B333- DCMN COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. INTERVIEW OF: Thursday, June 6, 2313 Washington, D.C. The interview in the above matter was held in Room 2233, Rayburn House Office Building, commencing at 18 a.m. For the COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM: COUNSEL COUNSEL COUNSEL COUNSEL 1 SENIOR PROFESSIONAL STAFF MEMBER PROFESSIONAL STAFF MEMBER . MINORITY CHIEF COUNSEL MINORITY COUNSEL Knmfirfl MINORITY COUNSEL MINORITY COUNSEL MINORITY COUNSEL -- MINIORITY INTERN For the COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS: TAX COUNSEL COUNSEL 0 r: mt, Esca- Eso- Law offices of ESQ- ESQ- This is a transcribed interview of conducted by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. This interview is requested by Chairman Darrell Issa and is part of the committee's investigation into the Internal Revenue Service's inappropriate treatment of certain groups applying for tax-exempt status. Chairman Issa has invited Chairman Camp' staff from the House Committee on ways and Means to attend this interview. Good morning. 'Good morning. a would you please state your name for the record, sir? Thank you. My name is a I am a counsel with the committee. I would ask the rest of the staff in the room to introduce themselves at this time. I am I am also a counsel for the . professional staff with the oversight counsel, ways and Means. minority staff, House House Oversight Committee counsel counsel to the minority staff for the House Oversight Committee. I am the chief counsel for the minority side of the Oversight Committee. I'm a counsel with the Republican staff of the Oversight Committee. with the majority. - counsel with the minority staff. Thank you- I will now explain how this interview will proceed. The way the questioning will proceed is we will alternate between the majority and minority staffs for 1 hour each turn. The majority staff will begin and proceed for an hour, and the minority staff will then have an hour to ask questions, and it will rotate back and forth until there are no more questions and the interview is over. _During the interview, we will do our best to limit the number of people who are directing questions to you during any given hour. That said, from time to time, a follow--up question or a clarifying question may be necessary. If that's the case, you may hear from someone else around the table. A reporter is here to take down everything that's said in the interview for a full written record. with this in mind, it is important that you respond to questions verbally. Excuse me. The reporter cannot properly record nonverbal responses or gesture. 'Do you understand this? encourage witnesses that appear before the committee to freely consult with counsel. And you have counsel present. would your counsel please state their names for the record? I -- Good morning. i here with -- I am 3 with the law firm of 2 -- 8, - on behalf of Mr. Efrem the law firm of -- 2 on behalf of -- with the law offices of Thank you. we want you to answer our questions in the most complete and truthful manner possible, so we will take our time. If you have any questions or do not understand any of the questions, please let us know. we are happy to clarify or to repeat any of our questions. Just let us know. If you honestly don't know the answer to a question or do not remember, it is better not to guess. Just say you do not know. If you need to take a break, please let us know. we ordinarily take a 5-minute break at the end of each hour session, but if you want to stop before the hour is up, please let us know, and we can accommodate you. Very good. you are required to answer questions before Congress truthfully. Do you understand this? Yes, I do. And this requirement also applies to questions posed by congressional staff in an interview. Do you understand this? Yes, I do. witnesses that knowingly provide false testimony could be subject to criminal prosecution for perjury or for making false statements. Do you understand this? Yes, I do. a Is there any reason you are unable to provide truthful answers to today's questions? No, there is not. Do you have any questions before we begin? No, I do not. Great. It is 19:96, and we'll begin the first hour of questioning. -- Before we begin, if I could just make the record clear on a couple of points. First, obviously is voluntarily here to provide the testimony. He is going to be truthful and complete with you to the best of his ability. Just so you know, 1- and myself have been given authorization by the IRS to review certain documents in order to help him in his preparation for his testimony here today. The documents that were provided, however, were limited to the documents that on his own was able to locate. we are of the belief that there are additional documents that exist. however, was not able to identify all relevant documents quickly. we asked the IRS for assistance and to provide us with additional documents. That request was denied or not granted. we asked the IRS also for authorization to provide to you guys certain documents that I think would be relevant to the investigation. we by request citing 6163 were not able to provide you any documents. we then asked the IRS whether or not, I guess, they could provide all relevant documents to you. They asked us to provide some sort of criteria or a list of documents that we wanted to them to turn over. we said, we want you to provide all relevant documents to the IRS. Our understanding is that they provided some documents, but not all documents. I guess the bottom line is here. He is going to answer your questions truthfully and completely. we have not been able to have access to all documents which we think would have been able to -r prepare fully and completely to testify before you guys here today, and we just would ask you to keep that in mind. we would also ask you to from time to time, if his memory needs recollection, to allow him to refer to any documents which we do have with the understanding that we're not able to provide those documents to you. So I guess we're kind of just asking to kind of see how this flows. But I just want to make sure that's very clear, that he is here. He is going to provide truthful and complete information. He has not had the ability or we, as his lawyers, have not had the ability to review the entire universe of documents in order to best, I guess, refresh his recollection as to what happened. His memory is what it is. Thamhold'the severlonlflarch 17th, 2616? A Did I ask again Did you ask again or assume that your previous instruction was still standing? A My previous instruction, that's what.I would have -- I don't recall, but I don't think or I don't recall ever giving another 83 instruction because it wasn't necessary. The committee interviewed -- last week and he testified that he, during this time period, continued to screen for Tea Party cases after the initial search and that he developed search criteria to identify Tea Party cases which included phrases such as "Patriot" and the "9/12 Project." Do you have any reason to disagree with this statement? A I wasn't aware of that during this period of time. what -- what mental process each of these agents would instill to make these determinations would be theirs. I wasn't aware of that at this time. Despite not being aware of it at the time, do you have any particular reason to disagree with the statement or to believe it is not correct? A That that was his thought pattern? 1 Again, he can't speculate. I can't -talk about' you know' what -- was in his mind. I mean, in his 28 years of experience, would, you know, probably lend him into having a lot of thoughts that were germane. Do you have any knowledge that would lead you to believe that statement. wasn't accurate? A No, I do not. Based on your previous answer, I'm guessing that you did 84 not instruct -- to use these terms_ in the March 2010 time period? A I did not. And I'm guessing you also did not instruct anyone other than to search For Tea Party cases in spring 2010 using those type those criteria? A I did not. we are making it into April. ea Time Flies when you are having fun. Good thing February is only 28 days, I think. So this, I can put this -- away? I'm afraid not. was marked for identification.] ~w Exhibit No. 2 -"91 I'm handing you a document that is marked Exhibit 2. It's an email chain, and the top email in the chain is from to -- dated April 5th, 2010. It was introduced by the committee to the committee from: and it's: 0006 through 0008. You were copied on the email chain. Do you recall receiving this email chain? -- If we could have a minute. Absolutely. Take your time. -- Thanks- 85 Looking in the top -- at the top email in the chain from to: copying yourself on April 5th, 2916, it reads, since you're acting for - and I believe the Tea Party cases are being held in your group, would you be able to gather information as requested in the email below to provide it to so that E0 Technical can prepare a sensitive case report for theses cases? Thanks in advance." who is A I have not met but I believe he works for E0 Technical. whose decision was it to hold the cases in your group? A- By DPevious email, it was And did you have a reason, an understanding of the reason at this time that the cases were being held in your group? A I wasn't given a reason. I was told to hold them in my group. To clarify, when this April 5th, 2916 email was sent, were you in the office at the time? A April 5th? 2919. I'll draw your attention to the beginning of the email which says, "since you are acting for leave. So was acting in your capacity? A Yes, he was acting manager, correct. 86 And how long were you on leave for in April? A I would have to check my leave record. I'm not really sure. was it an extended leave or a short one? A I don't believe so. what is a sensitive case report? A Again, I've not been in a position of having to produce a sensitive case report. I'm aware that there is such a thing, so I really can't address to that because what the content is or really how it's produced, I never had to do that. Do you knownwhat the purpose of a sensitive case report is? A I do not. Prior to this time, have you ever been involved in preparing information to send to E0 Technical so that they could produce a sensitive case report? A -Not to my knowledge. Did you provide any information to E0 Technical 50 that "they could create a sensitive case report referenced in this email? A Not to my knowledge. Did you play any role in -- providing that information? -A Not to my knowledge. 87 Do you recall ultimately receiving the sensitive case report referred to in this email? A I did not. Do you know who makes the decision to create a sensitive case report? A I do not. Did you have any discussion with -- about the sensitive case report referred to in this email? A Not to my knowledge, I did not. Did you have any communications with about the sensitive case report referred to in this email? A I did not. Did you have any communications with anyone in E0 Technical about the sensitive case report referred to in this email? A Not to my knowledge. 88 RPTS DCMN [12:18 Can you describe what the term "emerging issues" means in the context of your work in the Determinations Unit? A I'm not sure I have a definitive definition. An emerging issue would be something new that we really hadn't seen before. And so we would want to give it some consideration. The determination that this type of activity or this issue was emerging was not mine. So, you know, it's, again, identifying something that could possibly be something_we hadn't seen before, something that required special attention. So when we're talking about the emerging issue, that is a decision made somewhere else.' Are cases designed as emerging issues typically grouped together or centralized for review? A I really cannot answer that. If we identify an emerging issue in one case, then it's not going to be grouped with others. I mean, depending on the numbers that are seen, I can tell you, for example, presently in E0 determinations, there has been an emerging issue due to the fact that a group ruling was terminated. There's 460 subs that are now applying to our organization. It-' an emerging issue determination. And itvms determined these cases need to be worked in one area consistently by a group of agents within one group. And that is because of customer service. So in that case, we 89 definitely would be merging things together. But we could get to an instance -- and this is nothing that I can say this case was it -- that one case comes in and it appears as if this could be an emerging issue because we've never seen it. Maybe there's only one case. So it depends, is my answer, if there are more than one or multiple ones because there could be huge amounts. You need to have a certain number of cases to justify creating an entire emerging issues group? A And I can't say that because I do not make that call. That's not my purview to decide what is an emerging issue. It's my purview to maybe identify a potential emerging issue. who does makes the decision to determine what is an emerging issue? A I do not know. .1 ["533 'bi In the case of that group sub parent ruling that you were just discussing, in that case, were cases grouped together based on the name of that group identity? A Yes. I mean it was the most effective way of making sure these were consistently worked. But with that being said, there were other cases that, you know, with this maybe name that were assigned someone else. And we attempted to then pull them back so that they could be consistently worked in one group. Is it common for a Determinations Unit to ask screeners to 90 identify organizations by name, to put them in certain emerging issues groups? A No. That's not what we're asking. That could happen after the fact. So I mean my screeners are not, you know, doing -- I guess what you are saying, are they searching names? No, they're not. -- I think there's some confusion as to what causes the. emerging issue versus what the screening group's role is. Can you describe what causes an emerging issue as opposed to -- -- If you know. I 160 percent do not know, okay. But I can say if you were coming to my office as a screener and you would say, is this an emerging issue, we would have a dialogue and say, you know, my experience would say I don't think I've seen this before. we would want to elevate this as a potential emerging issue. It could happen that way. I mean, again, the whole structure of what I do is to quickly say, oh, this could be that and we elevate it. Or this could be that and it goes into inventory. we're not really having, you know, oh, this type of list or that's not part of what we're doing. So you elevate the new issues that may be worthy of an emerging issue and then someone else makes the determination about whether that in fact should be classified as an emerging issue? A Correct. 91 Okay. How do screeners know when something is an emerging issue? A Experience. Is there a list of emerging issues? A I couldn't answer that. There could be a list. But I'm not aware of one. Okay. Have you been informed about certain emerging issues to look for by other employees in the Determinations Unit? A I have not, to my knowledge. BY Can I just clarify when you were talking about the group ruling earlier because I didn't quite understand, it sounded to me like part of that process was looking at a group of organizations that may have had a similar name. Is that a correct understanding? A well, you know, the way that we identified those is that there was an agent screening, oh, he went through 15 cases. And it was apparent they were all coming out of this group ruling. So when you looked at the case file itself and he would do that that the issues that were in that case file said, we can't close this. So it would be fair to say though that in previous circumstances, the name of a group or type of group of organizations would be part of the analysis of figuring out how to group a certain type of cases for consistency? A well, it could be helpful. I mean in this particular case -- I mean I can say, you know, we produce determination letters. 