[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
IRS: TIGTA UPDATE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 26, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-24
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
95-249 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, Chairman
JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland,
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio Ranking Minority Member
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
JIM JORDAN, Ohio ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
TIM WALBERG, Michigan Columbia
JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee JIM COOPER, Tennessee
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
RON DeSANTIS, Florida TED LIEU, California
MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
KEN BUCK, Colorado STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
MARK WALKER, North Carolina MARK DeSAULNIER, California
ROD BLUM, Iowa BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
JODY B. HICE, Georgia PETER WELCH, Vermont
STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin
WILL HURD, Texas
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
Sean McLaughlin, Staff Director
David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
Henry Kerner, Deputy Director for Oversight and Inverstigations
Melissa Beaumont, Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on February 26, 2015................................ 1
WITNESSES
The Hon. J. Russell George, Inspector General, Treasury Inspector
General for Tax Administration
Oral Statement............................................... 5
Mr. Timothy P. Camus, Deputy Inspector General for
Investigations, Treasury Inspector General for Tax
Administration
Oral Statement............................................... 5
Written Statement............................................ 9
APPENDIX
Article from the National Review: ``Yes, There is Reason to be
Suspicious About the Timing of Lois Lerner's Hard Drive Crash'' 52
Emails from TIGTA................................................ 55
Article from the Washington Post: ``The Letter That Supposedly
led to the Crash of Lois Lerner's hard Drive''................. 56
Questions for the Record to Timothy Camus, TIGTA from Rep.
Connolly....................................................... 61
Questions for the Record to J. Russell George, TIGTA from Rep.
Connolly....................................................... 69
IRS: TIGTA UPDATE
----------
Thursday, February 26, 2015
House of Representatives,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 7:40 p.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jason Chaffetz
(chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Chaffetz, Mica, Jordan, Walberg,
Amash, DesJarlais, Gowdy, Farenthold, Massie, Meadows,
DeSantis, Mulvaney, Buck, Walker, Hice, Carter, Grothman, Hurd,
Palmer, Cummings, Maloney, Lynch, Connolly, Cartwright,
Duckworth, Kelly, Lawrence, Lieu, Plaskett, DeSaulnier, Boyle,
and Lujan Grisham.
Chairman Chaffetz. The Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform will come to order.
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a
recess at any time.
The Internal Revenue Service, the IRS--perhaps no other
agency, no other institution in our government causes more
fear, more concern, more distress, or outright panic at the
mere mention of their name than the IRS.
Entanglement with the IRS is never good. Most Americans
work hard, pay their taxes, and just want to live a life free
of harassment. And most of the IRS employees are good, decent,
hardworking, patriotic people doing a tough job working for the
government and are honest in their dealings, but,
unfortunately, not all of them.
Nearly 2 years ago, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax
Administration, often referred to as ``TIGTA,'' did an audit
that confirmed what many on this committee had feared and
heard: The IRS was targeting and delaying the applications for
501(c)(4) status of conservative nonprofit organizations
because of their political beliefs.
The IRS was on the lookout for applications that focused on
the national debt, ``criticized how the country was run,'' or
that sought to educate the public on how to, ``make America a
better place to live.''
These were conservatives trying to play by the rules, but
some in the IRS didn't want them in the game. They didn't even
want them to have a voice.
When it was first revealed that the IRS was targeting
Americans and suppressing their First Amendment rights because
of their political beliefs, President Obama said this, ``If, in
fact, IRS personnel engaged in the kind of practices that have
been reported on and were intentionally targeting conservative
groups, then that is outrageous and there is no place for it.
And they have to be held fully accountable, because the IRS, as
an independent agency, requires absolute integrity, and the
people have to have confidence that they are applying the laws
in a nonpartisan way.''
I agree with the President. He was absolutely and totally
right.
But, sometime right before the Super Bowl rolled around,
before any of the investigations were complete, the President
concluded there was, ``not even a smidgen of corruption.'' I
have no idea how the President came to such a definitive
conclusion without all the facts, but he obviously sent a
signal as to how he would like this to be concluded.
On the one hand, the President has come to a conclusion,
and, on the other hand, there's an ongoing investigation by the
Inspector General and the Department of Justice.
But Congress has a role. As the new chairman of the
Committee, I thought it would be appropriate to get an update
on the investigation from the Inspector General. I want us to
focus on the facts, wherever they may lead us.
And, thus far, the IRS, and specifically its commissioner,
has given us a lot of different answers to some fairly simple
questions.
The Oversight Committee subpoenaed the IRS in August 2013
seeking emails from Lois Lerner as well as others involved in
the targeting. Months later, we did not have all the Lois
Lerner emails. In an Oversight hearing on March 26, 2014,
Commissioner Koskinen testified under oath that he had all the
emails and he would produce all the emails.
Yet, on June 13, 2014, the IRS sent a letter to the Senate
Finance stating a multiyear tranche of Lois Lerner's emails had
been destroyed. A June 13, 2014, letter sent to Senate Finance
said, ``IRS confirmed the backup tapes from 2011 no longer
exist because they've been recycled pursuant to the IRS normal
policy.''
June 20, 2014, before Ways and Means, Chairman Camp said,
``Your letter describes the Lois Lerner emails as being
unrecoverable,'' Commissioner Koskinen: ``Correct.''
February 11, 2015, in an Oversight hearing, Mr. DeSantis of
Florida says, ``You made the effort. You were not cavalier
about this. You made the effort to find what the Committee
wanted.'' Mr. Koskinen: ``Yes.''
The IRS Commissioner has said they went to, ``great
lengths'' and made extraordinary efforts to recover the emails.
This is but a small sampling of the Commissioner's definitive
and precise Statements about the missing emails. Yet I believe
what we will hear this evening is far different than we were
led to believe.
To the men and women in the Inspector General office, we
cannot thank you enough for your hard work, the long days that
you're working to get the information to the American public
and for this committee.
We look ultimately to reading the final report, but it is
appropriate to give an update today, and so we appreciate you
being here.
With that, I will yield back and recognize the gentleman
from Maryland, the ranking member, Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I want to take a moment to commend you for the way the
Committee has been running since you became chairman. You have
shown tremendous respect for our side, and I really appreciate
that. And that goes not only for you but your staff, and I
appreciate everything that they've done to work with us.
Everyone notices the more collegial and collaborative
atmosphere on our committee, and that is due to your efforts
and the tone you have set.
Mr. Chairman, there are certainly issues we're going to
disagree on, and today's hearing is one of those issues. But we
take your words to heart, and we will disagree without being
disagreeable.
With respect to today's hearing, I believe it is premature.
Two days ago, Mr. Camus, who will be testifying in a few
moments with the Inspector General, told our staff, said their
investigation is not finished, that their report is not done,
and that they will not be able to fully answer many of the
questions Members have at this time.
He provided our staffs with some information about the
status of their efforts to recover additional emails from Ms.
Lerner, but he cautioned us not to discuss those details
publicly while their investigation's still ongoing. Based on
this request, it seems that the best course of action would be
to have the Inspector General come back when his report is
complete so that we can discuss it fully.
Nevertheless, since we are here, I will make just three
points.
First, according to the Inspector General's previous work,
the emails that were lost when Ms. Lerner's hard drive crashed
were from before Ms. Lerner discovered that inappropriate
criteria was being used by IRS employees in Cincinnati. Ms.
Lerner's computer crashed on June 13, 2011, but she was not
informed until June 29, 2011, that IRS employees were using
inappropriate criteria to screen tax-exempt applicants.
That is according to a report issued by the Inspector
General in May 2013, more than a year and a half ago. According
to the same report, after Ms. Lerner discovered what was going
on, she, ``immediately directed that the criteria be changed.''
Second, the Inspector General has identified no evidence to
us that the White House directed this activity. Despite many
claims by Republicans, there is simply no evidence after nearly
2 years of investigating to support this wholly unsubstantiated
conspiracy theory.
Third, the Inspector General has identified no evidence to
us that Ms. Lerner intentionally crashed her computer. To the
contrary, all of the evidence we have obtained, including
contemporaneous emails sent at the time, indicates that her
computer crashed due to technological problems. And nothing we
have learned since the Inspector General issued his previous
report contradicts these findings.
We have also learned nothing since that time to contradict
the account of the self-described, ``conservative Republican,''
screening group manager in Cincinnati, who was interviewed by
this committee on June 6, 2013. He Stated that he and his
employees were motivated only by a desire to efficiently group
a large number of similar cases rather than by any political
bias.
Let me conclude by putting some additional facts on the
record.
Today's hearing is the 21st hearing our committee has held
on these issues. This is the fourth time the Inspector General
has testified before us on this subject. The Commissioner of
the IRS, Mr. Koskinen, has testified before us six times on
these topics, not counting many additional appearances before
other committees.
This committee has conducted more than 50 transcribed
witness interviews on these issues. The IRS has produced more
than 1 million pages of documents on this topic. At its peak,
the IRS had more than 250 employees responding to these
inquiries, and they dedicated more than 150,000 hours of work
effort to address our concerns.
At the end of last year, the IRS reported spending
approximately $20 million responding to congressional
inquiries. Twenty million dollars is an enormous amount of
money. That total does not include the amounts we've spent here
on this committee. It does not include the amounts numerous
other committees have been spent.
And so I conclude by saying it does not include the amounts
other agencies have spent, including Department of Justice, the
Federal Elections Commission, or the Securities and Exchange
Commission. And it does not include the amounts the Inspector
General has spent and continues to spend to this day.
Going forward, it is my sincere hope that we will work in a
bipartisan manner on hearings that further our shared goals of
benefiting the American people.
And, with that, I yield back.
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you.
I'll hold the record open for 5 legislative days for any
Member who would like to submit a written Statement.
We'll now recognize our panel of witnesses. We're pleased
to welcome the Honorable J. Russell George, Inspector General
at the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration; and
Mr. Tim Camus, Deputy Inspector General for Investigations with
the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration.
We welcome you both.
Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn
before they testify. If will please rise about raise your right
hands.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are
about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth?
Thank you. You may be seated.
Let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the
affirmative.
We understand you may have one Statement, as opposed to two
5-minutes, so we'll be very generous on your time. Feel free to
take as much time as you need to make this--understanding that
there will be one opening Statement.
Mr. George. Well, actually, I have a very brief opening
Statement and then will defer to Mr. Camus.
Chairman Chaffetz. Very good. Please proceed.
WITNESS STATEMENTS
STATEMENT OF THE HON. J. RUSSELL GEORGE
Mr. George. Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking Member Cummings,
members of the Committee, at the Committee's request, we're
here to discuss the progress of our efforts to recover former
IRS Exempt Organizations Unit Director Lois Lerner's missing
emails.
With me, again, is Deputy Inspector General for
Investigations Tim Camus, who is leading TIGTA's efforts into
this matter, which was requested by the Senate Finance
Committee.
Our objective this evening is to provide you with as much
information as possible on the progress of our email recovery
efforts without compromising the integrity of our ongoing
investigation into the circumstances surrounding the IRS's
losses of data and hard-drive crashes.
Tonight's testimony is a snapshot of what we know today.
Given an email recovery undertaking such as this, it is
important to note that the facts and status may frequently
change as we perform further analysis of data and conduct
additional interviews.
As a result, I ask that you understand that our testimony
this evening is a progress report. We have not reached any
conclusions, and the information we provide today may, in fact,
change before we complete our ongoing investigation.
And, with that, I will now turn to Mr. Camus to provide a
detailed discussion on the progress of our search for the
missing emails.
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you.
Mr. Camus?
STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY P. CAMUS
Mr. Camus. Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking Member Cummings, and
members of the full committee, I've been requested to come here
today to provide an update on my agency's efforts thus far in
attempting to recover the missing emails of former IRS employee
Lois Lerner.
On June 13, 2014, in a letter to the Senate Finance
Committee, the IRS reported that, as it was completing its
document production for Congress concerning allegations that
the IRS targeted certain 501(c)(4) applicants, the IRS realized
that the production of the emails of Lois Lerner, the former
Director of IRS Exempt Organizations Division, had gaps in the
email production.
The IRS reported that, in its attempt to find missing
emails, they realized that in June 2011 Ms. Lerner's IRS laptop
computer suffered a hard-drive crash, and, therefore, some of
her emails could not be recovered.
The following Monday, on June 16, 2014, TIGTA initiated an
investigation into the circumstances surrounding the missing
emails and the hard-drive crash.
One week later, on June 23, 2014, TIGTA received a letter
from then-Chairman Ron Wyden and then-Ranking Member Orrin
Hatch of the Senate Finance Committee that requested TIGTA to
formally investigate the matter, including to, ``perform its
own analysis of whether any data can be salvaged and produced
to the Committee.''
The circumstances surrounding the loss of data, the hard-
drive crash, and the manner in which IRS handled its electronic
media are still under investigation. However, we have
periodically updated certain committees of Congress, including
this committee, concerning our progress in recovering emails.
But we have not discussed the investigation itself.
There are two parts of our mission here. One part is
attempting to recover the emails, and the second part is to
investigate the circumstances surrounding the missing email.
