Accused of perjury before this committee. Only that he said that he was aware of lerners emails were overlooked, missing or had other technical issues. There was no evidence at that time to know whether they had been overlooked. Missing or any other issues. I did not say that. I said at the time we had no idea whether any of those applied. Thats why we were investigating. Thats what i was told in april when they came back with the findings that they reviewed at all. I never said at the time that we had any idea whether any of that is true. Thats the cinconsistency tht were talking about. If you know that you have a difference in the numbers what numbers . We dont know the numbers yet, mr. Chairman. The commissioner knew that there was a problem but didnt know the details. We were never told there was a problem. So he should talk before he knows the details. When every person up on the desk including the Ranking Member wants to know if you are going to get all or a concern. What is your response to that . You said were going to find them all. Were you lying when you said we are going to find them all . Absolutely not. Thank you. We now go to mr. Turner. Mr. Koskinen, youre touted as a man of integrity. Ive even heard you say it about yourself on television. Im going to ask you to use that integrity that help me understand a few things that have become confusing to me. You said you want to restore confidence to the agency. I have no question to question that. I have no basis to think that that isnt your goal. You have to understand that this decision of missing emails goes right to the heart of confident and to the issue of your ability to do that with your integrity. Lets start first with some general concept of ethics back to your integrity. Now, you agree as commissioner, that you cant both be the manager of the agency, the investigator of the agency, judge, jury, prosecutor of matters that are being undertaken under and by the agency . Right . Theres inherent conflict and bias in those positions you cant fill all of those, correct. Im not sure i understand that question. Im accountable for its activities. Im in charge of their activities. So you believe you can testify under oath that no crime has been committed by lois lerner. I can testify ive seen no evidence. I understand. That is the question thats been bantered back and forth here. I can tell you that i have no evidence that lois lerner has committed a crime but i dont have the agency and i certainly dont have the ability to go to the fbi and others and have them take things from you that can give that. Just because you havent seen all the evidence doesnt mean that you have the ability to just blanketly say no crime was committed. I didnt say no crime. I said ive seen no evidence. Thats the distinction because you cant testify here under oath that no crime has been committed. Im asking you, do you have the ability to say no crime has been committed. Im the ability to say ive seen no evidence of any crime. Of course but you k to the say what i asked you that no crime has been committed. Lets go to ms. Lerner, she invoked the fifth because she wanted to assert those rights albeit she did it incorrectly because she had fear of prosecution. Fear of criminal prosecution. You cant testify today that lois lerner has no need for a fear of criminal prosecution because you cant testify that she didnt commit a crime. Here i am concerned about since you are a man placed before us with integrity. If in the process of these emails being destroyed there were those in your agency that knew that it there was a possibility that a crime was committed. Than they committed a crime. Because destruction of evidence of a crime is in fact, a crime. You cant testify today that no one that there was no crime committed in the destruction of her emails. You can only say you have no evidence of a crime having been committed in the destruction of these emails. I have no evidence whether she beat or dog or children. I have no evident of a whole series of things. Right thats why its so important getting to what jim jordan said about a special prosecutor. If you are truly a man of integrity and you know the difference between you dont have any evidence versus you know no crime has been committed. You have to understand that the whole integrity of your agency is at risk. You possibly have pex at the irs who were committing crimes and not being held accountable of the the only way you can know that is by picking up the phone, call the fbi and ask them to come in and do an investigation on the disappearance of these emails. My question is will you call in the fbi to ask them about the disappearance of these emails possibly being a crime. They are not a criminal investigating agency. They are actually capable of doing criminal investigations as well as civil. Will you call the nfbi becaue the integrity of your agency is absolutely at state. We have lois lerner invoeking te fifth in front of the committee indicating shes fearful of criminal prosecution. Now that these emails are missing maybe someone not of integrity committed a crime in destroying them. You should call the fbi and call for a special prosecutor. I cannot inter into lois lerners mind. I asked you to pick up the phone and call the fbi not enter lois learns mind. Than that is an issue of your personal integrity because the integrity of this agency is at stake. I reject the suggestion that my integrity depends upon my calling the fbi. The Inspector General will issue a report. We will all get the benefit of that report and then we can determine what the appropriate action. I have always believed what happened in your agency is a crime. I believe that there were others involved. I believe the emails are missing are the ones that would probably give us an ability to establish that and i believe somebody undertook a criminal act in the destruction. I believe since you cant tell me im wrong as the commissioner of that agency, you should call the fbi. Thats interesting. No facts are behind them. I thank the gentleman. We now go to the gentleman from massachusetts. Thank you for being here tonight. I dont think ive seen a display of this kind of disrespect the whole time ive been in congress. Its unfortunate that will the gentleman yield. No, i will not suspend either i will continue to ask questions. Ri wont suspend. Please