House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, IRS Screening witness hearing transcripts

2013 IRS scandal
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/report-testimony-shows-that-irs-targeting-orders-did?ref=fpb

http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/images/stories/IRS_Screening_Manager_Part_I.pdf

http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/images/stories/IRS_Screening_Manager_Part_II.pdf

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C.

INTERVIEW OF:

Thursday, June 6, 2013, Washington, D.C.

The interview in the above matter was held in Room 2203, Rayburn House Office Building, commencing at 10 a.m.

Appearances:

For the COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM:
 * COUNSEL
 * COUNSEL
 * COUNSEL
 * COUNSEL
 * SENIOR PROFESSIONAL STAFF MEMBER
 * PROFESSIONAL STAFF MEMBER
 * MINORITY CHIEF COUNSEL
 * MINORITY COUNSEL
 * MINORITY COUNSEL
 * MINORITY COUNSEL
 * MINORITY COUNSEL
 * MINIORITY INTERN

For the COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS:
 * TAX COUNSEL
 * COUNSEL

This is a transcribed interview of John Shafer 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's staff from the House Committee on Ways and Means to attend this interview.

█████: Good morning.

█████: Good morning.

█████: Would you please state your name for the record, sir?

Mr. Shafer: John Shafer

█████: Thank you.

My name is ███ 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 majority staff.

█████: █████ █████ professional staff with the majority staff.

█████: █████ █████ oversight counsel, Ways and Means.

█████: █████ █████ minority staff, House Oversight Committee.

█████: █████ █████ House Oversight Committee counsel for minority staff.

█████: █████ █████ 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 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.

Mr. Shafer: Excuse me.

█████: The reporter cannot properly record nonverbal responses or gesture. Do you understand this?

Mr. Shafer: Yes, I do.

█████: Thank you.

We 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?

█████: Good morning. here with █████ █████ I am █████ █████: with the law firm of █████ on behalf of █████.

Mr. █████ █████ from the law firm of █████ 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?

Mr. Shafer: Yes, I do.

█████: And this requirement also applies to questions posed by congressional staff in an interview. Do you understand this?

Mr. Shafer: 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?

Mr. Shafer: Yes, I do.

█████: Is there any reason you are unable to provide truthful answers to today's questions?

Mr. Shafer: No, there is not.

█████: Do you have any questions before we begin?

Mr. Shafer: No, I do not.

█████: Great.

It is 10:06, 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, Mr. Shafer 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, █████ █████ 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 6103 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 █████ 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 help █████ 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 allow █████ 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 w·hat it is.

█████: Thank you, sir. We certainly appreciate that. And if █████ does need to review those documents in order to augment or refresh his memory, we are certainly willing to allow him to do so during the interview.

█████: I just want to be clear about your statement. You requested -- you expressed a desire to provide the committee documents that were in █████ possession to the IRS, and the IRS denied that request?

█████: No. We requested direct permission to provide you guys directly with documents.

█████: To the committee.

█████: To the committee. Citing 6103, the IRS said to us, if you provide us maybe with a list of what it is you want, maybe we could provide that. We said, we want you to provide to the committee everything that you have that's relevant to this investigation, and that we think it's in the best interest of everybody that all documents be provided in order to allow a full and truthful and complete interview of █████.

█████: In addition to that, with respect to the documents that you have there in front of you in that binder that refer to █████ experiences at the IRS that are documents that he was involved with in some way, you requested to the IRS that they allow you to produce those documents to the committee before this interview, and the IRS denied that request?

█████: Let me just ask one more time-- what's the question?

One more time.

█████: With respect to those documents there that are in front of you in that binder, which you've indicated to us are documents that are in █████ possession --

█████: They were the few documents █████ was able to quickly identify as relevant to the investigation, which he was then authorized by the IRS to share with █████ █████ and myself as part of his legal team.

█████: Thank you.

With respect to those documents, you expressed a desire to produce those documents to the committee?

█████: Directly from us to the committee, yes.

█████: And that request was denied by the IRS?

█████: The IRS said that we could give them a list of what it is that we may want to produce, and they would consider that request. We said, we want you to produce all documents, the thinking being because we didn't have complete access to all files, I don't want to be in a position of picking and choosing what documents we are going to turn over. So we want the IRS -- we've asked the IRS to provide all relevant documents, period.

█████: Quick question. So the binders that you prepared contain 6103 information?

█████: Potentially.

█████: Was that the concern of the IRS?

█████: The IRS cited 6i03 and disclosure concerns.

█████: Did you discuss the possibility of producing redacted versions of documents?

█████: We're not going to be in a position to determine what the IRS may think is 6103 or not. The IRS has access to all the documents we have. It's up to them to decide. We're not going to pic I< and choose what's going to be produced. As an employee, a current employee, of the IRS, █████ is prohibited from directly producing any documents directly to the committee.

█████: How many documents do you have there in your possession?

█████: It's hard to say. It's probably about 45 emails or so, plus a few meeting minutes and a few other --

█████: So these are emails and notes and minutes. They're not applications for tax-exempt status?

█████: Correct. There is reference, though, in the emails to some specific tax applications in which we're going to be mindful to make sure that we aren't disclosing any 6103 information.

█████: So the IRS granted you a 6103 waiver with respect to these documents?

█████: There is an exception under 6103 which allows us, as his attorneys, to review certain documents. The 6103(1)(4), we received that authorization from the IRS. That authorization is limited, though, to us. We are not able to extend that.

█████: So did the IRS explain to you that the committee is already in negotiations with agency?

█████: I'm sorry, we're not involved at all in those discussions. That's between the IRS and the committee.

█████: Who at the IRS were you speaking with?

█████: We were dealing with an attorney in counsel's office by the name of █████, and I believe his supervisor or the individual he was working with is an individual named █████.

█████: Thank you.

█████: And you will be preserving these materials--

█████: Correct.

█████: -- should they be requested in the future?

█████: Correct.

█████: Thank you, sir. We appreciate that clarification for the record.

It is 10:12, and we'll begin the first hour of examination.

EXAMINATION
BY █████

Q: Mr. Shafer I just wanted to get in with some general background questions about yourself and your role with the IRS. Sir, what is your current position with the IRS?

A I'm a frontline manager.

Q: Is that within EO Determinations? A Yes, it is.

Q: And you are based in Cincinnati, Ohio; is that correct? A Yes, I am.

Q: And how long have you been a frontline manager? A I have been a frontline manager for 13 years.

Q: And did you have any positions with the IRS previous to becoming a frontline manager? A Yes, I did.

Q: What were those? A I started the Service in 1992 as a representative of Taxpayer Service, where I performed duties on the call site answering tax law questions. I completed 4 years of filing seasons, and I then was successful as being promoted to revenue agent with exempt organizations, and that was in, I believe, April of 1996.

Q: So in April '96, you became a revenue agent? A Correct.

Q: And then in 2000, you became a frontline manager? A Correct.

Q: Okay. Thank you, sir. Now, as a frontline manager, do you supervise a group of employees? A Yes, I do.

Q: How many employees do you supervise? A Well, it changes from, you know, year to year, but the normal size of a group that I have supervised would have been 11 revenue agents, a clerk, and a secretary.

Q: And they all report to you; is that correct? A That's correct.

Q: And was there a time as a group manager in which you were in charge of the screening group? A Yes, it was. Yes.

Q: Are you still currently in charge of the screening group? A No, I'm not.

Q: What was the time period that you were in charge of the screening group? A I was in charge of the screening group from -- I believe it was around April of 2004, and that was until March 9, 2013.

Q: And, sir, why did you leave the screening group? A The program manager █████ went through a major reorganization, and I was asked to be the manager of the Program and Support Group.

Q: You said her name was █████ A █████ I'm sorry. That's her maiden name. I apologize.

Q: So █████ is the same person as █████ A That's correct.

Q: Okay.

BY █████

Q: Do you know why this reorganization occurred? A At that particular time, I really wasn't involved with the reorganization, but I was aware that there were two area managers that had been promoted, █████ and █████ to area managers, which then they move out of their -- you know, so there's two vacancies here, so they brought in some additional managers and realigned.

And like I say, I was not involved with any of this realignment, but I was aware of how it was going on. And █████ did ask me if I would be the frontline manager for Programs and Support.

Q: And is that a promotion or a lateral move? A It's a lateral move.

█████ Thank you.

BY █████

Q: Was █████ the program manager for EO Determinations at the time you were the screening group manager? A Yes, she was.

Q: And did you report directly to █████ A Off and on. Actually █████ was my area manager at one point in time, and then she got the job as the program director. And at that point in time, I had been through multiple area managers.

The realignment that we went through was not something that was unusual. There were numerous realignments throughout this period of, you know, 12 years that I'm talking about or 9 for the screening group. So this was not a consistent person that I would answer to. I do answer to her now, though.

Q: Okay. A I am considered to be part of her staff.

Q: I see.

And are there also area managers between the group manager and the program manager? A Yes.

Q: And who were those during the relevant time period of February 2012 through -- let's start with June 2012. A My area manager starting in February of 20

Q: I'm sorry, 2010. Excuse me. A -- of 2010 was

Q: Okay. A And- was located in El Monte, California.

Q: Oh, so she was in California? A That's correct.

Q: Okay. And, sir, during this time period, February 2010 through the present even, did you take direction from A Yes, I did.

Q: And in the same time period, sir -- actually let me ask more generally. Does EO Determinations have periodic manager-level meetings? A Yes, we do.

Q: How often are these meetings? A Monthly.

Q: Who attends these meetings? A There would be all of the managers that are in Cincinnati, a manager in Baltimore. We have a manager -- actually two managers in California. They would be attending on conferences. They would conference into our meeting.

Q: Okay. A And then all of the group managers in Cincinnati and the area managers in Cincinnati.

Q: So it's all the group managers in Cincinnati, the area managers in Cincinnati, 1111111111 presumably; is that correct? A Correct.

Q: And who were the managers in Baltimore? Are they group managers? A Yes, they are.

Q: And the managers in California, are they also group managers? A Yes, they are.

Q: Okay. So really these meetings are for group managers and above; is that correct? A Correct.

Q: And generally what do you discuss at these meetings? A Whatever is pertinent that -- you know, - would conduct the meetings, and her staff assistant would be at the meetings and would prepare the agenda and take the notes. So it would vary about whatever was going on at the particular time that we were in discussions. I don't know, you know, if I could say there was a general theme in any meeting, because it would change from month to month.

Q: Do you discuss new issues facing EO Determinations? A Occasionally we may, but I think it was more on a procedural situation. Also, I should mention that we do have a processing unit, and the processing manager also was part of this staff meeting.

Q: Okay. And where is the processing manager based, also in Cincinnati? A In Cincinnati.

Q: Thank you. A And her name is

Q: -,-? A Correct.

Q: Thank you. do you know what an emerging issue is in the context of EO Determinations? A I have an idea of what I believe an emerging issue is.

Q: What's your idea of what an emerging issue is? A An emerging issue would be -- in my particular group, I might mention that I always have confidence in the agents that work for me for a couple of reasons. Number one, my entire group consisted of volunteers. So there's something about -- I feel someone who wants to really do the job, that that's beneficial.

Also, I had hired rated agents. So I had three GS-13s and at this time seven GS-12s. And so these folks ended up with a variety of years of experience that probably went from the high level of 28 years to possibly somebody who would be in the 8- to 9-year status.

So they were folks that had a lot of experience. So as they would be reviewing these initial applications, they would be well aware of things that they may not have seen before. So at that point in time, they would have -- they were feeling free to discuss with me if this could possibly be considered something that would be an emerging issue. At that point in time, after our discussion, if we mutually agreed that there was a possibility, it was my instruction that these things were always elevated through our management chain for a decision.