Until the investigation is completed, the facts and
circumstances as we understand them can and have changed on a
daily basis. To avoid speculating and reaching conclusions that
later turn out to be false, as investigators, we avoid drawing
any conclusions until all of the facts are in. I owe it to the
American people to ensure that we continue to thoroughly and
impartially investigate this matter, gathering all of the facts
and evidence in order to get to the truth.
That said, at this time, I cannot provide any information
on the investigation surrounding the IRS's loss of the data and
hard-drive crash, as that could negatively impact our ability
to complete the investigation as well as raise questions into
the integrity of our investigative process. But, at this time,
I will provide a progress report on our efforts to recover
missing emails.
The IRS manages its email for its 91,000 employees by
routing the email through Microsoft Exchange Servers that are
backed up periodically using backup tapes. These Microsoft
Exchange Servers, also referred to as email servers, are
comprised of hundreds of hard drives that are placed into
server racks.
Up until May 2011, the email server that handled Lois
Lerner's email traffic was located in New Carrollton, Maryland,
Federal Building. During 2011, the IRS migrated from the email
server at New Carrollton to a new email server located at the
IRS's Martinsburg, West Virginia, Computing Center.
After the IRS migrated its email system to Martinsburg, the
IRS turned off the email server at New Carrollton. However, the
server was left in place, possibly as a precautionary measure
should the new email servers at Martinsburg fail. IRS employees
reported that the New Carrollton email server hard drives were
later removed from the server, erased, and destroyed.
On June 30, 2014, TIGTA demanded that the IRS provide all
backup tapes used to back up Ms. Lerner's IRS email account--
specifically, all backup tapes used for emails during the time
period of January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2011. These
date ranges were selected to ensure that we obtained any
overlap emails or accounted for midyear equipment changes.
As a result of this demand, on July 1, 2014, the IRS
identified the 744 backup tapes that met this criterion, and
TIGTA took possession of all of the identified 744 backup
tapes.
With regard to 9 of the 744 backup tapes, based on how they
were configured in the backup machine, the IRS was unable to
determine the dates they were used. Because of this, IRS
technicians believed it was possible that these nine tapes had
been untouched for years and, thus, could contain clear data
relevant to the investigation.
Because TIGTA did not have the unique and necessary
hardware, these nine tapes were provided to the Federal Bureau
of Investigation in order to determine if the tapes contained
any data and, if they did, to retrieve it. After the FBI
analyzed the nine tapes and validated their equipment by
reviewing other random backup tapes, they reported their
equipment was functioning properly and they reported the nine
tapes were, in fact, blank.
TIGTA then provided those same nine tapes to a recognized
industry leader on electronic data recovery, and they confirmed
the nine tapes were, in fact, blank.
After confirming these initial 9 tapes were blank and
fearing that the remaining 735 tapes were overwritten, TIGTA
interviewed the IRS email expert and identified the specific
backup tapes that would have contained the earliest copies of
Lois Lerner's email box.
The backup tapes consisted of five sets of tapes. These
five backup sets were created sequential weeks from November
20, 2012, through December 25 of 2012. The five backup sets
were expected to produce a total of five separate copies of
Lois Lerner's email boxes or one copy for each week of the
backup.
We hand-carried three of the five sets of these backup
tapes to the industry expert for data recovery and extraction,
and, after their examination and extraction of data, they
provided TIGTA with the Exchange data base files from this set
of tapes.
On November 13 of 2014, TIGTA searched the data base files
and identified the first Lois Lerner email box. This email box
contained Lois Lerner emails that date back as far as 2001. The
result of this effort validated that the tapes have not been
overwritten, and they contained emails that are relevant to the
requested time-range search for emails.
TIGTA then processed the remaining five backup sets for a--
the relevant requested--I'm sorry. TIGTA then processed the
remaining sets of backup tapes in the same manner, later
finding that each of the five backup sets contained one Lois
Lerner email box, for a total of five email boxes, exactly as
expected.
At the conclusion of this process, TIGTA identified 79,840
Lois Lerner emails, of which almost 60 percent were duplicates.
Removing the duplicates resulted in 32,774 Lois Lerner unique
emails.
It is critically important to note that these 32,774 emails
need to be compared with the emails and documents the IRS has
already produced to Congress in order to determine if there are
any newly identified emails. Currently, we are finalizing the
procurement of the software to accomplish this match.
As I noted earlier in my testimony, the IRS email system
routes email messages through email servers that are comprised
of hundreds of hard drives. I just completed my testimony about
the status of our examination of the backup tapes associated
with the email system, and now I want to discuss the status of
the hard drives that were in the email server in May 2011, 1
month prior to when Lois Lerner's laptop hard drive crashed.
On July 11 of 2014, TIGTA discovered that the hard drives
from the decommissioned New Carrollton email server were not
destroyed as previously reported by the IRS. On the same day,
TIGTA secured the 760 hard drives that are believed to be part
of the old New Carrollton email server.
TIGTA conducted a preliminary examination of the limited
selection of hard drives, and we determined that, based on the
information that could be seen from these hard drives, these
drives are more than likely the email server drives that
processed Lois Lerner's emails in 2011 and prior.
It is important to note that the email servers process and
keep copies of email traffic on hundreds of drives that are
specifically positioned in server racks. The IRS did not retain
a copy of the layout indicating where each of the specific hard
drives was positioned in the racks. Without understanding the
exact order in which the hard drives were placed in the server
racks, finding any complete and relevant emails would be very
difficult and labor-intensive, if not impossible. In addition,
if any of the hard drives are damaged, it could potentially be
impossible to recover any useable emails.
We recently determined that we were unable to do anything
further with the hard drives, and we have initiated the process
to contract for an initial feasibility analysis of the 760 hard
drives by a recognized industry expert in electronic data
recovery.
Less than 2 weeks ago, we also learned that there may have
been backup tapes older than the original 744 backup tapes we
obtained in July 2014. We have taken possession of an
additional 424 tapes, and we are in the early stages of
understanding if they have been erased and if any of these
older tapes contain emails or data of interest to the
investigation.
In summary, to date, we have found 32,774 unique emails
that were backed up from Lois Lerner's email box. We are in the
process of comparing these emails to what the IRS has already
produced to Congress to determine if we did, in fact, recover
any new emails. We also are in the process of having the email
server hard drives analyzed to determine if there are any
readable emails that can be recovered from these hard drives.
And, finally, we are continuing to determine if there are any
other sources that may contain Lois Lerner emails.
As I noted earlier, this is an ongoing investigation, and I
have provided the information that I believe will not hinder
our ability to continue our investigation, while simultaneously
providing the Congress with the progress on the email search.
Thank you.
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you.
[Prepared Statement of Mr. Camus follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Chaffetz. I'll now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Mr. Camus, from the time you started to try to find the
tapes that contained the emails, how long did it actually take
you to find them?
Mr. Camus. We started the process when we opened the
investigation. We obtained the backup tapes June 30. And by
November 13, I believe it was, was the first time we saw Lois
Lerner emails.
Chairman Chaffetz. But from the time you sought to go find
the emails to--the tapes to the time you actually got to the
place in West Virginia, how long did that take?
Mr. Camus. Literally about 2 weeks.
Chairman Chaffetz. So, despite everything that the IRS
said, from the time you started to the time you found them was
about 2 weeks.
Mr. Camus. Correct.
Chairman Chaffetz. When you showed up and talked to the IT
people and said, well, what's happened here, what did they tell
you?
Mr. Camus. They cooperated and answered our questions
fully.
Chairman Chaffetz. Had anybody ever asked them for the
tapes?
Mr. Camus. No.
Chairman Chaffetz. So we send a subpoena, we send letters,
we have hearings, we hear all kinds of excuses from the IRS:
They can't have them, they're recycled, they've been destroyed,
they're not available, we can't find--I mean, every excuse you
can have under the sun.
You start; you find them in 2 weeks. And then when you go
talk to the IT people who are there in charge of them, they
told you that they were never even asked for them. Is that
correct?
Mr. Camus. That's correct.
Chairman Chaffetz. Are there potentially even more tapes?
Mr. Camus. Well, we believe there may be additional tapes
that we just learned of 2 weeks ago.
Chairman Chaffetz. Are you investigating any potential
criminal activity?
Mr. Camus. The entire matter continues to be under active
investigation, yes, sir.
Chairman Chaffetz. For potential criminal activity?
Mr. Camus. Yes.
Chairman Chaffetz. The IRS first knew that there were
problems with the emails back in February 2014, didn't they?
Mr. Camus. I believe that's--that's correct.
Chairman Chaffetz. By April 2014, they had concluded that
they had a problem on their hands. But it wasn't until June
2014 that TIGTA actually became aware that there were problems,
correct?
Mr. Camus. That is right.
Chairman Chaffetz. And I guess that's part of what my
colleagues need to understand here, is that the IRS knew that
there were problems back in February 2014, but it wasn't until
June 2014 that they actually started to let Congress and TIGTA
know, despite what the IRS Commissioner told us. He told us we
were given full cooperation.
Mr. Koskinen said, ``We confirmed the backup tapes from
2011 no longer existed because they have been recycled.'' Is
that true or false?
Mr. Camus. We're looking at two populations of tapes. So
there was some confusion for them. When we asked for the
initial set of tapes with the date ranges, they provided the
744 tapes. We believe those were the tapes. We found a new
population of tapes literally 2 weeks ago. We believe those
were the 2011 tapes.
Chairman Chaffetz. Chairman Camp asked at one point, ``Your
letter describes the Lois Lerner emails as being
unrecoverable.'' Commissioner Koskinen responds, ``Correct.''
The Lois Lerner emails are ultimately recoverable, aren't
they? At least a portion of them.
Mr. Camus. We recovered quite a number of emails, but until
we compare those to what's already been produced, we don't know
if they're new emails.
Chairman Chaffetz. I've got to tell you, I--we have been
patient. We have asked. We have issued subpoenas. We have held
hearings, the Ways and Means, Senate Finance, House Oversight
and Government Reform.
It's just shocking to me that you start, 2 weeks later
you're able to find the emails, you go and talk to the people
who are in charge of this, and nobody even asked them for the
tapes?
I've got to tell you, I really do appreciate the great work
that you are doing on this.
You know, the ranking member, I've got the greatest respect
for him. And he cited some statistics that I believe were given
to him by the IRS--250 employees and thousands of hours and all
this. But the one thing that we're trying to get to, and nobody
even asked them for it. Didn't even ask.
I'll yield back.
I recognize the ranking member.
Mr. Cummings. Go to Mr. Connolly.
Chairman Chaffetz. Oh, my apologies.
We're going to recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
Connolly, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the chair, and I thank the ranking
member.
And, boy, can I relate to your frustration, Mr. Chairman,
asking for a document and not being given it. Why, Mr.
Cartwright and I have asked for a simple document from Mr.
George himself.
Mr. George, on February 5, 2014, we filed a complaint
against you with the Integrity Committee of the Council of IGs
raising serious concerns over the troubling activities of your
office under your leadership: publishing incomplete and
misleading findings, engaging in partisan activities, meeting
solely with Republicans on this committee, excluding Democrats,
and allowing it to determine the scope of your audit.
On September 17, I requested a copy of your response to the
contents raised in our letter--September 17, 5 months ago. The
next day, your counsel assured our staff in an email you would
respond to the request. To this date, you have not responded to
the request.
I really sympathize with the chairman's frustration of not
getting documents. We didn't subpoena you, but your office
assured us we'd get a copy. Where is the copy of your response
to our complaint before the Integrity Committee of CIGIE?
Mr. George. As you know, sir, the Integrity Committee of
the CIGIE is operated--is led by the Federal Bureau of
Investigations. And it is my understanding that you or your
staff have reached out to the FBI requesting the materials that
you cited. My understanding is the FBI refused to provide you
with that information because that is their policy. And that's
my understanding, sir.
But----
Mr. Connolly. Actually----
Mr. George [continuing]. As of today, sir, I have not
received a written request from you or from this committee
requesting that I waive my Privacy Act rights----
Mr. Connolly. Let me make two points to that, Mr. George.
First of all, with respect to your privacy rights, let me
quote from the Integrity Committee of CIGIE with respect to
privacy. ``We are not presently aware of a restriction imposed
by the Privacy Act to provide one's own response.''
Second, your staff indicated by email you would be
responsive 5 months ago.
Now, if you need a written request from Mr. Cartwright and
myself, I've asked my staff to present it to you right now.
Mr. George. Well----
Mr. Connolly. Here is a written request that we are asking
for a simple document, your response to our complaint before
CIGIE----
Chairman Chaffetz. The gentleman will share that document
with the chair, please.
Mr. Connolly. Happy to do so, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Chaffetz. Do that now, please.
Mr. Connolly. But, I mean, we can't have it both ways in
this committee. We can't be complaining about the fact that
IRS, having provided tens of thousands of documents, hasn't
provided every little thing we want--fine--and we're willing to
subpoena, and we're willing to waive Fifth Amendment rights and
everything else, when the TIGTA himself has not provided a
copy, a simple document, your response to our complaint. We
think we're entitled to it.
You want a written request? You've got it, Mr. George.
Mr. George. And I would just note, I'll take this under
advisement with my counsel, but I should point out that the FBI
conducted its review of the Integrity Committee, and it
exonerated myself and my organization.