92 -- I'm not sure which particular case you are talking about. we're talking about the group ruling. BY Group ruling? A So we issue determination letters. And I think that because of consistency and good customer service, they should all be the same. In this particular case, you_know, we have the sorority chapters now that are, you know, now getting their own exemption, that's what this was. without revealing any 6103 information, are you able to say generally what type oF organizations this particular group rulings issue came up in? A It was a sorority. In 2010, were applications involving the Tea Party placed in an emerging issues group? A I I'm not aware oF that. You are not aware that Tea Party cases were designated as an emerging issue? A I am not aware of that. So in March 2616, the Tea Party cases were held in your unit, correct? 93 A Correct. And then at some point they were no longer held in your unit, correct? A Correct. where did they go? A There's an email, if we can reference that, I believe in April, maybe late April. I was directed to assign all of these cases to Group 7822. And you had no knowledge at the time that that was the unit in charge of handling emerging issues? A That unit, as I was aware, was a unit that at one time was consistency which kind of goes with emerging issues. So i mean it was a unit that kind of designated as, you know, these situations. was there a particular person in unit 7822 who you were instructed to send the cases to? A Again I want to say I don't recall but I know there's an email in there that I read that refreshed my memory. And I think that the name and I would want to review the email. Just one secondemail that IRS has not allowed you to produce to the committee? we're not allowed to hand over any emails directly to the committee. 94 Okay. This actually is an email that I was copied so it did not come to me. And this says these cases will be assigned t_ BY Cnunwfl who directed you to send the cases to -- A This is from Ummumuflfinmhn. And why did tell you to direct the cases to A I do not know. -- The email is dated April 25, 2918, sent on Sunday at 1:98 p.m. from i to -- He is E0 Technical. I believe he is the manager. The email doesn't state in what capacity - -- would be reviewing these cases as part of what you did or -- you read one particular part. -- Yes. I This is part of the difficulty we have in that. The email speaks for itself. Putting the email aside and having looked at it, do you recall whether or not at this time period -- was identified as an emerging issues coordinator? A I did not. Did you have any conversations with Mr. - to send 95 the to A I did not. Did you have any conversations with anyone in E0 Technical at the time about decisions to send the cases to -- A Not to my recollection. Did you have an understanding at the time about what the reason was for sending the cases to -- for review? A No. I don't recall ever having that conversation. BY .21 And just as a practical matter, once you received that direction, is it then a matter of a code being imported into the computer when you see these cases? Or how did the cases actually -get sent to A As I indicated, at my Group 75 number, which was my group inventory is where these were housed, and what I would do is go into the electronic system, and I would transfer these cases to Group 7822. Thank you for that clarification. A And I did not and for additional clarification, I did not assign these to_ Her manager has to assign those. So, I mean, that transfer was to that group. A_nd that manager has to assign them. -- And again, the email clearly directs management saying where these cases are going to go. I believe at that time by this email it was Group 96 Mr. -- who answered to area manager Our hour is up. Thank you very much. [Discussion off the record.] we'll go back on the record please. It is 1:14 and we'll begin our next hour of examination. And I will turn to to begin. So I just have a couple of follow~up questions. You've explained many times that cases can be grouped together or elevated for consistency, right? A Correct. with respect to the Tea Party cases, did you ever discuss with fiwapwme wane or anyone else that the reason E0 Technical in D.C. wanted the cases was specifically for consistency? A don't recall. Okay. Now I want to let you review Exhibit 1. And specifically, there's an email on the first page marked -- 8881, an email from -- to -- on March 17, 2818, at 12:48. I'll give you a second to review that particular email. A Okay._ Now you stated earlier that you thought decided to have the Tea Party cases held? A I believe I did say I'm not sure she made that decision, but she told me to hold the Tea Party cases in my office. Okay. But so after reviewing the email where flfiwmf says 97 to' that she "would ask that you hold the rest until we get a sense of what the issues may be," is it fair to say that made the decision to hold the Tea Party cases? A I don't know who may have told. And I don't know. Sure. Okay. BY Cuwrnfi I want to return to the discussion we were having earlier~witt|our colleagues on the other side about the criteria that was used to search for these cases initially. And I believe you said that you do not give your screeners any particular criteria to use, is that correct? A That's correct. Okay. Sir, testified before the committee and he testified that he used the phrase "Tea Party" because you told him to use that phrase. Do you have any recollection of that? A I don't recall. Okay. Do you have any personal knowledge of how the screeners selected the criteria to use in the search? A I don't believe that they selected criteria. what is in the mind of each screener is based upon their experience. So they would be able to identify issues that were presented in the case file by dealing with their own expertise. They were never given criteria. Okay. And you are not aware of what criteria it was, if any, that they used to select those cases initially? A I do not. 98 ~w Exhibit No. 3 was marked For identiFication.]' BY gm: Okay. I want to introduce another document. This is an email produced to the committee by TIGTA. There is no Bates number but For identification purposes, I will just recite the initial email on this page is an email "from -- of TIGTA to of TIGTA dated May 26, 2613,_at 16:12 a.m. And this is Exhibit 3. And sir, I will give you a Few minutes to review this document. A Okay. Do you recall this email exchange? A I don't recall the email exchange. I do have a copy of it though. You do have a copy of it? where did you get a copy of this email? A It was in my string of emails on my own personal stuff. Okay. Now although this is dated June 2, 2611, I want to turn your attention to the email that starts on the bottom of the first page and carries over to the second page. A Okay. dated June 2, 2911, at 9:21 a.m. and you copy on this email-- and; And you write to the following are issues that couldn't get a This is an email from you case because there was a potential "Tea Party" case and sent to Group 7822 for secondary screening. One, Tea Party, patriots, or 9/12 99 project is referenced in the case file; two, issues include government. spending, government debt and taxes; three, educate the public through advocacy, legislative activities to make America a better place to live; four, statements in the case File that are critical of how the country is being run. Do you recall sending this email to A Yes, I do. And why did you send this email to A She had sent me an email on June 2, 12:46 asking me a series of things. Could I send her an email that included criteria For screeners. There was no criteria for screeners. Organizations involving the Tea Party movement For exemption. That was another. She says, the application specifies Tea Party. If not, howckawe know applicant is involved with the Tea Party movement? And they did not. I responded actually to the latter part of the third sentence. You need to -Forward me per -- request. So what I did is at this point in time I called actually I emailed. Before you get there, the guy is asking you, is this criteria that she is searching for, is it the criteria that you use initially . in the February--March time Frame? A Criteria wasn't used. Again we looked at these cases from a standpoint of the Facts and circumstances that were in each case. Now again, each of my screeners would have had experience in looking at these issues. And that's what I relied upon For their development. Okay. 100 A In the case. I I interrupted you. You may continue with what you were going to say before. A But what I did in response to her request, I sent an email to I and I my three great Do you have that email in there? And in that email -- and this was copied through the chain. I just don't want you reading from the email. If you could just refresh your memory and then summarize. I was asking'them't0 provide me with issues that may indicate nocarganization is involved with the Tea Party movement. And the reason that I wrote it that way, if you look ate: request, she had said in here how do we know the applicant is involved with the Tea Party movement? So I asked again, what issues that they detected in these cases and they indicate an organization was involved in the Tea Party cases. All three of my 13 responded to me as to what issues they considered when they developed this. And the email I have here is From one of those individuals. And he comes back to me and says, you know, again, some of the cases -- You can't read the email. Just generally -- we don't want to be in a 6193 box. So just generally, did he He generally comes back and he identifies the issues that he looks at. In this email he is talking about government spending, government debt and taxes. 101 So that's how that screener identified Tea Party cases? A That's what issues he found in cases that indicated to him that they could be a potential Tea Party case. And from what you showed me before from-- I believe that a number of the things that were on his mind and that he thought were issues were responding back to me to this email I sent out to him. I don't have a copy of that one. But you know what I did was I consolidated their responses in my response back to Just so we're clear, sir, which screener is that email from that you are holding? A And what is the date of that email? A June 2. It's_ to you? It's actually June 3. June 3, 2611? June 2, 2611 at 8:02 a.m. Thank you. "wrtw in the email that is Exhibit 3 in front of you asked for criteria that the screeners used to label a case a Tea Party case and I think you just testified there was no criteria? 1 A That's correct. Did you ever tell there was no criteria? 102 A I didn't tell her that to my knowledge. In my response to her, I did not refer to criteria. Criteria was her words, not mine. And I responded back, these were issues that my screeners were finding in these cases that identified them as potential Tea Party. Okay. So these four items here on page 2 of Exhibit 3 are the sort of items that screeners would see in Tea Party cases, is that right? A This, again, was a response to my request to my three senior GS 13 agents as to what issues they found in cases that would indicate .a potential Tea Party. what the rest of the screeners you know, this is from the three senior people. Okay. And to your knowledge, did those three senior people reach out to the others in the group to get their sense of what they used to identify a Tea Party case? A I really don't know that. Okay. That's Fine. And sir, as Far as the time Frame For these Four items here on Exhibit 3 on the second page, do you know, was this language the language they used to identify Tea Party cases throughout the whole relevant time period, February 2919 through here June 2011? A Language used where? The language herecN1Exhibit 3, page 2, the Four items. To your knowledge, is this the language that they saw in Tea Party cases throughout the whole relevant time period or is it a subset? A I don't know that. This is the only time that I requested 103 that they provide me the information about the issues that they considered when addressing a potential Tea Party case. Okay. And so to your knowledge, sir -- for instance when a screener saw Tea Party'or Patriots of the 9/12 project or saw an issue that included government spending, government debt, or taxes that are referenced here in Exhibit 3, what would they do with those cases? A well, first off, they would probably analyze them a little bit more to see if there was development needed. And if there were development needed, the first decision was, it should be put into inventory to be worked. And the second one, this has been designated as a high--profile case. So it would then be put into that inventory. Okay. So any of the applications that came in that had elements of these four items here in Exhibit 3 were then given a little additional screening, put into general inventory? A I cannot say that. Again to stress that this is a compilation of three people's thought patterns when they were reviewing their cases. And what I asked them to identify to me is what issues - that they were finding in their cases that prompted them to consider a potential Tea Party case. So like I say, I know the one that I recited to you, what-- sent back to me. And those things are in here. I know cited to you what was in his mind. But this was not something that was distributed to everybody because that's not the way that we were conducting this. It was not a criteria--based anything. It was you know what issues are you finding. Q. I see. 104 A And there could be more than this that other people would -have said, oh, this may be something that we need to develop. And without the totality'of the case, it's facts and circumstances and each case stands on its own. Okay. So this is a compilation of what the screeners, the senior screeners -- A This email is. This email is. The three senior people in my group.- And Group 7822 which you-reference here in the email; I believe it's the same group you mentioned before when you were speaking with my colleagues on the minority side? A Correct. which group is that? A 7822 was-- a group. And they were dealing with consistency issues. Exactly what other things that they had within that group, I don't have firsthand knowledge. At this point in time, I'm not sure -- I believe that group was turned over to: Okay. And this is the group that; was in at least as of March 2916? A 2010, correct. Okay. BY The email also says they were send to Group 7822 for secondary screening. A Correct. 