BY

Q: And when you say they were volunteers, what do you mean by that? A Well, actually what happened is is that we had a group of folks that were manning the Technical Screening Group. And so when we first established this back in 2003, we had a memo of understanding, because we had to negotiate with the union that -- you know, how we would populate this group. But the first step was to ask for volunteers. So everyone within the division, which now is up to be like 120 agents, were given the opportunity as long as they -- I might backstep because all of them weren't 12s and 13s. This was limited to the higher-rated senior agents to volunteer for the group. And then we had a memo of understanding that if they couldn't populate the group with volunteers, then we would go down and we would begin through the union procedures of selection. And I think in all of the years that I was in the group, there was one agent that was selected that way.

BY

Q: You mentioned, sir, that you referenced that there was an increment in the union about populating this group; is that right? A Well, as it is with the IRS when we are dealing with bargaining unit employees and you are describing a new work environment, which the Centralized Screening Unit was, that required negotiations, and the result of the negotiations was a memo of understanding of how this group would be populated.

BY

Q: And that at what time period? A That was back when we did this in -- I believe it was in 2004.

Okay.

BY

Q: And generally, what does that memorandum of understanding say; do you know? A Well, what it was saying is that they understand that we had a group that was going to be doing the screening effort, and at that point in time, they understood that we were going to be soliciting volunteers for the group. And I think the basis of what they were interested in is that if we couldn't populate the group with volunteers, how would we make the selections? And so that ended up to be on a seniority basis. And probably when you looked at it, if we had a position that was a Grade 12, it was looking back at the person who really had the least seniority that would be then populated into the group.

Q: I see. So did the union want the group to be populated by volunteers, or were they pushing for A I don't think they were. If you know. I don't know what the union really wanted. I know they didn't object to what was happening.

BY

Q: Okay. And, sir, are you aware of any criteria for what defines what is an emerging issue? A I really have never considered this type of thing as a criteria-based thing, because we never -- I personally never established criteria. What we would do in Determinations, we would look at each case on its own merits. And all of our work is based upon facts and circumstances. So with that being said, we need to look closely at the case file and the issues that are presented by the taxpayer for these issues, and at that point in time, if we discover that we have an issue in this case that possibly could be something that we hadn't seen before or something that, you know, would have a particular, you know, concern for something, then we could identify this as a possible emerging issue. But I never, ever, ever published criteria that would indicate, you know, this is what you need to be for an emerging issue.

Q: I see.

And you mentioned that your screeners would come to you, and you would kick it up the chain? A If I found it was appropriate.

Q: How far up the chain of command did that go; do you know? A Well, it would go from me to my area manager. My area manager to the program director, which would be ███ for a number of years.

███ ███

███ ███ I mean. I have to stop doing that. I'm sorry.

And then I can't really say that it was an automatic, because if felt that this was a decision that she could make, then it would stop there. If not, then she would elevate it to EO Technical in Washington. So it was her decision, not mine, exactly how far this should go.

BY

Q: All right. But you're aware of instances where she would elevate the decision on what is an emerging issue to EO Technical in Washington? A That's a possibility.

Q: Okay. And you're aware of times that she has done that? A Yes, I would say I am.

Q: You mentioned EO Technical. How closely -- does EO Determinations work with EO Technical? A Which part of EO Determinations? The reason I mention this is that -- and I don't know if this is going to be something -- you know, there was a point in time when I was an agent before my management days, and it was a free and open line of communications to EO Technical. But when came into the job, that was severed; that we were not permitted to contact EO Technical; that any time we had a question that we needed to have resolved by a more technical senior attorney that was in EO Technical, we needed to elevate it so that it would go through the chain. So there was a distinction there that all of these kinds of issues needed to go through the chain.

Q: Okay. So if a line employee in EO Determinations wanted guidance or advice from someone in EO Technical, they would have to raise that issue to their group manager, who would then raise it to their area manager? A We never looked at it that -- you know, I mean, as a manager, okay, I felt that if they had an issue, a technical issue, they should raise that to me, because I could have answered it possibly. So there was no reason for them to jump the chain and go all the way to EO Technical.

But with that being said, if I thought, well, you know, this is something that needs to be elevated, then I would elevate it to the next level, and that person would elevate it to the next level. And like I said, those decisions were made by those individual managers.

What I was referring to before about calling EO Technical is that, you know, I would maybe go ask someone that, you know, I need some guidance on this. And they'd say, oh, call so-and-so in EO Technical.

So that was something that we did, but that stopped.

BY

Q: And at what point did that stop? A That was when took over as the program director.

Q: And what year was that? A Now you're pressing me. I really couldn't answer that, exactly when that was.

█████ All right.

BY

Q: Were you given any reason as to why didn't want you to contact EO Technical? A I'm not -- I was never given a reason, but what I just stated about the possibility that, you know, that I could answer it, I wouldn't submit that. So, I mean, I wasn't given a reason.

BY

Q: Maybe I will ask a more broad question as far astaking over. Are we talking a long period of time, you know, 10 years? Are we talking more 5 years? Do you have any sort of A Since she's been in the program director's job?

Q: Yes. And instituting that policy. A I really don't know.

████ Okay. Okay.

BY

Q: So does the decision lie with her on whether to reach out to EO Technical? A Yes, it does.

Q: Okay. Now, sir, I understand that EO Determinations falls within the IRS Office of Rulings and Agreements; is that right? A That's correct.

Q: And - is the current director of that office; is that right? A That's correct.

Q: In your experience is there any oversight from the Office of Rulings and Agreements onto EO Determinations? A What type of oversight?

Q: Are they involved at all in the operations of EO Determinations? A They have been.

Q: Could you describe? A I mean, you know, this is not something that I really am aware of.

███: I don't want you to speculate, because --

███: It's beyond me. I mean, whatever oversight they may have would probably be best addressed by

Q: Okay. A Because it was out of my purview.

Q: I see. But you are aware of some level of involvement from Office of Rulings and Agreements on 111111 A I can't really answer, you know, definitively that question. So I really don't know.

Q: Okay. That's fine.

Do you know- A I know who she is, and I've met her. She's been in our office, and I have dealt with her.

Q: What were the circumstances of these meetings? A When she would visit Cincinnati for • you know, whatever reason, she would have staff meetings. When I was asked to interview with TIGTA, she was by my side. I haven't been in her presence that many times, but, you know, it has been a few times.

Q: Sure.

Has she ever participated in the EO Determinations manager meetings? A Not to my knowledge.

Q: Okay. And, sir, the Office of Rulings and Agreements in turn falls within the IRS Office of Exempt Organizations; is that right? A That's correct.

Q: And Lois Lerner at the time was the director of the office; is that correct? A At what time?

Q: I'm sorry. Thank you. The February 2010 through March 2013 time period. A I believe she was.

Q: Okay. And to your knowledge, sir -- and please, if you don't know, I am not asking to you speculate. But to your knowledge 27 how involved was Ms. Lerner in the operations of EO Determinations? A I really could not answer that.

Q: That's fine. A I mean, I had no interchange with her.

Q: Okay. Have you met her at all? A Yes, I have.

Q: What were the context of the meetings; do you remember? A The Washington office would, you know, periodically visit for reasons that I wouldn't be aware of, and on their visits, they would have town hall meetings. And then so she did, you know, chair some of these town hall meetings, and I had opportunities to meet her and talk to her, but nothing specific.

Q: Okay. And has Ms. Lerner been involved in these EO Determinations manager meetings, to your knowledge? A I believe she has.

You know, I might mention --because I just-- you know, my memory is that -- because I also applied for the program director job when was selected, and at that time I did have contact with Lois Lerner because she was a selecting official.

Q: Okay. So she interviewed you for the job? A She declined to interview. She just telephoned me and said that I didn't get the job.

Q: Okay. And, are you familiar with the Examinations Unit within A I am not. I mean, I know it's there, and I'm aware of it, but I have never participated or had any involvement with Examinations.

Q: Okay. Have you ever had any involvement with the IRS officials conducting individual audits of personal income tax returns? What do you mean by "involvement"?

BY

Q: Any kind of interaction with those officials. A Not to my knowledge. I mean, I guess really why I paused is that when I was a telephone representative with Taxpayer Service, those questions on individual tax returns from taxpayers are what I addressed. That's what I answered. But as far as from-- if you're talking about the examine or review that would be conducted by -- no, I have not.

Q: Okay. And, sir, are you familiar with the National Treasury Employees Union? A Yes.

Q: Are you a member of the union? A No, I am not.

Q: And, ████ are you registered to vote? A: Yes, I am.

Q: Do you have a party affiliation? A: Yes, I do.

Q: A: I am a conservative Republican.

Q: Have you ever contributed to a political organization or candidate?

A A financial commitment?

Q: Yes. A No, I have not.

Q: Have you ever worked or volunteered on behalf of a political candidate? A No, I have not.

Q: Thank you, sir.

Did you receive any bonuses in 2010; do you recall? A Actually I'm in a position -- an IR-04 -- where we are compensated for pay for performance. And so based upon my performance review, I did get a bonus.

Q: What about 2011; do you recall 2011? A I got a bonus then also.

Q: What about 2012? A That's now -- or no. You know, the thing that happens is that as the pay for performance goes, probably I could go back for a number of years and I did get some type of a bonus.

Q: Okay. A What I really was referring to is that for the last two bonus periods, my performance was outstanding, and so with that, you know, there is a compensation. Before that, if my performance was satisfactory, there also could have been -- it ends up to be with the service. Bargaining unit, nonbargaining unit, there are pools of money that then, depending on how many people are in what pool, and some years you may get something, but some years you may not get something.

Q: I see. A But it's based on your performance.

Q: So it's all merit-based? A Correct.

███ Now or always?

███ Well, since this went into effect, the pay for performance, they I mean, I used to be a GS-14. Now I'm an IR-84. And I believe that that happened 6 years ago, if my memory serves me right.

BY

Q: Okay. how did you become aware that the committee wanted to interview you? A How did I become aware? I received a notice from Joseph Grant instructing me that I was to voluntarily appear, which I would have done. But, I mean, that's basically where I first found out.

Q: So he instructed you to voluntarily come in? A Well, I mean, I would have to read the exact thing, but, you know, it was Joseph Grant who made that request. If you want specifically, you may have that.

███: There was an email that was sent to IIIII advising him of the committee's request.

████: Okay. Okay.

BY

Q: And, ███ after you received this email from Mr. Grant, did you discuss the committee's desire to interview you with anyone at IRS? A I had a discussion with because she hadn't been copied, or notified, or, you know, and I just really posed the question, was she aware, and she told me she was not.

Q: She was not aware of the request? A Well, she didn't get copied on the email. I think she may have been aware of the request. I'm not sure. But she did not get copied on the email.

Q: Okay. Did you speak to anyone else at IRS about today' s proceeding? A Not specifically. No, I did not.

████: Obviously he had to make travel arrangements. People -- they know he is here. But as far as content or specifics, I will let him answer that question.

███: I made an effort to avoid any specific conversation, because I only thought that was fair to everyone involved. But if when you say, you know, did I talk about, well, people knew I was coming here. People knew that I was requested to attend. But I didn't really end up with a lot of conversations, and that was by my design. And after I talked --

████: You don't need to get into our conversations.

BY

Q: Aside from telling - that you were being interviewed by us, did you -- what else did you discuss in that conversation? A During that conversation, she had some communication about 6103, and she did send out a notification, which it was just alerting me of my responsibilities. And I think that within that email, the --- was it?

█████: Yeah. I don't want to jump in here, but there were conversations, once counsel was retained, with certain folks within IRS about today's proceedings, which 11111111111 participated in some of those conversations.

BY

Q: Did they give you any instructions about what to say or what not to say today? A No.

Q: Any instructions about what you could say with respect to 6103 and what you could not say? A Well, as I read over, you know, what -- there was the regulations. I don't know if it was an IRM citing. But they were speci fie about -- and I was aware of what they were talking about, and that's revealing taxpayer information. And so, you know, I wouldn't have done that anyway.

