met the burden to establish that the records that were redacted need not be publicly disclosed in unredacted fashion. >> i think that i provided at least my reasoning fairly thoroughly. >> is there a second? >> do you want me to try to say it again? >> i think that this is what you said. respondent has met the burden of establishing that records that were redacted need not be disclosed in an unredacted fashion. >> and that is just spelled out in the may 29th letter, 2012? >> do you have a modification. >> i think that you said publicly disclosed i don't know if you think that is essential word? >> maybe, remove publicly? is that what you are saying? >> no. you said it i don't know that she... >> let the burden of establishing that information redacted need not be publicly disclosed. >> burden of establishing. i will butt out. >> yes. >> further discussion on this? >> i only have one comment. on the may 29th letter, the case law that is cited here, who did the investigation of that? was this case law that was given from the city attorney's office to the commission that is the commission inclu

that list that's unredacted includes organizations that are considered to be progressive? >> it includes taxpayer-sensitive information across a broad spectrum of -- >> so the chairman knows or should know that the targeting concerned liberal as well as conservative organizations. >> when that's not a question i'm going -- i feel appropriate i should answer. >> but that information is, was delivered to the chairman. >> we've delivered the both redacted and unredacted version of all the bolo lists to this committee. >> and the unredacted includes progressive organizations. >> be well, the -- it does because it's on both the redacted and unredacted. >> all right, time has expired. and, mr. rangel, i do want to note for the record that information is also provided to the senate finance chairman, mr. baucus. and you should know that i have also dell gated 6103 status to mr. levin. so any 6103 information i have, mr. levin also has. >> are progressive organizations on that? >> yes. >> so we are working in a bipartisan way in terms of the sharing of 6103 information. >> you don'

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 that was the one that... the discrepancy. >> no, it is in the march order, in the march referal to. i was mistaken when i said that they were inconsistent it was the april letter when they had not gotten to the order of determination yet. >> can i also say that i thank the complainant and respondent and thoughtful comments, at a minimum i hope that you appreciate that we are trying very hard. >> >> and we appreciate your candor and professionalism. >> 34 is to comply with the order of determination. >> do we need to discuss that? >> procedurally what would be the

to respond timely which was addressed, the failure to keep withholding to a minimum by providing unredacted speaker cards which was the second issue with the concern of the memo and the third issue is the failure to justify withholding the redacted information, which i think is the issue that mr. andrews has just pinpointed. and on that, i am not sure that we do have an answer. i was there and i have a written explanation of why they redacted came in response to a complaint. and there may have been a general claim of privacy but that is not a citation of chapter and verse specifically. and privacy and there are pages and pages. >> we are not addressing this. >> mr. warfield. >> thank you. >> it is our turn to talk about this. >> looking at the memo is more helpful but to me it seems that the one that we are talking about now is the improper redaction. >> okay. >> that... >> right. >> i think that i am still on number two. >> okay. and i appreciate that. >> but. >> mr. andrews has brought up which is a good thing. >> but i want to know whether number three is the failure to justify withholdi

met the burden to establish that the records that were redacted need not be publicly disclosed in unredacted fashion. >> i think that i provided at least my reasoning fairly thoroughly. >> is there

failure to respond in a timely manner, for failure to keep withholding to a minimum by providing unredacted speaker cards and for failure to justify withholding the redacted information. any further comments from the commission? >> commissioner studley? >> i am struggling with this issue about who the respondent is. and now, i'm confused. i recognized the gravity of the distinction as commissioner hur pointed out. and tried to think about the consequences related to whether the agency typically is or should be represented by whether it is custodian or the person who is in fact the custodian of the records and so i don't think that there is a situation given the responsibility that in this agency goes along with being the director of communication and it is not a stray, junior, and employee who showed up yesterday. and who in the parade of horribles that we heard is taking the rap for the you know, the delay and the alleged willful failure and keep the withholding to a minimum. that said i am not sure what to do with it. so i would appreciate hearing from the other commissioners in the staff

