[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EXAMINING THE ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT
AGAINST IRS COMMISSIONER JOHN KOSKINEN
(PART I)
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 24, 2016
__________
Serial No. 114-73
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
___________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
20-233 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
________________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
Wisconsin JERROLD NADLER, New York
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
DARRELL E. ISSA, California STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
STEVE KING, Iowa Georgia
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas JUDY CHU, California
JIM JORDAN, Ohio TED DEUTCH, Florida
TED POE, Texas LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah KAREN BASS, California
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina SUZAN DelBENE, Washington
RAUL LABRADOR, Idaho HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia SCOTT PETERS, California
RON DeSANTIS, Florida
MIMI WALTERS, California
KEN BUCK, Colorado
JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas
DAVE TROTT, Michigan
MIKE BISHOP, Michigan
Shelley Husband, Chief of Staff & General Counsel
Perry Apelbaum, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
MAY 24, 2016
Page
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary 1
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress
from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on
the Judiciary.................................................. 4
WITNESSES
Honorable Jason Chaffetz, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Utah
Oral Testimony................................................. 7
Prepared Statement............................................. 11
Honorable Ron DeSantis, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida
Oral Testimony................................................. 19
Prepared Statement............................................. 21
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Questions for the Record submitted by the Honorable Henry C.
(Hank) Johnson, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Georgia, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary, to
the Honorable Jason Chaffetz, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Utah.........................................56
deg.OFFICIAL HEARING RECORD
Unprinted Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared statement of the Honorable Elijah E. Cummings, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Maryland. This
statement is available at the Committee and can also be accessed
at:
http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=104980
Staff Reports submitted by the Honorable Darrell E. Issa, a
Representative in Congress from the State of California, and
Member, Committee on the Judiciary. These reports are available at
the Committee and can also be accessed at:
http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=104980
EXAMINING THE ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT AGAINST IRS COMMISSIONER JOHN
KOSKINEN (PART I)
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 24, 2016
House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in room
2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Bob
Goodlatte (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Goodlatte, Chabot, Issa, King,
Franks, Gohmert, Jordan, Poe, Marino, Gowdy, Labrador,
Farenthold, Walters, Buck, Ratcliffe, Bishop, Conyers, Lofgren,
Jackson Lee, Johnson, DelBene, Jeffries, and Cicilline.
Staff Present: (Majority) Shelley Husband, Chief of Staff &
General Counsel; Branden Ritchie, Deputy Chief of Staff & Chief
Counsel; Zachary Somers, Parliamentarian & General Counsel;
Paul Taylor, Chief Counsel, Subcommittee on the Constitution
and Civil Justice; (Minority) Perry Apelbaum, Staff Director &
Chief Counsel; Aaron Hiller, Chief Oversight Counsel; Susan
Jensen, Counsel; Slade Bond, Counsel; and Joseph Ehrenkrantz,
Legislative Assistant.
Mr. Goodlatte. Good morning. The Judiciary Committee will
come to order.
And, without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare
recesses of the Committee at any time.
We welcome everyone to this morning's hearing on
``Examining the Allegations of Misconduct Against IRS
Commissioner John Koskinen, Part I.'' And I will begin by
recognizing myself for an opening statement.
The Constitution sets forth a system of checks and balances
which grants each branch of government tools to ensure that no
branch of government attains too much power. The legislative
branch's tools include the power to write the laws, the power
of the purse, the impeachment power, and the power to censure,
among others. These tools empower Congress to exert oversight
over the executive and judicial branches, including routing out
corruption, fraud, and abuse by government officials and taking
further disciplinary action on behalf of the American people
when warranted.
The duty to serve as a check on the other branches,
including against corruption and abuse, is a solemn one, and
Congress does not and must not take this responsibility
lightly. That is why this Committee has scheduled the hearing
today.
In 2013, the American people first learned that their own
government had been singling out conservative groups for
heightened review by the IRS as they applied for tax-exempt
status. This IRS targeting scandal was nothing short of
shocking. It was a political plan to silence the voices of
groups representing millions of Americans. Conservative groups
across the Nation were impacted by this targeting, resulting in
lengthy paperwork requirements, overly burdensome information
requests, and long, unwarranted delays in their applications.
In the wake of this scandal, then-IRS-official Lois Lerner
stepped down from her position, but questions remain about the
scope of the abuses by the IRS. The allegations of misconduct
against Koskinen are serious and include the following:
On his watch, volumes of information crucial to the
investigation into the IRS targeting scandal were destroyed.
Before the tapes were destroyed, congressional demands,
including subpoenas, for information about the IRS targeting
scandal went unanswered. Koskinen provided misleading testimony
before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee
concerning IRS efforts to provide information to Congress.
These are very serious allegations of misconduct, and this
Committee has taken these allegations seriously. Over the past
several months, this Committee has meticulously pored through
thousands of pages of information produced by the investigation
into this matter, resulting in this hearing today, which will
give the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee the
opportunity to formally present its findings and evidence to
the Members of this Committee.
We will hear from Representative Jason Chaffetz, the
Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform
Committee, as well as Representative Ron DeSantis, Chairman of
the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on
National Security. They will each have 10 minutes to discuss
the evidence their Committee investigation has uncovered.
Chairman Chaffetz will also present a video regarding this
matter.
It is worth noting that Commissioner Koskinen was also
invited to the hearing but he has declined the invitation.
Following the witnesses' testimony, each Judiciary
Committee Member will be allowed to ask the witnesses questions
for 5 minutes.
It is now my pleasure to recognize the Ranking Member of
the Committee, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, for
his opening statement.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Chairman Goodlatte.
Before I begin my statement, I ask unanimous consent to
enter into the record the statements of IRS Commissioner John
Andrew Koskinen and the gentleman from Maryland, Ranking Member
Elijah Cummings.
Mr. Issa. I reserve the right to object.
Mr. Goodlatte. Does the gentleman----
Mr. Issa. I object.
Mr. Goodlatte [continuing]. Wish to be recognized?
Mr. Issa. I wish to be recognized.
Mr. Goodlatte. An objection is noted.
Mr. Issa. If the gentleman would yield?
Mr. Conyers. Of course.
Mr. Issa. A point of inquiry related to my objection. The
witness was invited to come and has delivered us instead a
self-serving written statement. While telling us in the
statement he respects the Committee, he is refusing to be here
for his own impeachment inquiry.
On what basis would we allow unsworn testimony for what
should have been a sworn witness under the penalty of perjury?
Mr. Conyers. May I?
Mr. Issa. Of course.
Mr. Conyers. May I tell my colleague that, first of all,
the gentleman who is the subject of this--this is not an
impeachment inquiry. I think you used that phrase, and that's
incorrect.
Mr. Issa. It's an inquiry into the recommendation for
impeachment.
Mr. Conyers. The title of the hearing is ``Examining the
Allegations of Misconduct Against IRS Commissioner John
Koskinen, Part I.''
Mr. Issa. And I appreciate that, but he is, in fact, the
subject of a referral from another Committee with specificity
and was called as a witness to have an opportunity under oath
to clear that up.
I guess my question is, where would we normally accept,
from a witness who declined, an unsworn statement, one that
would not--would be self-serving?
And, to be candid, Ranking Member Conyers, this is sort of
Lois Lerner revisited. The opportunity to say what you want to
say and not be cross-examined would seem to be inappropriate
from a witness who has declined being here.
Obviously, you know, he can say whatever he wants, and he
will be at Ways and Means tomorrow saying what he wants to. The
question--this is an inquiry into allegations of his
misconduct, and it is pursuant to a referral from another
Committee, a serious referral, one that never happened in my
time----
Mr. Conyers. Absolutely. I don't quarrel with that
whatsoever, sir. All I'm saying is that he is not here. He was
not given the customary 2-weeks' notice. He just came back from
China last week.
But I'm not making excuses for his absence. All I'm saying
is that, since he is not here and he has a statement, I'd like
to put it in the record. And if you think that that's something
that he doesn't deserve, I'm bound by your objection.
Mr. Issa. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that if that opening
statement be placed in the record it be placed with a provision
alongside it for the record that, A, he was invited; B, he
declined; and, C, that the letter has to be taken as not
witness evidence and self-serving of his not being here.
As long as we can agree to language that effectively makes
it clear that this is a self-serving statement by somebody who
chose not to be here, while tomorrow will be in front of
another Committee, I'm fine with it being there. But I don't
want it to be seen as an opening statement, because, quite
frankly, this written statement is not--this should not have
the same credibility.
Mr. Goodlatte. The gentleman has the right to object to the
statement being made a part of the record. The gentleman can
ask unanimous consent to withdraw his objection subject to the
limitations that the gentleman just outlined regarding how the
matter would appear in the record, but that would, itself, be
subject to----
Mr. Issa. I would ask unanimous consent that the pairing be
placed in so that this can be placed in the record at the
wishes of the Ranking Member.
Mr. Goodlatte. For what purpose does the gentleman from
Texas seek recognition?
Mr. Poe. Mr. Chairman, I object to the unanimous consent
that John Koskinen's statement be put in the record at all.
However, the Ranking Member also asked unanimous consent to
have the statement of Mr. Elijah Cummings in the record. I do
not object to that being part of the record, only the statement
of the IRS Commissioner.
Without any provisions as to what should be attached or not
attached, I object to the entire statement. He had the chance
to be here. He's not.
Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair will ask if there is objection to
the unanimous consent request of the gentleman from Michigan to
place Ranking Member Cummings' statement in the record.
Being none, that will be made a part of the record.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Note: The prepared statement of Mr. Cummings is not printed in
this hearing record but is on file with the Committee and is available
at:
http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=104980
Mr. Goodlatte. There is objection heard regarding placing
the statement of Commissioner Koskinen in the record, and,
therefore, it will not be placed in the record.
If there are further discussions regarding under what
conditions it might be made a part of the record, the Chair
would be happy to entertain that at any time during the course
of the hearing. But, at this point, objection is heard, and it
will not be made a part of the record.
The gentleman may continue with his opening statement.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you.
In the history of our Republic, the House of
Representatives has voted to impeach a Federal official only 19
times. I have the honor of having served on this Committee to
consider 6 of those 19 resolutions, and, as a matter of note, I
voted in favor of 5 of them. And I helped to draft articles of
impeachment against then-sitting President Richard Nixon and
joined with 20 Democrats and 6 Republicans to send 3 of those
articles to the House floor.
The lessons I draw from these experiences are hard-earned.
And, to begin with, the power of impeachment is a solemn
responsibility entrusted to the House of Representatives by the
Constitution and to this Committee by our peers.
The formal impeachment process is not to be joined lightly.
We do not rush into it for short-term political gain, I'm sure.
Before we can approve any such resolution, it's our
responsibility to prove the underlying allegations beyond a
reasonable doubt. And I suspect that's why this hearing is
titled the way it is and is moving in that direction, to
examine the allegations of misconduct, which I think is not
unfair.
Now, it's our responsibility to prove underlying
allegations, even of misconduct, with great seriousness and, I
think, beyond a reasonable doubt. And once the House authorizes
us to do so, we must carefully and independently review the
evidence, even if it's already been analyzed by our colleagues
on other Committees. And we can only address allegations that
are actually supported by the record. We cannot infer
wrongdoing from the facts; we have to prove it.
And, finally, a successful process must transcend party
lines. The Framers of the Constitution knew this. Article I of
the Constitution requires two-thirds of the Senate to convict
on any article suggesting impeachment. Many in the public know
this too. When this Committee comes together and decides to
examine or remove a Federal officer, our constituents know that
we take the job seriously. When a vote such as this is divided
on party lines, as it was on one occasion in my service on this
Committee, we undermine our credibility and make it all but
impossible to secure conviction in the Senate.
Mr. Chairman, we're here today because a group of Members,
a small group of Members, want us to take up House Resolution
494, a resolution to impeach IRS Commissioner John Koskinen.
This resolution fails by every measure that I have learned of
in the course of the hearings in this vein over the years. It
arises, sad to say, from the worst partisan instincts. It is
not based in the facts. And it has virtually no chance of
success, in my view, in the Senate.
Commissioner Koskinen, from what I can determine, is a good
and decent civil servant. He took office months after the so-
called targeting scandal had concluded. He then undertook a
massive effort to respond to each of the investigations into
the matter. We are here today to consider the allegation that
the Commissioner deliberately misled Congress as a part of
those efforts.
The claim is not that we disagree with his decisions or
that we question the speed and completeness with which his
agency provided answers, but that he knowingly and
intentionally supplied us with false information. Mr. Chairman
and my colleagues, the record simply does not support this
charge.
The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration
investigated these allegations. He concluded, and I quote, ``No
evidence was uncovered that any IRS employees have been
directed to destroy or hide information from Congress, the
Department of Justice, or the inspector general.''
In addition, career investigators at the Department of
Justice also looked into these claims. They also found, and I
quote again, ``No evidence that any official involved in the
handling of the tax-exempt applications or IRS leadership
attempted to obstruct justice.''