███: And also- received a letter from the IRS authorizing him to testify here today which laid out certain parameters.

███: What were those parameters?

███: I would have to see the letter.

███: Is it part of the documents you have?

███: It actually is not in this binder, but we do have it.

███: Okay.

BY

Q: did you receive any financial assistance that allowed you to appear before the committee today? A Financial assistance? The IRS is paying for my trip. Thank you.

Examination
BY

Q: I have a couple of questions. You mentioned the staff assistant for was typically present at the manager meetings that were held monthly? A Correct.

Q: Who was that staff assistant? A The staff assistant has changed with this last reorganization. The present staff assistant is

Q: And did she prepare minutes of the meeting that were circulated? A I'm not sure. Actually I was on leave during last month's meeting, and I didn't participate, and I did -- if I would review, I think there were minutes, but I'm not sure.

Q: Okay. But were those typically circulated on a monthly basis? A Yes.

Q: Okay. A But like I said, she was part of this reorg, so she has only been in the job a very short period of time.

Q: Okay. So from 2010 through -- A I think during that period of time, there were probably -- and I really can't say this for sure because that wasn't part of my realm, but I knew that there were other staff assistants in there during that period of time, and I just can't be specific. I don't know.

Q: But each staff assistant would take notes and circulate minutes? A Normally that would be the case.

Q: Okay.

BY

Q: I want to turn to the beginning of 2010. At that time, sir, what was your position with the IRS? A The beginning of 2010?

Q: That's correct. A I was manager of the Screening Unit.

Q: Okay.

████: I'm sorry. I didn't hear you, sir.

████: Manager of the Screening Unit.

████: Thank you.

████

Q: Sir, in this period in the beginning of 2010, the early part of 2010, was there a time at which you became aware of a case involving an application for tax-exempt status involving a Tea Party group? A I believe the instance you're talking about was at the latter part, if I recall, of February 2010.

[- Exhibit No. 1 was marked for identification.]

BY

Q: Okay. I want to show you a document, sir. We' 11 mark this as Exhibit 1. This has been produced to the committee by The Bates number for the record is 1111111 1 through 5, and I made 10 copies. I hope we have enough for the table.

And, I will give you a few minutes to review the document.

████:Yeah, if we could just have a minute.

████:Okay.

BY--

Q: ████ I want to turn your attention to ███ 4, page 4 of this document, and in particular to the email. It starts on this page from to you, dated February 25, 2010. Do you recall this email coming in?

A Yes, I do.

Q: And to your knowledge, sir, to your recollection, is this the email in which you first became aware of the Tea Party application?

A Actually I became aware of it earlier than this email because ████ was an agent who worked for me, and he came to my office. And he was asking guidance concerning a case that had been assigned to him, and I believe his comment at that point in time to me was that, I can't really close this case. I'm going to send it to inventory. But because of media attention that he had seen, he had concerns about this being a high-profile ·case.

And I might mention here is that part of our effort with EO Determinations is to be very consistent about applications. So it was normal business for us to look at a situation that may be defined as a high-profile application, and that there was a lot of concerns about making sure that any cases that had, you know, similar-type activities or items included, that they would be worked by the same agent and the same group.

What I'm talking here is that if we end up with four applications coming into the group that are pretty similar, and we assign them to four different agents, we don't want four different determinations. It's just not good business. It's not good customer service.

So, you know, when we get into why we -- and this was normal business, by the way -- why this was brought to my attention was for consistency. And so when he had this concern about this case -- and the basic concern that he's looking at here is that, you know, we're talking about an organization, and this one was applying for (c)(4), and they were a social welfare organization. But part of these -- it ended up to be mentioned of potential political activity. And so in itself, on a (c)(4), that's not prohibited, but it's not real clear as to how much political activity a (c)(4) public organization can participate in.

So immediately, my agents -- because their job was to review cases and make a determination about if they could be closed. That's what our big interest was. If not, then we send it to inventory for someone else to develop whatever issues were in the case.

And in this particular case, it was apparent that there was not enough information that was allowing ███ to make -- ████ to make the proper determination, so he appropriately was going to put this into inventory. But because of the consistency situation, he also raised the question of a high-profile case. So I told him at that point in time I agreed with his thinking, and to give me the particulars of the case, and that I would elevate that issue to my area manager. And at that time that was ████.

Q: Okay.

BY

Q: So you said one purpose was the consistency, right?

A Correct. I mean, he had -- he had made his assessment that maybe I should backtrack just a little bit, because I think it might be helpful to understand our process.

Q: Well, let me just ask one first before you do that. But at this point this was the first application that came in, right?

A Not that I am aware of. I mean, this was the first case that came in that was brought to my attention.

Q: Okay. That was brought to your attention. So do you know if had seen other Tea Party applications?

A I do not.

███: Okay.

███: But go ahead and explain the process. I think it would be helpful.

███: But basically, you know -- and I don't know if you know the scope of what our Cincinnati office does, but I was in charge of the review of all applications that were sent to Cincinnati. Cincinnati was designated as the centralized site, and all applications are mailed to our office.. On an annual basis we receive upwards to 713,131313 applications each year. On a monthly basis there would be 4,131313 to 5,131313 applications that would go through my group for a review.

Now, what we're looking at first off is is the application as submitted complete. In other words, are all the pages there or the things that are required as part of this application.

Second, we would look at what code section they're applying for. And a majority of our work is resolving around 5131(c)(3) organizations. 5131(c)(3) organizations really have a lot more scrutiny, and the reason being is that contributions made to a 5131(c)(3) are deductible on individual tax returns, so there are specific tests that must be met, organizational tests, operational tests. Their organizing documents must have specific language in them.

So as the agent is reviewing through these cases, first they're seeing if the application is complete. Second, they're seeing if it's procedurally up to snuff. So the (c)(3), is the org doc correct, et cetera, from that standpoint.

The other thing that we would then look at are their activities. And we want to make sure -- and like a (c)(3), are their activities exclusively religious, charitable, educational or scientific? And that's pretty easy to see in most cases. But if you can't really determine by looking at this application if these activities fall within that realm, then you can't make a determination, and this should be a closure. And at that time, it's moved to someone who has additional time to look at a case.

My agents would typically look at 20 to 25 cases daily. So when we look at it, it's less than a half-hour on the average of what we're looking at. And so they really didn't have time to be doing a whole lot of other things other than saying, yes, yes, yes, yes. No, this isn't here. Or this needs further -- like I don't see enough information here. And they would make their decision on what bucket to put it in.

So when we got through the end of the line, we ended up with like four buckets, the first bucket being the ones that were incomplete, and those would be returned. The bucl<et that we always looked at were the closures, because at that point in time, we were to merit closed 35 percent of all applications that come in the door.

Q: And that means they are approved?

A Yes.

Q: Everything that's closed goes to you for your approval; is that right?

A Well, I mean, as it comes through, I do have to have the approval on those cases. So when they complete their work, and they send it to the manager -- that's me -- and that has to go through my approval.

███: Okay.

BY

Q: So are you recommending it for approval?

A No They're recommending it for approval.

Q: And then you are physically approving it?

A Yes.

███: Okay.

███: And the other two buckets?

███: The other two buckets, se percent of the cases that come through our office are ones that are needing minor issues. These were the ones that maybe they had the wrong language in their organizational document. These were ones that we could quickly go out, request this information to complete the case file, and get a closure. The remaining --

███: You said se percent of the group?

███: Fifty percent of the receipts. And these were my stats that I kept, okay, as we went through the years, because I was more interested in consistency and reviewing how I could improve my process. My job was more of a, you know, this is really important for us.

But the last one ends up to be those that were determined to be cases that would have to be assigned to a revenue agent for extensive development.

BY

Q: Okay. And this case here, which bucket did that fall in?

A I'm sorry, which case?

Q: The case referenced in the email in front of you, Exhibit 1.

A Okay. This case ended up to be something because of the And every case would have probably had a different degree of difficulty. For example, if a political organization was applying for 501(c)(3), that's not allowed.

track of this case.

BY

Q: Could I just say a clarifying point? This application is for (c)(4)?

A Correct. Yes. Yes. But what I'm saying is that when we're -- the process I thought you were asking me is that would these go into this development bucket? And that's a strong possibility. But each case rests on its own merit, so, therefore, it could have been a case that needed minor development and the 50 percent it would take. But in this particular case, because the concern was elevated to ███ and from that and I reviewed this email -- she elevated it to ███, and ███ elevated it to ███ came back and said, yes, EO Technical wants to see this case, then this ends up to be a case that we want to make sure we're consistently going to look at, and that's where this started.

Q: Okay. So if I'm understanding you correctly, this case doesn't really fall into any of those four buckets. It's kind of a special case?

A Correct.

███: I'm not sure you said "special." The determination of which bucket came ultimately from IIIII as to what to do with it or --

███: The thing is that this is outside of the bucketing that I was talking about. I mean, look at this case. Is it complete? It could have been. You know, does it pass the organization test if it's a (c)(3)? Could have.

Each case -- I can't stress this enough. Each case rests on its own merits. And what's in the case file, it's all facts and circumstances on every case. But when this particular case, the reason -- and I guess that's what you are asking -- that I made the decision to elevate this to my area manager was the consideration of a high-profile case.

███: Okay.

BY

Q: I want to be clear for the record. At this point in time, are you all seeing a high volume of these cases?

███: I think he has already said this is the first one.

███: This is the first one.

███: That he saw.

███: Right. Exactly. I understand.

BY

Q: So when you talk about consistency, I'm trying to understand it, at this point you don't know if there is going to be an issue of consistency, right?

A That's correct. You are 100 percent correct. I mean, it was identified, and actually I think in this -- if I can find it -- at one point in time -- ███ says, EO Technical would like the case. Please thank ███ for identifying the issue and elevating it.

So from that, I was following ███ --

███ ███ ███ ███

BY

Q: ███ is ███ just for the record.

A She would probably throw something at me. But she was pleased with the decision to elevate this case, and she did say that right here.

BY

Q: Even though at this point this is the first case that you've seen?

A Correct. Correct. And that actually comes from EO Technical. 111111111 was the one who said, yes, we want to look at this case.

BY

Q: And, sir, when you spoke to about this case for the first time, did he indicate to you the case was complete, if all the parts of the application were there?

A He did not.

RPTS

DCM

[ 11 : 00 a. m. ]

BY

Q: Did he indicate to you that the case needed further development with respect to questions that were still pending?

A He felt that there was not sufficient information presented in the case, facts and circumstances, that would allow him to make a definitive decision.

███: I think this is important because this is one -- a document which the copy of is redacted and it's redacted for 6103 reasons. In the unredacted version, there is more detail about the specific issue which is referenced as needing further development. So I just think it would be fair to ███ if that was clear for the record.

███: I appreciate that.

███: You guys don't, for 6103 reasons, don't s~e all that, but that is what it is.

BY

Q: Aside from the media attention that's referenced in the email, would there have been any other reason not to just send it to general inventory?

A No.

BY·-·

Q: Okay. And did you ask ███ to send this email to you?

A Yes, I did.

Q: Okay. And do you recall when your conversation was with him? I mean, the email reference is that he discussed this morning?

A It was the same day.

Q: Okay. The same day. Sir, I want to turn your attention to the page before that, Bates Number ███ 3, and sir, the email at the very bottom of this is from you to dated the same day. You wrote to her, "███ this case will be sent to inventory for further development. Political campaigns on behalf or in opposition to any political candidate do not promote social welfare, but an exempt 501(c)(4) may intervene in political campaigns as long as its primary activity is the promotion of social welfare and would be subject to the.tax imposed by IRC 527. I will hold this case for a decision concerning this type of organization may be considered a, quote, High Profile Case."

