlayer the redactions from that pdf file and discovered that the original document that was post third down had originated from within the irs. >> let's stop the charade of pretending these are social welfare organizations, and admit their political, treat them as such, and play by the same rules that everybody on the committee plays for when we're involved in politics. >> representative blumenauer, it's your kind of statements that have empowered irs agents to make determinations about which organizations qualify for the public good and which do not. [applause] >> in order to raise money i filed an application with the irs in january of 2011 seeking to obtain 501(c)(3) status as an educational organization. as of today, i've been waiting for 29 months without status. in the interim i lost a $30,000 launch grant from a reputable nonprofit whose executive director advised me that he had never seen such treatment of a 501(c)(3) applicant in 25 years of making grants. >> i'm totally outraged by the accusation that we're somehow subsidized by the taxpayers. people makin

. >> reporter: the heavily redacted documents released by the faa after a freedom of information request by a california privacy rights group, showed the fbi applied for and got permission at least four times since 2009 to fly surveillance drones in this country. >> the fact they're heavily redacted is significant. it shows a culture of secrecy that's pure opaqueness in the way drones are operated in the united states. >> reporter: the documents do reveal the fbi flying an unarmed drone widely used by defense department called the puma ae. the california manufacturer told fox it is highly portable, carries a color and thermal video camera to send live surveillance data to its operator with a two hour flight limit. earlier this week, fbi director robert mueller went on the record. >> does the fbi own or currently use drones, if so, for what purpose? >> yes, and for surveillance. >> reporter: pushed on privacy policies covering use and retention of surveillance data gathered within the u.s., mueller says it is a work in progress. >> we have very few, have limited use, and we're exploring n

it was a redacted version from the news. >> the screams don't match at all.t's what tells me that it's not george zimmerman of the screams that i present. >> i think you said you didn't make a determination as to who it was. you made a determination as to who it did not appear to be? >> that's correct. >> joining me now is ron mott. when are we expecting the judge to make a decision on this key evidence? >> we do expect that she will make a decision at which point she's heard all the voice experts that both sides would like to have in this trial. we've not heard from the one expert who has made perhaps the most declarative conclusions about who is speaking and who is yelling on that 911 call. that's alan wright. we're expecting he will come up this afternoon. the judge said she would be happy to extend the court session until 6:00 today. one of the distinctions that the state was making is this particular witness who was on the stand this morning, tom owen, said he can say that george zimmerman's voice is not the voice. he is not saying it's trayvon martin bu

issa, and he says he asked that the committee release publicly the transcripts and make limited redactionsvacy. if we are going to have transparency and republicans giving obama heck for not having transparency. >> we are releasing some. >> the problem if you just release some, are you subject to the criticism that you are just conveniently releasing stuff that advances you. >> we're in an investigation. conducted by the irs -- i'm sorry, by the inspector general was an audit. this is an investigation. >> but so are your hearings when you invite the tea party people. that's an investigation. so some stuff you do quite publicly. >> and this should be released. part of it has been released. >> not all. >> as you go forward, and the other thing too, we don't want to totally clip off folks who are going to be -- who are going to be deposed, and who are going to be subpoenaed or brought before the committee in advance. >> but if they are going to lie, they are going to lie. the american people really want to know what's going on. and we release little bits and pieces here. put people some up fo

. >> there is the redacted in unredacted. >> it includes progressive organizations. >> it does. it is both on the redacted and unredacted. >> i do want to note for the record that information is also provided to the the senate finance chairman, senator office. m.have delegated 61-032 hi a progressive organization? >> yes. we're working in a bipartisan way of sharing this. the use was to both type of organizations. now i will recognize mr. brady. there's extras journey based on their political beliefs. >> that is still subject to further and permission -- to further investigation. >> there are a variety of different employees being interviewed by the inspector general. i know you will make the point that i have not personally interviewed. i understand that. >> you just testified. >> i have not. if it is helpful to the committee i can explain the structure of my review. >> let's go to the key question. you do not know who initiated the targets. initiated a target of donors to properly apply the gift tax. >> the types of questions that were raised to donors -- who? >> i'm taking th

so i then asked them and you know, what can we do, what portion of the transcript should we redact so that it won't be reckless so it won't be a road map. >> right. >> we have not gotten an answer yet. >> would you like to see him do the appropriate redactions just to prevent identity, but would you like to see him basically release the whole shebang? >> i want -- let me tell you what i want, chris. i want the whole truth, nothing but the truth, period. whatever that takes. and not a one-sided case where the american public is forming an opinion about something that is only half there. and is not completely true. >> just to completely finish this discussion, is there any reason not to release everything? >> i don't see a reason not to do that, but again, i'm willing to work with the chairman to do whatever we can to do a responsible investigation and not a witch-hunt. chris, chairman issa and i, we are entitled to our opinions. we are not entitled to manufacture facts. >> i would call more a fishing expedition when you come back in an empty boat. any way, thank you, congressman elijah