It's no wonder then that we have read reports of Speaker
Ryan doing his best to make certain this measure never reaches
the floor of the House, as Speaker Boehner did before him.
It's also not a surprise that many in the Republican
Conference have been critical of the tactics that forced this
hearing. Representative Boustany, Chairman for the Subcommittee
on Tax Policy, has argued that this hearing is a waste of time
and potentially damaging to our priorities. He told reporters
last week: ``If we do this, it's going to further delay the
investigation. I think it's time to move on.''
Senator Orrin Hatch, the Chairman of the Senate Finance
Committee, has said that there is simply no interest in an
impeachment activity in the United States Senate, where a two-
thirds vote would be required for any conviction. When asked
about Commissioner Koskinen, Senator Hatch said, ``We have a
very different experience with him. We can have our
disagreements with him, but that doesn't mean that there's an
impeachable offense.'' And he added, ``For the most part, he's
been very cooperative with us.''
To summarize, Mr. Chairman, the proposed articles have been
debunked, the investigation itself, by independent
investigators. The resolution faces stiff bipartisan opposition
in the House and even worse odds in the United States Senate.
There are precious few working days left in this Congress.
I am personally disappointed that we plan to spend not just
today but an additional day in June discussing these
unsubstantiated claims. If it's at all possible, Chairman
Goodlatte, please consider returning the second day to the
substantive work of this Committee. In any event, I urge you to
lead us past this distraction quickly and back to the work of
some actual benefit to the American people.
And I thank you for the time, and I yield back.
Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
Without objection, all other Members' opening statements
will be made a part of the record.
We welcome our distinguished witnesses today, both of whom
are Members of the House Judiciary Committee.
But, as is our custom, if you would both please rise, we'll
begin by swearing you in.
Do you and each of you swear that the testimony that you
are about to give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Thank you very much. Please be seated.
And let the record reflect that both witnesses responded in
the affirmative.
I will now begin by introducing today's witnesses.
The first witness is the Honorable Jason Chaffetz.
Representative Chaffetz has been a Member of the House
Judiciary Committee since first coming to Congress in 2009.
Representing the Third District of Utah, he is a Member of the
Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and
the Internet; and the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,
Homeland Security, and Investigations. Since 2015, Mr. Chaffetz
has served as Chairman of the House Oversight and Government
Reform Committee.
Our next witness is the Honorable Ron DeSantis. Since being
elected to the U.S. House in 2012, Representative DeSantis has
served on the Judiciary, Foreign Affairs, and Oversight and
Government Reform Committees. He is currently the Chairman of
the Oversight Committee's National Security Subcommittee and
the Vice-Chairman of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on
the Constitution and Civil Justice.
Welcome to you both. Your written testimony will be entered
into the record in its entirety, and I ask that each of you
summarize your testimony in the time that you are allotted.
To help you stay within that time, there is a timing light
on your table. You guys know how this works. When the light
turns red, that signals that your time has expired. But, given
the importance of this, we have allotted additional time to
each of you and for the video that the Chairman has brought
with him as well.
We will begin with Chairman Chaffetz.
Welcome.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JASON CHAFFETZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Chaffetz. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I appreciate your
holding this hearing and your indulgence.
And to Ranking Member Conyers, I enjoy a good working
relationship with you. I enjoy your friendship, and I expect
that to continue in the future, and I appreciate the discussion
today.
I also want to note and thank Chairman Issa. He was the
Chairman of the Oversight Committee when much of this work was
happening, many of these hearings were happening. And through
his good work and tenacious approach to this, it was an
important step, and we wouldn't be here today, quite frankly,
without the good work and leadership of Darrell Issa.
This is really a simple case, in my mind. When Congress
asks you a question, you're expected to give a truthful answer.
And when Congress issues a subpoena, compliance is not
optional. Imagine if a taxpayer failed to comply with an IRS
summons or subpoena. What would they do to you? If they asked
you for those materials, you're expected to produce those
materials. If you don't, they're going to take you to court,
and they're probably going to win.
The IRS targeting scandal was un-American. The IRS is the
most powerful and feared entity in the United States. The First
Amendment rights of citizens were trampled upon.
Now, in fairness, Mr. Koskinen, as the Commissioner of the
IRS, was not there for the initial targeting. He was brought in
by President Obama as a turnaround artist, somebody who'd work
hand-in-hand with Congress to fix the problem.
From my perspective, he didn't fix the problem; he made it
worse. There have been numerous hearings, letters, and
subpoenas issued by a variety of Committees.
Now, the IRS is no stranger to a summons or a subpoena.
They know exactly how this works. In fact, on average, they
issue about 66,000 summons and subpoenas per year, and they
have since 2010. Failure to obey an IRS summons is a criminal
violation under 26 USC, section 7210, and carries with it a
fine up to $1,000 and a year of imprisonment. If you don't
comply, the IRS is going to come after you. They do prosecute.
The IRS prevailed in 95 percent of those cases.
Again, compliance with a subpoena is not optional.
Providing false testimony before Congress comes with a
consequence. At least it should. It's a crime. Mr. Koskinen did
not tell the truth to Congress. He provided false testimony and
failed to comply with the subpoena. He could've prevented
evidence from being destroyed, but he didn't, and he didn't
tell the truth about it.
Americans are rightfully frustrated about the targeting
scandal and the lack of accountability. But the case before us
is about Mr. Koskinen and what he did and did not do which
permanently deprived the American people of understanding what
went wrong with their government. It also prevents us,
Congress, from fully fixing the problem and holding people
accountable. And there can't be full accountability because the
evidence was destroyed on Mr. Koskinen's watch and under a
subpoena.
The remedy given to us in the Constitution is impeachment.
It is a remedy designed for Congress as a co-equal voice. The
Senate gives its advice and consent on confirming Presidential
appointments, but our Founders in that Constitution also gave
us an opportunity to remove somebody if they're not serving the
best interests of the United States of America. The Senate has
the opportunity to have a co-equal voice on who serves in the
upper echelons of government, and the safety valve to pull
somebody out of there for Congress is impeachment. It hasn't
been done often enough, and I think we must stand up for
ourselves.
Now, to give some background, I'm going to show a video.
It's about 10 minutes. And then we'll get into the very
specifics of where I think Mr. Koskinen lied.
[Video shown.]
Mr. Chaffetz. Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing us to
show that video.
I want to drill down a little bit further on Mr. Koskinen's
testimony to Congress, especially some of the statements made
to Congress in June and July of the year 2014.
When he came to explain why the IRS wouldn't be able to
produce thousands of Lois Lerner's emails, at that point a
subpoena had been in place since August of 2013. The subpoena
was reissued to Mr. Koskinen after he was confirmed, so, by
then, the subpoena had had his name on it for more than 5
months.
On February 2, 2014, Super Bowl Sunday, Kate Duval realized
that there was a problem with Ms. Lerner's emails and that some
of them were missing from the IRS production to Congress. Ms.
Duval was counsel to the Commissioner at the time, and she was
basically managing the IRS production to Congress.
The next day, on February 3, Ms. Duval told her colleagues
at the IRS about the problems she had found. She told the IT
people. She talked to the people in the Office of Chief
Counsel. She talked to the Deputy Associate Chief Counsel,
Thomas Kane. And, by the next day, February 4, Thomas Kane had
figured out that Lois Lerner's hard drive had crashed back in
2011 and that that was why many of her emails were missing.
So the IRS knew in early February that there was a problem
with Ms. Lerner's emails, and Mr. Koskinen testified that he
knew in February. This is his quote on a July 23, 2014,
hearing: ``What I was advised and knew in February was that
when you look at the emails that had already been provided to
the Committee and other investigations and, instead of looking
at them by search terms, looked at them by date, it was clear
that there were fewer emails in the period through 2011 and
subsequently. And there was also, I was told--there had been a
problem with Ms. Lerner's computer.''
So the question is, what did Mr. Koskinen under subpoena do
about it? After all, he had the subpoena. He had just learned
that most crucial evidence covered by the subpoena was missing,
and so you'd expect him to spring into action.
Well, let's start with what he did not do. According to the
Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, he failed to
look in five of the six places Ms. Lerner's emails could've
existed: the backup tapes, her BlackBerry, the server, the
backup server, and the loaner--the laptop. In fact, the IRS
barely looked for the missing emails at all, according to
TIGTA.
Now, let's talk about what Mr. Koskinen did do. In April,
his agency notified the Treasury Department and the White House
that Ms. Lerner's emails were missing. And then he waited. And
then he waited some more until June, when the IRS finally told
Congress by burying a couple of sentences in the fifth page of
an attachment in a letter to the Senate Finance Committee. That
was on June 13, 2014.
That triggered a flurry of hearings in Congress, and Mr.
Koskinen came up to testify to explain what he said. And then
he lied. We've got three quotes here I want to share with you,
among many. But let's look at what he told us on June 20 in
2014.
Seven days after finally telling Congress that Ms. Lerner's
emails were missing, he said, ``Since the start of the
investigation, every email has been preserved. Nothing has been
lost. Nothing has been destroyed.''
That's not true. The investigation began in May of 2012.
The Inspector General found the IRS destroyed evidence, 422
backup tapes that contained as many as 24,000 emails to and
from Ms. Lerner. And that happened on March 4 of 2014, which
was discovered after they discovered there was a problem.
I'll go to the second quote, if I could. This is on the
same day, June 20, 2014. Mr. Koskinen testified before
Congress: ``We confirmed that backup tapes from 2011 no longer
existed.''
That wasn't true either. The backup tapes were intact until
March 4 of 2014, almost 2 years after the congressional
investigations began and nearly 1 month after the IRS knew
there was a problem with Lois Lerner's emails. At best, this is
gross negligence.
I'll go to the third quote. To me, this is one of the most
troubling. This is July 23, another full month afterwards, July
23 of 2014. He was asked what was meant by the word
``confirmed.'' He said, `` `Confirmed' means that somebody went
back and looked and made sure that, in fact, any backup tapes
that had existed had been recycled.''
That was completely and totally false. Nobody at the IRS
went back and confirmed that the tapes had been destroyed. The
Inspector General interviewed the people who were responsible,
and they said that nobody had ever asked for the backup tapes.
In fact, all told, the Inspector General, it took him 15
days, start to finish, to go find these, and they did recover a
thousand emails.
Thanks. You can take that down.
If they had done so after learning that some of Lerner's
emails were missing in early February, they could have found
the backup tapes before they were destroyed. We know this
because, again, the Inspector General, it only took them 15
days. Tim Camus, the Deputy Inspector for Investigations at
TIGTA, summed it up by testifying: ``The best we can determine
through the investigations, they just simply didn't look for
those emails. So for the over a thousand emails we found on the
backup tapes, we found them because we looked for them.''
We're here today because Mr. Koskinen provided false
testimony, he failed to comply with a duly issued subpoena, and
when he knew there was a problem, he failed to properly inform
Congress in a timely manner. In fact, I would argue that he
actively misled Congress. Nor has Mr. Koskinen ever made an
attempt to clarify or amend any of his prior statements. He
continues to stand by all of these statements. They are not
true.
Look at the testimony that wasn't entered into the record.
Sentence three of the testimony that he put forward, or tried
to put forward, here says, ``I stand ready to cooperate with
your Committee with regard to any actions it deems
appropriate.'' But I notice that he didn't show up at the
hearing here today even though he was invited.
And for him to say later on page 4, ``I testified
truthfully and to the best of my knowledge in answering
questions concerning the search for and production of emails
related to the investigation,'' he still doesn't get it,
because that's not true.
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman? Regular order.
Mr. Goodlatte. Could the gentleman----
Mr. Johnson. Regular order, sir.
Mr. Goodlatte. If the gentleman----
Mr. Chaffetz. That was my concluding comment. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Chaffetz follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair thanks the Chairman of the
Oversight and Government Reform Committee and is now pleased to
recognize and welcome Congressman DeSantis.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE RON DeSANTIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. DeSantis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Conyers, my colleagues on the Committee.
Although I didn't know it at the time, the first exposure I
had to the IRS targeting scandal occurred long before that day
in May 2013 when Lois Lerner publicly revealed the existence of
improper targeting by the IRS. That she did this by infamously
planting a question at a legal conference in order to preempt
the forthcoming IG report was a clear indication that the IRS
had improperly treated American citizens who were doing nothing
more than seeking to exercise their First Amendment rights.
Once this news broke, I immediately thought back to the
previous year. I was not a Member of this body. I was running
for office for the first time. And, as is customary in
campaigns, I made a point to speak to as many groups as I could
find.
In one instance, the leaders of one group dedicated to
educating their fellow Americans on the virtues of
constitutional government grew apprehensive when I showed up
and requested to speak. As a candidate for office, they
explained my speaking before the group could cause them
problems with the IRS, an agency that they felt had mistreated
their group by refusing to grant them tax-exempt status.
I was in disbelief. It seemed to me that these folks were
being paranoid. Why would the IRS care about a small group
seeking tax-exempt status? Turned out my reaction was wrong and
there was good reason to be concerned about the behavior of the
IRS. And I've always thought about that as we've done this
investigation.