stop the clock. The time is suspended. I would caution all members not to characterize the intent or the character of your fellow members here on the desk but its fair game to question the integrity of the witness . With all due respect, the rules of the house do excuse me. The rules of the house speak to questioning the integrity of members. I would caution all of us that while the chair has asked the testimony earlier as whether it was a truth or the whole truth, that in fact, to question the motives the witness should be done only on evidence but to question the motives of your fellow member is in fact within the rules of the house and action for which the floor can take down words. Mr. Chairman yes, of course. Thank you. You talk about the rules of the committee the gentleman will start his parliamentary inquiry. Has the chairman violated the rules of the committee . Please state your point of parliamentary inquiry. Has the chairman violated his own rules in the thats a question. Do you have a question of proval . He will state is t as a point of order. Just let him ask the question. State of inquiry. It not we will go on. The gentleman may continue. I think the understanding here is the rules of the house say that members should conduct themself in a way that reflects credibility upon the house. I think people watching this hearing can decide whether or not thats been followed. Look, i think what youre trying to tell people in one point is the Inspector Generals responsibility to review this matter and file a report. In that report, he is to make recommendations as to what action should be done or upon reviewing that report you might make recommendations such as decide to bring in the fbi or somebody else. Is that correct. Thats correct. As far as shooting the name we might first be trying to gather some information and go from there. Correct. Have you testified tonight to anything that was not discussed at last fridays hearing . Im sorry what . Have you discussed tonight with this committee any matter pertinent to this subject that was not discussed last friday . Thus far, no. So just to get it right, you were scheduled to testify in front of chairman Camps Committee tomorrow on the 24th. Is that correct. Thats correct. Have they been in touch with you or your staff before scheduling that date. Yes. They actually asked whether i would be available on the morning on tuesday and i was not. We agreed to testify in the afternoon. So you agreed to testify voluntarily. Ive always agreed to testify voluntarily over the course of 20 years. So after you agreed to testify voluntarily before chairman camp. You received a unilateral subpoena from chairman issa. And is that subpoena compelled you to come here tonight. Correct. Did mr. Issa ever call you and ask you to come voluntarily . No. Did any of his staff ever ask you to come voluntarily . No. Did he ever explain to you why it was so urgent to come here 7 00 monday night when you were already scheduled to come here the following day . No. I wont ask to you speculate but i think some might speculate that either people dont think that mr. Camp could do the job which i would sort of think suspect. Hes been known to be a pretty good member or that theres some kind of competition going on but when chairman camp heard that issa had subpoenaed you tonight. You were all of a sudden of a hearing in Camps Committee the following friday. Correct. Staff asked if i would be available on friday. They had to get the approval of the agreement of the minority since i understand theres a seven day rule. I told them that i could make myself available on friday. Now how long did you testify on friday . Total length of the hearing was 4 1 2 hours with a recess for 45 minutes in the middle. I would think that having testified all of that time to the subject matter that tonights hearing might be somewhat redundant and so far it has been, is that correct. It has similarities to friday. In looking at this, i think the only thing that might be different is now i understand that chairman issa has invited a ms. Jennifer oconnor to testify testimony. Do you know ms. Oconnor. I do not. Do you know whether she worked for the irs from may to november of 2013 . I do understand she did. Now she left in november of last year, is that right. Thats my understanding. And that would have been well before there was any discovery of ms. Lerners emails gone missing, is that correct. Thats correct. Do you know where ms. Oconnor works now . My understanding is she works at the white house. So i think some would speculate that they have now trumped Champs Committee in getting action. I think its unfortunate that you had to be subjected to this after having gone through it last friday. I hope members will reflect the credibility of the house from here on in at least if it hasnt been done so far. I think the gentleman. We now go to the gentleman from tennessee, mr. Dunk an. Thank you very much. First mr. Chairman, let me thank you for pursuing this investigation in the way you have. In a free country no group of individuals should be targeted for their political beliefs. Certainly almost everyone who has looked closely feels that this happened in this situation. Although on march 26th when he was here before us said there had been no targeting just ib inappropriate criteria the Washington Post of course is the possibly the main defender of the federal bureaucracy and their fact checker said that he should be given three pinocchios for that testimony and in their class fibbing a three pinocchio is three pin yolk yoes under what they call whoppers. I dont know what his opinion is on that but i will say this. All over the country people are saying that theres a double standard being applied here. They are saying that theres one standard for everybody else and one standard for the irs. I can tell you that ive been following politics and government ever since i was in high school. I can tell you that i believe that theres more anger and recentment and disgust toward the federal government today than any time in my lifetime because everybody seems to feel today that weve ended up of a government of by and for the bureaucrats instead of for the people. He was given a chance on friday to apologize on behalf of the irs and he didnt do so but i can tell you that i think the people of this country