105 what does secondary screening mean? A. Secondary screening would be looking at a case that hopefully we could merit closed, and we would send it to secondary screening for someone to take a look who had more time than my initial screeners who were spending a minimal amount of time to process their 26 to 25 cases a day. It may require things such as -- let's go look ataaweb site. Things that we don't have to burden the customer with. But it can answer a question that we can go ahead and close the case. So because my screeners were not in a position of even picking up the phone to verify an issue, it was sent on in many instances in other areas to secondary screening. These folks had a little more time available to them to look at these cases. Okay. So did your group have the ability to recommend that the cases that fit into any of these four issues be closed if they looked to be complete as initially submitted? A Again, you know -- Do you know if these cases that fit these four issues, do you know if they were automatically sent to secondary screening? A I do not. Okay. Did you have the ability to close these cases if everything in the initial application was complete? Or did you have to send them? Or did they have to be sent to secondary screening? A I don't know. Okay. A I mean, again, on some of these issues that you know, 106 we identified these issues. And they were in the case file. And if you gave me one case and I looked at it, I could say it. But those directions were not given. Okay. BY Okay,sir. You(EH1setthatdocumentaside. Youtestified before that at some point the cases that your screeners were identifying were transferred to Group 7822 and to is that correct? A Right. Before those cases were transferred are you aware of any case, any Tea Party case that was closed? A Am I aware? Yeah. A Closed from where? At the screening group level. A I am not aware of that. Okay. So everything that was sent to -- in Group 7822 was still pending at that time, is that right? A It was in open inventory. Okay. -- Could we just have a moment? Okay, I can clarify that when with the initial screening case that there were three cases that:we identified as having been closed but that was prior to this first case. -- what - is referring to is an email that's 107 referenced on Exhibit 1, 6992. The email from Okay. At 9:35 a.m. -- which is reference to three of them being closed. BY So three had been closed prior to -- even identifying the first case? A And I cannot tell you that these were closed by screeners. I mean prior to this identification that this general inventory case also was a high priority case that we could -- and without reviewing the case fileg I would have sent that to inventory assigned to an agent in Baltimore or whatever and they could have closed it. Okay. But other than those three cases and after -- identified the first case for you, was any case from that point until the time they were transferred to Group 7822, was any case in that time closed? A I could not tell you that. Okay. was any case closed by a:screening group during that time to your knowledge? A was any case? Any of those Tea Party cases. A I don't know. Okay. I want to be clear for the record. The three cases that had been approved per the March 16, 2819 email that was prior to the 108 instruction given to hold the cases, is that correct? A I would have to loo|< at the cases without that verification. well, let me point you then bac|< to Exhibit 1, -- 6661. So I just stated that on March 16, 2616 that was the date where there had been discussions that three cases had already been approved. And'then subsequent1Y(n1March 17, 2616, isnuhenillieumnmn says -- that she asked to hold the rest of the cases. Do you see that email? A Yes. Okay. That's all. All right. So I want to shift gears a little bit here. During this period that we've been discussing in the early part of 2616, those E0 Determinations group manager meetings you were discussing earlier, were any of those held during that time period? A I don't know. Okay. A I mean the meetings were held when - called them. Do youurecall ever discussing in this early time period from February 2616 to May 2616 the Tea Party cases at these manager level meetings? A I do not. Okay. During the same time period, early part of 2616, are you aware of any manager meetings at the -- I'm sorry, excuse me. 109 Did you have any meetings with members of your group as a whole about the Tea Party cases? A I did not. Okay. -- Just specifically about the Tea Party or where Tea Party cases were referenced?' I I would ask it both case ways. The Tea Party cases in particular. fmznu) I . BY hounw; what about meetings in which the Tea Party cases were referenced? A I don't know. Okay. Did you ever speak with pbout the progress of your group's search in identifying these cases? A Not to my knowledge. 0kay._ To my knowledge, sir, at this early point in 2916, was -- aware of the Tea Party cases? A I don't know. And similarly, sir, to your knowledge in this early part of 2616 was Lois Lerner aware of the Tea Party cases? A I don't know. And fif are there any other documents in your possession today that would help to clarify or augment your testimony about your involvement in the Tea Party cases during this early part 110 of 2618? If you want to take a minute and see what -- -- Look, there are I'm sure other documents out there. -- Maybe not in his possession. fhnuvkm Anything that you have in your possession that may help to elucidate some of the information here. -- If we can maybe go off the record for a minute. [Discussion off the record.] This was an important issue, but it was one of many important issues. And it was addressed accordingly. And I -Feel that, you know, I told the truth about everything I know. fiounww Okay. we appreciate that. Sir, are you aware of a time at which the E0 Determinations Unit began training specialists on the Tea Party cases? A Am I aware of the time? Of a time when they began training specialists on Tea Party cases. A In my purview, it ends up to be you know had I heard of that, I could have. But it was nothing to concern me or nothing that I was involved with. So I really don't know a lot about that. Okay. But you seem to be aware of some training? I A well, you know, as you get into going through what we have done, there are things that you see that maybe you don't know. what I am saying is I was not involved in this training. None of my agents were involved in this training. This was passed me. My Function, 111 again, was to look at these initial cases within a span of a few days and put them in a proper bucket and just go on with my work. whatever went on after I bucketed these cases, it was what it was. I was not intimately involved in any of that. Okay. But what kind of training were you at least somewhat aware of? It seems like you were aware of some sort of training. A No, I wasn't. I mean not with training. Okay. Sir, to your knowledge, in this initial time frame, February 2@16'to fall.of 2919, was the existence of the Tea Party cases, was that widely known among E0 Determinations? A I don't know. Sir, as a screening group manager, diclyou ever participate in the drafting of information request letters? A No, I did not. Do you know-forwnhat purpose the IRS needs to know the names and donors of an entity applying for tax exempt status? A Each case is based upon the facts and circumstances within that case which would warrant what questions are asked. So the answer to your answer, no, I don't. -- Don't speculate . BY Sir, are you familiar with the term A Yes. what do you understand the term BOLO to refer to? A I believe it means "be on the lookout." 112 Now the TIGTA audit indicates that in May of 2616 E0 Determinations began to develop what would then become a BOLO spreadsheet. Is that your understanding as well? A I don't know what the understanding was about the BOLO. Again, my job was to look at initial intake cases, put them in the proper - bucket and pass them on. The BOLO came after that. I'm aware of it because, you know, I'm in the office. But I had nothing to do with the development, the update, or the distribution of the BOLO. when did you become aware of the A Please? when did you become aware of the A I couldn't even tell you. Okay. That's Fine. But you said you received the A Everyone in E0 Determinations received the BOLO. Okay. Do you know who was responsible For developing the A I have not been told but Don't speculate. Okay. And you had no input into the language of the A No, I did not. Did you ever discuss this BOLO with your screeners? A I don't recall. 113 Is it something that applies to the screeners though?' A In a roundabout way, my screeners, as they go through and develop -- or they look at issues and cases are forwarded into inventory, those issues could beeafuture considerationcH=an item that would go on this. But that was not my decision. It was not anything that we did within my group. And so the BOLO in my perspective was for all the other agents. If we assigned a case, for example, and through development an issue came back in a determination answer that had a BOLO issue in it, then they needed to go and see what to do with that case. But from my standpoint, the only thing I instructed my screeners to do -- if they were looking at a case and it was on this BOLO list_, it was to be transferred to Group 7822. Again, my screeners did not make telephone calls. They did not write determination letters. They did not make contact with the customer. So the instructions were very clear that we transfer any of these BOLO cases to 7822 and let them handle it. Sir, are you aware of any case that was not initially identified as a Tea Party case and sent out for development and then as a result of the BOLO the specialist realized it was in fact a Tea Party case? A Not to my knowledge. Just for the record when you say not to my knowledge, do you mean you don't remember? He doesn't know. *ffi@GmwMe%H I don't know. So many of these things are beyond 114 what the scope of my job is. The first 3 days of life, you might say,' of an application is what I dealt with. And after that, it just was beyond my purview. If": 3 :3 sa; Lil So the BOLO, from your perspective, is not a tool for the screeners to use? A That's correct. Sir, also according to the TIGTA audit at some point in August of 2916, the application involving Tea Party cases that were sent to a different team of specialists in E0 Determinations, do you have any awareness of that? A I do not. Sir, so after February 2916, -- identifies this case for you. and your other two senior screeners do additional search and find other cases, is that right? A It wasn't a search. They were made aware of this case and the issues in that case, as were all of the screeners and my group. And people were aware of this issue. And I, being the manager, was aware if they let me know that they had a case like this. Okay. And so then by March of 2819, you had identified 19 Tea Party cases? A The agents in my group had. Right. And those were all sent over to Group 7822? A That was in April then. Right. After that was your involvement with the 115 7 Tea Party cases? I had no involvement. were they still coming in? A You know, if around1uhen'the.issues were identified in these cases, they were then transferred to Group 7822. Okay. So after April 2818 the standard practice was a case would come in, if the screener identified it as a Tea Party case, it would be transferred to Group 7822? A Yeah. As a potential Tea Party case, correct. And once it's over there in Group 7822 you have no knowledge of what happens to it then? A That's correct. was there a point in time when that procedure changed? A. not to my knowledge. Okay. So from that point out when a case would come in through the screening group and the screener identified it as a Tea Party case, it would continue to go to Group 7822? A As a potential Tea Party case, it would go to Group 7822. And is that still the practice today? A I could not comment on that. But at the time you left the position of screening group manager was that still the practice? A To the best of my knowledge. Okay. Did you have any discussions with about -the Tea Party cases in the fall of 2818? 116 A Not that I remember. what about A Not that I remember. And turning to the spring of 2811, did you have any discussions with about Tea Party cases in the spring of 2611? A Not that I recall. what about A Not that I recall. Okay. A I mean, now I need to probably look at the timelines of when I talked with TIGTA. You know what I mean by that? So for that discussion, if you're asking me did I have a private discussion with -- no, I did not. Okay. Okay. I want to refer you back to Exhibit 3. And I am just going to read this into the record and then read parts of it into the record and then just ask a couple of questions. So again Exhibit 3, this is an email on June 2, 2811 from to -- and she was forwarding your email that you sent to - on Thursday June 2, 2611 with the four issues that could indicate a case to be considered a potential Tea Party case. And she says, -- says to i this is the criteria the screening group came up based on cases they were seeing. If we don't want the screening group to include all of 117 these type of issues they would have no problem including or excluding certain cases. However, they need to be given the criteria to use. And if we don't want certain cases included then E0 Determinations still needs to know how.the cases should be processed. So my question to you is, ever give you any instructions on what to do with these cases? A Not to my knowledge. Did anyone else give you any instruction on what to donuith these cases? A Not to my knowledge. Did you ever get criteria to use in screening Tea Party cases? A I never did get criteria to use. So you were never instructed to use anything different than what you or your screeners -- than what you sent to A we never were instructed to use any criteria. what I provided to to send to -- were the issues that my screeners were seeing in the cases. Right. A But we never had criteria. Excuse me. Criteria issue, I think those terms are kind of being used interchangeably, I think. So I will rephrase. Did you ever receive any additional issues to look out for aside from the 118 ones -- Nho's using those terms interchangeably? I don't think it's clear. It's her question. Let her ask the question. I think I actually am using the term "issues and criteria" interchangeably. So when I said the criteria earlier, I meant issue. 3 So did you receive any additional issues aside from the ones that you sent to_ after you sent that email to -- A Not to my knowledge. Okay. Thank you. according to the TIGTA audit, there is a briefing with Lois Lerner on July 5, 2811 about the Tea Party cases. were you aware of that briefing? A I was not. So suffice it to say you did not participate in that briefing? I A Not to my knowledge. I think the answer is no to that. Could you say, no, you did not participate in the meeting. No, I did not participate in that meeting. I just want to ask you one more question, going back to the 119 Exhibit 3 email. Did anyone ever instruct you not to use the issues that you sent to in looking for cases? A Not to my knowledge. Okay. BY So you received no instruction one way or the other? A Not that I recall. Okay. we're talking about the June 2911 time Frame? Pre or post the meeting with Lois Lerner? You had an hour to ask your questions. Just trying to clarify. That's a separate. I jumped back a question. were you aware of a meeting August 2611 with the Chief Counsel's office and the E0 Determinations folks in Cincinnati? A what date was that now? August 2011. A I don't believe so. I don't recall any meetings with Chief Counsel. office? A I do not. 120 If we could just have a quick moment. Please. -- I just want to clarify a question I think that was probably about four or five questions ago was whether or not was aware Lois Lerner was briefed in July of 2611. with refreshing his recollection with an email, was forwarded that Lois Lerner information about a meeting Lois Lerner had in which these issues were discussed but he did not participate in the meeting. Okay. we appreciate that. Is that correct? That's correct. Could you describe that email for us? It was an email from to-- *r dated July 5, 2611, at 5:16 p.m. There were folks who were cc'ed as well. who were those folks? Than|< you. And I after seeing that document, does that refresh your recollection at all about -- A It does not. I just don't recall. -- The email speaks for itself I guess is the bottom 121 line. Could one of you summarize the contents of the email for us? I would rather not get into that. You can ask him to review the email and then see whether or not it refreshes his memory. Please. Cnunwfi_ Is there a question pending? There is. He is reviewing the document. I do not recall. I just do not. That doesn't jog my memory. It is what it is. give you a summary of what happened in the briefing with Ms. Lerner? A Other than the contents of this email, no, she did not. And I don't recall this email. But is the email a summary of the contents of the meeting? A It's not a summary. It's just a listing of different issues. That were discussed in the meeting? A . This meeting you are asking about? The original question was whether or not you were aware Lois Lerner was briefed in July of '11. The email reflected there the email from to you and others references a concern raised by Lois in that meeting which resulted in follow--up with 122 which does not jog his memory in any way after reading the email. So I'm not sure how much more we can do on that. 123 RPTS I mj [2 Okay. So you're not refreshed at all what the concern was in the email? A Not at all. And, in December of 2911, I understand that there was a special group of specialists created within E0 Determinations to handle Tea Party cases. were you aware of that at all? A I don't recall in December being aware of that. 