As a Member of the Oversight Committee, I join my
colleagues in seeking to ascertain the truth about the conduct
of the IRS and its employees like Lois Lerner.
Chairman Chaffetz has done a good job outlining the extent
to which the IRS, under Commissioner Koskinen, has stonewalled
and obstructed attempts by Congress to find out the truth about
the conduct of the IRS.
Koskinen pledged to be transparent and to alert Congress
and the American people about problems with the investigation
as soon as he knew about them. Yet he failed to alert the
Congress about the gap discovered in Lerner's emails for 4
months.
Koskinen testified that every email had been preserved
since the start of the investigation. Yet the IRS destroyed
over 400 backup tapes containing as many as 24,000 of Lois
Lerner's emails in March of 2014. These emails, of course, were
the subject of an internal preservation order and two
congressional subpoenas.
Koskinen testified that the backup tapes from 2011 had been
recycled pursuant to normal IRS policy. Yet the 400 backup
tapes weren't destroyed until March of 2014. And, moreover, the
Inspector General was able, by doing a cursory investigation,
to identify some backup tapes that had not been recycled.
Koskinen testified that the IRS had gone to great lengths
to make sure that all emails were produced. But, as the
Chairman pointed out, it failed to even look at Lerner's mobile
device, the email server, backup server, loaner laptop, and IRS
backup tapes, all of which were examined by the Inspector
General.
So, in this matter, there is really no dispute about the
facts. The IRS destroyed up to 24,000 of Lois Lerner's emails
under 2 subpoenas. Commissioner Koskinen made several
statements in testimony before Congress that are false. And the
IRS failed to produce all of the emails it had in its
possession, as well as failing to do basic due diligence by not
looking in obvious places for Lerner's emails. This is cut-and-
dry.
So this sorry train of false statements and dereliction of
duty represents an affront to the authority of this House. The
American people had a right to get the facts regarding the IRS
targeting, and the IRS had a duty to comply with the
congressional investigation. Instead, the IRS stonewalled us.
Thousands of email have been destroyed. The American people may
very well never get the entire truth as it relates to this
scandal.
Now, it would be unthinkable for a taxpayer to treat an IRS
audit the way the IRS has treated the congressional
investigation. If a taxpayer destroyed documents subject to a
summons by the IRS, the taxpayer would be in a world of hurt.
If the taxpayer made false statements to the IRS in response to
an investigation, it's safe to say that the taxpayer would not
get away with it. If a taxpayer shirked basic compliance with
an IRS investigation, it's a good bet that the investigation
would not simply end.
So the question is, is it acceptable for the head of one of
the most powerful agencies in government to operate under a
lower standard of conduct than that which is applied to the
taxpayers the Commissioner is charged with auditing? I have no
doubt that American taxpayers find such an arrangement to be
unacceptable. Surely this House should also find it
unacceptable.
As of today, not a single individual has been held
accountable in any way for what happened with the IRS. If
Commissioner Koskinen can get away with this conduct, then
other executive branch agencies will have a blueprint of how to
stymie the Congress when it conducts legitimate oversight. This
will further erode the power of the Congress, which is arguably
at its historical nadir.
The Constitution contains mechanisms for self-defense that
can be used to check abuses by civil officers in the executive
branch. We in this body should use them. It's a matter of
fairness for the American people, accountability for the
executive branch, and self-respect for this institution.
I thank the Chairman for the time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. DeSantis follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
We will now proceed under the 5-minute rule with questions
for witnesses, and I'll begin by recognizing myself.
The report of the investigation by the Treasury Inspector
General for Tax Administration, or TIGTA, concluded in its 2015
report as follows, and I quote: ``The investigation revealed
that the backup tapes were destroyed as a result of IRS
management failing to ensure that a May 22, 2013, email
directive from IRS Chief Technology Officer concerning the
preservation of electronic email media was fully understood and
followed by all of the IRS employees responsible for handling
and disposing of email backup media.''
Now, my understanding is that Commissioner Koskinen was
brought in, appointed Commissioner for the purpose of restoring
the credibility of the IRS following this horrific scandal, and
that part of restoring that credibility would be coming clean,
making sure that the investigations conducted by various
Committees here in the House of Representatives were responded
to appropriately with the information that they requested, and
that, in doing so, one would follow all the chains of evidence
within one's organization that he is now the head of to find
where that might go and then send people there and say, ``What
do you have?'' Because, according to the evidence that you've
brought forward today, that was never done.
So I would like to hear from each of you your understanding
of to what extent Commissioner Koskinen is responsible for the
management of the IRS and for this management failure.
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you.
He has the duty and obligation, a legal obligation, under a
subpoena to comply with that subpoena and do everything he can
in his power to make sure that he's doing that. He testified in
multiple Committees and multiple times, in addition to, I
believe, letters, saying that he was making every effort, that
he had spent $18 million dollars.
Mr. Goodlatte. Did he ever break that down for you? I saw
those statements as part of the video. Did he ever say, ``And I
did this and I did this and I did this, and we spent this money
for this and this and this''?
Mr. Chaffetz. We can find--nor can TIGTA, based on the
report--find no proactive evidence that the Commissioner did
anything proactively to actually recover those tapes from the
source of which they were destroyed.
It took the Inspector--I guess the comparison is the
Inspector General. The Inspector General, it took him, start to
finish, 15 days to go find them, and the Commissioner had years
and millions of dollars of resource and didn't even ask at the
basic sources.
Mr. Goodlatte. Mr. DeSantis?
Mr. DeSantis. What really does it for me is you had these
backup tapes in West Virginia, and the Inspector General
testified about what he did. He got in his car, and he drove to
West Virginia, and he asked for the backup tapes.
So when you start talking about spending $18 million, what
does it cost for gas to get to West Virginia and back? Fifty
bucks? Sixty bucks? And he goes there and he's able to recover
some of the tapes. Now, of course, others were destroyed.
But the people at the backup tape facility said the IRS
never even requested any of the backup tapes. And so I think
that that says a lot about his leadership, and I think it
shows--it undercuts his claim that they went to great lengths
to get the information.
Mr. Goodlatte. And, very specifically, with regard to that
very facility, to further quote from the TIGTA report,
``Although they existed until March 4, 2014, the backup tapes
containing Lerner's emails were destroyed because IRS employees
who shipped the backup tapes and server hard drives did not
understand their responsibility to comply with the Chief
Technology Officer's May 2013 email directive to preserve
electronic backup media, and the Martinsburg employees who
destroyed the backup tapes on March 4, 2014, misinterpreted the
directive.''
As you understand it, who was responsible for making sure
IRS employees understood that May 2013 directive?
Mr. Chaffetz. The Commissioner of the IRS. That's who we
issued the subpoena to.
Mr. Goodlatte. Mr. DeSantis?
Mr. DeSantis. I concur.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you very much, both of you.
I now recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers,
for his questions.
Mr. Conyers. May I thank my two colleagues for their
testimony and their concern about this matter.
But is there any way, Mr. Chaffetz, that we could determine
who was on the tape that you asked and received consent to play
for 10 minutes?
Mr. Chaffetz. I'm sorry, the question is who was on the
tape?
Mr. Conyers. Yeah, who was the woman on the tape that was
interpreting it? Can you tell us anything about----
Mr. Chaffetz. Oh. She's a staff member for the Oversight
and Government Reform Committee. You mean the voiceover?
Mr. Conyers. Yes.
Mr. Chaffetz. Yes. She was a staff person for the Oversight
Committee.
Mr. Conyers. Uh-huh. Well, I didn't know that before just
now. And I'm sorry I didn't--I don't want to raise any more
objections than have already been raised here this morning, but
it seemed a little bit unusual that this was a tape--that you
didn't identify who it was before it started playing.
So what I'm concerned with is, are we talking about issues
in IRS--which is under the usual criticism and, in these recent
circumstances, even more than the normal criticism that they
usually receive--are we talking about we don't like the way
they're doing business and we think that they made some
mistakes and that they may have made even misstatements--or the
present Commissioner--have made statements that we should be
questioning or challenging, as we normally do in this
Committee?
And that seems to me to be the gist of the comments that
I've received from my two learned colleagues on the Committee
that have testified here today. ``We don't like what
happened.''
Mr. Chaffetz. Can I----
Mr. Conyers. Sure.
Mr. Chaffetz [continuing]. Put some color on that a little
bit?
Mr. Conyers. Please do.
Mr. Chaffetz. The first part, it's important to understand
the context of why these emails are so important. Because the
targeting of Americans, the suppression of their First
Amendment rights is something I know in a bipartisan way we
take very seriously.
The facts before us on the impeachment go solely to what
Mr. Koskinen did and did not do when he was under subpoena. And
he provided--there was a lot of gross negligence. There were
things that he should've done that he could've done. But he
also----
Mr. Conyers. But is gross negligence an impeachable
offense?
Mr. Chaffetz. I think that is part of it, yes. Yes, I do.
In fact, in 1974, the House Judiciary Committee came up with a
report, and it talked about the standard by which an
impeachable offense should be held. And I happen to concur with
that.
Mr. Conyers. Well, I may too. I haven't recalled it. But I
was there for that, and it----
Mr. Goodlatte. You're the only one.
Mr. Conyers. That's right. And I want to make----
Mr. Chaffetz. I was 7. I was playing soccer.
Mr. Conyers. Uh-huh. Well, you're excused for not knowing
about it until much later.
But the whole idea that 19 impeachment hearings have been
held in almost a couple hundred years, is this being a little
heavy-handed about this matter?
I mean, I probably disagree with some of the IRS
Commissioner's views and conduct themselves, but we're
examining the allegations of misconduct against the IRS
Commissioner, and I feel that if we're talking about another
hearing on this same subject, it seems to me a little bit
overbroad. And I think that we ought to move a little bit more
carefully on this.
I'm going to have to examine all of the statements made
here today. And it seems to me that we really ought to move
with a little more discretion. There have been statements of
hearsay, of allegations, that whether they are provable or not
I just don't know and I'm trying to find out. And, of course, I
give you the benefit of doubt because of your passion and the
great work you've done on it since you were 7 in this area.
Do you see what I'm describing?
Mr. Chaffetz. I can understand and respect that we may
disagree on the remedy, but I think what we would find is that,
in fact, we were lied to in Congress, we were misled in
Congress, that there was gross negligence, that there was a
duty and obligation that the IRS, as much as anybody, when they
issue 60,000 subpoenas and summons per year, they know how this
works. And that, I think we can come to an agreement to.
Mr. Conyers. Yeah. Well, I agree with you that we ought to
look at these much more carefully, but it's sort of hard, at
this point, for me to accept them or say that they're probably
right or that mistakes were made. And I'm sure that they were
made. But there seems to be an anti-IRS Commissioner
environment here that makes it very difficult for me to go
forward without an investigation of all that's been said this
morning.
And I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair thanks the gentleman and
recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Issa, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Chaffetz, do you remember the April 7, 2014, staff
report?
Mr. Chaffetz. Yes.
Mr. Issa. I'd ask that that be placed in the record.**
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Note: The report referred to is not printed in this hearing
record but is on file with the Committee and is available at:
http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=104980
Mr. Goodlatte. Without objection, it will be made a part of
the record.
Mr. Issa. Thank you.
April 7, 2014, extensive documentation about the cover---
the not coverup but what we had already discovered. And then
June 20, 2014: ``Since the start of this investigation, every
email has been preserved.'' Now, that's a quote under oath by
the Commissioner, correct?
Mr. Chaffetz. Yes.
Mr. Issa. I want to--you know, you and I are not lawyers,
so we'll tax each other a little bit on a constitutional
question. According to Wikipedia, at least, the definition of
high crimes and misdemeanor constitutionally says it covers
allegations of misconduct, particularly of officials, such as
perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation,
misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty,
conduct unbecoming, refusal to obey a lawful order/subpoena.
So I just want to go through the last several there. Is it
your understanding that high crimes and misdemeanors include
failure to supervise?
Mr. Chaffetz. Yes.
Mr. Issa. Dereliction of duty?
Mr. Chaffetz. Yes.
Mr. Issa. Conduct unbecoming?
Mr. Chaffetz. Yes.
Mr. Issa. Refusal to obey a lawful order?
Mr. Chaffetz. Yes.
Mr. Issa. Under both your chairmanship and my chairmanship,
did we issue subpoenas that were, in fact, not obeyed?
Mr. Chaffetz. Yes. August of 2013 and February 14 of 2014.
Mr. Issa. Just before leaving office, I issued a December
23, 2014, staff report. Do you remember that one?
Mr. Chaffetz. Yes.
Mr. Issa. I'd ask that that be placed in the record.***
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
***Note: The report referred to is not printed in this hearing
record but is on file with the Committee and is available at:
http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=104980
Mr. Goodlatte. Without objection, it will be made a part of
the record.
Mr. Issa. At that time, hadn't we as a Committee already
recognized that there had been failure to preserve--in other
words, failure to obey the subpoena, a lawful order? Hadn't we
already determined that there had been conduct unbecoming by
Lois Lerner? Hadn't we already figured that the Commissioner
and his political-appointed subordinates had failed to
supervise and were guilty of dereliction of duty?