Do you recall this email?

A Yes, I do.

Q: So this is where you send it out to ███

A Correct.

Q: Did you have any contemporaneous discussions with her about this case?

A I did not. Like I said, ███ was located in California. ███ background would have been employee plans, and it was my normal course of business to probably be a little more instructive to her so that she understood what the issues may be.

Q: I see.

A And that -- and. then normally this narrative probably wouldn't have been something I would have done to ███

Q: I see.

A Because she would have been aware of more of this, but ███ I think, required this kind of commentary.

Q: Okay. I'm going to ask you about this further. It says, the case will be sent to inventory for further development, and then later you write, I will hold this case for a decision. Those two seem to be at odds.

Could you explain that?

A I think what I said before is ███ had made the decision --he made the determination he could not close the case, that it was -- it was complete, and it needed to have further development. In addition to that, okay, you know, he said that, you know, this case will be sent to inventory for further development, and -- but it was the high profile part of his concern, it was the reason it was elevated.

Q: Right. So, when it's sent to inventory, is it still held in the screening group?

A No, no.

Q: Okay. So, then when you say later, I will hold this case for decision, that seems to be at odds that you will hold the case in your group but then send it to general inventory?

A Well, I mean, he had made the decision that it should go to general inventory, but after his conversation with me, we said we will elevate it. Now, if the decision coming back down from EO Technical was saying we don't want to see this case, we would have put it in the general inventory.

Q: Okay. And was it your recommendation to ███ to send the case to inventory?

A Was it my recommendation?

Q: I think that's what you were saying here, "███ this case will be sent to inventory for further development"?

A It was not my recommendation. It was actually ███ ███ determination.

Q: Okay. But you agreed with that determination?

A Correct.

Q: Okay.

A I mean, what I'm saying there is this case needed further development, and not that anything more than we needed to have additional information to make a definitive decision.

Q: Okay.

BY

Q: And you were waiting from direction from EO Technical on how they wanted you-all to handle these; is that --

A I had nothing to do with how these were handled. The only thing at my level, as we were going through these reviews, and like I was saying in ███ case, you know, 20 to 25 cases a day, that what happened after he looked at it and said, you know, I can't make a decision because I don't have enough information, whatever happened after that is in someone else's, you know, situation.

But, you know, with this additional concern for high profile, and I think I alluded to that previously, is that, you know, we may want to really look at things for precedent setting, we may want to look at things for consistency setting. I mean, we were really stressing, at least I was stressing customer service, making sure that, you know, that we do this correctly.

███: I see.

BY

Q: I just want to make sure. When you say, "I will hold this case for decision concerning this type of organization," whose decision were you waiting on?

A I was waiting -- well, I would send it to ███

███: At this point, yeah.

███: I was sending it to ███

BY

Q: Okay.

A And I mean, ███ at her level, could have come back and said --

Q: Sure.

A You know, because she was my superior.

Q: Okay.

A And then that would have been it.

Q: So you sent it to ███ and were you just waiting to hear back.

A Correct.

Q: Okay.

BY

Q: Did ███ ever respond to this email? I know she forwarded it to ███

A She was copied on -- she copied me on what she forwarded.

Q: Okay. So, she never responded to you directly?

███: I'm not even sure -- if you look at the document, I'm not sure she even copied -- copied you.

BY

Q: Yeah, you're correct. On the email above that, it says from ███ to ███

A No, she did not.

Q: But you then received that exchange in a later email --

A Yes.

Q: -- back from- which included all this email history?

A Correct.

Q: So you were aware that she had sent this to ███ ███ had sent it to ███

A Yeah, because that came by -- it came back pretty quickly, I believe, if I'm not mistaken. Let's see, the 25th -- ███ on the 25th, that same day.

███: 26th.

███: 26th, did copy me. Or no, she sent it to me, which then was ███ response to her. That was the next day.

BY

Q: Okay. So ███ at this time, never give you any instructions on what to do with the case?

A No, she did not.

Q: Okay. And the next time you became aware of a communication with this case is an email from ███ to you with ███ copied the next day, February 26, 2010, is that correct, it's on the page

A Correct, uh-huh.

Q: -- 2 there.

Now, sir, other than the email exchanges here between ███ ███ and ███ are you aware of any other discussions that ███ had with ███ or ███

A I am not.

Q: Okay. Do you know if ███ spoke to ███ about these cases?

A I do not know.

Q: At this time. And ███ tells you in an email on page 2 here at 8:36a.m., ''EO Technical would like the case. Please thank ███ for identifying the issue and elevating it. Thanks."

In your experience, sir, how often does an issue identified by a screening group get sent to EO Technical?

A That's very difficult for me to answer because, you know, it's as it would be identified within this group. Does it happen very frequently? I really can't address that because there is no really good pattern that I could reference.

Q: Okay.

A I mean, I can tell you that I have elevated cases that have come back and said, okay, no, we think you can go ahead and approve that, which we have.

Q: Okay. And before this time in February 2010, had a case that had been identified by one of your superiors ever been sent to EO Technical before?

A Yes, it had.

Q: Okay. And with -- when ███ wrote back to you on February 26th, 2010, do you have any follow-up conversation with her in person about how to handle this case?

A I did not.

Q: Okay. So the only communication you had with her at this time was the email; is that right?

A Correct.

Q: And following this, after ███ told you that EO Technical wanted the case, what did you do?

A We prepared it to send to EO Technical.

Q: Who is "we"?

A Just this -- within my group, ███ would have done that.

Q: Okay.

A The case was assigned to him.

Q: And was does it mean to prepare it to go to EO Technical?

A Well, my agents review cases on an electronic system called TEDS, T-E-D-5, so they're looking at these cases electronically. EO Technical does not. I think they have access to TEDS, but they don't process anything on TEDS. They only look at hard copy cases. So we had to retrieve the hard copy from this case file, and then we had to close it off of our TED system and prepare it on a transmittal to be sent to EO Technical.

Q: I see. Did you speak to ███ about this case?

A Did I speak to him?

Q: Yes.

███: Other than what he's already talked about?

BY

Q: About preparing the case?

A Well, I mean, I did tell him this case needs to be, you know, prepared to go to EO Technical.

Q: Did anyone else assist in that process in preparing the case?

A I couldn't answer that.

Q: Okay. And do you know if he, in fact, did send the case to EO Technical?

A Yes, I do.

Q: Did he send it or did you?

A I don't send it. I had to sign off on it.

Q: Okay.

A And so then the secretary would have sent it.

Q: And who was it sent to; do you know?

A I do not know.

Q: But someone here in Washington in EO Technical?

A Yes.

Q: And do you know when it was sent?

A Not sped fically. You know, I mean, because what we're talking here is that, you know, as I indicated, we had to get the hard copy case, and once we got the hard copy case, then the paperwork had to be prepared. I would not really be able to tell you when that happened.

Q: Is that a few days process?

A Yes, that should be a few days.

Q: Okay. So, it's fair to say late February, early March it was sent to EO Technical?

A Correct.

Q: Of 2010?

A But I don't know that for sure.

Q: Okay.

A I mean, I just can't address that because I don't know. I mean, once-- you know, once it's-- once it's kind of out, you know, it's gone. I mean, these cases we are going through -- I don't want to sound as if, you know, that-- it's just that the volumes. I mean, I hope you can appreciate the volumes that we're dealing with here, and you know, with limited resources, the 70,000 cases a year, it gets to be daunting sometimes, but you know, I do the best remembering it, and that -- I mean, I can surmise about procedures and how things should work, but things always don't work that way. So to say, you know, this and this, I can't say that for sure.

Q: Sure. And, sir, at this point, in February 2010, had you personally had any conversations with anyone at EO Technical about --

A No, I had not.

Q: Okay. The Tea Party cases.

Okay, sir, why don't we stop there before we get into another series of questions and take a short break.

A Okay.

███: Go off the record, please.

[ Discussion off the record.]

███: Is everyone ready? The time is 11:25.

EXAMINATION
BY

Q: ███ my name is ███ again. I, for the next hour or so, will be asking you some questions along with ███ ███ and ███ my colleagues.

In order to save time, I will do my best to avoid retreading ground that my colleagues have covered in the last hour, but I do have some questions concerning the things that you just discussed.

A Okay.

Q: When you were talking about elevating high profile cases, why do you elevate high profile cases?

A There could be any number of reasons. I think each case would probably rest on its own merits. That, as I indicated already, we want to make sure that these cases are looked at correctly. I really have a strong sense of customer service, and I want to make sure that, you know, all aspects are considered in these cases.

I mean, in the past, we've had high profile cases that were centered around celebrities, for example, and so with that in mind, I think it behooves us to make sure that these cases are going to be assigned to the appropriate individual with the utmost scrutiny. And so when we get into a high profile case such as this, we don't need to have someone else commenting, say, you know, in a different way.

So, it would be our normal case -- our normal approach is to make sure that this case that is of interest for other reasons to other people is handled appropriately.

So, with that being said, when I said this case would have been one that would have been put into the inventory, then we lose total control of who may be assigned that case and what they may say, and I mean, I'm not saying that we would do that normally, but we have a definite reason for making sure that scrutiny would be done on these cases.

And so, I mean, this case, there's any number of reasons that we could. There's not a list or anything like that. It would be what's in the case file itself.

Q: When you say "utmost scrutiny," do you mean increased scrutiny or careful scrutiny?

A What do you mean now?

Q: In response to my previous question, one of the things that you said was that you would elevate high profile cases to ensure the utmost scrutiny is given. Do you mean the same type of increased scrutiny or careful scrutiny that is given to all cases

A Correct, all cases.

Q: -- in the general development process?

A Correct, all cases.

Q: So when you're elevating high profile cases, are you in part doing it to ensure consistency amongst all high profile cases?

A Correct.

Q: Is it standard procedure to elevate high profile cases?

A Correct.

Q: Can you think of other instances in which you have suggested high profile cases be elevated to your direct supervisor?

███: Obviously, without violating 6103.

███: Of course.

███: It's very difficult to, you know, right off the top of my head, that I could say this or that because I can't. I mean, has it been done? Yes, it has. But-- and I'm not trying to be, you know, defensive in a lot of things I say, but I hope everyone can appreciate that when we're dealing in the volumes that we're dealing with, you know, again, I'm saying the 70,000 cases a year, 5- to 6, 000 cases, you know, each month, it's tough to go back and remember this and that because, you know, this is very significant, and I realize that, but when I look at the whole realm of what, what we're faced with, you know, it is kind of daunting sometimes. And then to recall this and this, it's something that I really don't know. I mean, I am aware of cases that, you know, like I said before, that I have -- you know, I sent up. What are they exactly? I don't recall.

BY

Q: You mentioned earlier celebrities, though, was one of the sort of general categories of cases that might be high profile?

A Well, I don't -- there was facts and circumstances within that case.

Q: Okay.

A That really was something that I wanted to get approval on. It wasn't that it was a celebrity case. But again, the first decision was we probably need to get some more information on this case. The second decision ends up to be it's a celebrity so therefore it's high profile. I mean, and that follows through with what we've done on this case, that just to ensure that, you know, that it's going to be correctly reviewed.

BY

Q: In addition to the high profile aspect of this case, were there any concerns specific to the type of application being a (c)(4) with indications of political activity?

A Those considerations, when we're looking at the facts and circumstances that each case, you know, presents to us, the issues within that case are paramount. And so the issues that were in this case indicated that we needed more information, that, you know --

Q: You mentioned that revenue agents at the screening level look at the degree of difficulty of each case. Would this type of case, which was a (c) (4) application with indications of political activity, be considered a higher level of difficulty?

A I don't recall saying difficulty. What --

Q: We were talking generally about the process previously.

A Okay.

Q: Not about this specific case.

A Okay.

Q: But you talked about the screener' s role in assessing the different degrees of difficulty in each case that comes before them.