'Did you become aware of that at some later date? A You know, it's not anything that was part of my it's not anything that was part of what, you know, I was involved with. There were none of my agents that were a part of this thing. It's very difficult for me to say, no, I didn't know, but through all of our discovery, things are in there. And so, are you asking me if I ever was aware? It there could be, but I was not part of this. I really wasn't involved at all with this meeting. I didn't know when it was held or anything of that nature. were you aware in December of 2911 about this group, this meeting? A I don't recall. 124 Okay. That's fine. Off the record for a moment? [Discussion off the record.] I probably should be saying this on the record. Back on. The documents in which the IRS has just offered to redact your 6183 are what we believe to be a very limited number of documents relevant to the -- involvement in these cases. They are the documents in which has quickly been able to identify -- - On his own. -- on his own in order to -- mostly on his own, I would say, with --ix1order~to help us prepare and help him. we haven't had the ability to go through -- image his computer and do a full forensics to see what's out there. And what our concern is that there may be other documents that we don't want somebody else coming back and saying, this is there are additional documents out there you did not present. So I want to be very clear. These are -- this is everything that we have right now, and whether there's anything out there or not, so be it. can you put whatever the nature of what's going to happen now on the record, please? I don't know, so why don't we -- why don't we allow it to happen. I believe the IRS personnel are going to redact the documents right now and allow the documents to be produced to the 125 committee. For 6193 purposes? That's right._ But why don't we take a break, see if we can facilitate that, and then when we come back, we'll say on the record what happened. -- Mine are we're dealing with a clean copy now is the issue as well. Not 166 percent. Mr. Can we just give the IRS the dates and have them shoot them to these guys? If the IRS is capable of sending them. The problem is that they say they're having difficulty -- -- what I have, because their copies are marked up, I have this spreadsheet which involves the date, the time, the to and the from; no substance, just the date, time, to and from of the documents that are in here. we just would ask for a quick minute to make sure it's every document that we have in here. Is it possible that between the -- you have three sets of the documents there? Between those three sets, you have one combined set that would be clean? -- we would have to go through it. Mine are definitely not. Mine have1uork:product, but his may be. we have'to thumb through it. Okay. why don't we go off the record for a little and let you do that. [Discussion off the record.] 126 we'll go back on the record. Note for the record, we took a short break in today's proceedings to attempt to resolve the document issues that have been discussed throughout today's interview with IRS personnel who are currently here for a committee hearing. we were unable to come to a resolution of those issues and have decided to proceed with the interview of as it was on the same conditions we discussed earlier, we are going to proceed on those terms now. -- Just earlier was referenced to some documents that were going to be copied. No documents have been copied. we are going to continue to obviously maintain the documents that we have, and we just want to work with whoever it is we need to work with in order to make sure the documents are produced -- we appreciate that. timely. And we'll continue with 3 Great. Thank you. Before we break broke, there was 16 minutes left in this portion of the examination. It's 2:42, and we'll continue for 16 more minutes. BY L1 group that was assembled in December 2611. Do you recall that discussion? A I Yes, I do. . were you aware of a point at which this team, this group 127 was disbanded? A I am not. And in this time period, the end of 2611, did you have any discussions with about the Tea Party cases? A Not to my knowledge. what about -- A No, I did not. what time period is this? End of 2611. what about Lois Lerner? A Definitely not. Okay. - These are direct communications? That's right. were you aware of any involvement by: in the Tea Party cases at this time? A I am not. I'm sorry, I should be clearer. At the time period December 2611? A Not to my understanding. Other than what's already been discussed. Correct. 128 Okay. At that time in December 2611, were you aware of any involvement by Lois Lerner in the Tea Party cases? A Not other than what we've already discussed.- Okay. Now, sir, according to the tape to audit, in January 2611, the BOL0 criteria language was changed. were you aware that the language had been changed? A Not to my understanding. So you were not aware at that time? A I was not, other than the fact that BOL0 was, you know, provided to me. It wasn't one of my choice documents. Okay. I wasn't aware. But when the BOL0 was updated, was it something that was just then sent to you? A I received the BOLO. It was sent to me. It was at that timeframe, was it sent to me? I could not say. Okay. You don't the document? A I do not recall that. I Okay. 'The language was changed to read, quote, political action--type organizations involved in limiting, slash, expanding government, educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, social economic reform, slash, movement. I was wondering if you could help us understand what economic reform, slash, movement refers to. A Those are not any -- I had nothing to do with the BOLO, the update of the BOLO, the change of the BOLO, so I really have no 129 understanding of what that would mean. Okay. For screeners who are perhaps using this kind of language to identify cases, how would they interpret that language? A I would not be able to comment on that, what their thought patterns are. Okay. Sir, what about the language, social reform, slash, movement; can you help us understand what that means, social reform, slash, movement? I really can't comment. I don't know. Okay. would a religious organization qualify as a social reform, slash, movement? A A what? Religious organization? A Depends on the facts and circumstances in the case. You know, it -- you would have to review all of that, you know, from a standpoint of, you know, what is in the case file for facts and circumstances. I wouldn't be able to say one way or another. what about a prolife group; would that qualify as a social reform, slash, movement? A I would not be able to comment on that. Similarly, what about prochoice, a prochoice group; would that qualify? A That is nothing that I would know. Okay. And lastly, sir, what about a marriage equality group; would that qualify as_a social marriage equality? 130 A I really don't know. Okay. are you aware of any other BOL0s or language in the BOLO having to do with other political-oriented criteria? I You understand the questionThen say so if you don't. I'm not sure what that means. I mean, you know; I as I stated before, my interaction, or my expertise, or my involvement with the BOLO is nonexistent, other than that I get a copy of it, and I I very seldom would look it over. BY er; ,5 Sure. A So, whatever is in the BOLO is not really forefront for me. So it would be difficult to comment on that. I see. My understanding of the BOLO is that it's a multitab spreadsheet, and one of tabs is the Tea Party language. I'm just wondering, are you aware of any other tabs, any other language in that BOLO document that also concern political organizations or political-related organizations? If you know off your memory, you can answer the questions. Is it something that in the past you would be refreshed with; 131 is the BOLO -- -- Can I just have the question one more time? -Cnummfl Sure. My understanding of the BOLO is it's a multitab workbook, type workbook, like that. The Tea Party language is just one tab of that, and I'm wondering if there is other language in the document concerning other political criteria or groups. was and what it contains, because maybe then it would be I think just describes what the BOLO list it evolved. And I'm not - -- I'm not really aware of what is totally in that BOLO is my reluctance to answer the question, because there could be things in there that is just not in my purview. Like I say, it's just not a document that I review regularly, that I have anything to do with, you know, the creation or update of, so there could be things in there that meet that standard, but not right that comes to surface for me. -- Just for the record, there are -- obviously BOL0s change. There are copies of the BOLOs which we have which we could use to refresh his recollection to some extent, but I'm not sure with 6193 being what it is, and the BOLO being a little more specific, how much we can get into right now. Maybe we could try that, if you wouldn't mind showing him the document you have. what's the date of that BOLO you have? Are we still on the record? I'd rather have him testify 132 than me. This one is 9/22/11. Is this all that same document that you're holding, sir? A Yes. -- we have multiple versions. Just -- this is tough, and this is why it's important that I think this is why it's a very difficult task of having here to provide that information without everyone being able to go through the documents. The BOLOs changed. I don't want to testify, but we know it changed, it evolved over time. we have a limited very few versions of it that are here today, and that's -- that's it. That's fine. That we can quickly identify. Leanna we understand. Based on the information you have in front of you and what you are able to refresh the witness' memory with, that would be helpful for our purposes. I don't think there's any see it in there, what he's asking. -- About other -- . what's the exact question? BY Sir, document you're looking at in front of you right now, the 9/22/2811 version of the BOLO, is 133 there any language in there about other political~oriented or politically--related entities that are in the BOLO list? If it's I think it's going to be hard to define those words as the political entity and all that in that there is a wide-ranging variety of issues that are on the BOLO list. Can I ask a clarifying? Can you tell from that document whether or not they are on a tab called "Emerging Issues"? A I can't tell that. Okay. think the list is speaks for itself, and this is why we wanted the IRS to produce all documents. I mean, the document, like [say, it's difficult for me, because it is a document that I can know that was sent to me, but it had such little value for what I was doing. I mean, this is beyond the scope of my work that it was of little consequence to me, so I just was not in a routine fashion of reviewing it. Sure._ A with that in mind, it's very difficult for me to say what the intent was, or'what the language was, or1uhat's involved with that. Is it your recollection that on the BOLO there was a tab entitled "Emerging Issues" or a spreadsheet? A I couldn't I couldn't say that, because I don't know. 134 You don't. Okay. Sir, document you just reviewed, the September 2611 version of the BOLO, was there any language about prolife groups? A I didn't see any when I -- Let's look at it. a . If you knownvhat a prolife is just by looking at it. I don't see that reference that would make it readily apparent to me. BY Okay. Actually hold onto that document, sir. Is there any language in there about identifying pro-Israel groups or any group that appears to be a pro-Israel slant? -- From what you can tell from this actual document itself, I just want to be clear, because there are organizations which may not personally know what their political bent is, if they're prolife, prochoice, pro-Israel. who knows what their stances EIPEOkay. A And I might mention, this is the most scrutiny I've ever given this document. 135 Okay. we have reached our 16-minute time period here, so our hour is up. we'll go off the record, please. [Discussion off the record.] Back on the record, and the time is 3:13. Thirteen? Itis 3:03. -flounnei Okay. On my watch it's 3:13, but the clock in the room is 3:63. BY I believe you told us earlier, but just to make sure that I'm clear, what is your party affiliation? A I am a conservative Republican. Did you direct -- to use specific criteria to identify Tea Party cases in March 2016? A I do not recall doing that. Did you ever direct to use specific criteria to identify Tea Party cases? A I do not recall doing that. Did you direct any members of your group to use specific criteria to identify Tea Party cases? A I do not recall doing that. Are you aware of any political bias by employees in the Cincinnati office against conservative views? A I'm not aware of that. Are you aware of any political motivations behind the 136 screening, centralizing, and development of Tea Party cases? A I'm not aware of that. Are you aware of any political motivations to benefit one political party in the Cincinnati office? A I am not aware of that. would you characterize the Cincinnati office as a political place? A I'm not aware of that. would you do people discuss politics around the office? A Not with me. How many days a week do you work in the office? A Between three and five. At one time you were asked to send two Tea Party cases to Technical for review. Did you think that was appropriate? A Yes, I did. Can you describe why? A If they request cases from E0 Technical, that is part of my responsibility, to honor that request, and that normally would come . through the chain of command from Did you think the request was an appropriate request? I have sure, I thought it was appropriate, because they requested it. what about their request did you think was appropriate? -- "They" bei"8? 137 "They" being your supervisor. A Precisely that, they're my supervisor. Did you make an independent determination to send a case to your supervisor in February 2919 that was a Tea Party case? A I elevated an issue to my area manager? That was a Tea Party case. And I assume that because you made the decision, you thought it was an appropriate decision to elevate it? A I did think that was an appropriate decision. And why was that an appropriate decision? A Because that was the direction that I had been given about cases that demonstrated the potential to be a high-priority case. -- High priority or profile? Profile, I mean. I'm sorry. Did you ever have concerns -- is there anything inappropriate, in your view, about sending up to your supervisor high--profile cases? A .Not that I would be aware of. And that was in the normal course of your duties you would send up high-profile cases? A If identified, that's what I would do. Did you ever have concerns about how it would appear that you were centralizing the review of Tea Party cases? 