Mr. Chaffetz. Yes.
Mr. Issa. And in July, I believe, of last year, didn't you
call on the Commissioner to resign?
Mr. Chaffetz. Yes.
Mr. Issa. And the Ranking Member very aptly mentioned that
we've only had 19 impeachments in the history of this great
Republic and that he had participated in many of them. But the
history of impeachment--haven't we threatened impeachment or
called on the resignation of Cabinet and sub-Cabinet officers
hundreds and hundreds of times and on judges hundreds and
hundreds of times, and haven't they, in the ordinary course,
either quit or been fired by the President?
Mr. Chaffetz. Yes. That's happened many times.
Mr. Issa. So you're here today because, almost a year ago,
after multiple very lengthy documents, after millions of
dollars and countless thousands of hours, you had determined
that, one, they had targeted conservatives for their belief at
the IRS, that the Commissioner had come in and that he had been
guilty of failure to properly supervise, given us false
statements that either he knew were false or he was too lazy
and too negligent to, in fact, verify.
Mr. Chaffetz. Yes.
Mr. Issa. So, if I understand correctly, you're here
because you've exhausted other remedies.
Mr. Chaffetz. Providing false testimony is to Congress--and
rather than Congress continuing to whine and complain about the
lack of inaction in the executive branch, the Founders gave us
tools, and they gave us tools to defend ourselves and take care
of ourselves and to provide a consequence.
Mr. Issa. Mr. Chairman, are you familiar with the criminal
referral by the Ways and Means Committee----
Mr. Chaffetz. Yes.
Mr. Issa [continuing]. Against Lois Lerner?
Mr. Chaffetz. Yes.
Mr. Issa. And under that, as I understand, the law said
that the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia shall
present to a grand jury those criminal articles against Lois
Lerner. What happened to those?
Mr. Chaffetz. There was no criminal referral. After 10
months of review, they decided not to present those to the
grand jury.
Mr. Issa. So even though the Ways and Means Committee under
a statute had delivered a document that ordered the U.S.
attorney to perform an act, under this Justice Department of
this President, they chose to not obey that law. Isn't that
correct?
Mr. Chaffetz. That's my understanding.
Mr. Issa. So if you were to do similarly and refer the IRS
Commissioner specifically for his false statements and if you
found it for criminal purposes, you would expect the same thing
to happen, that it would not be presented?
Mr. Chaffetz. Perhaps. And different Members have different
views on this. I look at this as the remedy that the Founders
gave us. It hasn't been exercised in a while, but that is the
tool that they gave us.
Mr. Issa. And you're here today just after the General
Accountability Office, a nonpartisan part of Congress, found
that conservative groups are still being targeted as we speak.
Is that correct?
Mr. Chaffetz. That is correct. In fact, they said, ``could
select organizations for examinations in an unfair manner.''
And it goes on to say, ``based on an organization's religious,
educational, political, and other views.''
Commissioner Koskinen has not resolved that problem. It
continues today. And based on his most latest comments, he
doesn't think he's misspoken in any way, shape, or form.
Mr. Issa. So you're here today because you've exhausted
other remedies and because the remedy for someone who has lost
the confidence of the Congress, lost the confidence of the
American people, failed to fix the problem after more than 2
years, or, if you will, failure to supervise, dereliction of
duty, conduct unbecoming, and a refusal to obey lawful orders--
that's why you're here, isn't it?
Mr. Chaffetz. It is.
It's important to note that most Members erroneously
believe that when President Obama steps down and we get a new
President that the Commissioner would naturally do that as
well. That's not true. When he was confirmed in December of
2013, his being the Commissioner continues until November of
2017.
So the remedy is, I think, urgent. We have 90,000 good,
hardworking people at the IRS, but they are mismanaged, and
they are being led by somebody who is lying to Congress.
Mr. Issa. Final question. Kate Duval discovered on Super
Bowl Sunday, more than a month before the tapes were
destroyed----
Mr. Chaffetz. Right.
Mr. Issa [continuing]. That they had this gap. Was she a
nonconfirmed but a political appointee, an appointee directly
of this Commissioner?
Mr. Chaffetz. Yes, she was.
Mr. Issa. Thank you.
I thank the Chairman and yield back.
Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair thanks the gentleman and
recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, for 5
minutes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me thank my colleagues for their
presentation and their service to this Nation. I hold the
responsibilities, however, of the Judiciary Committee
sacrosanct and of a great moment and great responsibility. We
are the protectors of the Constitution. And as the authority
given to us, this House, as a House having the sole authority
to impeach, though I note very clearly that this is not an
impeachment hearing, I take the responsibility very seriously.
To Mr. Conyers, let me say that I associate myself with
your line of reasoning, and I promise not to hold your wisdom
and experience and legal scholarship against you. So I thank
you so very much for all that you have offered to us.
Bad behavior, inappropriate answering of questions, to my
very fine witnesses, may be grounds for being in contempt of
Congress and any other admonition that we'd want to give.
I hold to two points that you've made. And that is that
there must be a relationship between witnesses from the
Administration, no matter which Administration it is, and
Congress of forthrightness. I also hold to the point that the
First Amendment, freedom of speech and thought, are, again,
very high callings of this Nation, probably why so many have
tried to immigrate to this Nation, because of the freedoms that
we give. But I also think it's the responsibility of Congress
to be factual and temperate.
So let me read this letter to you coming from the
Department of Justice recently. And that is, ``In collaboration
with the FBI and Treasury Inspector General for Tax
Administration, the Department's Criminal and Civil Rights
Division conducted an exhaustive probe.'' By the way, there was
$20 million spent, 160,000 hours of staff work. ``We conducted
more than 100 witness interviews''--that was by the IRS--
``collected more than 1 million pages of IRS documents,
analyzed almost 500 tax-exemption applications, examined the
role and potential culpability of scores of IRS employees, and
considered the applicability of civil rights tax administration
obstruction statutes. Our investigation uncovered substantial
evidence of mismanagement, poor judgment, and institutional
inertia, leading to the belief by many tax-exempt applicants
that the IRS targeted them based on their political viewpoints.
But poor management is not a crime. We found no evidence that
any IRS official acted based on political, discriminatory,
corrupt, or other inappropriate motives that would support a
criminal prosecution. We also found no evidence that any
official involved in the handling of a tax-exempt application
or IRS leadership attempted to obstruct justice. Based on the
evidence developed in this investigation, the recommendation of
the experienced career prosecutors and supervising attorneys at
the Department of Justice, we are closing our investigation and
will not seek any criminal charges.''
I realize that is not impeachment, but let me just say
this, Mr. Chaffetz, if I could ask. ``No evidence was uncovered
that any IRS employees had been directed to destroy or hide
information from Congress, the DOJ, or TIGTA.'' Do you want to
quarrel with that extensive investigation?
Mr. Chaffetz. I think you're conflating two different
topics. What we are most concerned about is Mr. Koskinen's
actions under the subpoena. That is not what the--that is not
what the FBI----
Ms. Jackson Lee. But the premise of the actions are dealing
with the whole litany of issues. I looked at the 10-minute
presentation. You had Ms. Lerner, you had all of that.
Just answer ``yes'' or ``no.'' The premise is, of course,
all the information and charges made about discriminating
against conservative groups, are they not?
Mr. Chaffetz. The underlying concern and need for the
investigation in the documents----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Came about through all of that.
Mr. Chaffetz. Yes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Right. And so the basis of which the TIGTA
and DOJ investigators, they found no evidence to suggest any
crime. And so, in respect to the Commissioner, then his answers
cannot be part of a crime if they found no basis for such
crime. And if he's answering as best of his knowledge, then he
cannot be attributable--maybe bad behavior, but he cannot be
attributable to an impeachable offense.
Let me also raise this question. Mr. Issa asked you----
Mr. Chaffetz. I would disagree with that, by the way.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And that's why we have that right of
disagreement. And this is the impeachment Committee.
Mr. Issa asked you if we had threatened the impeachment of
judges and Cabinet officers hundreds and hundreds of times. You
said yes. If that turns out to be untrue, have you given us,
yourself, false testimony and should you be removed from
office?
Mr. Chaffetz. Well, I hope I've given everything as
accurate, but if I find that there is something inaccurate, I
have a duty and obligation as swiftly as possible to correct
the record. And in this case with Mr. Koskinen, he still stands
by all those statements I've showed you. He doesn't believe
he's made any misstatement to date. And I think that's the
difference.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I respect your work. I respect you. And I
respect Mr. DeSantis as well. I don't want to see any single
group, conservative or otherwise, be discriminated against.
As we review these materials, I believe, even though this
is not an impeachment proceeding, there are no impeachable
offenses according to as we have defined them and in the
Madison Papers.
But I'd also say that Mr.--the IRS Commissioner, there is
no definitive proof about him being connected to the underlying
premise. And, to the best of his ability, all of the materials
that we have, including--even though the DOJ did not point us
directly to the subpoena, suggests that he answered it as
effectively and truthfully as he can.
Mr. Issa. Will the gentlelady yield?
Ms. Jackson Lee. I'd be happy to yield.
Mr. Goodlatte. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for an
additional minute so she can yield to the gentleman from
California.
Mr. Issa. I thank both of you.
In the case of the Scooter Libby conviction, my
understanding is he was alleged to have given an untruthful
statement about what ultimately was not determined to be a
crime. He had no part in revealing the Valerie Plame identity.
And yet he still was disbarred and criminally indicted.
So my understanding is false testimony or dereliction of
duty is still impeachable, whether or not the Justice
Department determines there is a crime. I think Mr. Conyers
would confirm that that's not--I don't believe that that's a
question before us, as to the Commissioner's possibility of
being found to have failed to meet his obligations, which is
the allegation that underlies the Chairman.
I yield back.
Ms. Jackson Lee. If I may, just in the moment's time left
over, Scooter Libby had personal knowledge of the facts, the
underlying facts. This is the point that I was making. I do not
see any proof here, including the 10-minute presentation, to
suggest that Commissioner Koskinen had any personal knowledge
of the facts and the occurrences. To the best of his ability,
being the Commissioner, he directed 160,000 hours, $20 million,
and could not find--or presented what he could find and
represented that he presented what he could find.
And, previously, the DOJ and the Treasury Inspector General
found nothing that said that the IRS was discriminating against
conservative groups and liberal groups. I stand with the
President, which says, if it was being done, then clean it up.
But----
Mr. Goodlatte. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. Jackson Lee [continuing]. The Commissioner is not
impeachable at this time.
I yield back.
Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Iowa, Mr. King, for 5 minutes.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank the witnesses for not only your testimony but your
deep and diligent due effort on here on this, and also Chairman
Issa, in leading on this.
This goes so deep, as I listen to this testimony here
today, and try to make sense of this timeline. But I'd like to
back up a little bit and ask you, Chairman Chaffetz, what was
the first date that the public became aware or you became aware
that there was a problem with the IRS potentially targeting
conservative organizations?
Mr. Chaffetz. I think that goes back to 2011, if I recall,
Dave Camp and the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. King. That would be the first formal, with his letter
to the IRS. But it must have been in the public eye prior to
that. Are we working with a date that's probably a half a year
ahead of that period of time?
Mr. Chaffetz. I don't recall when the first complaints
started to come in, but there were groups that were complaining
that their applications were being held for unknown reasons.
Mr. King. And this was under then-IRS Commissioner Doug
Shulman?
Mr. Chaffetz. There have been a couple of different IRS
Commissioners through this process, yes.
Mr. King. And so I would turn to this. The tapes were
destroyed. Do we know the exact date that they were destroyed?
Mr. Chaffetz. Yes, we do. I believe it was March 4, if I
recall, of 2014.
Mr. King. Okay. March 4, 2014. If we know the exact date,
then do we know the name of the individual that physically
destroyed them?
Mr. Chaffetz. The Inspector General did interview some
people who worked there. I don't have that name at my
fingertips, but it is, I believe, in the TIGTA report. I'd have
to confirm that, but they did--we're relying on the Inspector
General, who interviewed these people.
Mr. King. But we think that we do know the name of that
individual, the Inspector General knows the name of that
individual.
Would you have any knowledge as to whether Commissioner
Koskinen had confronted that individual to ascertain that
truth, as you would if you were a manager?
Mr. Chaffetz. I believe the Inspector General testified, as
I recall, that he saw no evidence that there was any attempt or
communication with them to confirm the existence of these
tapes. And, again, the Inspector General found them in 15 days.
Mr. King. And so we're dealing with, among other
allegations here, perjury and obstruction of justice. And I
would ask if you've speculated as to why one would leave
themselves vulnerable for such charges. What could be, let's
say, more imposing than such charges? And either witness I'd be
happy to hear.
Mr. Chaffetz. It's hard to understand nor can I
definitively identify the motive. But I also think there is an
underlying belief in the executive branch that the legislative
branch isn't going to stand up for itself. I think that
permeates far beyond this. I think they know they can run out
the clock, they can provide or not provide, and just ignore. I
mean, for this hearing here today, the IRS Commissioner was
invited to testify and he just said no.