>> we don't know what was redacted.e do know they sent over a redacted version of the contract. clearly the sec is taking an interest in the issue. this issue has been in the media a lot lately. is market moving. how they are released. who gets the information. exactly when and whether or not this is all technologically fair. and how closely calibrated are they to keep their clock synchronization spot on so no one is getting this information before is supposed to be officially released. that is all part of the mix here. we know the sec is looking at this piece of it asking for copy of the contract between thomson reuters and ism here. >> fascinating. a lot going on in that record. thank you, we will keep following this. >>> we are moments aaway from closing out three day rally. >> let's talk with mike an telly. and jack ba rushian. is it to simplistic to say if someone is coming out of two classes and it is coming out of one and going into the other? >> yeah, it is too simplistic. keep in mind, for thought experiment, w

. >>> this is what a heavily redacted document looks like. somebody sat at a desk all day and cloaked the heck out of about 80% of these documents with a sharpie marker. there's enough not to see you'd be hard pressed to figure out what this document even is only looking at the unredacted parts that you can still see. but this enormously redacted pdf document was released by the departments on the house ways & means committee today and turns out it's kind of important. this is one of the be on the lookout lists that was apparently used be the internal revenue service for evaluating applications of tax exempt groups. it was just turned over to congressional investigators and, look, there seems to be a really important line here. line 16 of this irs bolo, be on the lookout report from november 2010. the crucial unredacted part you see in the fine print, the keyword the agents are supposed to look for down there in the left, progressive. here's what irs agents are supposed to be aware of. political activities. is the word progressive. activities

people were able to unlayer the redactions from that pdf file and discovered that the original document that was post third down had originated from within the irs. >> let's stop the charade of pretending these are social welfare organizations, and admit their political, treat them as such, and play by the same rules that everybody on the committee plays for when we're involved in politics. >> representative blumenauer, it's your kind of statements that have empowered irs agents to make determinations about which organizations qualify for the public good and which do not. [applause] >> in order to raise money i filed an application with the irs in january of 2011 seeking to obtain 501(c)(3) status as an educational organization. as of today, i've been waiting for 29 months without status. in the interim i lost a $30,000 launch grant from a reputable nonprofit whose executive director advised me that he had never seen such treatment of a 501(c)(3) applicant in 25 years of making grants. >> i'm totally outraged by the accusation that we're somehow subsidized by the taxpayers. people makin

violation of sunshine ordinance because they have kept withholding to a minimum, if they choose to redact addresses that serve no purpose for the thing at issue. i mean, that i am certainly not trying to say that for all purposes the address can never be disclosed like a social security number. i am just saying that on these facts on this case, i think that i think that the withholding was appropriately kept to a minimum. >> any further commission comment? >> call the question. >> could you read that back to us the motion? >> commissioner hur moved to find that the respondent met the burden to establish that the record may not be publicly disclosed in an unredacted fashion. >> >> all in favor? >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> agreed to that >> thank you, commissioners. >> next item. did we do the 67.34. >> no we didn't. >> were we going to do that? or were we going to keep it to the 67-26, 27? >> so 34 is the third thing that the task force identified whether the failure to follow the task force order, the violation. >> there was some discussion about whether or not that was... >> and t

it was not inadvertent that someone redacted the information. it was not inadvertent that it was given to our political opponents. they deliberately provided our donor list to political opponents of hours who had been seeking that information for a long time. if that is inadvertant, that word no longer means anything. >> in addition to being an attorney, you teach civics class is. do either of you believe that this could happen in america? did you ever imagine that the government could target you like this? >> that was not something that i was thinking about. i thought that we lived in a free republic. i feel that our country has turned a corner into tyranny. i have honestly lost sleep over being in fear of what our government might do next. >> we teach about this very thing. the irony is it is happening under our noses. >> probably something you did not include in your original lesson plan? >> we did not. >> we have a lot of work to do in this investigation. it will be thorough and deliver it. thank you all for being here today. mr. chairman? >

drawn to that what he's going to jail for and and certainly he put people at risk in fact wiki leaks redacted much of the information that specialist manning put out there and specialist manning did not do that he's not a control source you know if you want to compare him to the one the one shred of evidence that bradley manning put anybody at risk david i'd love to see one shred of bradley manning put anyone at risk if he if they had this evidence he would be getting life in prison and the fact the matter is bradley manning pleat pleaded out to some lesser charges because he didn't want to spend the rest of his life in jail and the united states government in this kangaroo military court knows that they have all the power in their hands and his lawyer obviously told him that he had very little chance of escaping this without going to prison is what which is our wishes but he should plead to these lesser charges and then let the government prove these more expansive charges that he aided and abetted that he and all the you know i didn't. i mean if that's the case for me and if you get on the