138 A I did not. why not? A It was joint general business the way I was doing things in the scope of having the responsibility of reviewing 70,000 cases over a span of 1 year, or'5 -- 5,000 a month, that we would have the consideration of a lot of different issues that needed to be sent to one place or another. So this was just in the course of doing business. During your tenure as a screening group manger, do you ever recall receiving complaints about the decision to screen Tea Party cases? A I do not. During your tenure as screening group manager, do you ever recall complaints about the decision to centralize the review of Tea Party cases? A I don't recall that. Are you aware of whether there is any ever any outside influence in the Determination Unit's decision to centralize or screen for Tea Party cases? A I am not aware of that. Do you have any reason to believe that any executives in Washington directed the screening of all Tea Party cases for enhanced scrutiny? A I do not. Ceunsei - I'm marking a document as Exhibit 4. You know what? I'm sorry, I only have two copies. 139 Exhibit No. 4 was marked for identification.] It' a Politico article from today entitled to Darrell Issa: Cool It," June 6, 2613. I just want to direct to a quote in the article. BY Counuef . Go to page 2. Do you have one for the Republicans? Do you have The name of the article is "GOP1x>Darrell Issa: Cool It." It's Politico, and it was published on June 6th, 2913. If you turn to page 2 and go to the bottom third of the page, the second part of the paragraph beginning, "During a May 14 appearance," there's a quote that says, "This was the targeting of the President's political enemies effectively and lies about it during the election year, so that it wasn't discovered until afterwards, Issa claimed." Do you see where I'm reading from? I A Yes. In your opinion, was the screening -- the decision to screen and centralize the review of Tea Party cases targeting of the President's political enemies? -- Did you hear the question? Group Hlanagar a -t rt 140 BY Uouwwfl In your opinion, was the decision to screen and centralize the review of Tea Party cases the targeting of the President's political enemies? A I do not believe that the screening of these cases had anything to do other than consistency and identifying issues that needed to have further development. Do you know when executives in Nashington first learned about the screening criteria used to centralize Tea Party cases? A Again, there was no criteria that I instructed screeners to utilize, so with that being said, I don't know when they would have been in a position of knowing that. I know, again, we're splitting -- you know, but, again, it's not a criteria issue, and what I have said previously that we do look for, you know, a case from a standpoint of issues. Do you know when became aware of how screeners in Cincinnati were identifying Tea Party cases? A I do not. Do you know when Lois Lerner became aware of how screeners in Cincinnati were identifying Tea Party cases? A I'm not really sure of when that could have been. Are you aware of how former Commissioner Shulman became aware excuse me. Are you aware of when former Commissioner Shulman became aware of how screeners in Cincinnati were identifying Tea Party cases? 141 A I'm not aware of that. Are you aware of when Steve Miller, former Acting Commissioner, became aware of how screeners in Cincinnati were identifying Tea Party cases? A I'm not aware of that. Are you aware of when Joseph Grant became aware of how screeners in Cincinnati were identifying Tea Party cases? A I I'm not aware of that. Okay. Do you -- A I mean, again, I'll say my my realm was so low down, and after the initial review of a case, which was, you know, within 3 days after assignment, I became less and less aware of whatever happened above me. Do you have any reason to believe that anyone in the white House was involved in the decision to screen Tea Party cases? A i I have no reason to believe that. Do you have any reason to believe that anyone in the white House was involved in the decision to centralize the review of Tea Party cases? A I have no reason to believe that. Do you have any reason to believe that officials from the National Treasury Employees Union or any other outside entity directed the screening of Tea Party cases? A I have no reason to believe that. Have you ever communicated directly with - 142 A Have I talked? Yes. Yes. .A Define I have talked with You have? A I have talked with -- Have you ever spoken with -- about the screening of Tea Party cases? I A Not to my knowledge. .Okay. A Now, you know, the -- and I think I stated this -- oh, never mind. Make sure your answer is complete. But' was sitting next TIGTA interview. Now, if you want to talk and say that.'s communicating, it could be, but I wasn't communicating with okay. Separate and apart from your TIGTA interview, have you ever communicated with about the screening of Tea Party cases? A I have not. Have you ever communicated with Lois Lerner about screening of Tea Party cases? A I have not. Have you ever communicated with Commissioner Shulman about the screening of Tea Party cases? A I have not. 143 Have you ever communicated with Steve Miller about the A I have not. -- screening of Tea Party cases? A I have not. -- And just communication, there may have been emails that eventually were forwarded or or I just want to be clear as to what the word you mean direct conversations, or what is it that you've inferring? By communications, I mean direct conversations or direct email correspondence between the two of you. A I have not. Have you had any communications with Joseph Grant about the screening of Tea Party cases? A Not to my knowledge. Have you had any communications with anyone from the Treasury Department about the screening of Tea Party cases? A Not to my knowledge. In spring/summer of 2619, whernyou were screening'Tea Party cases, did you think it was appropriate that they be sent to: for further review? A I saw nothing that was inappropriate about transferring cases to a group or agent that I was instructed to do so by my manager. Did you sendtonly those Tea Party cases that had indications of political campaign involvement to -- 144 A I can't respond to that because I don't know. when you were reviewing applications, examining all of the facts and circumstances on an application that you would consider, would political activity be one of the issues that you would be looking for? A I didn't review applications, my agents did. So what exactly their operational modem was, I don't know. I mean, I would say, again, I had a group of highly trained, seasoned employees, and exactly their process was theirs. Did you instruct your agents that political campaign activity was one of the facts and circumstances they should look for in reviewing and identifying Tea Party cases? A I never singled it out to that extent, but they, at some point in time, could have been involved in a you know, that kind of an instruction. I In describing the types of cases that agents should identify as the Tea Party cases to be sent for_ did you use the initial case identified by -- as an example? I A Yes, we did. And the initial case identified by -- did have an indication of political activity, correct? A Yes, it did. [k)you'think'that that would have suggested to the screeners that political activity was, in fact, an indicator that the screener should look for? 145 A The presence of political activity had to becdisplayed with enough specificity to make a correct determination. So when we're talking about issues, many times it's what not is said. So if someone says, you know, we plan to do this, we need to know more about that is what I'm trying to get around. So that's the indication that it would mean tolne that someone else needs.to get additional information. The initial case by -- was used, if I understand it correctly, as sort of a model case that you provided to the screeners to say, we're looking for more cases like this to give to -- is that correct? A That's not truthfully the way that we did not model cases. we did not, you know, specify cases.' what we were doing was, again, saying, you know, cases must be reviewed, and we will evaluate those on the issues within the case; and this specific case, as we have indicated, that we found a necessity, because of the media attention, to elevate these issues up the chain to E0 Technical to give.us guidance. -- Just so I ask -- one thing we haven't discussed at all today is actually the regs, and maybe it would be important to ask him as to why these are issues, because it's going to be guided by the 591(c)(4) regs. Sure . BY So why would it be an issue if there's a 584 applicant whose application indicates that the organization may be involved in political campaign activity? 146 A we would need to know how frequently or -- of the total activities, 166 percent of the activities, what-portion of those total activities would you be dedicating to political activities. And in this particular case, it wasn't addressed, it was just mentioned, and, to me, that says it needs to have further development, and it could be good, you know. Once the information is all received, it could be fine. And for a 5@1(c) (4) application, 'why is it important to know exactly how much political activity the organization will be engaging in? I A Because the law says that a 561(c)(4) must be, you know, conducting its activities, you know, in a social, you know, area that is going to benefit the general public. And so they those have to be the primary_part of their activities, and so it's important to realize that we need to find out on what other activities they may be doing, you know, what portion of that would be, you know, not falling within that realm. And how did you define the term "primary activity"? A I didn't define that, okay? How do you interpret it? A I really didn't interpret that either. That if I were working the case as a manager, you know, that was not my purview. But an individual agent beyond me or group somewhere down the line I mean, what we did in screening was identify that this was a potential issue that needed further development. 147 Do you know if the regulations provide you with a clear definition of what political campaign activity is? A Do I know that? BY -- Do you know whether they do or not? A You're asking an opinion? Yes, based on your experience. Is it easy to tell? Is it easy to tell if it's primary activity or not? I A The only statement I will make, when I was an agent, the cases that I really despised working most were But it's a real difficult call. It's not -- it's not a black-and-white situation. And so, you know, I can't say that that Agent A would interpret something one way, and Agent would interpret some way else. But the regs are the regs, and, you know, we -- we have to deal with what we have. Is the fact that the regulations are, I believe you said, difficult. I don't want to put words A Most of the time they can be. The application of what you're seeing in front of you in terms of the facts and circumstances of a particular case and how the regulation should apply to that, that's a difficult analysis? 148 A It could be, because, I mean, every case stands on its own. And, you know, I know I sound like a broken record, but I firmly believe that, that the facts and circumstances that are presented in a case, you know, are -- they are on their own. And so, you know, that's the way an agent processes a case. BY when you BY -f Is the difficulty that you identified in those regs one reason why E0 Determinations sometimes consults with the tax law experts in E0 Technical? A Correct. Is that one of the reasons why you did it in this case? A The reason that the case was elevated to E0 Technical was based upon, you know, the high-profile issue. The agent appropriately identified the issue as not being fully developed, and that it should be gone into the inventory and assigned for that purpose. It wasn't the purpose of the difficulty'of those issues that was the -- you know, the reason that I elevated it to my manager. It was more the high-profile part of the case. If I could just refer him to the email 5+ February 15th, 2616, which is part of Exhibit 1. Refresh your memory, if you would, as to whether or not there was a substantive reasons other than high profile which you referred the case. 149 IS that Exhibit 1? Exhibit 1 . And I think I was pretty clear in what my explanation was on this is that, you know, the social welfare angle and and I'll repeat. This explanation was really for-- so that she had a better understanding of maybe where the concerns were. But, again, as we did say, you know, the type of case may be considered a high-profile case, and that -- and that's the major that's probably the reason that was submitted up the chain to make a determine by E0 Technical eventually, not because of the issue of the political activity. And I think xgiwwawea, inaasubsequent email, even said that, that she felt it was the let's see here. "Thanks for the heads up. I think we should take a few" -- no, that's not the one I want. But I think it was clear, she thought it was the high~profile consideration of the case is why they wanted it, not that they would be able to process it any differently than we would have. Do you know whether E0 Technical was processing the cases? A I do not know for a fact, because I didn't see the cases, but I would you know, from these email strings where she said they wanted two cases, those, I'm sure, were assigned, but I can't tell you that for sure. BY Counsei Do you knowrgenerally the level of involvement E0 Technical 150 had with dealing with Tea Party cases in this time period? A I do not. Again, that -- you know, my my level of processing this was, you know, withinE3days after assignment, and once we made that bucket call or whatever was going that was going up the chain to, and someone else would decide that. >>Aumoi" we've been told that E0 Technical was involved because they were going to give legal guidance on the this difficult issue of how to determine whether the 561(c)(4) organizations were primarily engaged in promoting social welfare. Do you -- do you have any information that would contradict that? A I do not. Let's take a look at Exhibit 3 for a moment, and turn to page 2 of the document, and take a look at the email in the middle of the page from to yourself, dated June 2nd, 2611. A Uh-huh. I just have a quick question about it. The email says in part, Do the applications specify/ state, quote, Tea Party? If not, how do we know applicant is involved with the Tea Party movement? I At the time, what did you understand "the Tea Party movement" to mean? A I didn't have a clear understanding of what the Tea Party movement meant. I would again say that my approach to this was my 151 agents were identifying these cases as possible Tea Party movement cases, and I went back to the three senior agents and asked them the issues that would make them or allow them to come to that conclusion. Did you understand the Tea Party movement, you personally, to mean more than organizations with just the word "Tea Party" in their name? I A Yes. what specifically did you understand it to mean? A Again, when I would see -- and I think I gave this example earlier -- the fact that a case had "Tea Party" in the organization's name, you needed to go back into the case file and review the issues and see exactly, you know, what their activities were, what they were trying to do. And my one example of a legitimate, you know, charitable organization was what I'm talking about. So you couldn't depend totally on that being in the title. Did you understand organizations involved in the Tea Party movement to be involved in political advocacy? A Not necessarily. I think I'm -- I think I'm a little confused at this point. So1uhen_you were identifying potential Tea Party cases, were you and quotefunquote, because I'm just reading from this email -- were the Tea Party cases being identified within your unit all part of the Tea Party movement, and by that I mean the political movement of the Tea Party? 