werfel testified the irs is about to produce unredacted documents to the committee last week that include references to additional categories of nontea party groups but the inspector general personally, personally intervened to block the irs from producing this information to this committee. according to mr. werfel no irs irs -- ever recalled such an unprecedented intervention. we need to know why that was. finally, i am not here to attack anyone. i'm here to get to the truth. not a partial or selective truth but the whole truth. i believe that there should be the goal of everyone in this room. we do need to stop making tasteless accusations and we need to get full information and i emphasize full, but the treatment of all businesses, conservatives, liberals and everyone in between and i sincerely hope that we can do that today. without mr. chairman i go back. >> i think the gentleman. all members will have until the end of the day to submit their written statements. and we now welcome our first panel of witnesses, ms. liz hofacre quality assurance and the cincinnati office of the interna

he testified that irs was about to produce unredacted documents to the committee last week that to the non-rences tea party groups. the inspector general personally intervened to block the irs from releasing the to this committee. none would ever recall such an unprecedented intervention. we need to know why that was. i am not here today to attack anyone. i am here to get to the truth. not a partial or selective truth that the whole truth. i believe that should be the goal of everyone in this room. makingeed to stop baseless acquisitions -- accusations. look into the treatment of all of these groups, conservatives, liberals, everyone in between. can do thathope we today. >> i think all members will have until the end of the day to submit written statements. we now welcome our first panel of witnesses. she is a revenue agent and exempt organizations for quality assurance in the cincinnati office of the internal revenue service. tax law specialist at the technical unit in washington, dc and was with the internal revenue service with the next sounding 48 years of service. we want to thank

he -- and i quote, we were imminently going to produce a document in an unredacted form that would indicate that identity of a grouping of entities that we felt were similar in a kind of scope as tea party. in terms of the grouping so it wouldn't be able -- you wouldn't be able to identify a particular taxpayer because a grouping was so broad. and he, meaning you, mr. george, reached out when he learned that we were about to produce this information and express concern and indicated a disagreement without internal expert whether this was 6103 protected or not. mr. george, is that true? >> -- >> did you personally contact mr. werfel's office? >> yes, i did. and i -- can i explain why? >> please. >> i was contacted by council on my staff about the overall situation that you described and there was a dispute there was some concern because the career irs officials that you referred to, yeah. you cited mr. werfel -- >> yes. >> had indicated their original position was this was 6103 protected information. >> okay. >> and then lo and behold after all of this has broken in to the public, they all o

to allow the committee to examine these emails produce these documents in unredacted form no later than may 20, 2013, and the answer is nothing, silence, crickets. this is wrong. how can we possibly move forward on a nominee,, i don't care what deal has been cut, how can we move forward on someone until we have information they've been asked by a congressional committee, this is outrageous. if ever there was an instance where someone's nomination should not move forward this is a perfect example of it. i'm not standing here saying deny this nominee 60 votes because i think he's a liberal act have vis. i do and i think that's the reason he shouldn't be confirmed, what i'm saying to my republican colleagues is i don't care what deal you cut, how could you possibly agree to move forward on a nomination when the nominee refuses to comply with a congressional subpoena to turn over records about official business at the justice department and, by the way, we're not confirming him to an ambassador post in some obscure country halfway around the world. this is the labor department. this is the

they released it unredacted at one point on a server. it is all gone now.ut also people who were helping deal with the taliban and providing intel are dead now. because of that. so the mix of it. that's why there's got to be a process. the problem with manning and even with snowden was that while going after these one elements where they should draw more attention to it and the public should know about these things, they seem to also include this kind of random dumping of stuff -- as if the pentagon papers came out but we're also going to bring true positions for -- >> stephanie: we're also going to bring geraldo to draw the true positions of vietnam. >> hal: that's the concern about it. that's why a our chain of command for whistle-blowers needs to be stronger. the patriot act needs to be repeal and direct laws have to be put on the books that deal with each of the segments so they can be more guarded. the patriot act is a big lump sum of laws. >> stephanie: i agree. >> hal: each one of the laws deserves individual scrutiny within it. >> stephanie: hal spa