Mr. Connolly. We know nothing about an exoneration.
And, for the record, Mr. Cartwright and I are going to
resubmit the complaint, because the response we got was so
bureaucratic and inadequate in one paragraph. And because you
were unresponsive, we feel we have to reopen this investigation
and ask the new chairman of CIGIE to cooperate with us. And
we're going to do that. We're going to pursue that, Mr. George.
We feel you can't--if you're the guardian of IRS documents
and you yourself are the subject of an investigation or a
complaint and you won't provide one document, whatstanding have
you got to advise this committee about how we retrieve or
capture documents we're seeking?
Mr. George. Well, Mr. Connolly, I'm not going to engage in
a debate with you here, but there is certain information you're
not going to be able to receive access to related to this
investigation pursuant to Title 26, Section 6103 of the United
States Code.
Mr. Connolly. Yes.
Mr. George. And so, once the investigation is completed,
you will receive a conclusion, the Congress will receive a
conclusion. And there are certain committees in Congress that
do have access to that information. They will receive the
materials. But----
Mr. Connolly. We look forward to it, Mr. George.
Mr. George. So just as it----
Mr. Connolly. I've been waiting for over 5 months.
Mr. George. Just as it relates to an investigation of me
and my organization, you're not entitled to certain documents.
Mr. Connolly. Oh, really.
Mr. George. That's correct.
Mr. Connolly. Well, we'll see about that, won't we, Mr.
George?
Mr. George. Your prerogative, sir.
Mr. Connolly. Yes, it is.
I yield back.
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank the gentleman.
Recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Mica, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
following up.
It looks like we've been lied to or at least misled. As
recently as February 11, Commissioner Koskinen, the IRS
Commissioner, came before us again, and he repeatedly Stated
that the emails were not recoverable.
Now, they have known for some time that some of these were
recoverable. Is that correct, Mr. George?
Mr. George. I'm going to defer to Mr. Camus for that, sir.
Mr. Mica. Is that true?
Mr. Camus. Mr. Mica, I don't know what they knew and when
they knew it. The only thing I know is that, as our
investigators followed the trail, we were able to determine a
number of emails. We have yet to compare them to what's already
been produced.
Mr. Mica. Well, the IRS consistently Stated from June 2,
2014, when Cate Duval identified the problem, till June 13,
2014, in a letter to the Finance Committee that the agency did
everything possible to recover the emails.
But, in the meantime, you started your recovery when? 2014?
Mr. Camus. June in 2014, yes, sir.
Mr. Mica. June 2014. Have they been made aware at all that
there was some recovery underway?
Mr. Camus. They've been provided this similar information
to what----
Mr. Mica. They've been provided similar information, and
yet, since then, they've been coming to us and most recently
said, our experts said we had no way, they were unrecoverable.
That wouldn't be a Statement of fact. They knew otherwise,
did they not?
Mr. Camus. It would appear so.
Mr. Mica. OK.
The other thing, too, is, OK, you've found 32,000. We've
been provided 24,000. And I understand we got those from other
sources, other employees, not from the tapes.
And you found 32,000, did you say?
Mr. Camus. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mica. OK. So that means there's at least 8,000 we more
than likely haven't seen. You haven't turned any of those over
to us yet, have you?
Mr. Camus. No, sir. We still have to match----
Mr. Mica. OK. What is the process of getting those to us?
You said you've got a software company to help separate them.
What would you estimate the timeframe?
Mr. Camus. Well, we're hoping to get the software at any
time. Once we do that, we don't anticipate more than a week for
the match to occur.
Mr. Mica. So you can get us--so there are about--I mean,
this is simple math. There are about 8,000, wouldn't you say,
that we probably wouldn't have access, because you've got--or
we've got 24, you've got 32.
In addition, you said now you've found 2011 tapes 2 weeks
ago. Is that correct?
Mr. Camus. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mica. What kind of volume do you think you've got
there? What would a tape have? Any idea of the emails? Has that
been looked at at all?
Mr. Camus. The tapes vary in size due to how much is
compacted on them, so it's very difficult to tell. One of the
first things we have to determine about the new population of
tapes is if they, in fact, have been erased. So it may be
possible to----
Mr. Mica. And you've found some tapes have been erased that
you cited in your testimony of the ones that you were given in
the previous batch?
Mr. Camus. There were some blank tapes in the initial
batch.
Mr. Mica. Were they erased, or were they blank?
Mr. Camus. That is impossible to determine.
Mr. Mica. So we know that there are some tapes that either
were blank or made blank, right?
Mr. Camus. Correct.
Mr. Mica. Erased.
Mr. Camus. Correct.
Mr. Mica. OK. And, again, how long will it take you to
process the new tapes to get to us, do you think?
Mr. Camus. We just started the process, and we're trying to
understand if there's any--if they--if there's any data on them
at all. There are 424 of them, and we're going to start with
sample sizes.
Mr. Mica. Did you say 424?
Mr. Camus. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mica. Holy Moses. Because the other was seven hundred--
--
Mr. Camus. 744.
Mr. Mica. And that produced the 32,774. So there could be a
good volume of tapes that have never been seen with--I mean,
there are a volume of tapes never seen, but they could
contained a volume of emails never been seen. Is that possible?
Mr. Camus. It is possible.
Mr. Mica. OK.
Mr. Camus. It's important to note that the total number of
emails, 39,744, again, that some of them could have already
been produced----
Mr. Mica. Yes.
Mr. Camus [continuing]. And that some of them are earlier
than the timeframe in question.
Mr. Mica. Well, Mr. Chairman, too, what concerns me is
witnesses have come before us from IRS and have denied that
some of these things existed, denied that they had knowledge.
And I think that they have misled or lied to the Committee, and
I think that should be taken under advice of counsel.
Yield back.
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank the gentleman.
I now recognize the gentlewoman from New York, Ms. Maloney,
for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Maloney. I thank the witnesses and the chairman and
the ranking member for calling this hearing.
Mr. Camus, I would like to walk through how you found these
additional emails and clarify exactly what they might contain.
Originally, there were reports that there were 80,000 new
Lois Lerner emails, but now you're saying that the number is
closer to 32,000. So can you explain how the number went from
80,000 to 32,000?
Mr. Camus. Yes, ma'am. It went from 80,000 to 32,000
because we removed duplicates.
The five email sets that we have were backups, 1 week after
the other. So there was a high number of--60 percent of them
were duplicates of each other. So if you took the 80,000 total
and you took out the 60 percent that were duplicates, that give
us the subset.
Mrs. Maloney. Duplicates of the 80,000?
Mr. Camus. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Maloney. So they're just duplicates of the 80,000.
Mr. Camus. Yes.
Mrs. Maloney. OK. So, to be clear, these 32,000 emails are
what remained after your office removed all these duplicates
from the batch of 80,000.
Mr. Camus. That is correct.
Mrs. Maloney. Well.
Now, thousands of emails from Mrs. Lerner were already
provided to the Committee by the IRS; is that correct?
Mr. Camus. Yes.
Mrs. Maloney. And do you know how many of these 32,000
emails have already been produced to this committee?
Mr. Camus. That is a step in the process that we have yet
to take, but we plan on taking it as soon as we can get the
available software.
Mrs. Maloney. So is it possible that some of these 32,000
emails have already been provided to the Committee?
Mr. Camus. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Maloney. So they could actually already be in your
files and they're for everybody to review.
Mr. Camus. That is correct.
Mrs. Maloney. So how long is it going to take to do this
matching process to find out if, in fact, there's any new
material?
Mr. Camus. We are going to do it as soon as we can get our
hands on the software.
Mrs. Maloney. So how long do you think it's going to last?
Mr. Camus. We've been anxiously waiting. We ordered the
software in December, and we're in negotiations with the vendor
to obtain it.
Mrs. Maloney. And once you get the software, how long is it
going to take to----
Mr. Camus. We're hoping it will only--it will take a week.
Mrs. Maloney. A week. OK.
And so, as I understand it from your testimony here today,
you are unable to confirm whether there are any, to use your
own words, new emails, right?
Mr. Camus. That's correct.
Mrs. Maloney. So what's before us may be material you
already have, right?
Mr. Camus. That is correct.
Mrs. Maloney. So may I ask, why are we here?
Mr. George, why are we at a hearing at 8 o'clock at night
on something which may not be any new material at all?
And we're not even talking about content. We've got to
decide whether this is something that's already there. You
already threw out 60 percent of the 80,000, down to 32,000,
because it was exactly the same thing.
So why are we here?
Mr. George. Is that a rhetorical question, Ms.----
Mrs. Maloney. No. No, seriously. I mean, what new material
do you have?
Mr. George. Well, it is important to keep Congress informed
as to the status of the investigation. And so it was at the
request of the chairman that we are before you this evening.
Mrs. Maloney. So it was not your idea to have a hearing at
8 o'clock at night on material that may already be in your
office. And, once you match it, it may be no material--new
material at all, right?
Mr. George. That is correct.
Mrs. Maloney. Well, I would say that that clearly fits the
definition of premature or a waste of time. Would you agree?
Mr. George. I'm not going to----
Mrs. Maloney. I know. I know.
But I want to be clear. You cannot even begin to draw any
conclusion about the contents or any possible implications that
might have on this investigation at this time because you don't
even know if you have any new material. Is that correct?
You don't even know if it's any new material. It's just a
rerun of what may already just be in your office, like the 60
percent that you threw out of the 80,000 emails.
I want to thank you for testifying today. My time has
expired.
Mr. Cummings. Would the gentlelady yield?
Mrs. Maloney. I would--I yield to the ranking member, but I
look forward to you coming back when you have some real
material for us.
Mr. George. Most definitely.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you.
Mr. Camus, exactly, if you can tell us, what's involved in
those negotiations for this software? And how soon do you
anticipate, based on the rate you're going with your
negotiations, that you will have it?
Because I think the Committee--it would benefit the entire
committee to have some kind of idea of what kind of timeframe
we're talking about.
Mr. Camus. There seems to be a dispute with the vendor over
certain licensing rights, rights to come in and review how the
software is being used, which would mean they could come in and
look at the material that we're matching, and that's not
acceptable to the Federal Government. So there are those types
of negotiations going on right now between our procurement
officers and the vendor.
But this is a renowned company that has the software that
we need to do the job. It's used forensically. And it's just
very unfortunate, in this particular moment, on this particular
case, that we're running into this problem at this time.
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you.
I would note to the gentlewoman, the reason we're here is
we haven't had an update in a year and a half. And just a
little over a week ago, they found more than 400-and-some-odd
tapes. They are pursuing a potential criminal investigation.
They went to go find the tapes; it took them 15 days. We've had
testimony time and time and time again from the IRS that said,
we can't find them, they're destroyed, they've been duped over.
And they found them in 15 days. That's, in part, why we're here
today.
I now recognize----
Mrs. Maloney. Will be gentleman yield? Will the gentleman
yield?
Chairman Chaffetz. I'm going to recognize the gentleman
from Ohio, Mr. Jordan, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Jordan. I thank the chairman.
Mr. Camus, we learned from John Koskinen and the IRS that
they had lost the backup tapes, or that the backup tapes no
longer existed, when we got a letter--well, the letter went to
the Senate Finance Committee, but that's when we learned,
that's when the American people learned.
When did you learn? When did the IRS tell you that the
backup tapes didn't exist?
Mr. Camus. The same--the same time as everybody else.
Mr. Jordan. So you learned like everyone else.
Mr. Camus. Yes, I did.
Mr. Jordan. OK.
And then when did you find the tapes that the IRS said
didn't exist?
Mr. Camus. We asked for them on June 30, and we had them by
July 1.
Mr. Jordan. This is where the chairman was a few minutes
ago.
Mr. Camus. Yes.
Mr. Jordan. So you learned like the whole world, and then,
as the chairman said, 15 days later, you find them. How'd you
find them?
Mr. Camus. We asked for them, and we demanded them.
Mr. Jordan. But, I mean, how'd you actually get the
physical tapes? What did you do?
Mr. Camus. Well, we identified the IRS experts that would
know where the tapes are. We interviewed them, and we obtained
them.
Mr. Jordan. Did you get in a car and drive to Martinsburg,
West Virginia?
Mr. Camus. That is correct.
Mr. Jordan. Yes. You just got in a car, we drove to the
place that had the tapes, you said, ``Can we see the tapes?''
``Here they are.'' Yes.
And those people, when you got the tapes from them, you
said, ``Hey, by the way, did the IRS ask you--did they come out
and ask you if the tapes were here?'' You asked them that
question, right? And their answer was?
Mr. Camus. No.
Mr. Jordan. No, they didn't.
So you just did something pretty simple. Where are the
tapes? I'm going to get in the car, I'm going to drive, and I'm
going to get the tapes.
Now, as the chairman pointed out, for 4 months the IRS knew
they lost the tapes--lost them--and didn't tell us and then
told the whole world, told you on June 13. And within a few
days, you had those tapes.
And there were 770 and--or, excuse me, 744 tapes you got on
July 1.
Mr. Camus. Correct.
Mr. Jordan. When you drove to Martinsburg and actually got
the tapes.
Mr. Camus. That's right.
Mr. Jordan. OK.