A That could be. Our cases -- just again, our cases are graded.

Q: Right.

A And they're graded by the application itself, and so the automatic system will grade a case as a 12, a 13 or an 11, and so the ultimate assignment, if it needs more development, will go to that grade of agent because of difficulty, so I guess that's what you're asking me. My agents aren't really assigning difficulty, but what they're doing is that they're verifying difficulty because the automated system assigns the grade, and part of their responsibility is to make sure that that grade is correct. And so we do have a document called the CAG, case grading guide, that they can refer to if they need to, but our cases are all graded by difficulty, no doubt, because that's how assignment will ultimately be done. So, in answer to your question, an agent would have difficulty.

███: Just, you mean assignment within the screening group? And I don't mean -- but just for clarification, or assignment if it gets referred out for further --

███: Well, it's not assigned within the screening group. The screening the screening group's responsibility was to verify that the grade that was assigned to the case was correct.

BY

Q: And do (c)(4) applications with indications of political activity generally get a certain type of grade in terms of the level of difficulty?

A The case -- not necessarily. You know, again, I keep going back to facts and circumstances because the fact that it's a (c)(4) with political activity does not automatically say anything. It's what's in that case, what the issues are in that case, you know. And again, the facts and circumstances will warrant whatever needs to be done with that case.

If we could produce, and you could get it -- in fact, it's public, the CAG, and I'm not sure if this particular issue is in there and they would say, okay, a grade 11 or a grade 12, if we were to put this case into inventory, what that grade is, I don't know. I mean, it exists, but I'm not really familiar enough to say that that type of case, and I thought that's what you asked, would be graded as a more difficult case or a less difficult case.

I mean, what we really determined is that we need more information. The facts and circumstances in this case aren't enough for us to make our determination.

Q: And the grading corresponds with a GS level, correct?

A Well, the grading --

Q: 11, 12?

A Yes, the grading -- the CAG document definitely has -- case grades certain types of issues.

BY

Q: And the case that ███ identified for you on February 25th, 2010, was the application considered high profile by ███ because it was a Tea Party organization or because it was a celebrity?

A He really didn't say to me exactly why the organization was a Tea Party organization, so that would be, you know, it would follow through to me. He says here, here's the case number for the Tea Party application, so it would be Tea Party. I mean, when I was talking about the celebrity, that was just another instance where we would possibly identify something that's high profile.

Q: Based on your discussion with ███ was it your impression that ███ flagged the case, the Tea Party case for you on February 25th, 2010, because of his disagreement with their political views of the group?

A We never --never discussed any --any political, you know, personal aspirations whatsoever. His determination of the case was that, you know, again, we needed additional information that was not complete and that the fact that he recognized that it had been something that had been in the media, that we may want it to make sure that, you know, that EO Technical didn't believe this was a, you know, warranting a high profile designation.

Q: Did you decide to elevate the case to your direct supervisor ███ because you disagreed with the political views of the Tea Party organization identified in the application?

A No, I did not.

Q: Let's continue to look at Exhibit 1 before you, specifically at the March 16th, 2010, email from yourself to ███ ███

A What page is that?

Q: It is on-002. That is the Bates number at the bottom of the page.

A Okay.

███: Which email?

███: What's the time on it?

BY

Q: The time is 9:35 a.m.

A Okay.

Q: And the date is Tuesday, March 16th.

A Correct.

Q: It's an email from yourself to ███. And it reads, "███ we have identified a total of 10 Tea Party cases." And there's, as you can see, a gap of 2 weeks between this email and the last email from ███ to yourself, which was on February 26th, 2010.

Had you been instructed to conduct a search for the 10 Tea Party cases or had you decided to conduct that search yourself?

A There was no --there was no-- no one said to make a search. What happened was that when this case was determined that EO Technical wanted to see it, I, as a course of doing business, called my three senior agents, which included ███, ███ and ███ ███ making them, you know, apprising them of situations within the group, this case being one. And I did this on a regular basis, especially with my senior people because I depended on what they were doing. From that, you l<now, we discussed that this case was something that EO Technical wanted to see.

███: When you say ''this case," just to be clear, the one case referenced.

███: The one case that we had. So, you know, it would be then something we need to be aware of, and we need to hold those cases until we have further direction. And so this was -- this was communicated not only to these three senior people but to the group. So, anyone who would be looking at cases and if they had these same particular issues presented to them, that we needed to not let them maybe go into the general inventory as we were looking for consistency.

BY

Q: When you say that you communicated this to the group, what group are you referring to?

A This is my group, the technical screening group.

Q And how did you communicate the need to hold these cases?

A I couldn't -- I don't recall. I mean, I could have sent out an email. I'm not -- I don't know.

BY

Q: And you communicated this as a regular course of your general business procedures, not because anyone particularly told you to do that?

A That's correct. That's correct. I mean, you know, I -- as I indicated before, the senior people in my group, the three 13s I had, and they had varying degrees of experience from 28 years to, you know, possibly down to 12 or 14, these l<ind of things, and I depended on them, and I depend~d on them because I have open communication, and so this was my normal course of business, that they needed to know what I needed to know so that if I were not available, they could handle those situations, and I think in this particular case, later on, it did happen that way.

███: But just to make clear, I want to go back to the email on February 26th from ███ -- from ███ to ███ which she thanked the group -- thanked ███ for identifying it, whether or not that played into your decision to --

BY

Q: Can you describe how, if at all, the email from ███ to you on Friday, February 26, 2010, impacted your decision to ask the group to hold this type of cases?

A The one from the 26th?

Q: Yes.

A Yes. It was a case that I don't know if we're never -- if we were ever going to get another one of these cases, but because it had been, you know, elevated as a potential high profile case and EO Technical said yes, this is a high profile case, we want that, in my mind is that if we found another one or someone came to me the next day with another one that had the same issues in this case, then it would lead me to say I need to check because this appears it's a high -- and that's what I did.

███: You need to check where? I'm sorry.

███: I need to check to see if this high profile case, which was similar to the one they accepted, you know, if they want that one also.

BY

Q: Was your instruction to the group to search for similar cases driven in part by a need to ensure consistency of treatment? Do I make sense?

A I guess.

Q: Can you --

A I mean --

Q: -- describe to me why you instructed the group to search --

A Well, ultimately, you know, consistency, you know, is paramount in what we're doing, and so that is a big factor in a decision to do this. Equally so is that this was identified by EO Technical as something they felt was appropriately their domain. So with that as an indicator, okay, consistency is very, very important, but also when I looked at the situation as it was there, this led me to believe that, you know, I needed to check to see if they really wanted this one also or this one, so ...

Q: How did you instruct the group to identify similar cases?

A I don't really specifically recall. I mean, if it was by email, or the group that -- that was very encouraged to share ideas, to share situations, and so I'm sure that we discussed this within the group. I could come up and say, yeah, I went around to every -- that's not in my memory. I don't recall.

███: You don't remember.

███: I just don't recall specifically what instruction was given, but I can tell you what my normal process would be, and that, like I say, was to deal with my three seniors, and I'm sure they would, you know, communicate different situations as they went through.

BY

Q: Did you have an understanding of why EO Technical wanted this particular case?

A Only from what ███ says, "I think sending it up here is a good idea, given the potential for media interest."

Q: Are you aware of the role EO Technical plays in producing sensitive case reports?

A I'm aware of sensitive case reports, but I am not in a position of commenting because I never produce sensitive case reports. The folk -- the agents that work for me were the ones that just, like I say, did their job and put them in the proper bucket. Now, if someone is assigned, you know, these sensitive cases, that's on another manager. I never really was involved in that.

Q: Are you aware of whether EO Technical reviews cases that are considered a high level of difficulty in terms of the legal standards and application of difficult legal standards to the facts and circumstances of a particular case?

A No, I'm not. You're getting into case development, and my group is just, you know, right at the very level of entry and making these quick decisions about what path these cases should go. And once they leave my group, I really am not aware what happens to them.

Q: Do you recall during this February 2010 time period when this first case came up, do you have any general awareness of media surrounding Tea Party organizations?

A I did not.

Q: You did not.

BY

Q: ███ did it make sense to you that the legal experts in EO Technical had an interest in this case that your shop brought to their attention?

A Did it make sense to me?

Q: Yeah.

A I can't address that. I don't even think that was part of what I --what was in my.consideration. My job was to review these situations, and I would elevate them for someone who would make their decision. It was not my position to evaluate if something made sense or not.

BY

Q: You stated you had previously elevated other high profile cases before.

A Correct.

Q: And EO Technical had, in some circumstances, decided to review those cases?

A And then some they didn't, correct.

Q: So this didn't seem out of usual course to you for EO Technical?

A No, it did not.

BY

Q: So you can't remember how you informed the group to look for these types of cases. Did you indicate to the group the manner in which they should find the cases? Did you give them terms to use?

A Definitely not. What they were doing, again, each case rests on its own merits. They look at the issues in the case and then they make their decision on the facts and circumstances.

███: I think there's maybe a little ambiguity. Are you talking about which -- are you talking specifically about this time period or are you talking about down the line, because I think there may be a miscommunication here.

BY

Q: Right. I am talking specifically about this time period. I am talking about -- go ahead.

███: No, I think she's asking about the -- when you conveyed to your senior managers, whether it was email or however, about senior advisors looking for similar cases, if you remember any details about that.

███: I do not. I mean, the specifics -- you know, it could have been as simple as these is -- these are the facts that ███ has presented, and so if you find these issues in these type of cases, that we need to see if we want to also consider those as part of this group.

BY

Q: So you cannot remember the specifics of the direction that you provided to the group

A No, I cannot.

Q: -- at that time?

A No, I cannot.

███: And just to be very clear, when he said this definitely not, he was not -- I just -- there was a answer a little bit ago, that I think was subject to some confusion, and I just want to be clear.

███: You may want to ask the question again just to make the record clear.

███: Sure.

███: But I just want to make sure that when you were asking about specific terms, and he said definitely not, I don't think that he was answering the same question that you were posing.

███: We'll ask it again.

███: I just want to make sure.

BY

Q: In the time period between February 26, 2010, and March 16, 2010, when you asked the group to identify cases similar to the case ███ identified for you, did you provide the group with specific direction on how to identify those cases?

A I don't recall.

Q: Was your request to the group to identify similar cases intended to identify all political advocacy organizations applying for a tax exempt status?

███: If you understand the question.

BY

Q: Were you asking the group to identify only cases that were similar to the one presented to you by ███ in the March 16th, 2010, timeframe?

A I still don't quite understand the question, but I will answer the best I can. When we talk about all political advocacy (c) (4) cases, okay, that in itself, and I think we talked about this before, would be determined that it needs other development, and we would put it into inventory.

So, if one of those cases that was a political advocacy case that we were, because of the issues that were not present or that needed additional consideration, so we were going to put it into inventory, then the next question would be is there something else about this case that would make it a high profile case. And so, you know, those were what the issues that we were looking at.

Q: Okay. In the March 16th, 2010, time period, if an application from a Tea Party organization came across the desk of a screener and then yourself but it was not clear from the face of an application that the organization was engaging in political activity, would you have directed that the case be held?

A I would have to look at the case. I mean, when -- and I would have to have a definition of, you know, if we saw a Tea Party organization. I'm not sure what that is. And the reason I say that, and I can give you an example, that during this period of time, I did take it upon myself to review some cases that were Tea Parties, and one of them I pulled out, and it was not --

███: I just want to caution you on 6103.

███: Okay. But it, you know --fictitiously, it was, you know, Little Susie's Tea Party. So when I reviewed the case, okay, it became evident that this was an organization that had fundraisers to contribute money to charity. So, by saying that, just the fact that "Tea Party" was in the case name, to me, did not designate a whole lot other than we needed to review the facts and circumstances and the issues within that case. And when I did that, it became very evident that this was not really a concern, and that case was, I'm sure, approved.