deserve an apology that a different standard has been applied by the irs than individuals who were having problems on their taxes. It seems that every time the federal government screws up which is often they always fall back on one of two uses either under funded or their technology is outofdate. Of course thats what weve heard today but i can tell you the people of this country are sick and tired of the arrogance within the federal government. This hearing and others that will follow about this, i think, will help assure that this does not happen again so i commend you for it mr. Chairman and i yield back the balance of my time. Would the gentleman yield. Yes, sir. I thank the gentleman. Id like to go through the question one more time commissioner. When you testify that in fact you knew there was this problem when you were here last time but you didnt know that in fact emails were lost, is that correct. Correct. But you knew there was a problem. A sequence or numbering problem, is that correct. Correct. Did you take any steps to find out what that sequence or numbering problem went. People tell you when theres a problem in my experience. You say well, tell me about the problem. What does it mean . Did you do that . No, i asked me to be kept updated. There were 200 people working on this issue. They let me know. So theres two 00 people working on the problems of delivering emails. It took this long to find out there was missing emails. Its almost a year. From the time that anybody figured out there was a problem it took about two months. Nobody knew there was a problem last year. But you flew was an inconsistency when you came before us. Yes. I knew that a problem had been identified and that it was under investigation. Why is it you did not answer when you were canned a dozen times on both sides of the aisle will you deliver we can find lois lerners emails but you knew there was some kind of problem, you had been briefed on that. Right but at the time nobody understood the ramifications. Was it part of the production process. They ran the process again. They searched all the files to make sure that the production process itself hadnt caused emails to be lost. At the time i testified we didnt know whether or not emails were missing or not. Right but were you aware that there had been a crash in lois lerners computer years before. No. Were the people reporting to you knew that . They knew of an issue with her computer in late february. Thank you. We now go to the gentleman from mass chachusetts mr. Stephen ly. Thank you mr. Chairman. While the irs is not held in high repute these days, neither is United States congress. I want to thank you for your willingness to testify. I would like to refocus on the evidence here. Im a little bit surprised by the chronology lay out here where you were originally invited by mr. Camp in the ways and Means Committee and it seems like when mr. Issa found out about that, you were unilaterally subpoenaed here to testify before you were going to testify tomorrow at that other hearing and then mr. Camp jux ps jumps in front of him and now i have a billboard and video clip up there earlier great showmanship. Im worried i will come in here tomorrow and there will be a 16 piece orchestra to cap off the show. Thats not the way it is supposed to happen. Thats not the way it is supposed to go down. There are some serious issues to get to but all of this sh showmanship is clouding. I think were doing a disservice to the people we represent. I would like to focus on the evident. Going back to the heart of this issue, we did have a situation where there was evidence and admission on the part of the irs that they were using search terms such as tea party, patriots, 9 12 project, in terms of be on the look out for they also were looking for any issues in an application that included Government Spending or Government Debt or taxes. They were also looking for statements in the case file criticizing how the country was fun. When the irs goes after sift zens of the United States because of this criteria that is evidence of their state of mind. Thats not all they look for. They also look for any search terms progressives or these emerged groups which were also very progressive groups are 501 c applications. They also went off b successor organizations to acorn because they were highly progressive. So it was wide spread not just going after conservative groups but its going after american citizens who have serious political views. That is evidence. Thats hard evidence, would you agree . Exactly. Right. Okay. So when these emails go missing for 27 months on lois lerners account, you realize how that just feeds into the suspicion that theres something going on here. I understand that. Thats why i think its important to understand we were able to find 24,000 emails in that period. I know what you found. I appreciate that. I think you went at it legitately and honestly. Let me ask you, when mr. Russell, the ig for the irs looked at it, he was looking at the search term issue for us. Did he look at the other issue of the missing emails . Did he do any of that or was that known to him . It with a not known to anyone at that time. So we didnt look at that. Pardon. We didnt look at that. The ig to my understanding didnt look at that. He is starting an investigation now. Okay. I think thats something we might want to revisit than do you think it would be worth while to have the Inspector General go back and look at the way these emails went missing. I also known that theres some allegations unfounded allegations about six other employees about their emails going missing. He should look at it. He is looking at it. I inspect when they complete that investigation, they will provide a report to the public, us, this chit ee and other investigators. My time has expired. I yield back. The gentleman said it was unfounded. Are there other drives that led to other dee emails not being available to your knowledge. We had noted last week as i said in my testimony in may that i said could we leak at the other 82 kucustodians where tha would affect this. That was part of what i hoped to complete. At this point we would have provided you other information. To this day there might be other because there was a crash. We just learned about that last monday. Just to followup on that. Of course. Im trying to remem