So you have that number--you had a lot of numbers in your
testimony, but I want to focus on that number.
And then I want to focus on, were these the only tapes
you've actually gotten in your possession? Are these the only
tapes you've got?
Mr. Camus. No. Two weeks ago, we recovered an additional
424 tapes.
Mr. Jordan. All right. So that's what you pointed out near
the end of your testimony.
So 744 tapes originally. Now, just 2 weeks ago, you
obtained 424 more. How'd you find out about these tapes?
Mr. Camus. As we were following up on our initial
interviews, we realized that we were missing a document. When
we obtained that document and reviewed it, we realized that
they were an additional population of tapes that had been
unaccounted for.
Mr. Jordan. So, missing a document. Whose document was
that, and who should have given you that document?
Mr. Camus. It was an IRS document.
Mr. Jordan. So they withheld a document from you that
prevented you from figuring out there were more tapes than
these 744. Is that accurate?
Mr. Camus. ``Withholding the document,'' I can't
characterize that at the time because that's still under
investigation.
Mr. Jordan. They didn't give you a document, and, by not
having the document, you couldn't figure out that there were
more tapes out there with potentially more Lois Lerner emails
on them. Is that correct?
Mr. Camus. That would be accurate.
Mr. Jordan. Yes.
So any concerns about the fact that that document wasn't
there? And how did you figure out that the document was
missing?
Mr. Camus. Just following up, as we are--as we're coming
down to the conclusion of our investigation, we make sure we
have all the documents. So when we determined that we were
short one document, we went and demanded it, and we obtained
it. Then we were able to notice that there were a population of
tapes that had never been disclosed.
Mr. Jordan. And where were those tapes? The same place?
Mr. Camus. They were also in Martinsburg.
Mr. Jordan. So you got in the car and drove there again,
right?
Mr. Camus. Yes, we did.
Mr. Jordan. You got more tapes.
Mr. Camus. We did.
Mr. Jordan. Amazing. Amazing.
So, now, here's the key. And this is--the chairman, in his
opening round of questions.
So when you have the IRS take 4 months to tell you
something, and they don't even go to the place--you figured out
in 2 weeks, you got in a car, drove there, and got them. The
IRS says they don't exist. Right? You can find them in 2 weeks,
get access to those tapes, and then you learned that there--so
4 months there, you get them in 2 weeks. And then you learn
that they're not giving you the documents that you need to find
even more tapes.
So when the chairman asked the important question, is there
potentially criminal activity here, your answer was?
Mr. Camus. There is potential criminal activity.
Mr. Jordan. And that's the thing, right? I mean, it sure
smells like it.
If the IRS takes 4 months to tell us something as important
as, ``We lost Lois Lerner's emails,'' and their excuse is,
``We're doing everything we darn well can do to get those,''
and then when they do make it public to the whole world--they
didn't tell you ahead of time. They told you when they told the
whole world. And in 2 weeks, you got them. Suddenly, they're,
``Oh, wait a minute''--well, 2 weeks to get them.
And then you find out, in addition to that, they're
withholding documents that uncover even more tapes. So we're
not talking 744 tapes. We're talking over 1,100 tapes that we
now have.
And so, of course, this--that's why we're--she's done left.
She should have stayed. This is why we're having the hearing.
When the American people understand 1,100 tapes that the IRS
said, ``They're gone, we can't get them,'' and all you do is
get in a car, drive to Martinsburg, West Virginia, not that
far, one State over, and get the tapes, holy cow. Of course--we
should have had this hearing 2 weeks ago when you first learned
that those 424 tapes were out there.
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank the gentleman.
Mr. Jordan. My time's expired. I yield back.
Chairman Chaffetz. Now recognize the gentleman from the
Massachusetts, Mr. Lynch, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I want to thank Mr. George and Mr. Camus for your help
tonight, although I have serious misgivings about doing this
hearing halfway through an audit. And I know in your precatory
address you talked about that.
And I have to ask both of you, do you typically do a
hearing like this halfway through an audit, when you're not
complete, when you know that things could change, as you said?
Mr. George. Congressman, actually, the audit is complete.
The initial audit is complete. We've initiated a subsequent
audit looking at how other groups were treated----
Mr. Lynch. I know that, but you also said you've got a lot
more work. You've got this matching think you got to do. OK?
You have to find out whether these are duplicates or from a
period before any of this occurred.
So you've got a lot that you haven't----
Mr. George. They're two separate----
Mr. Lynch [continuing]. Determined, and you haven't made
any conclusions yet.
Mr. George. Excuse me, sir. There's two separate tracks.
There's the audit track, and then there's an investigations
track. And I'll ask Tim to address the investigations track.
Mr. Camus. Thank you, sir.
Generally, we don't discuss ongoing investigations. This
particular matter and this particular case is of such interest
to so many parties, we're trying to limit our discussion to----
Mr. Lynch. I know what you're trying to do. And I
appreciate that. I appreciate that. And I know you're trying
mightily to adhere to that standard.
But, in the middle of this, there's allegations out there,
repeated allegations, that this is potentially criminal
activity. It's also potentially not criminal; is that correct?
Mr. Camus. That's correct. We'll----
Mr. Lynch. Yes. Don't----
Mr. Camus [continuing]. Have to conclude our investigation.
Mr. Lynch. And yet there's allegations that, you know, the
IRS is withholding documents. And that's not necessarily true.
It could be otherwise, right?
Mr. Camus. It's possible.
Mr. Lynch. Right.
Well, here's--on May 22, Mr. George, you testified before
this committee, and you said this, ``There are established
procedures for conducting an audit. And, once again, this is an
audit. And to ensure fairness in this investigation and to
ensure that we are completely accurate with the information
that we convey to Congress, we will not report information
until the IRS has an opportunity to take a look at it and to
ensure that we're not misstating the facts.''
Do you remember saying that, sir?
Mr. George. Vaguely, yes.
Mr. Lynch. Right.
And then when pressed further, you said this: ``Sir, but it
would be impractical for us to give you impartial information
which may not be accurate. It would be counterproductive, sir,
if we were to do that.''
That's what you said.
Mr. George. Again, my understanding is, referring to the
audit.
Mr. Lynch. Well, this says--it says, ``Why, in your view,
is it counterproductive to publically disclose information
regarding ongoing audits and investigations?''
Mr. George. Well, I don't recall saying that, but if you're
quoting me, I----
Mr. Lynch. Here's another one. In response to another
question, you said, ``I think it would behoove all of us to
ensure that accurate information is given to Congress so that
we don't act precipitously. As you I am sure are aware, many
times when information is conveyed to the Hill, it is sometimes
not retained on the Hill, and that is not fair to the people
who we are investigating.''
Do you recall saying that?
Mr. George. I recall that, definitely.
Mr. Lynch. So I'm very concerned about this whole process,
for your reputational interests, not just for people who are
suspected of wrongdoing. I just think it's wrong.
And you're telling me that, once you get this software in 2
weeks' time, you'll be able to do the match, you'll be able to
give us some concrete determinations. Right now, this is all
speculation, and I think it hurts this hearing.
And this is not an issue that should be sidestepped. I'm
not saying that. I'm just saying we should do a very, very good
job, and we shouldn't go off half-cocked before you can make
the determinations that you need to make and that we have hard
evidence here, when you can actually say whether or not there
was affirmative withholding here, when you can say whether or
not people hid things or, as was said earlier, we were lied to.
Right now, I'm concerned about the due process rights of
these people who are being accused in absentia, when we don't
have the evidence, we don't have a final--an end to this
investigation, and we're doing this halfway through the
process. I just think we should be better than that.
And it if takes 2 more weeks--and we have waited a long
time. We have waited. And I don't begrudge the chairman from
being frustrated. I'm frustrated, too. But I would like--I
would like a stone-cold--a full report here so that we can
actually do our job. And, right now, there's too much
speculation going on from the full spectrum of possibilities.
And I respect your desire and your effort to keep this down
to, you know, just the mechanics of what you've been doing, but
it's gone far beyond that already. And I think you've impugned,
by your own admissions here, the people who you're
investigating. And I think that may come back to bite us and,
indeed, hurt the integrity of your own investigation, by doing
this prematurely.
I yield back.
Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentleman.
Now recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Walberg, for
5 minutes.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I thank you for continuing this investigation. I think
they doth protest too much. And the gyrations that are going
on, trying to indicate that we are premature, my gracious, if
this is premature, I'd hate to see what delayed is.
This is our responsibility, Mr. Chairman--and thank you--to
do oversight, to continue to push to get to the answers.
32,000, they may all be duplicates, but we should have had
those. We should have 80,000. We have the responsibility and
the right to have those. And I appreciate the work that's being
done here.
I mean, we're still talking about citizens who have been
attacked by their government. Their IRS intimidated. Even to
this day, it's still going on. These are people we can't
forget.
``If you say the targeting issues have been resolved, how
come we still haven't received a determination one way or the
other?'', asked Rick Harbaugh, leader of the Albuquerque Tea
Party, which has been waiting 5 years for its tax exemption.
``We are still being targeted.'' That's in their mind. And so
it's good work we're doing here.
In May 2013, the DOJ announced that it would be conducting
an independent investigation of the IRS targeting in
conjunction with the Treasury Inspector General for Tax
Administration, you folks. At the 2013 press conference where
Holder made the announcement, he said, ``Those were, I think as
everyone can agree, if not criminal, they were certainly
outrageous and unacceptable. But we're examining the facts to
see if there were criminal violations.'' Good.
But a DOJ official involved in the investigation, who is
doing this at Eric Holder's behest, was Barbara Bosserman, who
contributed the maximum amount to President Obama's campaign.
The DOJ leaked last year that it did not anticipate any
criminal charges being filed. And, earlier this year, February
13, to be exact, our Attorney General, Eric Holder, said, ``I'm
satisfied with the progress that the Criminal Division has
done. The Civil Rights Division, as well. I expect that we will
have some final recommendations coming up relatively soon.''
Well, if that's the case, then it is important that we do
these studies, these questioning right now.
Let me ask Mr. George and Mr. Camus, is TIGTA still
participating in the DOJ's investigation of the targeting of
conservative nonprofit groups?
Mr. Camus. Yes, sir, we are.
Mr. Walberg. Is this investigation nearing completion?
Mr. Camus. That's a DOJ investigation. I can't comment on
their behalf.
Mr. Walberg. Are you aware if any criminal charges are
going to be filed?
Mr. Camus. I'm not aware of that, sir.
Mr. Walberg. Considered to be filed?
Mr. Camus. I'm not aware of the specifics.
Mr. Walberg. Are you aware that, in January, Eric Holder
Stated that the DOJ's investigation was nearing completion and
that DOJ would be making recommendations to IRS?
Mr. Camus. I'm not aware of that Statement, sir.
Mr. Walberg. Do you know what these recommendations will
be?
Mr. Camus. I do not.
Mr. Walberg. I think we are getting a trend here.
Another reason for this hearing--to find who's on first,
who's on second, what's progressing, what we have to expect,
what we need to be looking for.
Isn't it your job and not the job of DOJ to make
recommendations to the IRS?
Mr. Camus. It is.
Mr. Walberg. Your job to do that.
Mr. Camus. It is.
Mr. Walberg. So the purposes for which you are undertaking
this investigation, you are doing it with diligence.
You may have a question, Mr. George, about one document.
We've got 32,000 documents that we're concerned about here.
But more than that, again, I go back to the fact that we
are concerned about citizens, private citizens, taxpaying
citizens, citizens who have First Amendment liberties, citizens
who have the right to know that their government will not go
after them in untoward ways simply because of their beliefs,
their values, who they join and involve themselves with.
And I thank you for the good work you're doing. I wish that
we could receive the information that we requested so we could
work alongside in a parallel process to get to the bottom of
what ought to be the American ideal, and that's freedom and
opportunity.
Mr. George, you have a Statement?
Mr. George. Just briefly.
I think it's important to note that we had made
recommendations to the IRS on this very issue and are in the
process of reviewing to see whether or not those
recommendations have been implemented. And hopefully that
report will be out in the not too distant future.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you.
I yield back.
Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentleman.
I recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr.
Cartwright, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. George, in case you or anyone listening does not fully
understand why Mr. Connolly and I have filed a complaint
against you, here's the beef.
The Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and
Efficiency, or CIGIE, is the organizing entity for IGs across
Federal agencies. They issue a handbook for IGs like you on how
to conduct investigations in a nonpartisan manner. This is what
the handbook says about discussing ongoing investigations with
Congress, ``IGs should avoid any appearance of partisanship in
such engagements. Bipartisan meetings and outreach is the most
appropriate format for such OIG meetings.''
What is troubling to me is that, during this investigation,
you and your staff have engaged in a series of activities that
contradict this clear guidance.
At the beginning of this investigation more than 3 years
ago, your staff held a private meeting with Republican staff
working for former Chairman Darrell Issa of this committee--
that meeting occurred on March 8, 2012--during which your staff
discussed the scope of the investigation. Democrats were not
invited, were not informed, and did not participate.
On July 11, a few months later, you sent a private letter
to former Chairman Issa confirming these events. This is what
you wrote, and I ``After our meeting, our Office of Audit
recently began work on the issue. We would be happy to provide
a status update to the subcommittee staff.'' You sent a copy of
that letter to Representative Jordan, but you did not send a
copy to any Democrats.