152 A I wasn't doing this, my agents were, and that was not my understanding of their review. There's many facets to what their review would entail, and, again, they go back into the case and they look at issues. And so the issues that they find within that case, in their mind, could have said this could be this movement, and I believe that's exactly'what [asked them when] went out for'this information. what was your understanding of what was supposed to be sent to Group 7822 under the label "Tea Party cases"? what did that encompass? I think that's what we're trying to specify. A I'm not really sure that I had a really good definition of the parameters of what that would encompass. This all goes back to individual cases and what is presented. And I think I mentioned this before, that regardless of what the name of an organization is, if their activities are exclusively educational, okay, they could qualify through 5@1(c) (3) as an educational organization, but you wouldn't know that are unless you really review the entire case and see what their activities are. And so you could find, as we've talked about before, other issues in there that would indicate this may then be more of a political organization than an educational organization. BY Counsel So, is your understanding that your screeners could find an organization that had "Tea Party" in its name or was associated with the Tea Party movement that did not get sent to 7822? A That's a possibility. I can tell you I'm not specifically 153 aware of that. Did you have the authority, though, if you -- if your screeners identified a case that you thought was within the 35 percent that could be closed immediately, but that had "Tea Party" in its name, or-was identified politically'with the Tea Party'movement, did you have the authority to approve that application and close the case? A If the case was, you know, in toto correct -- Q- Yes. A -- and all of the considerations that I may have were satisfied, I would have the authority to approve that. If you would just elaborate. what do you mean by "correct," meaning well, you know -- Complete, is that what you meant? A Not so much complete. But, I mean, as I said before, if the activities in an organization are all educational, you know, that you know, that ends up to be a call, and depending on how the definition goes and how the issues are that e- when we talk about percentages, that, you know, it worked that way. I guess really what I'm saying is that I guess you're asking me that, you know, was I mandated, and the answer to that is no, I was not. BY Coonsef Did your screeners understand that they had the option of 154 presenting a case to you that was related to the Tea Party movement that they thought could be closed without being sent to Group 7822? A My screeners had the option to discuss any case they had with me. Did screeners send cases to you between May 2616 and now, really since you've stopped being the screening group manager, that involved the Tea Party movement, but didn't involve a parent political organization and recommend that you close them? A I could not address that For sure. Again, we're looking at volumes of cases that, you know, if someone brings something to me, I would evaluate it, and view that on its facts and circumstances, and give my advice. 155 Do you just mean you don't remember if you did or didn't? A I don't recall. Go ahead. -- If we could just have a quick second. . [Discussion off the record.] In the last hour, you spoke with my colleagues a little bit about the BOLO and you mentioned that you did not use the BOLO frequently. Is that correct? A I did not use the BOLO. The BOLO exists and people were aware of it, so, you know, it was something I -- my group had and they were given directions on how to consider that. Directions by who? D- I gave them directions. And what directions did you give them? A As I mentioned before, if there was a case that appeared on the BOLO, they were to transfer it to Group 7822. And, again, the rationale was that my people looked at multiple cases in a given day, they didn't make phone calls, they didn't write letters, they didn't do Internet research, they didn't do any follow--up, so therefore, I 156 didn't want them to spend their time with the instructions that the BOLO would instruct. Normally, as I.1ooked at the occasion, it says go to -- go to your manager. And that's why it was changed, because I said, I don't want them to come to me. There's too many cases. And so that's when we were told to send the cases to 7822. And when the cases were sent to 7822, did you think that that meant that they were going to get an enhanced scrutiny, and by that I mean an enhanced scrutiny beyond going to a normal full development inventory? A No. what that meant to me was that the BOL0 action would be taken by someone in that group. Did you receive questions from your screeners about the .language in the BOL0, about how to interpret it? A I don't recall that. So the screeners in your group did use the Is that fair? I A I they're they were aware of the BOLO. And I'm not sure what you mean by using it. They were aware of it. And so to the extent that their awareness provided them a tool in saying, oh, this case should go tot3roup 7822, then, no, but they they didn't utilize it like other groups would. If someone in California, for example, found a case on the BOLO, they probably returned it somewhere, because it should have been somewhere else. I don't know for sure, but that's . 157 what my -- BY Someone in California would be a determination specialist working a case? A Sure. So in your view, the BOLO was used more by the specialists developing cases to_clarify whether or not they should be the one reviewing it? A The BOLO the major use of the BOLO was after the screening process. The B0 -- A There's multiple reasons that could happen. I mean, you know, the case development, your answers to your questions can produce situations. BY Did the BOLO also help screeners determine when where to send applications when they were reviewed? A No, it did not, because my direction was if it appeared on the BOLO, it was sent to Group 7822. So the BOLO told you where to send that particular case, right, to group -- I A. Not for screeners. So the BOLO the screeners received didn't tell them to send the cases to Group 7822? A Part of the BOLO is instructions For, you know, that 158 particular issue. huHWhfi- Do you have that iteration? Yeah. I mean' you can at and 'says you know, normally -- normally it would say, you know, contact your manager or, you know -- and because my screeners didn't have the luxury of time, I was told they should send those to 7822. So even if the BOLO said send to 7822, you didn't interpret that instruction as being for the screeners? It may have had the same instruction, in other words? A It could have. I see what you're talking about. BY Canned? So I'm handing you a document. I'n1not sure if you've seen it before. It was created for the TIGTA audit. It's called the BOLO iteration document. Are you familiar with this document? A I am not. -- Is this -- did you mark it? Yes. It's marked Exhibit 5. was marked for identification.] Exhibit NO. 5 -- Thanks. BY Eounse!' So it's called the BOLO iteration history and it's dated 4/36/2612, and it lists the different iteration of the relevant section 159 of the BOLO. And on this you can see a column called Disposition of Emerging Issue, and in that column, you can see instructions that indicate where cases that fit the criteria or the issue description should be sent. In the version of the BOLO that the screeners received, was there a Disposition of Emerging Issue column? A They got the same BOLO list as everyone. Is this what the BOLO list looked like? A I cannot -- this is -- this is -- if you look at this, it's different dates. I mean, I'm not sure. I'm not sure what this is. I've never seerlit before. I think this isaawork product of'the'TIGTA. You' re correct. This is a compilation of all the different BOLOs. I'thin|< if you're looking at Disposition of Emerging Issues, was the types of directions you see here, any case should be sent to Group 7822, was that the type of direction that was in the BOLOs that were used, in your experience? A I mean, the BOLO first off, the BOLO was not a primary document for screeners. They received a copy of the BOLO, but most of this activity happened after the case was reviewed, and so my agents my agents then used, you know, issues that they identified in the cases that were then sent to the proper bucket. If any issue was on the BOLO, and it's my understanding the BOLO had a number of different pieces of information on it, would your 160 screeners send all of those things to Group 7822? A Correct. So anything that occurred on the BOLO went over to 7822 -- A Correct. -- from screeners? A From screeners. And the rationale ends up to be they just really were in a time constraint and they -- they didn't have, you know, the situation where they could make phone calls or write letters or make, you know, the additional -- And so to be clear, we're not just talking about the Tea Party iterations, we're talking about whatever else was on the A That's correct. BY Tfifilflae In early June July 2611, you became aware that Lois Lerner had a meeting with some individuals to discuss, amongst other things, theeway that Cincinnati was screening Tea Party cases. Is that correct? A when did I become aware of that? well, actually, did you become aware -- A I -- -- in July -- A I -- of 2611? A Againthe email I refreshed earlier, before I looked at that email, I didn't recall it. I mean, 161 I because that really I wasn't involved at that level and I was not involved with the, you know, meeting itself, so until my mind was refreshed, I didn't really recall that. were concerns expressed by Lois Lerner ever communicated to you? Not to my recollection. Now that you've been refreshed? -- Other than the July '11 email we talked about earlier? N0. -- Or including? Including the July '11 -- July '11 email. Do you have any other recollection other than July of 11 in that email? No. -- You asked a question. Let him answer it. -- It was I was just confusing myself. 1 Yeah- '3 5 -. 5 I think earlier it came up that there was a July '11 email in which some concerns from Lois Lerner were addressed down to you, but nothing about the details of what those concerns were or why they 162 were expressed to you or anything about that. So if perhaps your -- your memory could be refreshed and we could discuss that, that would be helpful. A Other -- other than that email, that -- Not other than the email. A 'But, no, that -- Including the email. -- They want to know about that email. That email is the only I mean, that that I really did not recollect until my memory was refreshed. And other than looking at that email, I know of nothing beyond that. why don't you take a look at it, and we'll see if we can refresh your memory. A Other than this -- Hold on. So let's wait for the question now. . So you've had a chance to review the email? A Uh-huh. when was that email from? Can you tell me the date of the A July 5th, 2911. And on July 5th, 2911, who communicated to you that 163 Ms. Lerner had expressed concerns at this meeting? A That email was from And what were the concerns relayed to you that Ms. Lerner had? A There's multiple ones in this email, and that's -- Can you tell me what they are? -- without reading the email, is the issue, -- we re hopeful that you're going to get all these emails very soon, and once you do, I think the emails will speak for themselves. To have to play this -- this is just not to anyone's benefit, especially to try and have him summarize an email that's out there. It speaks for itself. Of which he has no independent recollection. Yes>> And on .. we want the record to be accurate about -- On the issue that I see that would involve screening is that Lois wanted to know about cases and want said the screening group, are they seeing any patternpattern, I would have responded, which I did not. So I really 1. that's -- yeah. I don't really don't recall the email other than refreshing at this point. Is that not an accurate -- -- N0- 164 reflection of what's in the email. -- I No. I think there's confusion as to what the question is, complete confusion, and I think and I don't want to put words in your mouth, I think the question is what issue did :relay to you in her July 5th email as to what Lois was concerned about. Is that -- Yes. That's exactly my question. -- So if you can answer that without reading the email, even though you've already said your memory can't be refreshed from reading the email, then -- He's saying his memory's refreshed. You know, I 1 still don't recall this email. I don't recall what, you know, response, if any, that I provided -- -- Then I think if his memory' not refreshed, we ought to -- That' all. we need to move on. During the period your screening group was instructed to send cases t0l3roup 7822, did you have any knowledge of how cases would' be processed once they got to Group 7822? A I did not. You didn't have any knowledge of the level of scrutiny the cases would -- 165 A I did not. . receive? And you didn't know that decisions on these cases could be delayed for any significant period of time? A I did not. After the cases left me -- That's it. A -- you know. Thank you very much. a . Off the record. [Discussion off the record.] we will go back on the record, please. It's 3:55. we will begin the next session. I I just have a short follow-up and then I'm going to ?3 Li 4' turn it back over to -. BY Guun3e4- In response to a question from my colleagues last hour about a political article that they entered into the record, you responded that you believe the targeting of the Tea Party groups had to do with consistency. I'm paraphrasing your comments. Yeah. And I think you paraphrased them incorrectly. Just -- BY Okay. So my question is, I just want to be clear, do you have personal knowledge of the motivations of Nashington and how they worked the Tea Party cases? 166 A I do not. Thank you. BY Bounmi None whatsoever? A None whatsoever. Thank you. -- And I'm sure the record speaks for itself, but I don't recall him saying anything about targeting anything. BY Umunm: in the last hour you were led through a series of questions, you gave a series of answers in which you said you have no reason to believe. Do you recall that? A That's correct. By that, do you mean you have no personal knowledge? A I think the question they asked me, do you have a reason to believe, and I said I do not have reason to believe. And is that because you have no personal knowledge? A That's correct. Okay. Thank you. I zguwnsel So is let me ask this. In those answers where you said you had no reason to believe, and I know this is a broad question, did you answer those questions, I have no reason to believe, because you had no personal knowledge? 