Mr. King. I just believe it would be completely possible to
impeach him without inviting him back again, and I would just
encourage that. And if he were to invite himself, we should
consider his request.
Mr. DeSantis, do you have something to add to this that
I've left out?
Mr. DeSantis. Well, I just think that it's frustrating
because if a taxpayer treated the IRS the way the IRS has
treated the Congress that just wouldn't fly. I think we all
know that. I think you can talk to people who've had dealings
with the IRS in the private sector, and they laugh when you
say, you know, could you just allow evidence to be destroyed
that was the subject of a summons? Or, you know, what if you
made false statements, is that fine? Or what if they asked you
to do certain things and you just decided not to do it? And
I've yet to find somebody who thinks that would be acceptable.
Mr. King. Okay. But are we addressing here the real central
point? Because I think there's another point, and I think it is
that there must have been a motive. If the IRS comes to me and
insists that they have my documents, then I'm going to provide
them because it's easier to do so than it is to face the wrath
of the IRS, as each of you have testified. But when you're
appointed to clean up the agency of the IRS as their
Commissioner, you know there's a problem that you've inherited.
And there's 24,000 missing emails in that.
Is it possible that those emails could trace back and
thread to the highest reaches of government at the most famous
address in the United States of America perhaps?
Mr. Chaffetz. I've seen no evidence of that. But I will
tell you that, if you look at what happened with Lois Lerner,
she pled the Fifth. That's her constitutional right, and I
respect that. But you can also see correspondence where it was
``perfect'' that they couldn't search her text messages. And,
you know, within days of the Dave Camp letter going to the IRS,
her hard drive crashed. I mean, what a coincidence.
But I have seen no direct evidence that I can point to, nor
is it central to the impeachment resolution, which goes
directly to what Mr. Koskinen did and did not do under a
subpoena and his testimony before Congress.
Mr. King. And, in brief conclusion, what's the statute of
limitations on these charges that have been chronicled here?
Mr. Chaffetz. I have no idea.
Mr. King. Thank you, witnesses.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair thanks the gentleman and
recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Johnson, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I found the video to be very artistic and----
Mr. Chaffetz. Well, thank you. I take that as a huge
compliment. Thank you.
Mr. Johnson [continuing]. Almost----
Mr. Chaffetz. Our staff will be most pleased to hear that.
Mr. Johnson.--I would say it was professionally produced.
What staffer was it that was responsible for the production of
this video?
Mr. Chaffetz. I'll get you the names. But we have a number
of people on our staff, and you can come with me and I'll show
you and I'll introduce them to you myself.
Mr. Johnson. Who was primarily responsible for the
production of that video?
Mr. Chaffetz. Well, Rebecca Edgar is the head of the
communications group. We have M.J. Henshaw, who's very
involved. We have Alex, we have Ashton, we've got a number of
people. And right after this hearing, if you want, I'll walk
back and introduce them to you.
Mr. Johnson. Okay. And those names that you just mentioned,
all of those people are on congressional staff. Is that
correct?
Mr. Chaffetz. If the question is did we produce it
internally, yes.
Mr. Johnson. No, my question is, all of the people who you
just named are on congressional staff?
Mr. Chaffetz. Yes.
Mr. Johnson. And they were the ones responsible for----
Mr. Chaffetz. Yes. I believe there's one person who worked
on it who no longer works for Congress, but when he worked on
it, he did work for Congress.
Mr. Johnson. Did anybody work on that video who was not a
member of congressional staff?
Mr. Chaffetz. I don't believe so. I don't believe so. The
voiceover was Alex, and I'll introduce you to her if you'd
like.
Mr. Johnson. Okay. And was that video produced by those
congressional employees while they were on congressional time
or----
Mr. Chaffetz. Yes. Oh, absolutely.
Mr. Johnson. Okay. Was any of it produced outside of
congressional time?
Mr. Chaffetz. I don't believe so.
Mr. Johnson. And what equipment was used to produce that
video?
Mr. Chaffetz. We have a lot of Apple products, and I can
show them to you. I can't name them off the top of my head.
Mr. Johnson. Were they all congressionally owned----
Mr. Chaffetz. Yes.
Mr. Johnson [continuing]. Equipment?
Mr. Chaffetz. Yeah.
Mr. Johnson. And how has that video been used outside of
Congress?
Mr. Chaffetz. We have made it public a few months ago. It's
available on our Web site. We've tweeted it out, Facebook,
Instagram. It's out there pretty far and wide. We have about
just over 9,000 hits on it.
Mr. Johnson. And all of that is on congressional social
media. Is that correct?
Mr. Chaffetz. I believe so. I mean, I'd like to get it out
there more. I'm glad you're talking about it. Go to
oversight.house.gov and go see it yourself.
Mr. Johnson. Has the video, under the direction of
congressional employees, ever been used for a noncongressional
purpose, to your knowledge?
Mr. Chaffetz. I couldn't testify about that. I have no--I
mean, once it's out there in the public and on the Web site,
there are untold number of people that can cite that link and--
--
Mr. Johnson. Was any of the footage that was edited and
used in this production derived from congressional sources? Or
was it solely noncongressional sources that the----
Mr. Chaffetz. Well, there are clips, for instance, at the
beginning----
Mr. Johnson. Yeah.
Mr. Chaffetz [continuing]. Of news media.
Mr. Johnson. Uh-huh. Those were obviously not congressional
video.
Mr. Chaffetz. Correct.
Mr. Johnson. But were there any video that was used--or
were there any clips of congressional video that was used in
the production of this video that we saw today?
Mr. Chaffetz. I'd have to go look. I mean, there are an
awful lot of clips in there. But I would have to go look.
Mr. Johnson. Okay.
Now, let me ask you this question. The Senate Finance
Committee investigated this IRS issue, correct?
Mr. Chaffetz. Yeah.
Mr. Johnson. And the Treasury Inspector General, Treasury
Department Inspector General, also investigated. Isn't that
correct?
Mr. Chaffetz. Let me amend the previous answer and tell you
that what we looked at was what Mr. Koskinen did and did not--
--
Mr. Johnson. Okay. No----
Mr. Chaffetz. If you want clarity, I'll give it to you.
Mr. Johnson. Well, I just want you to answer my question.
Isn't it a fact that DOJ, Department of Justice, investigated
this IRS issue?
Mr. Chaffetz. What I'm trying to say is----
Mr. Johnson. Yes or no?
Mr. Chaffetz. There's two parts to this. They----
Mr. Johnson. Okay. All right. Well, you don't want to
answer my question about----
Mr. Chaffetz. No, I do. I want to give you a complete
answer, and the complete answer----
Mr. Johnson [continuing]. The Senate Finance Committee, the
DOJ, and the Treasury Inspector General. All three of those
entities investigated this so-called scandal involving the IRS,
and each one came to----
Mr. Chaffetz. No. That's not true.
Mr. Johnson [continuing]. Each one came----
Mr. Chaffetz. That's not true.
Mr. Johnson [continuing]. To the conclusion that there was
no criminal----
Mr. Chaffetz. Disagree.
Mr. Johnson [continuing]. Intent on anyone's part----
Mr. Buck. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Johnson [continuing]. To violate the law. Isn't that--
--
Mr. Buck. Mr. Chairman? Can we have regular order, please?
The gentleman is over his time.
Mr. Goodlatte. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Johnson. Well, I'd ask the Chairman for an additional 1
minute to finish eliciting responses to the questions that I
asked.
Mr. Buck. And I would object, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gowdy. Will you let him answer?
Mr. Johnson. I'd love for him to answer the question that I
asked as opposed to filibustering.
Mr. Gowdy. Well, then let him talk.
Mr. Goodlatte. Regular order. The gentleman is recognized
for an additional minute, with the understanding the gentleman
will yield to the witnesses so they can answer your question.
Mr. Johnson. Well, I'll restate my question then. And thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Isn't it a fact that the Senate Finance Committee, the
Department of Justice, and the Treasury Inspector General all
investigated this alleged IRS scandal that is the subject of
this hearing today and each one of those entities found that
there is no evidence whatsoever that anyone acted with criminal
intent? Isn't that a fact?
Mr. Chaffetz. No. What the Senate Finance Committee said,
there was ``bipartisan agreement that the IRS showed a lack of
candor.'' That was the----
Mr. Johnson. You're not answering my question.
Mr. Chaffetz. Give me time to answer that question.
Mr. Johnson. That requires a ``yes'' or ``no.''
Mr. Chaffetz. It requires a complete answer because you're
conflating two issues. One issue was the investigation into
Lois Lerner and her actions on her emails. This impeachment
resolution that we have put forward deals with Mr. Koskinen and
his actions, his ability to tell the truth, and how he misled
Congress. That is not something the FBI looked at. In fact----
Mr. Johnson. Sir, you're not answering my question.
Mr. Chaffetz. Yes, I am. And, in fact, it would be duly
noted that the FBI never interviewed Mr. Koskinen--never
interviewed him.
Mr. Johnson. I didn't mention the FBI. I said the DOJ.
Mr. Chaffetz. You said the Department of Justice, I
believe.
Mr. Johnson. I said the DOJ.
Mr. Chaffetz. Well, they're part of the Department of
Justice.
Mr. Johnson. You're not answering my question.
Mr. Goodlatte. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate the witnesses being here today because this is
important since the Internal Revenue Service is the only entity
of which I'm aware in the Federal Government that can ignore
the Constitution as part of its job. Nobody else gets to ignore
the Constitution. But they can take people's money without due
process, they can take their property, they can move in and
destroy a business that took a lifetime to build. And they have
done that.
So it is particularly important that the agents that work
for such an agency that can ignore the Constitution must,
itself, be completely overwhelmed with integrity. And what
we've seen is not the case. I know and have known IRS agents
who are as fine and honest a people as walk the Earth. I've
heard from IRS agents who have been furious privately to see
the kind of corruption and dishonesty that has overwhelmed the
top of the Internal Revenue Service, because, as one told me,
when she just filed an amended tax return because she had
forgotten $600, even though she still had a refund coming back,
she was called in and was going to be fired because IRS agents
have to be so above-board that their integrity can never be
questioned--until you get to the supervisors and above. And
that's where the rot is occurring, and the stink is getting
overwhelming.
One of the judges in Tyler, Texas, a Federal judge, William
Wayne Justice, he did legislate from the bench, was wrong. But
that man had such an incredible sense of integrity, had he been
listening to Commissioner Koskinen, the man would have spent
time in jail before he finished his testimony. He had no use
for people that would come in and obfuscate as this man has
done.
Now, back under the Bush administration, in this Committee,
we had an Attorney General come in here, and under questions
about the National Security Letters, he testified from the very
table our witnesses are sitting at that there were no known
abuses of the National Security Letters. They were something
like the IRS might use, demanding production of documents
without going through a judge.
He testified similarly in front of Chuck Schumer's
Committee. And then it was later found--and I watched a replay
of the testimony late one night, where he testified, oh, well,
it turns out that he had an IG report on his desk 3 days before
he testified before the Senate that indicated there were
thousands of abuses of the National Security Letters and that
he didn't know that. And under very tough questioning from
Senator Schumer, he said, ``Look, it was on my desk for 3 days,
that's true. But I just never really looked at it, so I didn't
know. I wasn't lying.''
I was so outraged at the lack of integrity or the
incompetence, whichever, of something that important, I called
the White House chief of staff and said, ``You've got to get
rid of this guy. He cannot be defended by Republicans again.
This is outrageous.''
And my question, not just to the witnesses but to all my
colleagues across the aisle, is where is the Democrat with the
righteous indignation for this kind of obfuscation and
dishonesty that will call the White House and say, as I did of
an Attorney General, this man has to go. And within a month,
that Attorney General was gone. I would love to see the
Democrat that still has that kind of righteous indignation to
stand up and call it as it is, without regard to party.
I yield back.
Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair thanks the gentleman and
recognizes the gentlewoman from Washington, Ms. DelBene.
Ms. DelBene. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Congressman Boustany told a reporter that the House's time
would be better spent continuing to investigate the IRS'
treatment of organizations seeking tax-exempt status, as
opposed to whatever you'd like to call this grandstanding on
impeachment, because, let's remember, this is not even an
impeachment hearing.
And I agree with our colleague from Louisiana. You can
think whatever you like about Commissioner Koskinen, but what
we're doing today does absolutely nothing to bring truth to
light, except maybe show that the record our witnesses have
presented is thin at best.
I think Senator Hatch summed it up well. He said, ``We can
have our disagreements with him, but that doesn't mean there's
an impeachable offense.''
The real elephant in the room today is that the IRS
actually does have significant issues, substantiated ones, that
Congress should be talking about. I regularly hear from
constituents who are worried about identity theft after their
data at the IRS was compromised; others who find it infuriating
that they have to pay money to an expert just to file their
taxes because the Tax Code is so complicated; and, even worse,
constituents who can't even get through to the IRS by phone for
assistance during filing season because the agency has become
so underfunded it can barely serve American taxpayers.