On May 15, 2013, you issued your report. So, right there,
that means you worked over a year on your audit for this
committee with the Democrats on this committee entirely in the
dark--you, who are required to be bipartisan and not partisan.
So what did you write in the May 15, 2013, report? You
talked about the BOLOs, you talked about the right-wing groups
being targeted, but you did not reference any progressive
groups that we know were subjected to similar treatment.
When you came before this committee on May 22, a week
later, 2013, we asked why your report did not address
progressive groups. You said, ``Because those groups did not
have, again, the Be on the Lookout, 'Tea Party,' 'Patriot,' or
9/12' in their names.''
When we asked you about specific reports that the IRS was
treating progressive groups similarly, you said this, ``I have
subsequently received information that what you're indicating
may have occurred, and, as a result, we will be conducting a
followup review to determine whether or not that's the case.''
On July 18, 2013, you testified before this committee
again. At that hearing, we showed you internal IRS documents
indicating that progressive groups were subjected to this type
of scrutiny and were also included on training materials. You
said, ``We just learned about that recently, and that name was
being used by the IRS. So, you know, as I indicated in my
opening Statement, we just recently, last week, received new
information that is disturbing and we need to pursue.'' So you
testified it was disturbing that you did not discover these
documents about progressive groups earlier.
But, about a month earlier, on June 23, 2013, your
communications director Stated publicly that the reason for
this was because you were only looking for Tea Party groups.
She said Chairman Issa had directed you, ``to narrowly focus on
Tea Party organizations.'' When you testified on July 18, 2013,
you said she misspoke, your communications director misspoke.
So, apparently, it was your office, on its own, deciding to
focus only on conservative groups and not to review progressive
groups.
On January 27, 2014, your staff held another meeting with
Republican staff, and Democrats were excluded yet again. In
fact, on February 4, Ranking Member Cummings wrote to complain
about partisan activities and not including Democrats.
Nevertheless, these partisan activities have continued to
this day. About a month ago, on January 22, your staff met
privately with Chairman Chaffetz, Chairman Jordan, and others.
There were no Democrats present. You did not inform the
minority the meeting was going to happen. And it wasn't until
11 days later that your staff finally provided the minority
with that briefing.
Mr. George, as you sit here today, this evening, are you
aware that your IG handbook says, ``IGs should avoid any
appearance of partisanship. In such engagements, bipartisan
meetings and outreach is the most appropriate format for such
OIG meetings''? Are you aware of that this evening?
Chairman Chaffetz. The gentleman's time has expired, but
the gentleman, Mr. George, may answer the question.
Mr. George. I mean, that is quite a bit of information
there, sir, and there is a lot that I would like to respond to.
But suffice it to say I don't control the attendees of
meetings. If I'm invited by the chairman of a full committee or
a subcommittee to meet with him or her----
Mr. Cartwright. It's a ``yes'' or ``no'' question. Are you
aware that that's in your handbook, that you have to be
bipartisan?
Mr. George. I've engaged in bipartisanship my entire
political and professional career, sir. So, yes, I----
Mr. Cartwright. And did you know----
Chairman Chaffetz. The gentleman's----
Mr. Cartwright [continuing]. That that was in your handbook
2 1/2 years ago?
Chairman Chaffetz. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. George. I----
Chairman Chaffetz. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Cartwright. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you.
I now recognize the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr.
Gowdy.
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Mr. George, I want you to take heart and I want you to
be heartened by the fact that, when one side has good facts,
they pound the facts, and when they have good law, they pound
the law, and when they don't have either facts or law, then
they like to pound the judge. And that's what we've been
listening to tonight. I've heard more questions and tougher
questions directed to you than I've heard directed to Lois
Lerner. So I want you to take heart.
And we'll get back to this bipartisanship here toward the
end, because I'd like to invite my friends from the other side
of the aisle to write a letter to the Department of Justice.
Speaking of the appearance of partisanship, we have a DOJ
lawyer who contributed the maximum to the President, and that's
who's supposed to be investigating.
So, perhaps, Mr. Chairman, we could have a letter, and we
could get some Democrats to sign that letter with us, and we
can ask the Department of Justice to update us on the status of
the investigation and whether or not Ms. Bosserman is the right
person to conduct that investigation.
However, Mr. Camus, I want to ask you this. Mr. Koskinen,
Commissioner Koskinen, in June 2014, said that there was no
evidence of criminal wrongdoing, which I found to be stunning
because I was not aware previously that he was a criminal
investigator. I thought he was the Commissioner of the IRS. So
I think we both learned something that night.
He had conducted a full investigation and found no criminal
wrongdoing, which I found also stunning because the Ways and
Means Committee had made a criminal referral to the Department
of Justice.
So, to the extent Mr. Koskinen is watching tonight, are
there potential criminal statutes at play?
Mr. Camus. Yes, there could be. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gowdy. Well, what could they be? I'm not asking you to
prejudge it, but you can't discriminate against someone based
on their political ideology, can you?
Mr. Camus. No.
Mr. Gowdy. No. That's against the law, and thank the Lord
for it.
And you can't disclose confidential taxpayer information,
can you?
Mr. Camus. No, you cannot.
Mr. Gowdy. No, you cannot.
Nor can you mislead Congress, can you?
Mr. Camus. You cannot.
Mr. Gowdy. Could I ask the chairman to engage in a colloquy
with me?
Mr. Chairman, I listened--and he is my friend, from
Virginia, Mr. Connolly. And I want to say that publicly. It may
hurt him in this district, but he is my friend. I listened to
him ask Mr. George to respond to a letter that he had written
asking for an update on something that clearly Mr. George has
no jurisdiction over and can't respond to.
And I would be curious as to whether or not the chairman
would ask our friends on the other side of the aisle if they
would be willing to write a letter to the Department of
Justice. I'd be curious how Ms. Bosserman was chosen out of all
the competent--and there are lots and lots of competent
attorneys in the Department of Justice. I am curious why she,
as a max-out donor to the President, was picked to head this
criminal investigation.
And, Mr. Chairman, I'd be interested in whether or not
there has even been a grand jury that's been convened. And, Mr.
Chairman, I'd be interested in whether or not any grand jury
subpoenas have been issued, either for documents or for
witnesses. And I'd be interested in whether or not there are
any proffer agreements or whether they've made any effort to
talk to Ms. Lerner. You and I didn't have any success talking
to her. I was hoping that they would have more success.
So I would ask the chairman to investigate, given this
bipartisan spirit that I heard tonight, asking our colleagues
on the other side of the aisle to join in a letter with us
asking for an update on the real investigation, not
investigating the investigator, which is what I've heard a lot
of tonight----
Mr. Connolly. Would my friend yield?
Mr. Gowdy [continuing]. But actually--I will in just a
second. And I will, I promise--not investigating the
investigator, which I've heard a lot of tonight, Mr. George,
but the real underlying investigation into whether criminal
conduct was engaged in.
Would the chairman be willing to entertain that thought?
Chairman Chaffetz. Yes. I will followup with you on that.
Mr. Gowdy. And I thank the gentleman from Utah.
And I would yield, with great trepidation, to my friend
from Virginia.
Mr. Connolly. I thank my friend. And he also is my friend.
Now, I'm not a fancy country lawyer from South Carolina
like my friend, but I would say it's a neat trick to attack
folks on partisanship but to try to nullify our concerns about
that very subject here with respect to Mr. George himself.
The objectivity, Mr. George, is very much in doubt.
And if my friend wants to draw us into a letter questioning
the objectivity of the partisan activities of a lawyer at the
Department, we're happy to entertain that if my friend will
join us in the concerns that were enumerated by Mr. Cartwright
and by myself in a 26-page complaint----
Mr. Gowdy. Well, reclaiming----
Mr. Connolly [continuing]. About the partisan briefings and
the violation of the IG handbook.
And, by the way, if we're going to condemn people or raise
questions, by insinuation, of their partisan affiliations, we
can do that with Mr. George, too, because he has a partisan
history.
Mr. Gowdy. Reclaiming my time, because I'm out of time, and
I know the chairman----
Mr. Connolly. I thank my good friend.
Mr. Gowdy [continuing]. Is going to let me make one
conclusory comment.
This is, I think, the third time Mr. George has appeared
before this committee. So my point to the gentleman from
Virginia is simply this: What's good for the goose is good for
the gander. If this man is going to have to sit here and listen
to accusations about his character and his partiality, then I
think the least that can be done is that we can have a few
questions to the Department of Justice about--I'm not
prejudging Ms. Bosserman. I have no idea. I just find it
curious, out of all the thousands of lawyers in the Department
of Justice, why they stumbled upon one who was a max-out donor
to the DNC. That was my question.
And I know I'm out of time, so I'll yield back to the
chair.
Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentleman.
I now recognize the gentlewoman from Michigan, Ms.
Lawrence, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And thank you, Ranking Member.
Some of my colleagues--and many of you know that I'm a
freshman Congresswoman, so this conversation has preceded me in
the previous Congress. So I have some questions of timelines
that I would like to validate.
Some of my colleagues continue to claim that there was ill
intent surrounding Lois Lerner's computer crash, that she
intentionally crashed it to conceal her emails. I just want to
review the timeline.
And, Mr. George, Lois Lerner's computer crashed on June 13,
2011; is that correct?
Mr. George. That is correct.
But for the technical questions, ma'am, I'm going to defer
to Mr. Camus, but I'll do my best to answer the questions that
I can.
Mrs. Lawrence. And emails produced to the Committee confirm
that it crashed on June 13, 2011.
Then, on June 14, 2011, Ms. Lerner sent an email to several
IRS employees stating that she could not read her emails
because her computer crashed a day earlier. She wrote, ``My
computer crashed yesterday. My BlackBerry doesn't work in my
office, so I just saw this.''
Mr. George, according to your audit report on June 29,
2011, Ms. Lerner received a briefing explaining that the IRS
employees in Cincinnati were searching for applications that
included the terms ``Tea Party,'' ``Patriots,'' and ``9/12.''
Do I have that date correct?
Mr. George. Yes, you do.
Mrs. Lawrence. So before Ms. Lerner received information
from you that there were complaints, her computer had already
crashed. Is that correct?
Mr. George. You know, in all candor, Congresswoman, the
timeline, as it relates to--and you're referring to the audit
and not the investigation----
Mrs. Lawrence. Yes.
Mr. George [continuing]. So I will have to supply you an
answer for the record, if that's permissible.
Mrs. Lawrence. Well, according to your report, Ms. Lerner
learned about these inappropriate search terms. She wrote--or
she Stated that she immediately directed that the criteria be
changed.
Mr. George. I've just been informed that the date that you
cited is accurate, Congresswoman.
Mrs. Lawrence. OK. So if we are following the timeline,
June 13, the computer crashed; on June 14, there was an email
sent saying, my computer crashed yesterday; and then, on June
29, Ms. Lerner received a briefing explaining that employees in
IRS were using these terms.
And if I'm correct, those are the timelines so far,
correct?
Mr. George. My understanding--and, again, I'm getting this
from staff--is that most of the dates that you cited were
accurate, with one possible exception. And----
Mr. Camus. I believe the date that you cite for the
computer crash is accurate.
Mrs. Lawrence. OK.
So, at the time of Ms. Lerner's computer crash, had TIGTA
commenced its audit of IRS employees' handling of applications
for tax-exempt status?
Mr. George. No. No. It hadn't begun.
Mrs. Lawrence. No. So she couldn't have known that you were
coming in to investigate the past actions or the need for her--
she hadn't been notified of any need or any investigation when
the audit began.
Mr. George. Now, I don't know whether she was interviewed,
and I can't, in all candor, determine what was in her mind. But
that is an assumption I think one could make.
I don't know if anyone--Tim, you would want to add to that?
Mrs. Lawrence. I am looking for not assumptions. If the
facts that we have is that her computer--we have a date, and
her computer crashed on June 13. And it wasn't until June 29
that there was indication that there was going to be an audit
based on these terminologies that were being used.
Mr. George. There is no question----
Mrs. Lawrence. That's a fact.
Mr. George. There's no question it was after----
Mrs. Lawrence. OK.
Mr. George [continuing]. The crash that there was any
indication of an audit.
Chairman Chaffetz. I----
Mrs. Lawrence. And our former chairman did not ask to
review this matter until 2012; is that correct?
Mr. George. Yes.
Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentlewoman. Time has
expired.
So we'll now recognize the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr.
Massie, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Massie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So, just to go over some of the stuff in your opening
Statements, you said that you found 744 backup tapes, Mr.
Camus?
Mr. Camus. That's correct.
Mr. Massie. And this is after we were told in these
hearings by Mr. Koskinen that these tapes were unavailable.
When did you first obtain the tapes, those 744 backup
tapes?
Mr. Camus. July 1st, 2014.
Mr. Massie. July 1st of 2014. What I find interesting is
that Mr. Koskinen was here on July 9th, 2014, which would be 8
days after you found those tapes. And those tapes were in the
possession of IRS employees?
Mr. Camus. Yes. They were the backup tapes that were in
use.
Mr. Massie. Right. And those backup tapes were kept by the
IRS in Martinsville, West Virginia?