BY

Q: So in this time period, were you instructing the screeners to pull all cases with "Tea Party'' in their name?

A No, I was not.

Q: What were you instructing?

A That any case that was similar, okay, to -- or had issues that we were -- going through the flow again, okay, the case, first off, is not -- it's complete, that, you know, we get to a point where the issues aren't resolved and within that case, and that we, therefore, are not going to be able to approve it. It has to go into inventory, and then if we look again and see that, you know, this is considered to be a high profile, that's what determines it would go this route.

BY

Q: And how did you instruct this group or the screeners to determine if a case was similar?

A I don't recall other than using the detail on this unredacted part as a model, of this is you know kind of what we're seeing. But my agents, you must understand, are veteran people that do understand, that we do have some tax law background that tells us, okay, that when we do look at this type of a case, that the political activity, you know, cannot be primary, and if anybody wants to define that for me, go ahead, but you get into these things that that's what a determination is, and that's why -- and I think it goes back to what you heard me say, but that if you have 28 years of experience and you have 2 years of experience, you may make a better call. I mean, that --that's what experience means. And I can't say that someone, you know, at any time is more or less, but in the process of this case, it's -- it's past whatever I do.

BY

Q: And so was your intention to have your screeners capture all groups that were part of the Tea Party movement or only those that had similar circumstances such as high -- indications of high levels of political activity?

A There could be other things in there. I mean, I think each case again rests on its own merits. The facts and circumstances in the case will determine if we are going to approve it, and so, therefore, the facts and circumstances in this first case met that threshold. There could be additional facts and circumstances that weren't in this case that could be in another case that would meet that threshold. It's very difficult to say, you know, that -- because I didn't do it this way. I didn't say this, you know, we really need to do these things. So, each case rests on its open merits.

███: And I think he's already said he used the one as the example to discuss.

███: And I mean, you know, speci-fically, you know, boiler down to be very truthful of the fact, I would have been more concerned about approving cases. So, I mean, I don't want to approve like the 35 percent I talked about, cases that shouldn't be. So the fact that if we look at this case, I would always err on the side of caution and let another pair of eyes, who had more time, to scrutinize this, and at that point in time they say, oh, we can close it. But the circumstances didn't necessarily have to mirror one case or another because they could be different.

BY

Q: So given those circumstances, were you instructing your screeners to pull all Tea Party cases and then you envisioned that the determination specialist would make that --

A No, no, I was not. As I go back

Q: Let me just finish my question.

A Okay. I'm sorry.

Q: Only because the record gets jumbled if we don't finish our question.

So, in this February 2010 time period, were you requesting that these screeners pull all Tea Party cases for someone else to then make the determination of whether or not they needed to be held or were you having them pull only Tea Party cases that were similar to the case that ███ identified?

A Again, I was not asking them for those kind of cases. It goes back to my -- if I would have directed them to pull our Tea Party cases, little Susie's Tea Party would have been pulled and it wasn't. So, I mean, the thing is, is that you have to go back into the case and review the facts and circumstances of that case, and from that standpoint, if we go ahead and see that everything is in there that's needed, such as the example I gave, it would be approved.

So, in answer to your question, no, I did not instruct that if you had "Tea Party" in a case that it would automatically go to another group for screening.

BY

Q: You mean "Tea Party'' in the name?

A In the name.

Q: You wouldn't instruct your screeners to pull out all of the cases just because they had ''Tea Party" in their name?

A Not to my knowledge.

BY

Q: What about if it was part of the Tea Party movement, would you instruct your screeners if the case was part of a Tea Party movement, pull that case?

███: If you know what Tea Party movement is.

███: I mean. again, it's the facts and circumstances within the case and they could have part of that. If it was a Tea Party movement, that in itself in my, would not have been something that I would have instructed anyone to put into another inventory. It depends on the issues and what they're doing.

BY

Q: So you expected your screeners to look at the substance of the application, not just the name of the organization?

A: Correct, correct,. That's our norm. That was our normal course of business on every case, not only these, on every case.

BY

Q: Do you recall when ███ provided you with the results of the search?

A I do not.

Q: Okay. At any time in the February, early March 213113 timeframe, did you ask ███ or the other screening group members how they conducted the search?

A I did not.

Q: Did you have any discussions with ███ about how you conducted the search?

A I don't recall if I did or not. It would be my recollection I did not.

Q: Did you have any discussions with ███ about how this search was conducted?

A I did not.

Q: Did you have any discussions with anyone in EO Technical about how the search was conducted?

A I did not.

Q: This email on March 16, 213113, reads, "Three cases have been approved, two 5131(c)(4) and one 5131(c)(3). I have collected the other cases and will forward them to EO Technical."

Is that statement consistent with your recollection of the results of the search?

A Again, I didn't-- I didn't say anyone should do a search, okay. But the cases that were identified as a potential Tea Party case or whatever we wanted to call these at that juncture, that there were these numbers that were included. Now, these numbers, I really -- were in a position of saying, okay, I'm glad these were presented to me. I really am not in a position of saying exactly how that happened.

███: Yeah. Just for the record, I think what's important is how obviously when the word search was done is kind of irrelevant. Bottom line is whatever was determined or found was forwarded up the chain by him on this March 16th email.

BY

Q: Sir, I have a clarification. You said --you're referring to March 16, 2010, email. You said, "they pulled Tea Party cases or whatever it was being called," right?

A Okay.

Q: I'm trying to -- I'm a little confused because I'm trying to understand why they're being called "Tea Party cases" when you've already testified that you didn't instruct anyone to pull cases just because "Tea Party" is in their name. I mean, was it a shorthand of some sort?

A There's more -- what I testified to was that there's more involved. I mean, the case that stands on its own merits, the facts and circumstances within the case, the issues within the case, that warrants a case that could have possible additional scrutiny, and the fact that this was a high profile case because of media attention is what brought that position to us.

Now, if someone was identifying cases that had ''Tea Party" in them, I think I explained that we needed to look further and to see, you know, if the facts and circumstances within that case were enough to, you know, not-- and in my group it was a proven, okay. So, I mean, we're going to approve these cases, that's the 35 percent of the 70,000, or we are going to put them into inventory. Now, is it prudent for us to then make sure, for consistency purposes, that these cases are worked by the same folks or the same group? The determination was yes, it is. And in this particular case, it went one step further with going to headquarters who said they wanted to look at it.

BY

Q: Were you referring to these cases as the, quote, Tea Party cases because the first case identified by ███ was from a Tea Party organization?

A I don't recall my thought pattern back then, you know. It -- they were what they were, and so, I mean, it's-- on the surface it does say, you know, Tea Party, but I can't say that's what my thought patterns were.

Q: Did all 10 of the cases that were sent up have "Tea Party" in the name?

A They -- they didn't send them up.

Q: I'm sorry. I mean all 10 of the Tea Party cases that you're referring to in this email, did all 10 of those cases have "Tea Party" in the name?

A I don't know. I couldn't tell you.

BY

Q: But you wouldn't assume that they did?

A I would not.

BY

Q: Were you using "Tea Party" as a type of a shorthand in this email?

A I was not. I really was identifying or trying to get back to what the original case that we looked at was.

BY

Q: So is being involved in the Tea Party movement or being a Tea Party organization part of the criteria used to identify similar cases to the February 25th case identified?

A There was no criteria. Each case is again reviewed and the determination is made on the facts and circumstances within that case.

Q: You stated previously you didn't tell anyone to do a search. How did you expect your screeners to identify similar cases?

A You know, if a screener has, and they would, the ability to do a search, I really was not able to control their thought pattern or their initiative and so that could have happened, but I can --

Q: You didn't give the specific instruction?

A I did not say go out and search.

BY

Q: Were you expecting screeners only to be aware of this particular fact pattern going forward rather than to search moving backwards as an example?

A That is correct. Again, my concern was that EO Technical had again identified this as a case they wanted to look at, and I wanted to make sure that, you know, similar cases were not put into general inventory so that we would have an inconsistency on how we would look at these cases.

Q: Let's move forward in the email chain to ███ 0001. In ' there is a page, an email from ███ to you dated March 17th, 2010, at 1:21 p.m. The email reads,"███ per ███ email directly below, EOT does not want all of the Tea Party cases. They only want two of them and want us to hold the remainder. We can discuss who should hold them if you would like. Let me know. Thanks."

Did you send the two Tea Party cases to EOT?

A To the best of my knowledge, we did.

Q: Did you personally --

A No, I did not.

Q: -- send this?

A No, I did not.

Q: Did you help select the Tea Party cases that were sent to EOT?

A No, I did not.

Q: Do you know who did select the cases?

A No, I do not.

Q: Did you participate at all in the selecting process?

A I did not.

Q: Do you know who in EOT received the cases?

A I do not.

Q: When I say EOT or when the emails says EOT, is that referring to EO Technical Unit?

A Yes, it is.

Q: Did you have any discussions with ███ about the decision to send the cases to the Technical Unit?

A Other than this email, I did not.

Q: Did you have any discussions with ███ about the decision to send the cases to the Technical Unit?

A I don't recall.

Q: Do you have any discussions with anyone in the Technical Unit about the decision to send the cases to the Technical Unit?

A I don't recall.

Q: Who in the -- where in the Determinations Unit were cases held?

A During what period of time?

Q: In March 2010?

A Well, the cases that -- again, we're electronically talking about cases, so, you know, when --when you're saying held, it's a-- it's a very difficult thing, but each group in the Determinations Unit does have a spot that they can put cases of -- that will be held, okay, and I would think that these cases, from this email, when the decision hadn't been made as to, you know, where we're going with these, these cases were held in my group's 75 number, which is group inventory for my group.

Q: So, on March 17th, 2010 --

███: I'm sorry. Until -- just to be clear. They weren't held in your group indefinitely. They were held until you got further direction?

███: Correct.

BY

Q: And when did you receive further direction?

A I believe that was the next month.

Q: In April?

A Correct.

███: Or about.

███: Yes, it was in April sometime.

███: Or later.

███: Yeah. I don't really recall specifically. We can ...

███: We'll get to that time period.

███: There's more to cover before April.

███: We could fast forward if you want.

███: We could.

BY

Q: Did you request that your group continue looking for these Tea Party cases after being asked to hold the seven on March 17th, 2010?

A Did I ask again or ...

Q: 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 instruction because it wasn't necessary.

Q: 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.

Q: 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?

███: 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.

BY

Q: Do you have any knowledge that would lead you to believe that ███ statement wasn't accurate?

A No, I do not.

Q: Based on your previous answer, I'm guessing that you did not instruct ███ to use these terms in the March 2010 time period?

A I did not.

Q: 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.

███: 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.

[███ Exhibit No. 2 was marked for identification.]

BY

Q: ███ 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.

BY

Q: Looking in the top -- at the top email in the chain from ███ to █████ copying yourself on April 5th, 2010, 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 EO 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 EO Technical.

Q: Whose decision was it to hold the cases in your group?

A By previous email, it was ████

Q: 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.

BY

Q: To clarify, when this April 5th, 2010 email was sent, were you in the office at the time?

A April 5th?

Q: 2010. I'll draw your attention to the beginning of the email which says, "since you are acting for ███ --

A No, I was on -- I was on leave.

Q: So was ███ acting in your capacity?

A Yes, he was acting manager, correct.

BY

Q: And how long were you on leave for in April?

A I would have to check my leave record. I'm not really sure.

Q: Was it an extended leave or a short one?

A I don't believe so.

Q: 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.

Q: Do you know what the purpose of a sensitive case report is?

A I do not.

BY

Q: Prior to this time, have you ever been involved in preparing information to send to EO Technical so that they could produce a sensitive case report?

A Not to my knowledge.