3 And because it's a broad question, because we don't 167 know what questions, if we want to go back, I hate to say this, and you want to ask those question and he says, I don't remember, I don't know, I don't recall or whatever, I have no personal knowledge, that's great, but I don't -- without more specificity, I'm afraid to move forward on that. BY I believe you testified earlier that you could have approved Tea Party applications if they met a certain criteria. Is that correct? A what -- what I indicated is that each case stands on its own, and the specificity within a case was not out of the realm, that if all information was provided that met the criteria of a case, that there's a possibility that it could be approved. So you had the authority to approve those cases? A Sure did. And did you, in fact, approve any Tea Party cases? A I can't address that. I don't know. You don't recall? A -I don't. I mean, I didn't review every case, as I have indicated before. we had 4 and 5,600 cases a month go go through our group, and that, you know, some cases -- 2 - can You Speak I didn't I didn't really; you know, thoroughly address all cases like that. 1 And I want to also elaborate, if it's okay, as to 168 what -- when you say, meet all specificity, what you mean. well, it depends, again. If you -- it's the case, it's the -- the content that is existing in the case. So the issues, the activities, all the different things that we're looking at, and I think I talked about at the beginning, you know, the completeness of the case, you know, the process of the organizing documents, the to make sure everything was, you know, precise like it should be, can a case be approved, yes, it can. Okay. And as you sit here today, you have no recollection of approving a Tea Party case? A I do not. Okay. May I take just one second? So in August of 2919, if a Tea Party application for status came in, was it judged automatically on the merits, or because of the BOLO, was it sent right away over to 7822? A It had to be reviewed. And I and I talked about this before, because we get into looking at the name of an organization and then we need to look at what that organization's doing. And so the whole review of the case, looking at, you know, the issues, looking at the activities, it's the composiixaof everything that's in that case that an agent would make a determination as to what bucket it should 169 go into or to what group it should be assigned. who would decide whether or not it ended up with 7822? A That would be the agent. And how much of their decision would be guided by the Because -- because if -- if the BOLO simply says the name Tea Party, is that guidance to send to 7822 or is that guidance to consider sending to 7822? .If you know what the line agent is thinking with regards to the BOLO. At the time, I -- I'm not sure. You know, the BOLO is different at different times, and well, let's say in August of 2818. A I really am not able to address what would be in the -- in the agent's mind. I Yes. Actually, I have another question. Once E0 Technical decided that they did want to review these cases, if you'd received a Tea Party case after that when you were waiting for the review, did you have the authority to approve one of those cases anyway if you found that there was no indication of political activity but it was clearly a Tea Party caseTechnical? That's right. It's while this -- this whole issue is being reviewed by E0 Technical. 170 I 1 a from the end of February to April? I think her question -- I think her question is after you became aware that E0 Technical, and I could have been wrong -- Uh--huh. -- wanted the case, if any Tea Party case came in to the screening group, did you have the authority to approve it? Is that your question? Yeah. If the Because it's our understanding that when these cases came in, they're automatically flagged as subject to the secondary review, that it was based on whether or not they fit within the Tea Party parameters. A Are are you I guess;I am confused From the standpoint of not my former answer, the fact that an organization's name was Tea Party Right. Not necessarily just the name, but that it was a Tea Party case, one of these Tea Party cases. Could you then look at that application, after E0 Technical said theyimanted these cases, and say this case has no political activity and we're going to go ahead 171 and approve it? A That alone wouldn't -- I mean, there's just all kinds of facets, there's there's different things that you would look at. Each case, again, stands on its own, and -- and so it would be, you know, impossible for me to answer that question without having the case to look at. Right. But, I mean, just the general handling of the Tea Party cases, once those were identified as cases that were heightened scrutiny cases or the special attention cases, those were no longer in your office, right, because those would be checked off and sent to 7822? Those were no longer in the hands of your screeners, there's no longer a determination to be made by you. A 'well -- Mr. She's assuming it's already gone up, that there's already a second level of review being undertaken, right? Right. Mr. -- while that's being undertaken, could you then just -- well, there's already been selected cases that were going to be subject to the secondary review. Mr. -- You're saying at that period while they're being -- That class of case. Mr. I -- could they -- could he then approve in any way? Sounse? Right. Because I think that's the confusion, that you could have gotten -- 172 e. .. -- a Tea Party case. I (Jr: nup ar Once a case once a case left my group, I -- it was assigned to another group, which is 7822, and it was then under the control of that manager. BY Gounmfl Right. So as soon as -- so every time you had a Tea Party case, after the instructions were given by EC Technical, it would be -- it would leave your office, it would leave your manager, your group? A It depends on the facts and circumstances that are presented in the case file. For me to say every case went there, I'm not able to say that. 0|we know'HMaapplicant is involved in the Tea Party movement? That one, one sentence is really what I address. And I say the following are issues that could indicate a case to be considered a potential Tea Party case and sent to Group 7822. I under I interpret "consider a potential" is not a mandate, and that's what I get from your question. So it is possible that that you could have personally approved cases that included the words Tea Party, Patriots or 9/12 Project and not sent them to Group 7822 for secondary screening? A It's a possibility that I would approve a case that 17? presented all of the necessary requirements that we look at in a case, including all of the issues, all of the activities. Each case is standing on its own merit and we are going to consider all facts and circumstances within that case to determine the disposition, which could be that case could be closed. Right. But you don't recall any case with the words Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 Project actually being closed? A I don't recall. Okay. Thank you. And just to clarify, you mentioned that these items were -- these were the this was the list of terms that you were given when you asked your agents about auto revocation casessay I'm sorry. Yeah, you said that. A I'm sorry. I'm confused, because that's a new term we haven't heard. A I'm sorry. I misspoke. It was it was in response to -- request for Tea Party cases. Okay. -- I want to shift gears a little bit here. Sir, it's my 178 understanding that at some point in the spring of 2612, the IRS initiated an internal investigation into the actions of your determinations with respect to Tea Party cases. Are you aware of that? A Yes, I am. when did you become aware of this internal investigation? A I believe I was asked to participate in an interview that was conducted in our offices by Joseph Grant's senior staff. Do you recall who interviewed you? A I believe it was -- And, sir, were you interviewed alone? A No. who else was interviewed with you? A I really don't recall the entire room, but it was rather expansive. I do recall that was there. I do recall that,' I think, was there. I do recall was there. I do recall -- was there. You know, there there were a number of folks there that -- And these people you reference, are they people from D.C. or Cincinnati? I A Both. Okay. So you were not the only Cincinnati employee who was interviewed at this time? A That's correct. And what kind of questions did and and everyone else ask you? 179 A I was the very first one that was interviewed, and I was asked about my understanding of the case that -- had, you know, come into my office with the concerns about the the high profile aspect of the case. And I in the interview said exactly the same things that I said here, that you know, I asked for the email, which he provided. And at that point in time I, you know, sent it to my manager, and it was sent up the line to to -- So the interview only had to deal with that initial email and then your subsequent actions sending it up and down the chain? A That's correct. 180 BY when you use the term "high profile, what do you -- what _do you mean by that? A The high profile case ended up to be defined in this particular instance as something that was having media attention; in other words, it was in the newspaper quite a bit about, you know, Tea Party cases or Tea Party organizations. BY Did or or anyone else from D.C. give you a sense as to why they were doing this review, this investigation? A I don't recall that that was an opening remark or that I had any -- you know, any indication other than them gathering information. Do you have any understanding what they were going to use that information for? A I did not. I knew that it was Joseph Grant's senior staff, and that's you know, I was asked to respond to the interview. And as a group manager, did this ever come up in the group manager meetings, the fact that -- and had come to Cincinnati to conduct this interviewknowledge. Did you ever speak to -- about this interview process? A No, I did not. Not to my knowledge. Sir, to your let me ask you this first. Did you ever 181 speak to your area managers about this interview? A Not to my knowledge. Q. The people who were interviewed by the Nashington folks, were they just the group managers or were they also line employees? A They were line employees. Okay. A I believe these interviews lasted 3 days, and I was on day one. Okay. A If that gives you a scope. And, sir, to your knowledge, other than interviewing you and others, did they review case files and do other kind of investigative work? A That I wasn't involved in any of that, but I I am aware that they came back at another time and reviewed case files. Do you know how many case files roughly? A Like I say, I had no involvement in that and I I really don't know. Okay. And, sir, do you know, when this investigation concluded, how long it took, approximately? A For me or For the investigation as a whole. It feels like it's still going on, doesn't -it? I believe that it was scheduled for 3 days. Now, because I was the first one up, I I don't really recall if it lasted l82 -the entire 3 days, and I do those dates are somewhere. Yeah. And; againversus reports. I think he's clarified his involvement -- Sure. in what they were doing and that's what he knows. So you were interviewed one day, you're aware of 3 days of interviews. It's possible that the investigation lasted longer, because they were doing document reviews at a later date? A It could have. Okay. And are you aware that-- and: made any findings or conclusions as a part of this investigation? A I'm not aware of that. So you were never made aware of the results or anything like that? A I was not. Okay. Did anything change as a result of this investigation? A Not to my knowledge. All right. Sir, I want to turn to the TIGTA audit. It's my understanding that the TIGTA audit began in March of 2612. when did you become aware of the fact that TIGTA was conducting an audit? A I There's a document that I was notified to participate in an interview with the the TIGTA individual. 183 Okay. And so that that notice of the interview was the first time you became aware that the audit was occurring? A Correct. Do you have that document to refresh the witness' recollection? Here it is. I I for an interview on Monday, August 6th. BY And what day was this email from A This was on July 26th. I Is this email just to you or to others in your determination? A It was to others. You and others? A Correct. Okay. How many others? A One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. - Eight- Seven and two copies. Okay. And were they to the best you can tell from that document, were the recipients of that email also scheduled for interviews? A Correct. Okay. 184 what do you recall-- telling you about the reasons why TIGTA wanted to speak with you? -- If you remember anything. I don't remember anything. I'm trying to you know, from -- he actually, he was acting for-- and that's why it came from him, I'm pretty sure, but he was -- just said this is the schedule, make yourself available for this TIGTA interview. but you were aware that it had something to do with the evaluation of Tea Party applications? A I believe I did. And you knew that from a conversation with -- A I don't recall. what was your -- to the best of your memory, your reaction to learning that you were being asked to be interviewed by the IG about this issue? A I have talked to TIGTA before, and I, you know -- not not any really concern. BY flaunse were you, in fact, interviewed by A Yes, I was. On that date referenced in the email? A Yes, I was. And that's the only time that you were interviewed by (0 185 were you ever interviewed another date? A No, I wasn't. And, sir, I think you made reference to this before, but you were interviewed with -- in the room? A She -- Is that correct? A She sat by my side. Directly by your side -- A Yes, She did. -- like -- is today? A Right to my right. what was her role in the interview? If we can have a 'moment just to talk with Mr. -- [Discussion off the record.] Back on the record, please. [hole A I wasn't told. Did she say anything? A "Hello." I mean, nothing of any consequence in the interview. It was a surprise to me. I never really had participated 186 in anything1with, you know -- normally, I thinkiuhat I'm trying to say, these interviews were one--to-one, and and so she was there. So you were not made aware beforehand that she would be there? A I can't recall that. Okay. And you mentioned before that you had other interactions with TIGTA in your career. Is that right? A Occasionally, for different situations. Sure. A Uh--huh. Have you ever been in a situation where you've been interviewed by TIGTA with someone like in the room with you? A No, I have not. I was -- there on your behalf? was she representing you? A She was not, to my knowledge. Okaythere? A I did not. Okay. Have you ever in your previous interactions with TIGTA had -- have you ever had anyone other than TIGTA staff in the room when you've been interviewed? A No, I had not. And why did you feel it was -- you said you were surprised, 187 I think, when you saw present? A well, it wasn't that I felt surprised, but, again, you know, I wasn't sure why she was there. were you ever given an opportunity in the -- were you ever given an opportunity in the interview with TIGTA to communicate information to TIGTA without in the room? A No, I was not. So there was never a time at the end of the interview where TIGTA said to you or -- said to you -- could leave the room and allow you to communicate with TIGTA privately? A Not that I recall. Did you find that unusual? A You know, it's not like I interviewed with TIGTA every day. I mean, it it was what it was and I accepted it for that, but like you indicated before, other TIGTA interviews, it was just one and one. How do you feel about the appropriateness of: being in that interview? I - Does his opinion matter on this? I think it does, yeah. Again, you know, I'm I'm quite a line and