Mr. Camus. Martinsburg, West Virginia.
Mr. Massie. Martinsburg. Sorry.
But 8 days later after you found those tapes from IRS
employees--and you said you drove there to get them--I asked
Mr. Koskinen, I said, ``I think you testified earlier that the
backup tapes are recycled every 6 months.'' And Mr. Koskinen
said, ``They are kept for 6 months, and then the tapes are put
back into being recycled.'' I said, ``So the tapes are
reused?'' Mr. Koskinen said, ``They are reused, yes. They are
reused until they don't work.''
And so my questioning went on further with him, because I
don't think it's typical practice that these tapes are reused.
They're too cheap to reuse.
Do you have any indication that they were reusing those
tapes?
Mr. Camus. Yes. I believe they were reusing the tapes.
Mr. Massie. So the tapes that you found, had they been
overwritten?
Mr. Camus. Yes.
Mr. Massie. And so you have tapes that cover which dates?
Mr. Camus. The tapes that we recovered had been
overwritten. However, by obtaining them and looking at them
ourselves, we were able to find a backup as far back as
November 2012. And that backup contained emails that went all
the way back to 2001.
Mr. Massie. So those backups had not been overwritten.
Mr. Camus. That is correct. There was information on that
tape that had not been overwritten that allowed us to see email
as far back as 2001.
Mr. Massie. And you----
Mr. Camus. Now, a distinct--go ahead.
Mr. Massie. And you found 32,774 unique emails on those
tapes, Lois Lerner emails?
Mr. Camus. That are unique to Lois Lerner. But what we have
yet to determine is if the IRS ever had possession of those and
if they, in fact, turned them over to Congress.
Mr. Massie. And you said you found nine tapes that were
either blank or erased?
Mr. Camus. That's correct.
Mr. Massie. And, earlier, you testified you weren't sure
whether they were blank or erased, and it was difficult or
impossible to tell. Can the FBI discover--I mean, it seems to
me, technically, that you could tell with some diligence, maybe
not at first glance.
Mr. Camus. Well, we were informed by two parties--one, the
FBI, and then the other is a private expert on data recovery--
that the tapes, when they examined them, were blank. So whether
or not they were erased and when they were erased, they weren't
able to determine that based on their forensic expertise.
That's why we sent them to two separate places.
Mr. Massie. All right.
So, another thing I wanted to ask you about. Some of Lois
Lerner's cohorts had hard drives that failed, as well, during
that same period of time after the investigation started or
that the IRS was put on notice that they were going to be
investigated.
Do these tapes--or, could these tapes contain emails that
may have been lost in the failure of those hard drives of her
cohorts?
Mr. Camus. Yes. We're also looking into those, as well.
Mr. Massie. And so how many of her cohorts had hard drives
that failed that you are looking for on these tapes?
Mr. Camus. I believe it ended up being a total of five
individuals.
Mr. Massie. And have you found any of those emails yet?
Mr. Camus. We're still in the process of looking. And those
individuals were scattered in different places, so their emails
were managed out of different email servers.
Mr. Massie. Do you think you will be able to retrieve
information from the--you said you found 760, is that correct,
hard drives?
Mr. Camus. That is correct.
Mr. Massie. That were in a server-type arrangement, a rack?
Mr. Camus. Yes.
Mr. Massie. Do you think it will be possible to obtain
information for those, based on your interaction with experts?
Mr. Camus. It's too early to tell. If the drives are
damaged beyond repair, it will be almost impossible to obtain
meaningful email off of those.
Mr. Massie. All right. Thank you.
I yield back my time.
Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentleman.
I now recognize the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands,
Ms. Plaskett, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Plaskett. Yes, thank you, Chairman, Ranking Member.
And, gentlemen, good evening to you.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, you know, I am a
freshman, as well. And it is difficult for me, sitting here as
a former prosecutor and a courtroom attorney, not to jump up
and shout ``objection'' at a lot of the things that I've been
hearing, which are in some instances hearsay and speculation,
subjective conclusions that my colleagues are putting forward.
It, quite frankly, is a little frightening for me to hear this
without being able to say anything, but I'm learning, and so I
will stick to how we are doing things here.
Mr. George, you made a Statement that it's important to
keep Congress informed. And I find it a little questionable
that you would keep Congress informed of facts that in
testimony Mr. Camus has Stated previously changed from day to
day and that may negatively impact the integrity of
investigations as facts change from day to day, 1 day to the
next--which, as a previous investigator, I understand that you
must come to the full conclusion before you put something out
there which may, in fact, change.
So, Mr. Camus, I wanted to ask you about the process that
still needs to take place and that changing the narrative of
investigations. I understand about the 32,000 emails which have
already been produced to the Committee. And how long do you
anticipate, after you've finished your analysis of the emails
that you have, how long will that take, please? I think you may
have Stated.
Mr. Camus. Yes, ma'am. We have not produced any emails to
any committee yet until we're finished with the match.
Ms. Plaskett. And then after the match is done?
Mr. Camus. Yes, to the degree the Committee can receive
them, some may need to be redacted----
Ms. Plaskett. Correct.
Mr. Camus [continuing]. To take out the 6103 protected
information.
Ms. Plaskett. Exactly.
Mr. Camus. So we're hopeful that, as soon as we get our
hands on the software and are able to put the match together,
we are probably a week or two away. And then the other factors
that could play into when we're finished with our investigation
and are able to issue a report with findings----
Ms. Plaskett. Right. How long does it usually take you to
draft a report, the final report?
Mr. Camus. We're prepared to draft a final report when all
the evidence is in, probably within a week or two.
Ms. Plaskett. A week or two.
Mr. Camus. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Plaskett. And so some of the information that you may
have given tonight, if facts were asked, may in fact change?
Mr. Camus. That is correct.
Ms. Plaskett. And so we put that information out to the
general public, which may in fact change.
Mr. Camus. That is correct.
Ms. Plaskett. That's a little troublesome.
And I would ask the chairman and the ranking member that we
give them that time period, which, although in the scheme, the
long-term scheme of how long we have been investigating,
doesn't seem to me to be that much more of a wait.
Thank you.
Mr. Cummings. Would the gentlelady yield?
Ms. Plaskett. Yes. I will yield to the ranking member.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you.
You know, the question that needs to be asked here--and
I've listened to all this, but this is the question.
Mr. Camus, during your investigation, did you ask the
question, why did you not have the information about the backup
tapes? In other words, did you go to somebody and ask them that
in IRS?
Because nobody's asked that question yet. And that seems
like a logical question, since we're talking about criminal
activity, and I would think that that would possibly be the
basis of some of it.
Did you?
Mr. Camus. To answer your question, Mr. Cummings, without
compromising the investigation----
Mr. Cummings. Right.
Mr. Camus [continuing]. When we started our search for
missing emails, we were going to leave no stone unturned and we
were not going to take an obvious answer. So we were going to
find and prove for ourselves whether or not email had been
overwritten.
We approached the Internal Revenue Service, and we said, we
need all backup tapes that would have been in place between
2008 and 2011 for Ms. Lerner. They provided the 744 tapes. We
believed that we were working with the tapes that were in play
and had allegedly been overwritten.
After we starting analyzing those tapes and we started
seeing email that went all the way back to 2001, we believed
that we had found old tapes that had been in place since 2011
in the server. Only until 2 weeks ago were we told and did we
find through our investigative efforts----
Mr. Cummings. Well, that's where I'm going. But did you ask
the question about that, what you discovered? Like, what
happened? I mean, did you say, what's this about?
Mr. Camus. Naturally, that's probably the most important
part that is left for us to investigate at this point, is to
determine how and why all that happened and if there was any
ill intent behind any of that.
Mr. Cummings. So you're still looking into that?
Mr. Camus. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cummings. All right. Thanks.
Chairman Chaffetz. If the gentlewoman would yield.
Is there any evidence that there was an attempt to erase
any of the tapes?
Mr. Camus. At this point, I don't want to make any
conclusions. I believe that some tapes were erased, but I don't
have--I'm not to the point in my investigation where I can
explain that without jeopardizing my ability to----
Chairman Chaffetz. Fair enough.
Mr. Camus [continuing]. Figure out if it was done on
purpose.
Chairman Chaffetz. And as the gentlewoman's time expires
here, one of the reasons that we're doing this update, one of
the things that causes us great concern is that, back at the
Super Bowl, you know, the Super Bowl, the President is
interviewed by Bill O'Reilly; he said there's not even a
smidgeon of corruption here.
Nobody else has come to conclusions. We still have
outstanding questions from the Department of Justice, from the
Inspector General, from Congress. Somehow the President came to
this conclusion. Fascinated to hear someday how in the world he
thinks he can come to that conclusion without the facts.
But there is a lot of evidence, and Congress plays a role.
We can't simply sit back. We are, too, also doing an
investigation. And we have repeatedly--repeatedly had the
Commissioner of the IRS come here and tell us a whole variety
of stories that, based on the testimony we hear today, that
ain't true. And that's why we continue to investigate.
I now recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr.
Meadows, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank each of you for being here.
I was talking to a gentleman from Kentucky the other day,
Mr. Phillips, and he was asking me, well, why can't we just get
all the emails from everybody else that communicated with Ms.
Lois Lerner?
And I think just a few minutes ago you were saying there
were five other people that were central to this investigation
that we've lost their emails. Is that correct, Mr. Camus?
Mr. Camus. We were looking into a total of possibly up to
seven.
Mr. Meadows. So seven potential people who, miraculously,
their emails just disappeared. And so now you're looking for
the backup tapes, like you have found with Ms. Lerner?
Mr. Camus. Yes. We're trying to account for every single
email for every one of the individuals that would have been
considered a custodian.
Mr. Meadows. Yes. So have you found some of those at this
point, or you're still in the process?
Mr. Camus. We're still in the process, sir.
Mr. Meadows. All right.
Do you find it very ironic that there would be testimony
here, at that very table where you're sitting today, a number
of times saying that there are no backup tapes, they're gone,
all the backup tapes, we've looked, we can't find them? Do you
find that as ironic, that you were able to find them so easily?
And I'm talking about your personal opinion. Do you find that
ironic?
Mr. Camus. We're trained investigators, and we don't
assume----
Mr. Meadows. So you don't find anything ironic.
Mr. Camus. Oh, we didn't assume anything, Mr. Meadows.
Mr. Meadows. Well, if you were sitting in my position----
Mr. Camus. Yes.
Mr. Meadows [continuing]. Or, more importantly, if you were
the American people, would you believe that Congress had been
misled that there was an exhaustive research for these backup
tapes? Would that be a logical conclusion for me to draw?
Mr. Camus. I could certainly see how somebody could draw
that conclusion.
Mr. Meadows. So you could see how the American people would
think that we have been misled.
So, today, if nothing more comes out of this hearing, the
hearing--the title should be, ``Congress was misled about
backup tapes.'' Would you agree with that? Would that be an
accurate title?
Mr. Camus. As an investigator, I would have to lay against
and literally look at everything that's been said and put in
record and then compare it to what I know as of today and,
also, hopefully, complete my investigation. I would probably
know much better when I'm finished.
Mr. Meadows. All right. Well, you would know much better
when you're finished as to the conclusion of that. But,
certainly, as of today, we've been mislead.
Do you think new information has come out from this hearing
that we didn't know about prior to this hearing? How about
that. That's an easier one, isn't it?
Mr. Camus. Yes.
Mr. Meadows. So we have new information today that you
uncovered that you've shared with Members of Congress.
Because my colleagues over on the other side, you know--and
some of them are new. And as we go back, we must remember--I
haven't always been kind to you, Mr. George, have I?
Mr. George. You have been fair.
Mr. Meadows. OK. Well, thank you for being gracious. But,
at the same time, we will ask piercing questions on why this is
done.
And so I'd like to put up a slide, because I found this
very ironic and would just--it hit when the gentlewoman across
the aisle talked about June the 29th. And this is an email from
June the 29th when Lois Lerner got briefed. And I didn't put
those two together, but it's dated that same exact day. And
it's an email from Lois Lerner that's sent to two of her
colleagues. And she says, ``No one will ever believe that both
your hard drive and mine crashed within a week of each other.
Isn't that strange?''
Would you agree that that's strange?
Mr. Camus. I would agree that----
Mr. Meadows. I would agree that it's strange.
I would think that it would be even stranger that those
hard drives crashed 10 days after Lois Lerner was informed from
Chairman Camp that he wanted to know what's happening with the
targeting of Tea Party groups.
Wouldn't you find that strange--or very coincidental? Let's
put it that way.
Mr. Camus. I would agree with you. Very coincidental.
Mr. Meadows. So if we have that and we have all of this,
what you would say as an investigator, circumstantial evidence,
shouldn't we look a little bit deeper for those emails? And
shouldn't we, in a bipartisan fashion, be extremely happy with
the fact that you're bringing--that you found evidence that
wasn't previously available to us?
Mr. Camus. Yes.
Mr. Meadows. So you've brought evidence now, you have
evidence now that may not have been intentionally withheld from
you but certainly wasn't volunteered to you--because we've had
all kinds of reports. Mr. George has already given me all kinds
of reports. And you know what? Those emails were missing. And
they didn't even tell him that they were missing; he had to
find those. And you had to find the tapes.