Q: Did you provide any information to EO Technical so that they could create a sensitive case report referenced in this email?

A Not to my knowledge.

BY

Q: Did you play any role in ███ providing that information?

A Not to my knowledge.

BY

Q: Do you recall ultimately receiving the sensitive case report referred to in this email?

A I did not.

Q: Do you know who makes the decision to create a sensitive case report?

A I do not.

Q: Did you have any discussion with ███ about the sensitive case report referred to in this email?

A Not to my knowledge, I did not.

Q: Did you have any communications with ███ about the sensitive case report referred to in this email?

A I did not.

Q: Did you have any communications with anyone in EO Technical about the sensitive case report referred to in this email?

A Not to my knowledge.

RPTS

DCMN

[ 12:10 p.m. ]

BY

Q: 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.

Q: 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 EO determinations, there has been an emerging is sue due to the fact that a group ruling was terminated. There's 400 subs that are now applying to our organization. It's an emerging issue because of this determination. And it was 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 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.

Q: 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.

Q: Who does makes the decision to determine what is an emerging issue?

A I do not know.

BY

Q: 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.

BY

Q: Is it common for a Determinations Unit to ask screeners to 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.

BY

Q: Can you describe what causes an emerging issue as opposed to --

███: If you know.

███: I 100 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.

BY

Q: 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.

Q: Okay. How do screeners know when something is an emerging issue?

A Experience.

Q: 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.

Q: 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

Q: 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.

Q: 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.

███: I'm not sure which particular case you are talking about.

███: We're talking about the group ruling.

BY

Q: 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.

Q: 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.

BY

Q: In 2010, were applications involving the Tea Party placed in an emerging issues group?

A I'm not aware of that.

BY

Q: You are not aware that Tea Party cases were designated as an emerging issue?

A I am not aware of that.

BY

Q: So in March 2010, the Tea Party cases were held in your unit, correct?

A Correct.

Q: And then at some point they were no longer held in your unit, correct?

A Correct.

Q: 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.

BY

Q: 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.

BY

Q: 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 second.

███: And you say it is in an email that IRS has not allowed you to produce to the committee?

███: We're not allowed to hand over any emails directly to the committee.

███: 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 to ████

BY

Q: Who directed you to send the cases to ████

A This is from ███.

Q: And why did ███ tell you to direct the cases to ████

A I do not know.

███: The email is dated April 25, 2010, sent on Sunday at 1:00 p.m. from ███ to --

███: ███ ████ He is EO 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. This is part of the difficulty we have in that. The email speaks for itself.

BY

Q: 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.

BY

Q: Did you have any conversations with Mr. ███ to send the cases to ███

A I did not.

Q: Did you have any conversations with anyone in EO Technical at the time about decisions to send the cases to ███

A Not to my recollection.

Q: 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

Q: 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.

Q: 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. And that manager has to assign them.

███: And again, the email clearly directs management saying where these cases are going to go.

███: Who's █████ manager?

███: I believe at that time by this email it was 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.

BY

Q: 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.

Q: With respect to the Tea Party cases, did you ever discuss with ███ or anyone else that the reason EO Technical in D.C. wanted the cases was specifically for consistency?

A I don't recall.

Q: Okay. Now I want to let you review Exhibit l. And specifically, there's an email on the first page marked ███ 0001, an email from ███ to ███ on March 17, 2010, at 12:40. I'll give you a second to review that particular email.

A Okay.

Q: 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.

Q: Okay. But so after reviewing the email where ███ says 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 Bllllll I made the decision to hold the Tea Party cases?

A I don't know who may have told. And I don't know.

Q: Sure. Okay.

BY

Q: ███ I want to return to the discussion we were having earlier with 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.

Q: 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.

Q: 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.

Q: 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.

[ ████ Exhibit No. 3 was marked for identification.]

BY

Q: 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 20, 2013, at 10:12 a.m. And this is Exhibit 3.

And sir, I will give you a few minutes to review this document.

A Okay.

Q: Do you recall this email exchange?

A I don't recall the email exchange. I do have a copy of it though.

Q: 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.

Q: Okay. Now although this is dated June 2, 2011, 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.

Q: This is an email from you to ████ dated June 2, 2011, 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 case because there was a potential "Tea Party" case and sent to Group 7822 for secondary screening. One, Tea Party, patriots, or 9/12 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 yoy recall sending this email to ███

A Yes, I do.

Q: 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, how do we 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.

Q: 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.

Q: Okay.

A In the case.

Q: 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 ████ ████ and █████, 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 to provide me with issues that may indicate no organization is involved with the Tea Party movement. And the reason that I wrote it that way, if you look at ████ 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 6103 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.

BY

Q: 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 ██████████.

Q: Just so we're clear, sir, which screener is that email from that you are holding?

A █████

Q: And what is the date of that email?

A June 2.

Q: It's ███ to you?

███: It's actually June 3.

███: June 3, 2011?

███: June 2, 2011 at 8:02 a.m.

███: Thank you.

BY

Q: Okay. Just to be clear, ████ 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?

A That's correct.

Q: Did you ever tell ███ there was no criteria?

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.

Q: 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.

Q: 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.

Q: 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 2010 through here June 2011?

A Language used where?

Q: The language here on Exhibit 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 that they provide me the information about the issues that they considered when addressing a potential Tea Party case.

Q: 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.

Q: 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 asl<ed 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.

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.

Q: 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.

Q: 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.

Q: 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 ███.

Q: Okay. And this is the group that-was in at least as of March 2010?

A 2010, correct.

Q: Okay.

BY

Q: The email also says they were send to Group 7822 for secondary screening.

A Correct.

Q: 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 20 to 25 cases a day. It may require things such as -- let's go look at a Web 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.

Q: 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 --

Q: 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.

Q: 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.

Q: Okay.

A I mean, again, on some of these issues that -- you know, 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.

Q: Okay.

BY

Q: Okay, sir. You can set that document aside, You testified before that at some point the cases that your screeners were identifying were transferred to Group 7822 and to ███ is that correct?

A Right.

Q: Before those cases were transferred are you aware of any case, any Tea Party case that was closed?

A Am I aware?

Q: Yeah.

A Closed from where?

Q: At the screening group level.

A I am not aware of that.

Q: 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.

Q: 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 referenced on Exhibit 1, ███ 0002. The email from ███ to ███

███: Okay. At 9:35 a.m.

███: Which is reference to three of them being closed.

BY

Q: 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 file, I would have sent that to inventory assigned to an agent in Baltimore or whatever and they could have closed it.

Q: 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.

Q: Okay. Was any case closed by a screening group during that time to your knowledge?

A Was any case?

Q: Any of those Tea Party cases.

A I don't know.

Q: Okay.

BY

Q: I want to be clear for the record. The three cases that had been approved per the March 16, 2010 email that was prior to the instruction given to hold the cases, is that correct?

A I would have to look at the cases without that verification.

Q: Well, let me point you then back to Exhibit 1, ███ 0001. So I just stated that on March 16, 2010 that was the date where there had been discussions that three cases had already been approved. And then subsequently on March 17, 2010, is when ███ says to ███ ███ that she asked to hold the rest of the cases. Do you see that email?

A Yes.

Q: Okay. That 's all.

BY

Q: 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 2010, those EO Determinations group manager meetings you were discussing earlier, were any of those held during that time period?

A I don't know.

Q: Okay.

A I mean the meetings were held when ███ called them.

Q: Do you recall ever discussing in this early time period from February 2010 to May 2010 the Tea Party cases at these manager level meetings?

A I do not.

Q: Okay. During the same time period, early part of 2010, are you aware of any manager meetings at the -- I'm sorry, excuse me.

Did you have any meetings with members o-F your group as a whole about the Tea Party cases?

A I did not.

Q: Okay.

███: Just speciFically about the Tea Party or where Tea Party cases were referenced?

███: I would ask it both case ways. The Tea Party cases in particular.

███: Not that I remember.

BY

Q: What about meetings in which the Tea Party cases were referenced?

A I don't know.

Q: Okay. Did you ever speak with ███ about the progress of your group's search in identifying these cases?

A Not to my knowledge.

Q: Okay. To my knowledge, sir, at this early point in 2010, was ███ aware of the Tea Party cases?

A I don't know.

Q: And similarly, sir, to your knowledge in this early part of 2010 was Lois Lerner aware of the Tea Party cases?

A I don't know.

Q: And ████ 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 of 2010? 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.

███: 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.

███: Okay. We appreciate that.

BY

Q: Sir, are you aware of a time at which the EO Determinations Unit began training specialists on the Tea Party cases?

A Am I aware of the time?

Q: 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.

Q: Okay. But you seem to be aware of some training?

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, 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.

Q: 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.

Q: Okay. Sir, to your knowledge, in this initial time frame, February 20Hl to fall of 2010, was the existence of the Tea Party cases, was that widely known among EO Determinations?

A I don't know.

Q: Sir, as a screening group manager, did you ever participate in the drafting of information request letters?

A No, I did not.

Q: Do you know for what 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

Q: Sir, are you familiar with the term BOLO?

A Yes.

Q: What do you understand the term BOLO to refer to?

A I believe it means "be on the lookout."

Q: Now the TIGTA audit indicates that in May of 2010 EO 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.

Q: When did you become aware of the BOLO?

A Please?

Q: When did you become aware of the BOLO?

A I couldn't even tell you.

Q: Okay. That's fine. But you said you received the BOLO?

A Everyone in EO Determinations received the BOLO.

Q: Okay.

BY

Q: Do you know who was responsible for developing the BOLO?

A I have not been told but

███: Don't speculate.

███: Okay.

BY

Q: And you had no input into the language of the BOLO?

A No, I did not.

Q: Did you ever discuss this BOLO with your screeners?

A I don't recall.

Q: 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 be a future consideration of an i tern 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 7B22. 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 7B22 and let them handle it.

Q: 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.

███: I don't know. So many of these things are beyond 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.

BY

Q: So the BOLO, from your perspective, is not a tool for the screeners to use?

A That's correct.

Q: Sir, also according to the TIGTA audit at some point in August of 2010, the application involving Tea Party cases that were sent to a different team of specialists in EO Determinations, do you have any awareness of that?

A I do not.

Q: Sir, so after -- February 2010, █████ 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 lil<e this.

Q: Okay. And so then by March of 2010, you had identified 10 Tea Party cases?

A The agents in my group had.

Q: Right. And those were all sent over to Group 7822?

A That was in April then.

Q: Right. After that point what was your involvement with the Tea Party cases?

A I had no involvement.

Q: Were they still coming in?

A You know, if around when the issues were identified in these cases, they were then transferred to Group 7822.

Q: Okay. So after April 213113 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.

Q: And once it's over there in Group 7822 you have no knowledge of what happens to it then?

A That's correct.

Q: Was there a point in time when that procedure changed?

A Not to my knowledge.

Q: 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.

Q: And is that still the practice today?

A I could not comment on that.

Q: But at the time you left the position of screening group manager was that still the practice?

A To the best of my knowledge.

Q: Okay. Did you have any discussions with ███ about the Tea Party cases in the fall of 2010?

A Not that I remember.

Q: What about ████?

A Not that I remember.

Q: And turning to the spring of 2011, did you have any discussions with ███ about Tea Party cases in the spring of 2011?

A Not that I recall.

Q: What about ████?

A Not that I recall.

Q: 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.

Q: Okay.

BY

Q: 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, 2011 from to ████ to ████ and she was forwarding your email that you sent to ███ on Thursday June 2, 2011 with the four issues that could indicate a case to be considered a potential Tea Party case. And she says, ███ says to ███ 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 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 EO Determinations still needs to know how the cases should be processed.

So my question to you is, did ███ ever give you any instructions on what to do with these cases?

A Not to my knowledge.

Q: Did anyone else give you any instruction on what to do with these cases?

A Not to my knowledge.