If we really want to improve government accountability and
efficiency for the benefit of the American people, let's start
talking about getting our constituents a good return on their
investment. Let's commit in earnest to solving some of these
issues. And let's stop wasting time on circuses like this.
When the vast majority of the House and the Senate,
Republicans and Democrats alike, can agree that the evidence to
support impeaching Commissioner Koskinen is not there, I think
it's time to move on from these games and do some real work.
I yield back.
Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair thanks the gentlewoman and
recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Jordan, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Jordan. I thank the Chairman and thank Chairman
Goodlatte for having this important hearing today.
John Koskinen had several duties. He breached every single
one. He had a duty to preserve documents under subpoena. He had
a duty to produce those documents that were under subpoena. He
had a duty to disclose to Congress if he couldn't preserve and
produce those documents that were under subpoena. He had a duty
to do that in a timely fashion. He had a duty to testify
accurately. He had a duty to correct the record if, in fact, he
testified in an inaccurate fashion. He breached every single
duty he had, and that's what Congressman Chaffetz and
Congressman DeSantis have outlined for us all here this
morning.
No wonder the guy didn't show up. If I had that kind of
record, I don't think I'd have shown up today either.
I mean, never forget what happened here. The Internal
Revenue Service, and the power that it has over American
citizens' lives, systematically targeted fellow citizens for
their political beliefs. They did it for a sustained period of
time. And they got caught. And when they got caught, they did
what a lot of people do when they get caught. They lied about
it, right?
Remember, May 10, 3 years ago this month, May 10, Lois
Lerner, bar association speech here in town, trying to get
ahead of the story before TIGTA was actually going to release
the first report, not the one we're talking about today, but
the first report, trying to get ahead of the story. The central
figure at a bar association meeting has a friend ask a planted
question, and Lois Lerner says what? Wasn't me, wasn't
Washington, it was those folks in Cincinnati. Complete lie.
Twelve days later, May 22, she takes the Fifth--
interestingly enough, the same day that the IRS tells
themselves, ``Preserve all documents.'' The same thing same day
Lois Lerner is taking the Fifth, the IRS says, ``Preserve all
documents,'' May 22 of 2013.
Now, when the central figure lies and then takes the Fifth,
it sort of puts a premium on getting the documents and the
information and all her communications, right?
And so then comes in Mr. Koskinen. And when he is hired,
when he is confirmed, here's what the President said: We need
``new leadership that can help restore confidence going
forward.'' That's what he was brought in to do. And I would
argue, based on breaching all six duties he had, he has done
anything but restore confidence.
So, under his watch, as we learned from the good testimony
today from Mr. Chaffetz and Mr. DeSantis, what happens? He
allows 422 backup tapes to be destroyed. When he learns about
it, he waits 4 months before he tells us, the Congress doing an
investigation. He doesn't even--and he doesn't even check on
any other backup tapes that exist, because we found out there
were 700 others that weren't destroyed that could have helped
us. He didn't even check when he told us that some of these had
been destroyed.
Which leads us to the one question I have.
And I want to thank the Chairman again for this hearing and
the second hearing that's coming.
But, Mr. DeSantis, is the standard, in your judgment, is
the standard for impeachment a criminal intent standard?
Mr. DeSantis. No. I think that's pretty clear. If you look
at Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist, he said that
impeachment was about the violation of public trust and that
those offenses are inherently political, as they relate more to
injuries done to the society and the way that government works.
And then Joseph Story in his commentaries on the
Constitution several decades later said that these need to be
thought of as political offenses growing out of misconduct or
gross negligence or usurpation or other disregard for the
public interest. And he said that they must be examined upon
very broad and comprehensive principles of public policy and
duty.
Mr. Jordan. Gross negligence, dereliction of duty, breach
of public trust, right?
Mr. DeSantis. Sure.
Mr. Jordan. Mr. Chaffetz, do you think Mr. Koskinen
exhibits some gross negligence in his conduct over the last
several months in trying to help us get to the bottom of this
scandal?
Mr. Chaffetz. Absolutely.
Mr. Jordan. Do you think there was a dereliction of duty?
Mr. Chaffetz. Yes.
Mr. Jordan. It seems to me a dereliction of duty when you
wait 4 months to tell Congress, right? His chief counsel knew
in February of 2014 that there were problems and a gap in
Lerner's emails, and he doesn't tell us until June? His chief
lawyer knew, and he waits 4 months? And the reason he told us
he waited 4 months was because he was doing his due diligence
to make sure that actually happened. And part of that due
diligence wasn't even checking to see if there were backup
tapes available. I think that's a dereliction of duty.
And, obviously, when you look at this--and here's the other
thing. Breach of public trust. Oh, my goodness. We just heard
the Democrats talk about problems with the IRS. They said the
cybersecurity breach. We had GAO tell us the tax gap at IRS is
$385 billion. Their fundamental duty is to collect revenue due
the Federal Treasury. They can't even fulfill that. But they've
got time to target people and make sure they destroy backup
tapes in the course of an investigation? I mean, for goodness'
sake, this is certainly breach of public trust, dereliction of
duty, and negligence in gross, gross form.
Mr. Chairman, again, I want to thank you for this first
hearing. I look forward to the second one, where we're going to
have some experts, I believe, come in and talk about the
standard that has to be met to get rid of someone who's
conducted himself the way Mr. Koskinen has. But I thank you for
this and look forward to the next hearing.
I yield back.
Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair thanks the gentleman and
recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Jeffries, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Jeffries. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I've had the opportunity to serve in the Congress now for
about 3\1/2\ years. And, to me, I think the greatest evidence
of gross negligence, dereliction of duty, breach of public
trust was when Members of this body in October of 2013 decided
for purely political reasons that you were going to shut down
the government for 16 days and cost the economy $24 billion in
lost economic activity. And yet we have to sit here at this
hearing and be lectured about alleged gross negligence and
breach of trust.
People need to look at their own conduct, their own
behavior, and how that's impacted the American people and their
bottom line rather than subject us to this taxpayer-funded
fishing expedition. Because there's an addiction that some
have--not the distinguished Chairman who's sitting before us
right now--but there's an addiction that some have in this body
to impeachment.
Now let me ask Mr. DeSantis a question.
Do you think that President Barack Obama has committed an
impeachable offense during his 7-plus years in office?
Mr. DeSantis. I've never argued that, and it's really
irrelevant. I think the IRS is within the context of the IRS,
and that's what we're focusing on.
Mr. Jeffries. Okay.
Now, the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee is Orrin
Hatch. Is that correct?
Mr. Chaffetz. Yes.
Mr. Jeffries. And he's got jurisdiction over the IRS, as
Chairman of the Finance Committee. Is that right?
Mr. Chaffetz. Yes.
Mr. Jeffries. And he's a well-respected Member of Congress,
correct?
Mr. Chaffetz. Yes.
Mr. Jeffries. A man of integrity?
Mr. Chaffetz. Yes.
Mr. Jeffries. And he stated, ``We can have our
disagreements with him,'' meaning the IRS Commissioner, ``but
that doesn't make it an impeachable offense.'' Is that correct?
Mr. Chaffetz. I think what Senator Hatch and the Senate
Finance Committee may be looking at may be different than what
we're looking at. Many of these statements that I believe were
false and misleading happened in the House of Representatives.
And I would also note that the Senate Finance Committee
came to a conclusion that ``bipartisan agreement that IRS
showed a lack of candor.''
Mr. Jeffries. Now, the essence of this controversy, as I
understand it, relates to the possible destruction of
documents. Do you believe that that destruction was
intentional, or was it incompetence?
Mr. Chaffetz. The IRS would argue that it's accidental, and
let's take their word for it for a moment. That's not
acceptable. When there's a duly issued subpoena, they have a
legal obligation to protect and preserve. And they did not do
that.
Mr. Jeffries. Now, in terms of what the IRS may have said,
let's put that to the side for a second. J. Russell George is
the Treasury Department Inspector General. Is that correct?
Mr. Chaffetz. Yes.
Mr. Jeffries. A man of integrity?
Mr. Chaffetz. Yes, I believe so.
Mr. Jeffries. Well-respected inspector general?
Mr. Chaffetz. Yeah.
Mr. Jeffries. Bush appointee. Is that right?
Mr. Chaffetz. I think originally. He also had worked
previously for the Oversight and Government Reform Committee at
one point.
Mr. Jeffries. Okay. Republican appointee. Now, did the
report that he issued uncover any evidence of intentional
destruction of evidence by the IRS.
Mr. Chaffetz. I was very careful in my comments to separate
out what had happened with Lois Lerner and the emails, and the
actions by Mr. Koskinen himself. The inspector general did not
look and investigate what Mr. Koskinen--the totality of what's
in a resolution.
Mr. Jeffries. Now the Inspector General's report concluded:
``The investigation did not uncover evidence that the IRS and
its employees purposely erased the tapes in order to conceal
responsive emails from the Congress, the DOJ or the Inspector
General.'' Is that correct, that finding in the report page 3,
paragraph 2?
Mr. Chaffetz. I believe you stated that accurate.
Mr. Jeffries. Okay. So what I'm trying to understand is
we're here considering an impeachment proceeding. Perhaps the
most severe remedy available to Congress as it relates to a
separate but coequal branch of government where a Republican
appointed inspector general concluded that the underlying act
that we should all be concerned about was accidental, not
intentional. But we then have a theory that even though the
Republican appointed inspector general concluded that the
underlying act, if anything, was based on incompetence, it
wasn't intentional, that the IRS commissioner subsequently came
before Congress to conceal something that itself, while
incompetent, wasn't criminal, according to the Republican
appointed inspector general.
I just think that this is respectfully a remedy in search
of a problem and that we have better things that we could be
doing with our taxpayer dollars to put the American people in a
better place in terms of their quality of life.
And I yield back.
Mr. Chaffetz. Chairman, may I respond to that?
Mr. Goodlatte. The time of the gentleman has expired, but
the witnesses will be allowed to respond briefly.
Mr. Chaffetz. The first question you have to ask is did
they destroy documents that were under subpoena. I think the
answer is clearly yes. Whether you believe that was an accident
or intentional, that really will be for the next hearing that
we have next month about what is the standard for impeachment.
I don't believe you have to prove intent in order to get there.
And to the 60,000 people, constituents of yours, and mine,
and others that will get a subpoena and that will get a summons
from the IRS, is it good enough for them to just come back and
say, you know, I had those documents and by golly, it was an
accident, I destroyed them all. Do you think that's going to
fly? Heck no, no way. And so that's a fairly weak argument.
The question is did they destroy documents that were under
subpoena? The answer is yes. Did they provide false and
misleading testimony to Congress? Yes and on more than one
occasion. If that testimony was not accurate and they wanted to
correct it, they had a duty and obligation to do it and they
never did do it and I could go on.
Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair thanks the gentleman and
recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Marino for 5
minutes.
Mr. Marino. Thank you, Chairman. Let me read to you a
summary that was put together concerning a method by which we
could address these matters not only to gather information but
from a criminal standpoint. Under the Constitution and its
separation of powers, principle and structure, Congress has no
direct role in Federal law enforcement nor in triggering, or
initiating the appointment of any prosecutor for a particular
matter.
Congress has a legislative role in designing a statutory
mechanism for the appointment of independent counsels or
special prosecutors as it did in Title VI of the Ethics in
Government Act of 1978.
Under the provisions of that law relating to the
appointment of independent counsel, called special prosecutors,
until 1983, the Attorney General was directed to petition a
special three judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals to name
an independent counsel upon the receipt of credible
allegations, which we have here, of criminal misconduct by
certain high level personnel in the executive branch of the
Federal Government, whose prosecution by the Administration
might give rise to an appearance of a conflict of interest.
In 1999 Congress, in its infinite wisdom, allowed the
independent counsel provision law to expire. Upon the
expiration of the law in June 1999 no new independent counsel
or special prosecutors may be appointed by a three judge panel
upon the application of the Attorney General. The Attorney
General retains the general authority to designate or name
individuals as special counsel to conduct investigations or
prosecutions of particular matters or individuals on behalf of
the United States.
As a result, and as a result of what has taken place with
the IRS, and how untruthful they've been, I'm personally moving
forward to drop legislation that reenacts Title VI of the
Ethics in Government Act of 1978 where independent counsel can
be appointed to investigate these matters so justice can be
served.
And I yield back.
Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair thanks the gentleman and
recognizes the gentleman from Rhode Island for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Before I begin I want to stress that I have a great deal of
respect for the two Members before the Committee today. I have
been fortunate to have worked with both of them on legislation
and recognize the sincerity of their views. However, I must
respectfully disagree with the conclusions they have drawn
today before this Committee.
My friend and colleague Chairman Chaffetz has called for
the impeachment of IRS Commissioner John Koskinen and he argues
that the commissioner has obstructed justice, perjured himself
before a congressional Committee, and has failed to provide
oversight of the investigation of the IRS.
