    [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]