staff person, and was my manager and it was what it was, and that's the way I accepted it. At that point in time, you know, that's what my feelings were. what are your feelings now? 188 A Probably about the same. BY 1 Did you did you ask TIGTA why-- was in the room? A I did not. are you familiar with the TIGTA audit report they put out last month? A I have read it over. Do you generally agree with the findings of the report? -- If you want to ask him about a specific finding, I guess, but even that, again -- The report stands by itself. I feel that there could be some inaccuracies in there. It is what it is, and so -- what parts do you think are inaccurate? A Not so much inaccurate, but not fully investigated or fully described. Such as? A well, the things we talked about today about providing I know one thing that came to me, about this criteria issue. And it wasn't criteria that I solicited, it was, you know, tell me about issues. I mean, the whole context and understanding of that portion, I felt, was misrepresented, but that's my personal feeling about what happened to me. The rest of the TIGTA interview, I wasn't involved in any of the other participants, so the only thing that I could look 189 at was the part that was pertaining to me. disciplined as a result of the actions that are contained within the to Your knowledge, has anyone in the IRS been TIGTA report? A Not to my knowledge. -- well, when and where? You don't know anyone anywhere? I No, I do not. Not about this TIGTA audit. Yeah. The actions that were referenced in the TIGTA.audit. -- Just do you know anyone who's been put on administration leave, or you're not sure or you don't know? I don't know? have you ever been aware of an IRS official or employee who has disclosed confidential tax information to a third party? A Do I know an individual? Have Ybu ever been aware of that circumstance? A Not on an official basis. You know, office gossip, those kind of things. I'm not really totally aware of of that particular instance. Okay. what kind of office gossip have you heard? A Exactly what you said, okay, there was a third party disclosure. And I have no idea what it was or who it was disclosed 190 to or anything about it, because I1uasn't part of it, I wasn't informed of it, and -- and I really don't even know the individual that may have done this. I don't even know that it happened. Okay. So you're just generally familiar with the fact that it may have happened? A Sure. . Cincinnati office of the IRS improperly released nine applications for tax exempt status to a media group? A Am I aware of that? Yes. Do you have any personal knowledge of this? A I do not. To your knowledge, has anyone been held responsible for that inappropriate release? A I do not know that. have you ever discussed aphlications for tax exempt status with any officials in the National Treasury Employees Union? A Specific -- Applications. A Applications? That's correct. A I don't believe I have. Have you ever discussed the process for evaluating groups 191 of applications with the national -- A Not with the national office. I have very limited contact with the union. Have you had that conversations with the local chapter of the union? A The only thing I would be hesitant to say, because I under 7114 routinely invite the union to attend all of my meetings, and what -- whatever could have been said or or may have been said with their attendance there, I just don't recall. So with that in mind, you know, something could have been said, but not that I recollect. Has there been a meeting or a discussion that you've been asked about today that you recall having membership of the union -- representatives of the union present for? A Not to my knowledge. were you aware of inquiries from Members of Congress about potential targeting of conservative groups by the A Inquiries by Congress? That's right. -- I just pause, because I want you to answer the question, but you may need to have your memory refreshed. I may need my memory refreshed, because I don't know of any specific instances that I was aware that, you know -- If we may have a moment, please. Of course. 192 [Discussion off the record.] See if that refreshes your memory. . And can I ask what the email is he's reading from? It's an email dated February -- i Email chain. Email chain dated February 24th, 2012, from 2 and W35 or -- 24th at 4:25 p.m. And there's and below it is another February 24th email from_ to -- And then the originating email is an email from Lois Lerner to and with others cc'd. That email is February 24th at 3:46 p.m. So I guess if the questionis did he know about any congressional inquiry, this email references that. Okay . -- And I mean, the reference says that. Do I recall? No, I do not. And even now that I read it over, I do recall the question in the email, but the the subject matter was was not of -- pertinent to me, because I had nothing to do with what she -- BYu?ounsei what do you -- A -- was asking me. what do you recall the question in the email to be? A Talking again about the BOLO. And we have gone through 193 that, that I had nothing to do with the BOL0, you know, from any aspect. And to clarify, this is a question from - to you 0" 0" M5- Lethe" A The email is from-- to myself and And that's where the question is posed? A Correct. -- And there is a congressional reference in the subject line of the email. In the whole email chain dating back to Lois Lerner? Correct. In fact, the -- it appears -- the document will speak for itself and I don't want to testify, but it looks as if the congressional follow-up is in the originating email, which is the 3:46 email from Lerner to Is the congressional -- - Is that correct? YES. -- Okay. That's correct. Is the congressional request that's referenced in the email, did it come from members or staff of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform? A This chain of emails does not indicate that. - And just for clarity, congressional request, is it -- -- Congressional follow- up . 194 There you go. BY Does it concern a briefing or a meeting that Lois Lerner did for committee staff? -- If it's clear from what you're looking at, you can answer that. It references a meeting. Does it say what date the meeting was? A Umh Or is there context in the email that can tell you what date the meeting was? A The email is February 24th, and I would assume that, you know, that would be a pretty good day. That the meeting occurred the same day? A I it does not say that. Yeah. I don't want him to speculate. 'Yeah. And that -- that just did not say that. Yeah- I mean, I'll tell you what it says right here. I just got back from a meeting, so, I mean -- Okay. A you know, I'm not sure if that was on the 24th or when it was, but still, you know. 195 did you at all respond to that request that question from -- A The question as it was posed didn't require a response, and I don't believe I did. Did -- Do you remember or not? I rueme rt . That's fine. 196 RPTS [4:35 on of rs' . Le appeared at a panel of the American Bar Association. Are you aware of that appearance she did? A I'm aware. He just asked me if I'm aware. I'm aware. were you aware before she did that that she was going to appear at that panel? A I was not. were you aware that she had publicly acknowledged the intormation contained in the TIGTA audit on that A I did not. Sir, are you aware that Acting Commissioner werfel is currently looking into the IRS's actions with respect to the Tea Party cases? A I am aware of that. And how did you become aware of that fact? A The newspaper. Have you ever spoken to Mr. werfel about his -- A I have not. Do you know what this review will entail? A I do not. Have you been contacted by anyone in IRS leadership to 197 discuss your involvement with Tea Party cases? A I have not. - Have there been any changes at the IRS as a result of the announcement that Mr. werfel will do this review, changes to the procedure you used to deal with these Tea Party cases? A I am not aware of that. It's not my area any longer. Okay. do you have a personal email account? A Yes, I do. Have you ever used your personal email account to conduct official government business? -- Outside of communications with counselOkay. Sir, I'm sure you've heard the notion that this is all a result of two rogue employees in Cincinnati. Do you agree with that assessment? A I do not know of any rogue employee located in Cincinnati. Could you expound upon that? A I really would need to know the definition of what a "rogue employee" is. I do not know any rogue employees in Cincinnati. That characterization is incorrect. And sir I'm sure you heard the notion that Cincinnati is to blame for this, and that political leadership here in Washington has said the problem originated and is contained in the Cincinnati office. Do you agree with that? 198 A I do not. why not? A I just am aware of the process. And I really at this point in time havteno definitive knowledge that would lead me to believe that. that is true. And when you say "the process, what do you mean by "the process"? You said you were aware of the process. A In Cincinnati of how we process cases, and I know from a manager's standpoint the scrutiny that is provided on agent cases. Probably, you know, scrutiny is more intense in other areas than mine, and I would be the first to admit that because of volumes. "But we do have a quality department._ we do have a number of checks and balances that would lend me to believe that whatever the definition of a rogue agent is, which I don't know,-it would be difficult for me to believe that. I see. So it's your perspective, sir, that the problems identified by TIGTA, the people responsible for those are not in the Cincinnati office; is that correct? -- what problems? Yeah, I can't really -- it would be a definition of the problem, okay, and everybody would have their own ideas. Do you understand the question, You know what you did; that's all you know, all right? Counsel 199 So is it fair to say that Cincinnati was not the only part of the IRS that was involved in these Tea Party cases? Is it fair to say that Washington was involved in those as well?' A That's a fair statement. So therefore, do you think it's fair to put all the blame on Cincinnati? -- He's not answering what's fair or unfair. I'm in a position of not being able to answer thatthink you mentioned this before, the IRS has paid for your travel here today, correct? A Yes they did. Are they paying for your counsel, too? A No, they are not. who is paying for your counsel, sir? A I am. Sir, as we conclude, is there any other information that you think would be useful for the committee to know as it continues its investigation? A Not at this time. Okay. We appreciate it. A Thank you. [Discussion off the record.] BY Couneel' A moment ago when you were talking with my colleagues about 200 the TIGTA interview -- A Okay. was there anything that you felt uncomfortable disclosing in the TIGTA interview because was in the room? A Probably not. As you can tell, I do talk a little bit, and so, you know, maybe I was a little guarded, but I told the truth, and I answered the questions, which is what I did here. So I gave the answers to the questions that were asked.' when you say "guarded," what do you mean? A I just was very intent on concentrating on the question asked and delivering the answer to that question. Did you withhold any information during the TIGTA interview because was in the room? A No, I did not. Did you answer any of TIGTA's questions differently because 1 was in the room? A I don't believe I did. You mentioned that you had done TIGTA interviews before. Do you know about how many? A Probably two. And do you know whether or not those interviews were conducted pursuant to a TIGTA audit or a TIGTA investigation? A TIGTA investigation. The other two were TIGTA investigations? 201 A Yes. And are you aware of what -- the context of the interview you did regarding the issue we're talking about today? A Do I know what now? whether or not the interview that you did with TIGTA about this Tea Party issue was an audit or an investigation? -- Do you know if there's a distinction between an audit and an investigationHomrxfi And the first two interviews you did were TIGTA investigations? A Correct. BY momma; And this was one was an audit? A Correct. BY flounaH- when you were speaking with my colleagues a couple of minutes ago, you were talking in response to a question about whether there was someone to blame For the Tea Party screening of cases. Do you think there is anyone to blame For what happened? A I'm not in a position of analyiing all of the Factors involved to make a good assessment on that question. I can address what pertained to me, and I believe that I handled this situation like I was expected to handle it; that I correctly elevated this issue to 202 my manager, who elevated it to the Washington office for direction and guidance from E0 Technical; and I feel that what I did was appropriate. And I can't really go beyond that because I have not been afforded the opportunity of knowing all of the ins and outs and facts that, you know, most of probably what I would know about this is somewhat in the news, and I don't really have a lot of consideration there. A few moments ago again while you were speaking with my colleagues, you said that the issue of screening Tea Party cases and how the Tea Party cases were reviewed was not isolated only in Cincinnati, but thatrwashington was involved as well. Do you remember that? A Not specifically, but, I mean, when you're talking about Nashington was involved in screening the cases? No. And I didn't mean if I said that, I didn't mean to. what I mean is you were asked was Nashington involved generally in this issue, or was Cincinnati only involved? Do you remember that? A In screening or total? Just this issue generally. A Okay. I recall that. when you said that, yes, Washington was involved, were you referring to the Technical Unit? A Yes, I was. were you referring to any other part of the IRS besides the Technical Unit? 203 A well, I mean, obviously from email tracks, I was aware of who, you know, is the manager that is responsible for the Technical Unit. And that's as far as my direct understanding of this would go. So you don't have direct knowledge of anyone in D.C. in the IRS being involved in this issue beyond the Technical Unit; is that correct? A Other than what could have been mentioned in emails. Obviously'we just discussed one that Lois Lerner was mentioned in. So to my knowledge, other than, you know, what I've talked about before, I do not know of anything else. Thank you so much. No questions. I have one. Our colleagues asked you about your reaction to the TIGTA report . And I wanted to ask if you agreed with useof the phrase "targeted" when it said that it found the IRS targeted specific groups applying for tax-exempt status? A I would need to have that definition. It would be my definition that it was not targeting, and I base that upon review of cases. Again, the most important thing is facts and circumstances, issues. That's what I'd been dedicated to for, you know, the number of years that I've been involved in this. And again, ygu know, as we go through this issue, again -- You realize when you stop talking, we're done. 204 a Based on your experience, you don't believe that either-you or your colleagues intentionally targeted the Tea Party group for A I'm not in a position to discuss anybody else's intention but my own, end I know that what I did was not targeting. Thank you. That concludes the interview, Thank you very much for cooperating. Thank you. [Nhereupon, at 4:56 the interview concluded.] 205 Certificate of Deponent/Interviewee I have read the foregoing pages, which contain the correct transcript of the answers made by me to the questions therein recorded. witness Name Date