Wouldn't you think that we would draw some kind of a
conclusion that we had been misled?
I can see my time has expired, so I'll yield back to the
chairman, and I thank his patience.
Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentleman.
I now recognize the ranking member, the gentleman from
Maryland, Mr. Cummings, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cummings. With all due respect to my colleague, Mr.
Meadows, the claims that he has made just now were given three
Pinocchios by The Washington Post.
I want to enter into the record an article dated June 24,
2014, ``The Letter That Supposedly Led to the Crash of Lois
Lerner's Hard Drive.''
Chairman Chaffetz. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you.
Mr. George and Mr. Camus, I really want to get to the
bottom of this, because, you know, Mr. George, I don't want you
to--I mean, I know some of my colleagues apparently filed
something against you, a complaint, but there's some deeper
stuff going on here, and I just want to understand what is
happening.
In May 2013--and this troubles me a lot--Mr. George, you
issued your report on the treatment of tax-exempt applicants.
Your report was extremely controversial because Republicans
used it to argue that this was a political targeting against
conservative groups.
But just a few days before you issued your report, the man
sitting next to you, your deputy IG for investigations, Mr.
Camus, sent an internal email to your senior staff saying that
this was not political targeting.
I would like to put the email up on the screen. The email
is dated May 2, 2013. And in the very first line, it says he
had a conversation with you and they pulled more than 5,000
emails to see if there was any evidence of political
motivation.
Then he says this, ``The emails indicated the organizations
needed to be pulled because the IRS employees were not sure how
to process them, not because they wanted to stall or hinder the
application. There was no indication that pulling these
selected applications was politically motivated.''
So, Mr. George, are you aware of this email and did you
know about it at the time?
Mr. George. I am very much aware. And I really want to
thank you tremendously for affording myself, as well as Mr.
Camus, the opportunity to put in the right context why he wrote
that email.
Mr. Cummings. All right. Well, maybe you--let me just
continue. And I'm going to get--I want him to do that, because
it is troubling.
The email also says,--it says, ``The email traffic
indicated that there were unclear processing directions, and
the group wanted to make sure that they had guidance on
processing the applications, so they pulled them.'' And then it
says this: ``This is a very important nuance.''
Now, I'm going to give you a chance to explain it, but I
just want to finish. Mr. George, your deputy inspector general
for investigations called this point a very important point,
and yet it's not included in your report just 2 weeks later.
And why was that?
Mr. George. Sir, again, I think it would really benefit the
Committee to, one, get the context in which that email was
drafted--and, ironically, the staffer who made the call not to
include it in the report is seated behind me, so we can give
you a complete answer here.
Mr. Cummings. All right. Go ahead.
Mr. Camus. Mr. Cummings, I----
Mr. Cummings. And, by the way, I think that this is such an
important point, that since the staffer isn't sworn in, if we
need additional information, I'm sure that we can swear him in.
I just wanted an answer.
But go ahead. Because it is quite interesting. Go ahead.
Mr. Camus. While the audit staff was looking into the audit
and finishing up their audit work, they believed that somebody
had said that there was a directive email causing the selection
of those applications for improper treatment. They didn't know
who sent the email; they had just heard a rumor that such an
email existed.
So they brought it to my office, and they asked if we would
open an investigation, at which point I declined to do so
because I believed the audit of the process was the appropriate
treatment stream, and I had no reason to believe that there had
been any criminal activity.
But I agreed to take a quick look at some of the emails of
the individuals involved in pulling the applications to do a
test to see if we found anything that jumped out at us that
would indicate there was, in fact, criminal activity. So it was
a very small sample, five individuals who were key to the whole
situation. And we used keyword search terms that were provided
from our audit staff.
After we pulled the emails and we searched them with those
keyword search terms, we determined that, based on all the
traffic that we had seen from that limited sample, that there
was nothing that rose to the level for our office to open a
criminal investigation at that time.
And that's why the email was drafted. It was in response to
that, is there a, smoking-gun email out there that would
indicate that there was any type of focus? It was not a full
investigation, and we did look at a very minor sample.
And that last sentence, that it's an important nuance, that
was to share with the staff that, based on our quick peek of
the emails that we were looking at, again, using a limited
number of individuals and search terms, that there was no
indication at that time, looking at that sample, that there was
any indication of political motivation in that activity.
Mr. Cummings. Mr. George, what--go ahead.
Mr. George. Yes. And I'd like to ask Gregory Kutz--and I
don't know what the protocol is, Mr. Chairman, as to whether or
not----
Chairman Chaffetz. The protocol is such that we will only
hear from members who have been sworn in at the Committee. And
in fairness to all members, we are only going to make available
for public comment those that all members on this committee
have had an opportunity to question.
So we will leave the answers to Mr. George and Mr. Camus.
If there is an appropriate time to followup with the individual
staffers, I would welcome the minority and majority to both.
But we need to leave the testimony with both Mr. George and Mr.
Camus.
Mr. Cummings. Mr. Chairman, I would like a--can I get a
written response on that?
Mr. George. I was just going to ask if----
Mr. Cummings. Yes. Give me a written response in detail.
Make sure you get it to the chairman, too. Because we are
bipartisan here.
Mr. George. Yes. Yes.
Chairman Chaffetz. In the spirit of doing that, the
timeframe in which you do it, in the next 2 weeks, is that
fair?
Mr. Cummings. We should be able to get it this week. You
know he's writing it now.
Chairman Chaffetz. He's writing it now. All right.
If he can get this to the Committee in the next few days,
that would be most appropriate. And we may have it before the
end of the hearing.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Chaffetz. All right.
I will now recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
DeSantis, for 5 minutes.
Mr. DeSantis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the following
article be entered into the record. It responds to this
Pinocchio claim about the letter that was sent by Dave Camp 10
days before Lois Lerner's hard-drive crash.
Chairman Chaffetz. This is the National Review article,
June 25, 2014.
Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. DeSantis. And it makes the point that the letter didn't
specifically say ``targeting conservative groups,'' that's
true, but what it did say was that they were concerned that the
IRS was targeting donors to conservative groups and (c)(4)
groups. And so, either way, Lois Lerner would have been the
person who would have been implicated in that.
And I think the article does a good job of showing why the
Washington Post analysis was suspect.
Man, if I received a subpoena or the government asked me to
produce some documents and I said, ``Sorry, they're
destroyed,'' and then it turned out someone could just walk
down 10 days later and find them all, man, I'd be in a world of
trouble; 300 million Americans would be in a world of trouble.
And yet, here, the IRS, you know, they don't care. Commissioner
Koskinen, he's been offended, almost, that we ask him questions
about this stuff.
And to look back at his testimony now, with him saying over
and over again that those emails were destroyed, the tapes were
gone, ``Sorry, guys,'' and then to know what was found very
easily by the IG, it is stunning.
And it's very upsetting, because we're supposed to live in
a republican form of government based on law, in which the
people who are in positions of power are still subject to the
law. And, indeed, I think people like Koskinen should have a
higher standard than the average American. Instead, this is a
lower standard. This type of production would never be
acceptable outside of Washington, DC. It's very, very
frustrating.
Mr. Camus, you seized the tapes July 1, 2014. Later that
month, you submitted an affidavit for a case in the district
court of the District of Columbia. It was the True the Vote
case, and part of the issue was the production of these emails
and the backup tapes.
Do you recall working with the Department of Justice on
that?
Mr. Camus. I do.
Mr. DeSantis. And you submitted an--I think you signed your
affidavit on July 17, 2014?
Mr. Camus. That sounds accurate.
Mr. DeSantis. And then it was filed in the district court
on July 18, 2014.
So, in between July 4 and the time you executed that
affidavit, you were in contact with attorneys for the
Department of Justice?
Mr. Camus. That is correct.
Mr. DeSantis. And did they ask you about the status of the
backup tapes?
Mr. Camus. They asked us about the status of our efforts to
recover email. I think it was a FOIA litigation, and so any
emails that we uncovered would be pertinent to FOIA. So they
asked for us to give them a status on did we find new emails
and, if not, when we would have them from our search.
Mr. DeSantis. So did you update them that there were backup
tapes filed and that you were going to look into pulling emails
off those tapes?
Mr. Camus. I can't recall at that point if we knew. I don't
think we saw any emails until November. So, in July, I don't
believe I was aware that we were going to be able to actually
see any emails.
Mr. DeSantis. So you just knew you had the backup tapes?
Mr. Camus. We knew that we had the--when we went to the IRS
and we asked for the backup tapes, I knew that they had
provided 744 of the backup tapes.
Mr. DeSantis. OK.
And you discussed the case with Joseph Sergi at the DOJ? Is
that the attorney you worked with?
Mr. Camus. Yes, sir.
Mr. DeSantis. OK.
So they filed a pleading in that case, and I think it bears
the Committee to followup on that, because I'm not sure some of
the representations made by the Department of Justice--well,
they're certainly not consistent with the facts as we know now,
but I don't know that they are consistent with the facts as
they would have known at the time. So I think that that bears
investigation, and I think that the Committee needs to look
into it.
This is really, really frustrating me. And this has been
going on now for almost 2 years--almost 2 years. And you have
somebody who's held in contempt--oh, let me ask just really
quickly.
I noticed on this brief that the U.S. attorney for the
District of Columbia, Ron Machen, was listed of counsel. Have
you had any interactions with U.S. Attorney Machen in this
case?
Mr. Camus. No, sir.
Mr. DeSantis. OK.
And so Lois Lerner is held in contempt. Statutes say when
you're held in contempt of Congress, you're going to a grand
jury at the District of Columbia in Federal district court.
Nothing's happened. Nothing's happened at all. That's coming up
on almost a year here in a couple of months.
And so we have a situation where I think the IRS has
figured they can systematically try to thwart our efforts and
there's just not going to be any consequences. And I think that
needs to be change. I think the Congress needs to stand up on
behalf of the American people for the truth, and I don't think
we can allow this to continue to go on the way it has.
And I yield back.
Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentleman. Impressed with
his timeliness in his questioning.
And now recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr.
Walker, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Walker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I imagine it's tough sometimes being on the other side of
the panel but do appreciate it and certainly respect your
forthrightness there, for both Mr. Camus and Mr. George.
I do want to target just a little bit Mr. George.
How long have you worked in this environment, whether it be
an inspector general or just overall in the government?
Mr. George. I started, believe it or not, at the age of 17
as an intern for then-Senator Bob Dole and have been working on
and off in government for over almost 25 years.
Mr. Walker. Yes. And I don't want to be too self-serving,
but how would you say your record is over that time?
Mr. George. I've been told that I have a good reputation,
sir.
Mr. Walker. OK. Is there anything partisan about your
meeting with the former Chairman Issa or even with the current
Chairman Chaffetz, in your opinion?
Mr. George. No, only in that I was not informed in advance
that there would not be representation from the minority side.
There is no question that, once this became obvious to me,
that one side was holding meetings and not including the other,
we immediately--and, again, I would ask for a little bit of
flexibility in the use of that word, but we did change our
practice and our policies. Because there is no question that
the ranking member and the chairman and others are correct; we
have an obligation to report to both sides.
Mr. Walker. Right. Have they ever contacted you about
having a meeting with them? And if so, do you remember?
Mr. George. I do recall getting a letter from the ranking
member about complaining that they were being excluded, and
that helped.
Mr. Walker. Would you have met with them if they asked?
Mr. George. Would I have met with them? Of course. And we
have.
Mr. Walker. All right.
And before, I guess, this setting that we're facing with
right now, particularly in this whole hearing, have you ever
been accused of being partisan before in your time?
Mr. George. Never.
Mr. Walker. OK.
Why do you think you're the target of that? The feeling
that I'm getting tonight is that, rather than the IRS and some
of these issues, that you guys are sort of, kind of, a target.
In your opinion, why do you think that is?
Mr. George. As one of the Congressmen mentioned, this is
very difficult situation, and it's unprecedented for my
organization and for me in my professional career to have had
this type of interaction and level of attention, sir, to an
issue that is of extreme importance to the American people.
The Internal Revenue Service is the revenue-gathering
entity of the most important Nation in the world. We have a
voluntary compliance system. People have to have trust in that
system. And this issue raised questions about trust.
Mr. Walker. Most definitely, it does. In fact, tonight I've
heard, and I guess in respect, in describing you, I've heard
the words, ``questionable,'' ``partisan,'' you're ``under
investigation.''
In May 2012, from my understanding, there was nearly a year
that goes by before you were even reporting publicly. To me, if
you were truly partisan, would you not, in the 2012 elections,
have said something or done something outwardly that would have
made their case?
Mr. George. We would have done whatever the law requires.
And, again, we have had an extraordinary reputation, sir,
``we'' being at TIGTA--and, really, forgive me for taking your
time, but the men and women who work for me are some of the
most topnotch Federal workers I have ever interacted with. And
they are doing yeoman's work here, putting in literally 24
hours a day on this very issue, some of them.
So, you know, we would have reported what the law required
us to report and would not have reported what was inappropriate
at that time.
Mr. Walker. Sure.