The Treasury, inspector general for tax administration, the
Senate Finance Committee, and the Department of Justice however
have each conducted their own investigation into the so-called
IRS targeting scandal. And while these investigations uncovered
various management problems at the IRS, there was no evidence
to support allegations of criminal activity or politically
motivated behavior.
There was no evidence to support allegations that
Commissioner Koskinen deliberately misled Congress or attempted
to obstruct a congressional Committee. In fact, each of these
investigations found no evidence whatsoever that the
commissioner has acted in bad faith. Under his direction the
IRS spent $20 million and has devoted more than 160,000 hours
to collect, review and produce 1.3 million pages of documents
to investigating Committees. This includes over 78,000 emails
sent or received by Lois Lerner, including over 24,000 emails
that were affected by Ms. Lerner's hard drive crash. It is hard
to challenge this as an attempt to stonewall--I'm sorry, it is
hard to characterize this as an attempt to stonewall, hinder or
otherwise obstruct a congressional investigation.
The overall record built on multiple investigations fails
to support the allegations leveled in this hearing. I regret
that we are not addressing many of the issues at the IRS that
were raised by the gentlelady from Washington that would have a
real impact on the services provided to our constituents.
I also regret that we are not using the time today to hold
a hearing on criminal justice reform, gun violence prevention,
legislation to protect the intellectual property rights of
artists and musicians or comprehensive immigration reform.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair thanks the gentleman. And
recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina Mr. Gowdy for 5
minutes.
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was thinking to
myself as Chairman Jordan was talking about kind of the
history, the chronology of this investigation as these two
witnesses well know, there were what about a half dozen
defenses offered by the IRS throughout the course of this
investigation, each of which collapsed under its own illogic.
It began with the two people in Ohio that were blamed, and
then it went to my personal favorite defense which is that is
that the IRS was too incompetent to be able to construct a
scheme as sophisticated as this scheme was. And then they moved
from that defense to the yeah, but we also targeted
progressives too so at least we were equal in our
discrimination. And then my favorite, the one they settled on
toward the end was yeah, but the President himself did not
personally approve this targeting scheme. Therefore, you don't
need to look at it anymore.
I know the next hearing is about the process--Koskinen had
mentioned due process in his opening statement that he didn't
give to us. And the next hearing is about what processes do--
the procedural part of due process. Where this one more of a
substantive part of the due process analysis. And I'm
interested as other Members are. What elements need be proven,
what's the standard of proof? Is it clear convincing evidence?
Is it preponderance? Is it beyond a reasonable doubt? Does
anyone know? Do the rules of evidence apply? Can you use
hearsay? So I'm interested in that, but Chairman Chaffetz, you
said something, that I wrote down, which doesn't happen very
often, but it did happen today, which is that impeachment is a
penalty, a punishment, and you're exactly right it is, it is a
punishment.
What Congress really wants is access to the documents and
the witnesses, because that is the lifeblood of any
investigation, you cannot conduct an investigation if you don't
have access to the documents and the witnesses. We know that.
Unfortunately those who seek to not be investigated also know
that.
So until this body begins to incrementally assert itself
with impeachment--acknowledge being the ultimate penalty--by
the way, I want to make sure since I have two experts--well one
for sure expert in front of me and then the Chairman of
Oversight, did I hear correctly that incompetence is not an
impeachable offense? Because I always believe that malfeasance
in office or the failure to perform the duties of your office
could be an impeachable offense. Is that your understanding as
well.
Mr. Chaffetz. It could be a factor, yes.
Mr. Gowdy. So how could incompetence be a defense if the
allegation is incompetence? If that's what we're alleging. I
mean it doesn't have to be a crime. The notion that you can
only impeach someone who commits an actual violation of the
criminal code is nonsense. There are lots of ways to screw up
in your job that don't rise to the level of meeting the U.S.
criminal code.
So the notion, if I heard it correctly, that incompetence
is a defense to an allegation of being incompetent, it's hard
for me to get my head around that.
All right let me ask you this, either Chairman DeSantis or
Chaffetz, Mr. Koskinen said every email has been preserved. Is
that true or false?
Mr. Chaffetz. False.
Mr. Gowdy. So if it is false then the next line of inquiry
was whether it would be intentionally false, negligently false,
whether or not he had a duty to investigate but did not perform
that duty, I guess that's what we want to investigate, right?
Not the falsity of it, but the nature of the falsehood?
Mr. DeSantis. Yeah. And I mean you're a prosecutor and
these aren't criminal offenses but you remember 18 U.S.C. 1001
a reckless disregard for whether a statement is true, or a
conscious effort to avoid learning the truth of a statement,
can be construed as actually making a knowingly false
statement. And so we're in a situation here where at best he
just simply refused to avail himself of the proper facts, and
came to Congress, and testified under oath, and made a
statement that is just factually incorrect.
Mr. Gowdy. I also have a note, backup tapes from 2011 no
longer exist. Was that true or false?
Mr. Chaffetz. That is true. Now they went back and they
were able to find some, but they were, as they call it
degaussed.
Mr. Gowdy. So it would be false to say they no longer
exist. Clearly they exist because somebody went and found them.
Mr. Chaffetz. It's how you define degaussing, but some went
through this degaussing process.
Mr. Gowdy. Oh, you're talking about degauss. You're losing.
Mr. Chaffetz. Exactly but that was their defense. That was
what they suggested.
Mr. DeSantis. They destroyed a lot of tapes obviously but
then there were other tapes that the inspector general--after
the commissioner made the statement they just hopped in their
car, went to West Virginia, asked for tapes, and they found a
bunch of tapes. I think there were 1,000 unique emails that
they were able to find off those tapes. So when the
commissioner said that there were no backup tapes at the time
he said that that was false.
Mr. Gowdy. Well, I know I'm out of time, Mr. Chairman, but
I'm looking forward to the next panel, because I am interested
in hearing how incompetence can be a defense to an allegation
of incompetence. And I think it would be the law professors
that will have to explain that one to us.
I yield back.
Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair thanks the gentleman. And
recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Poe, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Poe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for being
here.
One of these incidences with the IRS includes a group of
folks in Texas, Catherine Englebreck you all know her, and just
put it back in the record, in July of 2010 they filed for an
IRS non profit status for True the Vote for King Street
Patriots in Texas. In December of 2010, the FBI domestic
terrorism unit inquired about one of the meetings. They came
back in January of 2011, the FBI. All of a sudden having never
been audited by the IRS, ever, Catherine Englebreck and their
personal finances were audited by the IRS from 2008, 2009,
through the vote in March of 2011, IRS questions about the
introduced questions on non profit application.
Once again, in May 2011 the FBI shows up after one of their
meetings. October of 2011 once again the IRS sends more
questions second round. And some of these questions were
including where have you spoken? Who did you speak to? What are
the list of the people who were there? What did you say? And
give us a copy of this speech and all your future speeches. IRS
inquiry.
And then in June of 2011 once again FBI inquiry. November,
December, FBI inquiry. Once again the Truth Vote had more
questions, third round from the IRS, the King Street Patriots
had more questions from the IRS about their application. And
then all of a sudden, February of 2012, the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, and Firearms shows up to investigate this
organization.
And then July of 2012, OSHA shows up to investigate their
nonprofit request. And then the Texas commission on
environmental quality showed up in November 2012. And once
again fourth round of questions from the IRS, March of 2013,
more questions from the IRS. And then once again in April 2013
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms shows up again. So
you have got the FBI, you have got OSHA and you have got even
the Harris County terrorism task force showed up to investigate
these folks. All they are looking for is whether or not they
can get an exemption from the IRS.
Now, to me this appears to be an abuse of the IRS working
with other government agencies about this one issue of whether
they should get tax exempt status, it is political persecution
by the IRS.
And as you mentioned, Mr. Chaffetz, in your opening
statement. The IRS knows how to get things done by their
subpoena.
They have ways of getting you out there to the fruited
plain, to get this information. They show up all these
different times trying to get information. To your knowledge,
either one of you, has the IRS, any agent, any person, been
held accountable for the abuse of power that they used against
this one citizen back in Texas?
Mr. Chaffetz. No, I'm not aware of any.
Mr. Poe. Mr. DeSantis?
Mr. DeSantis. No.
Mr. Poe. All of the accusations against the IRS and there
have been numerous, you all have done all the investigation of
all these organizations who have been trying to get tax exempt
status. The abuses that have occurred or the alleged abuses
that have occurred, has anyone in the IRS been fired?
Mr. Chaffetz. No. Mr. Koskinen stands by all of his
statements, even to this day. They claim it was an accident,
but nobody was dismissed, reprimanded, moved. I'm not aware of
anybody having any consequence. And the GAO came back and
studied it later and found that the situation is dire, it's bad
and it's still available for targeting.
Mr. DeSantis. Even Lois Lerner retired with full pension,
even though she had been held in contempt of Congress.
Mr. Poe. Nobody's gone to jail? Nobody's gone to jail?
Mr. DeSantis. No.
Mr. Poe. And you had a Federal judge what 3 months ago,
make the comment that D.C. Circuit Court judge here in
Washington make the comment that the IRS cannot be trusted. Are
you all familiar with that statement by a Federal judge after
hearing one of these lawsuits?
Mr. DeSantis. Yes.
Mr. Poe. I'm out of time, Mr. Chairman.
I yield back.
Mr. Ratcliffe [presiding]. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You
know, I sometimes ask myself what I'm doing here in Congress. I
get frustrated and sometimes depressed, sometimes angry,
because I don't like the way things are going in Washington,
D.C. We pass hundreds of bills just so see them die in the
Senate. The good stuff that does pass the Senate probably gets
vetoed by the President. The President regularly bypasses
Congress with what I consider to be illegal and
unconstitutional executive orders. Am I wasting my time being
here?
But what pulls me through on this is remembering that we
are the elected Representatives of the people of United States.
And the people of United States want us to do something. They
are mad. They are angry. They don't like the gridlock in
Washington, D.C. They don't like a big, intrusive government.
They don't like the high taxes that they are having to pay. And
you know what I think they like the least? Being lied to by
their elected Representatives, whether it's the President with
if you like your health insurance you can keep it or his
appointees like Mr. Koskinen. We have got to take a stand and
say, we are not going to be lied to in Congress.
You know, in Texas there is an anti-litter campaign it
says, don't mess with Texas. It is kind of an unofficial motto
of Texas. We need to reclaim some of our constitutional
authority. And people need to be thinking don't mess with
Congress. When you're called to testify before a Committee of
Congress or whether you're subpoenaed to produce documents, you
should do so promptly and you should do so truthfully.
I'm seeing an alarming trend. I think the Administration
and their officials have learned you can obfuscate, you can
delay, and maybe the new cycle will forget it and it will go
away. But that's not the way it's supposed to work, that's not
the way our Founding Fathers intended it. That's not the way
the people who sent me to Washington, D.C. want to see it
happen. They want us to do our job. They want us to hold the
government accountable.
Chairman Chaffetz you chaired the Oversight and Government
Reform Committee. Are you seeing this same pattern?
Mr. Chaffetz. I am and I think you've hit the nail on the
head, Mr. Farenthold. I know you're passionate about these
issues. And that's in part why I came to Congress as well. The
Administration knows it can delay and we can't let them get
away with it. And it is a principle. It should be true on both
side of the aisle. This is not a partisan issue, it shouldn't
be, it shouldn't be.
Mr. Farenthold. We saw it with Eric Holder, we saw it with
Fast and Furious, with have seen it with Hillary Clinton's
emails. It goes on and on. And this is our opportunity to take
a stand.
I'm a cosponsor of your impeachment legislation on Mr.
Koskinen. Do you think that proceeding with this will send the
message to the Administration and the alphabet soup of
executive branch agencies, don't mess with Congress?
Mr. Chaffetz. I do. I believe the Constitution is an
inspired document and our Founders put this mechanism in place
specifically on civil officers. We studied this for 3 months
with House counsel and determined if you're confirmed by the
Senate with coequal vote to go into that highest echelon of
government, impeachment is a process by which we can extract
that person if they are not serving the best interest of the
United States of America.
Mr. Farenthold. I'm also with, my colleague, Mr. Gowdy,
looking forward to hearing from the law professors, because my
recollection from my constitutional law studies in San Antonio,
Texas, was the impeachment clause means high crimes and
misdemeanors, and what can be impeached. Congress decides what
those are.
Mr. Chaffetz. Exactly.
Mr. Farenthold. And I think it is our opportunity to re-
exert our authority and our oversight prerogative. And I think
it's critical to maintaining the republic that the government
officials, who are paid by the taxpayers, answer truthfully and
promptly to the taxpayers Representative.
Mr. Issa. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Farenthold. Oh, yes.
Mr. Issa. With the remaining time, there has been a lot
said by the gentleman on the other side of the aisle about how
the Department of Justice has found no crime, no wrong doing,
no targeting. Mr. Chairman, you've continued where I left off
on the Committee. Do you find that to be inaccurate? In other
words, is it fair to say that the Department of Justice's
failure to see what you see so clearly as continued targeting
is in fact part of a coverup, that continues today? Their not
seeing what is in plain sight is in fact part of the reason
you're here.
Mr. Chaffetz. Potentially one of the things that I'm
concerned about is the FBI never interviewed Mr. Koskinen. And
I would question the thoroughness in which they came to this
conclusions.
Mr. Issa. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Farenthold. And my time has expired.
Mr. Ratcliffe. The gentleman yields back. The Chair
recognizes the gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Labrador.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This investigation I think has yielded some interesting and
very concerning results. I want to first start by thanking Mr.
Issa for all of his hard work on this issue when he chaired the
Oversight Committee. And I also want to thank Mr. Chaffetz for
continuing this investigation in getting us to this point.
As I review the evidence and report the similarities
between this and Watergate are staggering. I'm going to
apologize I will be the second person to use Wikipedia today,
but this is from Wikipedia. The term Watergate has come to
encompass an array of clandestine and often illegal activities,
undertaken by members of the Nixon administration. Those
activities include as such dirty tricks as bugging the offices
of political opponents and people of whom Nixon or his
officials were suspicious. Nixon and his close aides order
harassment of activist groups and political figures using the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, the CIA and the IRS.
In July 1973, evidence mounted against the President's
staff, including testimony provided by former staff members, in
an investigation conducted by the Senate Watergate committee.
The investigation revealed that President Nixon had a tape-
recording system in his offices and that he had recorded many
conversations. After a protracted series of bitter court
battles, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the
President was obligated to release the tapes to government
investigators and he eventually complied. These audio
recordings implicated the President--and this is the key--
revealing he had attempted to cover up. Not that he
participated in the crimes, but that he had attempted to cover
up activities that took place during after the break-in and to
use Federal investigation officials to deflect the
investigation.
As I listen to the testimony, as I listen to all the
evidence, there is such an eerie similarity to Watergate. We
had government officials that were persecuting their political
enemies, who were going after them, using the IRS and other
agencies. The difference is that unlike Watergate, we have lost
the tape. We can't prosecute these people because they
destroyed the evidence. As far as we know, and as the evidence
shows, and as history shows, Watergate did not include any
destruction of evidence. They tried to hide the evidence, but
they didn't destroy it because the Supreme Court was able to
figure it out and was able to tell the Nixon administration to
bring this evidence forward.
But what I want to focus on today are these emails which to
me are like the Nixon tapes. Much like the 18\1/2\-minute gap
of the Nixon tapes the shear convenience of a hard drive crash
of multiple other high-level officials experiences system
crashes and the subsequent erasing of backup data is highly
disturbing.
As many of these emails were subject to congressional
subpoenas, the potential of a true coverup and of the
undermining of democracy and of the Democratic process becomes
even more apparent in what we're talking about today. This
Committee in my opinion has a critical responsibility and I
hope that Members from both sides of the aisle will give this
matter the attention it deserves.
And it actually saddens me that there is only one Democrat
right now on the other side. The reason we got to the bottom of
Watergate is because Republicans and Democrats decided to take
the investigation seriously.
Lois Lerner's hard drive crash in June of 2011, as you
indicated 8 days after the Camp letter asking for the
information TIGTA'S report that is hailing its investigation
from June 13, 2014, through June 29, 2015, included a tracking
of the crash hard drive and the procedures that took place. Do
you believe that the IRS followed the proper protocols when
addressing this crashed hard drive in 2011?
Mr. Chaffetz. No, I don't believe they did.
Mr. Labrador. The TIGTA report of investigation identified
six possible sources that would potentially recover the missing
emails. To your knowledge, following receipt of subpoena for
the emails, how many of these sources were identified and
examined by the IRS in an effort to comply with the subpoena?
Mr. Chaffetz. The inspector general indicated that five of
six were not sought nor were they investigated.
Mr. Labrador. Is there evidence in your opinion to suggest
that the destruction of these tapes was part of a concerted
effort to not comply with the congressional subpoena?
Mr. Chaffetz. I want to be very careful not to overstep. We
see nothing that implies direct intent. And I want to be very
careful with that, but the IRS will call it an accident. But
again, as I've said many times before, they had a legal duty to
preserve, protect, to find, seek and present those to the
United States Congress and to that they did not do it.
Mr. Labrador. They call it an accident, I call it a series
of unfortunate coincidences. I think it is outrageous for
anybody to think that this was a coincidence. And just to
borrow form Watergate, I would like a better understanding and
I hope that we can get to the bottom of this of what Mr.
Koskinen knew and when he knew it. And I think that's what this
Committee has the duty to find out.
Mr. Chaffetz. I do hope that people on both side of the
aisle will just look strictly at the fact, did they or did they
not destroy the evidence? They did. Did they or did not know
not provide false testimony and mislead Congress? Yes, they
did. When they knew it was wrong, did they come back to
Congress and correct it? No, they did not.
There is is a series and a pattern here not merely and
accident. It goes beyond that. Whether it is a Democrat or a
Republican or whether it is a Democratic administration or a
Republican administration, it shouldn't matter. You cannot
destroy evidence that is under a duly issued subpoena. And
there should be a consequence to that. And then you can't come
to Congress and lie about it, which is clearly what happened
here.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you.
I yield back my time.
Mr. Ratcliffe. The gentleman yields back. The Chair
recognizes the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Franks.
Mr. Franks. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman,
there has been so much very powerful and insightful testimony
here today. And my purpose here is to try, given the fact that
we are coming down toward the end of this hearing, to try to
bring us back to what this is all about.
You know, not to become too foundational, but we do still
hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain
unalienable rights. And among these are life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness. And to secure these rights--these are the
key issue--that to secure these rights, governments are
instituting among men deriving just powers from the consent of
the government. And for my purposes I think that this last
sentence of that that I just said is the most--deriving their
just powers from the consent of the government.
Whenever we have a government that uses the power of the
IRS or any of its police powers to deliberately coerce some of
its citizens for their political views or for their religious
views, that is by very definition tyranny, and it speaks
against everything that is at the core of who this country
really is.
So while we sometimes talk around the edges here, this is a
very big issue. Did the government, did the Obama
administration use their powers, their police powers, their
powers at IRS, powers to intimidate people because they
disagreed with them politically? If they did, that is profound
and it is especially important for this Committee who holds
itself to be the guardian of the Constitution to respond to
that.
Now it is very clear to me that coercion did occur. It is
very clear to me that damage and impact did occur on some of
these conservative organizations. It is very clear to me that
evidence was destroyed. It is very clear to me that there seems
to have been astonishing coincidences at least in that process.
And it is very clear to me that as Mr. Chaffetz has said the
IRS never made any attempt to come back and correct those
things if indeed this was all accidental.
What is not clear to me is why in the face of this we've
seen such arrogance on the part of Mr. Koskinen and such a
flippant attitude that seems to be sort of characterizing this
Administration constantly that whatever these great abiding
principles of this country really are, they are put aside, just
flippantly for the sake of the political moment.
And so I just want to suggest to you that I think this is
an important thing. And so I'll ask this question to the
witnesses to both of them. I'll start with Mr. DeSantis, do you
think that in this case that the IRS--that the affect of their
action was to intimidate people based on their political
persuasion?
Mr. DeSantis. Well, in my opening statement I told the
story about campaigning for office for the first time in 2012
and asking to speak in front of a group that was in the process
of applying for tax exempt status, and they really freaked out
about me being there because I was a political candidate and
they were worried about the IRS. And at the time I thought they
were just way paranoid. And I was, like, give me a break. Why
would the IRS care about it? And then when the scandal broke in
May of 2013, I immediately thought back to that and I
absolutely saw an example of them chilling their conduct
because they were concerned about the IRS.
Mr. Franks. Yeah. Mr. Chaffetz, do you think there was
deliberate attempt on the part of some persons to target----
Mr. Chaffetz. Yeah, it does appear then that in the case of
Lois Lerner that there was a concerted effort to target. That
was the conclusion of the inspector general. That was why we
got--this scandal has continued to grow. I separate that from
the resolution that we had before us, but the underlying
premise that they targeted conservatives to press their First
Amendment rights? Absolutely. I think that issue has been
clearly documented.
Mr. Franks. Well, my microphone--to end here, the purpose
of my questions were simply to point out that, yes,
intimidation did occur.
Mr. Chaffetz. Yeah.
Mr. Franks. And government power was used to do that. And
at least some of those individuals knowingly did that. And that
that is counter to everything we are as a republic, that we're
a rule of law, not a rule of men. And if we overlook that, just
carelessly or casually, then I think we fail the test of being
not only the defenders of our Constitution but of our republic
and of the people respectively.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I hope we consider that
carefully and I yield back.
Mr. Ratcliffe. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize
myself for 5 minutes.
I'd like to thank all of the Committees that spent
countless hours investigating this matter. And I would like to
particularly thank my distinguished colleagues that are here as
witnesses today. Thank you for being here and for being here in
the search for the truth.
If we were to rewind this story all the way to the
beginning, we know that this began with the IRS singling out
and targeting conservative groups because of their beliefs. We
know that the IG has confirmed that. And a problem here is the
IRS went after and targeted select groups of Americans because
of their political beliefs. And in this case, it was of
conservatives. I've listened to my Democratic colleagues across
the aisle today talk about this hearing being an instance of
grandstanding and calling it a circus. But I wonder if some of
those Democratic colleagues might feel differently if it the
IRS had been targeting other groups like environmentalists or
LBGT advocacy groups.
You know, regardless of the type of American, Congress has
to restore faith and trust in an agency that is doing targeting
of any type of American. We're here at the wish of the American
people, Congress is investigating because of that. The
Committees are trying to right a wrong and to restore America's
trust.
And unfortunately, because Lois Lerner, the driving force
behind these initial outrageous activities, because she refused
to cooperate with Congress' investigations, Americans are left
really with one avenue for finding the truth, for learning the
truth and that's through her email records.
The problem here is when the IRS was given a second bite at
the apple, another opportunity, a second opportunity to restore
and rebuild that trust, the IRS once again broke that trust
with the American people, this time through the behavior of IRS
Commissioner Koskinen.
The facts here are really not in dispute. The commissioner
failed to comply with the subpoena. He failed to prevent the
destruction of evidence, in this case more than 24,000 of Ms.
Lerner's emails. He provided false testimony to Congress on a
number of occasions. His statement today said that he testified
truthfully and to the best of his knowledge. But the fact is he
didn't testify truthfully. It may have been to the best of his
knowledge, but it was not truthful. And he failed to notify
Congress when key evidence was missing.
His statement offers a whole range of excuses that the
erasure of tapes was an accident, that he personally didn't
erase them. Even goes so far as to say that he never even asked
to be the IRS commissioner in the first place, but all of that
misses the point.
As Harry S. Truman said, the buck stops here. It stops at
the top. And once Commissioner Koskinen assumed the mantle of
responsibility, he deserves to be, and ought to be, held
responsible for any misconduct. When any official misleads the
American people and their elected Representatives when they
obstruct an investigation and they allow the destruction of key
evidence, action has to be taken and has to be taken whether or
not that's done intentionally, or knowingly, or whether it's
done just through gross negligence. Whether it's through such
reckless ignorance that it allows the truth to be forever
obfuscated from the American people.
I wish that Commissioner Koskinen had chosen to be here
today. I would have a number of questions for him. He's
indicated he may come back before this Committee. I hope that
he does. And if he does, I will give him advance warning of
what we'd like to know. And that is, I'd like to know why
despite learning in February of 2014 that thousands of Lerner
emails were missing, the IRS never even tried to recover the
backup tapes. Was that intentional or was it just a result of
incompetence?
I would like to ask him why the IRS failed to look in five
of the six places where the emails could have potentially been
recovered. Again, was that something that was intended to
mislead or was it just plain stupidity? I would ask the
commissioner why he failed to notify Congress about the missing
emails for several months despite a prior commitment on the
record to be transparent and to notify us as soon as any
problem arose.
I'd ask why he falsely testified to Congress when he said
``Since the start of this investigation, every email has been
preserved, nothing has been lost, nothing has been destroyed.''
Less truthful words have likely never been spoken before this
Committee. I would like to ask the commissioner why he said
those words in here under oath but unfortunately he's not here.
Despite the serious allegations leveled against him he's
declined to participate.
But the American people here deserve to know why they were
misled. They deserve to know that the government officials are
not above the law and that's what this hearing is about. And
again, whether or not his actions were intentionally taken to
deceive or whether he was so clueless, so incompetent, so
grossly negligent, as to obfuscate the truth forever, we may
not know. Either way, the commissioner has convinced me that he
is not fit to lead an agency that is has so much power and
influence over the lives of every American.
And that concludes our hearing today. I thank our
distinguished witnesses for attending.
Without objection all Members will have 5 legislative days
to submit additional written questions for the witnesses or
additional materials for the record.
Mr. Ratcliffe. With that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:32 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Questions for the Record submitted by the Honorable Henry C. (Hank)
Johnson, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia,
and Member, Committee on the Judiciary, to the Honorable Jason
Chaffetz, a Representative in Congress from the State of Utah
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]