And being new here, it's important for me to make sure the
people that are in the panel are rock-solid, they are not
partisan. And I believe everybody in the room would agree with
that. But I will tell you, I can hear even from your voice and
your heart and your passion, I have a lot of confidence that
you are doing the right job. Thank you for your work, and Mr.
Camus.
I yield back.
Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentleman.
I now recognize the gentleman, Mr. Carter from Georgia, for
5 minutes.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you all for being here. The hour is late. I know,
if you're like me, you're tired. But let me, again, thank you
for being here, and thank you specifically--it's never been the
question in my mind whether or not it was--that it was
duplicate material that you found, but, instead, the point is
you found it.
So I want to talk about that specifically. What prompted
you--were you asked to look for it?
Mr. Camus. Yes, sir. By letter from Senate Finance
Committee, they specifically asked us to recover any emails
that we possibly could.
Mr. Carter. OK. So that's what was the impetus for you to
start looking for it.
Mr. Camus. Correct.
Mr. Carter. And you found it, as you testified, in, what,
15 days?
Mr. Camus. Yes. What we found were--and it's important to
note that what we found were a population of emails that were
relevant to the investigation, but we have yet to determine,
until we do the match, whether or not it's new email.
Mr. Carter. But the point still remains is that you found
emails that we have been--that previous testimony had said that
were lost and couldn't be found. That is the point, correct?
Mr. Camus. We believe we did find some unique emails, but
we won't----
Mr. Carter. OK.
Mr. Camus. We won't know that until----
Mr. Carter. I understand. I understand. I'm with you on
that.
All right. I want to talk about standard operating policy,
which--I'm in business, so that's important to me, that we are
following SOP and best practices. I mean, all of that type of
thing is very important.
Where the emails were being stored, was it in somewhat of a
unique place? Or was it standard, that you would expect for
them to be here?
Mr. Camus. The 744 tapes that we initially obtained on July
1 were in the backup system of the IRS Microsoft Exchange
Server. So they were right where you would expect them to be.
Mr. Carter. Right where you would expect them to be.
Mr. Camus. And when we demanded them to fit that period,
that's what was supplied to us. Only until 2 weeks later do we
find out--or only until 2 weeks ago do we find out that
probably the tapes that we are actually looking for we were
never told about, if that makes sense.
Mr. Carter. Anyway. Let me ask you this. When someone's
hard drive crashes, who do they report it to? I mean,
obviously, you had to have a new computer, right?
Mr. Camus. Correct.
Mr. Carter. You had to put in a requisition that, hey, my
hard drive has crashed, I got to have a new--was that done?
Mr. Camus. Yes, it was.
Mr. Carter. So everything was followed, right procedures.
And that matches the timeframe with which Ms. Lerner is saying
that her hard drive did indeed crash?
Mr. Camus. Yes, I think the gentlelady asked earlier the
date that her hard drive actually crashed. We believe it was
June 11, 2011. It was reported on June 13, 2011, to the IT
department.
RPTR YORK
EDTR HOFSTAD
[9:42 p.m.]
Mr. Carter. OK. So nothing unusual in that respect.
Mr. Camus. Correct.
Mr. Carter. OK.
I also heard testimony that more than one hard drive had
crashed and that it was--isn't that kind of unusual? I mean,
all of a sudden, you've got a slew of hard drives crashing
right around here.
Mr. Camus. Yes, I can't comment on that right now, but we
will probably take a look to see if that particular type of
machinery, you know, the type of hard drives that they were,
were susceptible to multiple crashes. But there were
individuals that were in Ms. Lerner's business unit and that
were involved in this case that had suffered hard-drive crashes
about the same time.
Mr. Carter. Again, just coincidence, I'm sure.
But, nevertheless, again, thank you for being here tonight.
Thank you for reporting this and for finding this. You know, I
would congratulate you on being great inspectors and
detectives, but it sounds like all you did was ask the right
question.
Mr. Camus. We are paid to ask good questions, sir.
Mr. Carter. Great. Thank you.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank the gentleman.
We now recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr.
Grothman, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Grothman. OK. I think some of these questions may be a
followup from what was asked before. They're really for Mr.
Camus, but we'll go through them again.
Commissioner Koskinen testified that he had confirmed that
Ms. Lerner's emails were unrecoverable. Have you had any
findings so far regarding what the IRS did to confirm that
information, that he would use the word that he had
``confirmed'' it?
Mr. Camus. What I know is what I've seen in documents that
were provided, and, also, the other half of the equation that I
know is what we were told when we attempted to recover the
emails.
Mr. Grothman. OK. So did they give you any idea as to why
they would say it was confirmed, other than just wanting it to
be confirmed?
Mr. Camus. The only thing I could--that I could say is what
we did was we didn't make any assumptions. We went and we
questioned people who would have the material, and we ran it to
the ground ourselves.
Mr. Grothman. Yes, I know you did. But the question is, why
would Commissioner Koskinen make that Statement? Do you, in
your investigation, see any reason why he would have made that
Statement?
Mr. Camus. I don't know that. But we are continuing
investigating that.
Mr. Grothman. OK.
Commissioner Koskinen testified before Congress that the
backup-tape emails were unrecoverable. OK, that's what he said.
Do you know why he would've said that? Or would that have been
an accurate Statement?
Mr. Camus. He could possibly believe that to be accurate,
because they may not have looked as hard as we did.
Mr. Grothman. OK. Did they give you any clue as to how hard
he looked, or do you know why he would have made that
Statement?
Mr. Camus. I don't know why he would make that Statement.
But I can tell you that, when we started our search, we asked
the people that we were interviewing if anybody else had asked
them to do the same type of the search that we had, and they
said no.
Mr. Grothman. OK. So you don't even know--based on your
investigation, you did not unturn anything--or overturn
anything that would indicate that they had made anything, any
real investigation that you could determine.
Mr. Camus. So far, we haven't seen that, but we're not
finished with our investigation yet, sir.
Mr. Grothman. OK. Thanks.
I'll yield the rest of my time.
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank the gentleman.
Recognize the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Palmer, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Palmer. I'm the guy you're looking for, the last one, I
guess.
Mr. Camus, back in 2010--well, I guess it may have been
2013, information came out that indicated that Ms. Lerner had
contacted the Department of Justice regarding the possibility
of pursuing a criminal investigation into election crimes
targeting 501(c)(4) organizations.
Do you know if any of the tapes contain the emails that
would cover that?
Mr. Camus. I don't know that at this time, sir.
Mr. Palmer. If that were in there--and I know this is a
supposition, a hypothetical--but if it were in there, would
that indicate an animus toward those groups, particularly in
regard to what we believe was going on, denying certain
501(c)(4) organizations the tax status that they were seeking?
Mr. Camus. There could be emails that we uncover that do
indicate that type of behavior, but until we get to the point
where we find unique emails, it's hard to speculate.
Mr. Palmer. I believe I should direct this to Mr. George.
If not, Mr. Camus, you can answer it.
But the timeline that's been referenced repeatedly tonight,
that was based on the initial evidence that you got, the
initial emails. Would it be possible that the timeline could
change based on new evidence?
Mr. George. Yes.
Mr. Palmer. OK.
We had several members of the--several inspector generals
in before this committee a few weeks ago, and the hearing
revolved around the fact that this administration had not
always been forthcoming, various agencies not always been
forthcoming with documents.
Is there any indication that evidence or documents may have
been withheld? In your investigation, have you had that
problem?
Mr. Camus. As we're not complete with our investigation
yet, I can't draw a conclusion that anything has been withheld
from us.
Mr. George. And----
Mr. Palmer. I just want--go ahead, Mr. George.
Mr. George. Yes, sir. I was just going to add, too, that is
the unique role that we have, we as IGs have, with the agencies
that we oversee. Because if you don't ask the right questions
and--you have some authority to subpoena certain things, but
you can't force someone to speak to you, as of now. So it would
be easy for an agency to fail to provide information if you
don't pose the right question.
Now, there is a proposal out there, I understand, that
would change that and would give IGs additional authority. But,
as Tim indicated, he could not give you a definitive answer at
this stage.
Mr. Palmer. Well, I have to wonder--obviously, the big
issue is the supposedly erased emails or lost emails--but why
the IRS didn't inform Congress sooner that they may have had
the tapes that had the information on it and then whether or
not they were forthcoming to the inspector general's office.
Because I would assume that you were asking those questions.
Mr. Camus. That is correct. And we will include that in our
investigation.
Mr. Palmer. My last question is--you mentioned seven
individuals that--I'm not sure if it was you that mentioned it
or Mr. Meadows or Mr. DeSantis, and it is getting late--that
there were seven other individuals who may have missing emails,
as well, that were in that communication circle.
My question is, have you talked with them?
Mr. Camus. We've included them in our investigation.
Mr. Palmer. Have they secured counsel?
Mr. Camus. I do not know that, sir.
Mr. Palmer. OK.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentleman.
Now recognize the gentleman from Maryland, the ranking
member, Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. Mr. George and Mr. Camus, we've spent a lot
of time on the conservative groups, and I want to go to--I
mean, I'm concerned about the conservative groups, but I'm also
concerned about the progressive groups. And I want to ask you
about the status of your investigation, the one reviewing how
progressive groups are treated.
The report you issued in 2013, Mr. George, did not address
progressive groups. When you testified here on May 23, 2013, we
asked why you did not evaluate progressive groups, and you said
this: ``Because those groups did not have the Be on the Lookout
terms ``Tea Party,'' ``Patriot,'' or ``9/12'' in their names.''
When we asked about specific reports that progressive
groups were treated similarly to Tea party groups, you said
this, ``I have subsequently received information that you're
indicating may have occurred. And, as a result, we will be
conducting a followup review to determine whether or not that
is the case and, if so, the extent of it.''
Do you remember that?
Mr. George. I do, sir.
Mr. Cummings. And when you came before us on July 18, 2013,
we showed you internal documents indicating that progressive
groups were subjected to similar types of scrutiny and they
were also included in the training materials for the Be on the
Lookout list.
In response, you said this, ``We, just as recently as last
week, received new information that is disturbing and that we
need to pursue.''
Do you remember that?
Mr. George. I--yes, I vaguely recall that, sir.
Mr. Cummings. So that was more than a year and a half ago,
when you said you were going to do a new investigation to
determine how progressive groups were treated. Can you tell us
where that investigation stands today?
Mr. George. Yes.
What I can say is--and just to make sure that everything is
clear, the IRS had different Be on the Lookout lists. And the
list that we were initially charged with looking at was not a
list that included--was a list that included the ``Tea Party,''
``9/12,'' ``Patriot'' groups.
There was one tab, and people, for some reason--and I can
understand why, because it wasn't focused on. There was a
footnote in the original audit report that indicated that there
were groups other than, ``conservative'' groups, but that was
not the purpose of this review.
And subsequent to all of that, with everything that's
developed, I, at the request of Members of Congress, made a
commitment that we would review the handling, the treatment of,
``progressive'' groups by the IRS.
So we are right now in the process of reviewing 17 other
search criteria, including ``progressive,'' going back to 2004.
And both majority and minority staffs have been briefed on
this. And the timing is--OK.
Apparently, all of this is tied in--and I was just
informed, until the DOJ investigation is concluded, we won't
have access to certain witnesses that are necessary to be
interviewed, as it relates to this new review.
Mr. Cummings. So you--there--have any witnesses been
interviewed with regard to the progressive groups?
Mr. George. Well, we're reviewing 600 cases, and so--have
witnesses been interviewed?
Not yet. Not yet.
Mr. Cummings. And----
Mr. George. We've identified 600 cases that we are going to
look at, but we're stifled, we're stymied by the lack of
conclusion of the FBI/Justice Department----
Mr. Cummings. Now, I assume you've reviewed some documents
with regard to the progressive groups. I guess you had to do
that just to determine that there are witnesses that you needed
to talk to, right?
Mr. George. That's true. Yes, I've just been----
Mr. Cummings. Do you know how many pages you've looked at
or----
Mr. George. What's this?
Mr. Cummings. Do you know how many pages of documents
you've looked at with regard to progressive groups?
Mr. George. We do not know the answer to that, sir.
Mr. Cummings. So you can't--it's hard for you to give us
any idea as to when the progressive-group investigation will be
complete; is that right?
Mr. George. You know, generally, a review takes a year,
sir, but given the importance of this matter, we'll put it on a
fast track. But I cannot give you a time commitment at this
stage.
Mr. Cummings. But it seems like you don't even have control
over it, because you said something about the other
investigation going on.
Mr. George. And that's part of the problem. We have
absolutely no control over when the Justice Department will,
you know, conclude their review so that we can have unfettered
access to witnesses--unless you have information that I don't
have?
All right. That's the latest, sir.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much.
Mr. George. Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I
have that information in response to Mr. Cummings.
Chairman Chaffetz. We're about to conclude this hearing. If
you could come up and hand it to him, I think that would be
very appropriate.
Mr. George. Deal.
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you.
Listen, the hour's late. I appreciate the staffwho's
staying here working late, other Members that are here.
And, certainly, we appreciate you and your testimony here.
The work that you do within your organization is vital. It's
important to Congress. Please let the men and women who work so
hard day-in and day-out know that it is appreciated, it is
needed, we do pay attention to it. And we thank them for their
good, hard work.
This committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 9:56 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]