BY

Q: Did you ever get criteria to use in screening Tea Party cases?

A I never did get criteria to use.

BY

Q: 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.

Q: Right.

A But we never had criteria.

Q: 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 ones --

███: Who'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.

BY

Q: 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.

Q: Okay. Thank you.

BY

Q: ████ according to the TIGTA audit, there is a briefing with Lois Lerner on July 5, 2011 about the Tea Party cases. Were you aware of that briefing?

A I was not.

Q: So suffice it to say you did not participate in that briefing?

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.

BY

Q: I just want to ask you one more question, going back to the 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.

Q: Okay.

BY

Q: So you received no instruction one way or the other?

A Not that I recall.

███: Okay.

BY

Q: We're talking about the June 2011 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.

BY

Q: ████ were you aware of a meeting August 2011 with the Chief Counsel's office and the EO Determinations folks in Cincinnati?

A What date was that now?

Q: August 2011.

A I don't believe so. I don't recall any meetings with Chief Counsel.

Q: Do you recall meetings with anybody from the Chief Counsel's office?

A I do not.

███: 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 2011.

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 █████ and ███ dated July 5, 2011, at 5: 10 p.m. There were folks who were cc'ed as well.

███: Who were those folks?

███: █████████ █████

███: █████, ████, █████ and █████.

BY

Q: Thank you. And ████ 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 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.

███: 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.

BY

Q: Did ███ 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.

Q: 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.

Q: 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 ████ 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.

RPTS
DCMN

[ 2 p.m. ]

BY

Q: Okay. So you're not refreshed at all what the concern was in the email?

A Not at all.

Q: And, ███ in December of 2011, I understand that there was a special group of specialists created within EO Determinations to handle Tea Party cases. Were you aware of that at all?

A I don't recall in December being aware of that.

Q: 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.

Q: Were you aware in December of 2011 about this group, this meeting?

A I don't recall.

Q: 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 6103 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 -- in order 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 committee.

███: For 6103 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 100 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 have work 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. ]

███: We' 11 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 ███

███: Great. Thank you.

Before we break -- broke, there was 10 minutes left in this portion of the examination. It's 2:42, and we' 11 continue for 10 more minutes.

BY

Q: ████ before the break, we were discussing the special group that was assembled in December 2011. Do you recall that discussion?

A Yes, I do.

Q: Were you aware of a point at which this team, this group was disbanded?

A I am not.

Q: And in this time period, the end of 2011, did you have any discussions with ████ about the Tea Party cases?

A Not to my knowledge.

Q: What about ███?

A No, I did not.

BY

███: What time period is this?

███: End of 2011.

Q: What about Lois Lerner?

A Definitely not.

Q: Okay.

███: These are direct communications?

███: That's right.

BY

Q: Were you aware of any involvement by ███ in the Tea Party cases at this time?

A I am not.

Q: I'm sorry, I should be clearer. At the time period December 2011?

A Not to my understanding.

███: Other than what's already been discussed.

███: Correct.

BY

Q: Okay. At that time in December 21311, were you aware of any involvement by Lois Lerner in the Tea Party cases?

A Not other than what we've already discussed.

Q: Okay. Now, sir, according to the tape to audit, in January 21311, the BOLO criteria language was changed. Were you aware that the language had been changed?

A Not to my understanding.

Q: So you were not aware at that time?

A I was not, other than the fact that BOLO was, you know, provided to me. It wasn't one of my choice documents.

Q: Okay.

A I wasn't aware.

Q: But when the BOLO 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.

Q: Okay. You don't recall opening it or viewing the document?

A I do not recall that.

Q: 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 understanding of what that would mean.

Q: 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.

Q: Okay. Sir, what about the language, social reform, slash, movement; can you help us understand what that means, social reform, slash, movement?

A I really can't comment. I don't know.

Q: Okay. Would a religious organization qualify as a social reform, slash, movement?

A A what?

Q: 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.

Q: What about a prolife group; would that qualify as a social reform, slash, movement?

A I would not be able to comment on that.

Q: Similarly, what about prochoice, a prochoice group; would that qualify?

A That is nothing that I would know.

Q: Okay. And lastly, sir, what about a marriage equality group; would that qualify as a social -- marriage equality?

A I really don't know.

Q: Okay. ███ are you aware of any other BOLOs or language in the BOLO having to do with other political-oriented criteria?

███: You understand the question?

███: I think -- I don't know.

███: Then 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

Q: Sure.

A So, whatever is in the BOLO is not really forefront for me. So it would be difficult to comment on that.

Q: 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.

BY

Q: Is it something that in the past you would be refreshed with; is the BOLO --

███: Can I just have the question one more time?

███: 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.

███: Maybe if ███ just describes what the BOLO list was and what it contains, because maybe then it would be -- I think 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 BOLOs 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 6103 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 than me.

███: This one is 9/22/11.

BY

Q: 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.

███: 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-- I don't see it in there, what he's asking.

███: About other

███: Uh-huh.

███: What's the exact question?

BY

Q: Sir, based on your knowledge of the document you're looking at in front of you right now, the 9/22/2011 version of the BOLO, is 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.

BY

Q: 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.

███: I think the list is -- speaks for itself, and this is why we wanted the IRS to produce all documents.

███: I mean, the document, like I 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.

BY

Q: Sure.

A With that in mind, it's very difficult for me to say what the intent was, or what the language was, or what's involved with that.

BY

Q: 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.

Q: You don't. Okay.

BY

Q: Sir, can I ask you, on that document you just reviewed, the September 2011 version of the BOLO, was there any language about prolife groups?

A I didn't see any when I --

███: Let's look at it.

███: Yeah.

███: If you know what a prolife is just by looking at it.

███: I don't see that reference that would make it readily apparent to me.

BY

Q: 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 are.

███: I don't see anything.

BY

Q: Okay.

A And I might mention, this is the most scrutiny I've ever given this document.

███: Okay. We have reached our Hl-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?

███: It's 3:03.

███: Okay. On my watch it's 3:13, but the clock in the room is 3:03.

BY

Q: ███ 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.

Q: Did you direct to use specific criteria to identify Tea Party cases in March 2010?

A I do not recall doing that.

Q: Did you ever direct to use specific criteria to identify Tea Party cases?

A I do not recall doing that.

Q: Did you direct any members of your group to use specific criteria to identify Tea Party cases?

A I do not recall doing that.

Q: Are you aware of any political bias by employees in the Cincinnati office against conservative views?

A I'm not aware of that.

Q: Are you aware of any political motivations behind the screening, centralizing, and development of Tea Party cases?

A I'm not aware of that.

Q: Are you aware of any political motivations to benefit one political party in the Cincinnati office?

A: I am not aware of that.

Q: Would you characterize the Cincinnati office as a political place?

A I'm not aware of that.

Q: Would you -- do people discuss politics around the office?

A Not with me.

Q: How many days a.week do you work in the office?

A: Between three and five.

Q: 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.

Q: Can you describe why?

A If they request cases from EO Technical, that is part of my responsibility, to honor that request, and that normally would come through the chain of command from ███.

Q: Did you think the request was an appropriate request?

A I have -- sure, I thought it was appropriate, because they requested it.

Q: What about their request did you think was appropriate?

███: "They" being?

BY

Q: "They" being your supervisor.

A Precisely that, they're my supervisor.

Q: Did you make an independent determination to send a case to your supervisor in February 2010 that was a Tea Party case?

A I elevated an issue to my area manager? That was a Tea Party case.

Q: 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.

Q: 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.

BY

Q: 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.

Q: 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.

BY

Q: Did you ever have concerns about how it would appear that you were centralizing the review of Tea Party cases?

A I did not.

Q: 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.

Q: 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.

Q: 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.

Q: 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.

Q: 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.

███: I'm marking a document as Exhibit 4. You know what? I'm sorry, I only have two copies.

[ ███ Exhibit No. 4 was marked for identification. ]

███: It's a Politico article from today entitled "GOP to Darrell Issa: Cool It," June 6, 2013. I just want to direct to a quote in the article.

BY

Q: Go to page 2.

███: Do you have one for the Republicans? Do you have one right there?

███: Can you read the article and what's --

BY

Q: The name of the article is "GOP to Darrell Iss a: Cool It." It's Politico, and it was published on June 6th, 2013.

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?

A Yes.

Q: 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?

███: What's your question?

BY

Q: 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.

Q: Do you know when executives in Washington 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.

Q: Do you know when ████ became aware of how screeners in Cincinnati were identifying Tea Party cases?

A I do not.

Q: 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.

Q: 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?

A I'm not aware of that.

Q: 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.

Q: Are you aware of when Joseph Grant became aware of how screeners in Cincinnati were identifying Tea Party cases?

A I'm not aware of that.

Q: 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.

Q: 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 have no reason to believe that.

Q: 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.

Q: 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.

Q: Have you ever communicated directly with ████

A Have I talked?

Q: Yes. Yes.

A Define -- I have talked with-

Q: You have?

A I have talked with -

Q: Have you ever spoken with- about the screening of Tea Party cases?

A Not to my knowledge.

Q: 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 to me in the -- in my TIGTA interview. Now, if you want to talk and say that's communicating, it could be, but I wasn't communicating with ███ okay.

BY

Q: Separate and apart from your TIGTA interview, have you ever communicated with ███ about the screening of Tea Party cases?

A I have not.

Q: Have you ever communicated with Lois Lerner about screening of Tea Party cases?

A I have not.

Q: Have you ever communicated with Commissioner Shulman about the screening of Tea Party cases?

A I have not.

Q: Have you ever communicated with Steve Miller about the --

A I have not.

Q: -- 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

Q: By communications, I mean direct conversations or direct email correspondence between the two of you.

A I have not.

Q: Have you had any communications with Joseph Grant about the screening of Tea Party cases?

A Not to my knowledge.

Q: Have you had any communications with anyone from the Treasury Department about the screening of Tea Party cases?

A Not to my knowledge.

Q: In spring/summer of 2010, when you 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.

Q: Did you send only those Tea Party cases that had indications of political campaign involvement to ███

A I can't respond to that because I don't know.

Q: 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.

Q: 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.

Q: 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?

A Yes, we did.

Q: And the initial case identified by did have an indication of political activity, correct?

A Yes, it did.

Q: Do you think that that would have suggested to the screeners that political activity was, in fact, an indicator that the screener should look for?

A The presence of political activity had to be displayed 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 to me that someone else needs to get additional information.

Q: 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 EO 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 501(c)(4) regs.

███: Sure.

BY

Q: So why would it be an issue if there's a 504 applicant whose application indicates that the organization may be involved in political campaign activity?

A We would need to know how frequently or -- of the total activities, 1ee 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.

Q: And for a sel(c)(4) application, why is it important to know exactly how much political activity the organization will be engaging in?

A Because the law says that a 5el(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.

Q: And how did you define the term "primary activity"?

A I didn't define that, okay?

Q: 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.

BY

Q: Do you know if the regulations provide you with a clear definition of what political campaign activity is?

A Do I know that?

BY

Q: Do you know whether they do or not?

A You're asking an opinion?

███: Yes, based on your experience.

BY

Q: Is it easy to tell? Is it easy to tell if it's primary activity or not?

A The only statement I will make, when I was an agent, the cases that I really despised working most were (c)(4)s. 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 someone -- that Agent A would interpret something one way, and Agent B would interpret some way else. But the regs are the regs, and, you know, we -- we have to deal with what we have.

BY

Q: 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.

Q: 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?

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

Q: When you --

BY

Q: Is the difficulty that you identified in those regs one reason why EO Determinations sometimes consults with the tax law experts in EO Technical?

A Correct.

BY

Q: Is that one of the reasons why you did it in this case?

A The reason that the case was elevated to EO 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 of February 15th, 2010, 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.

███: 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 EO Technical eventually, not because of the issue of the political activity.

And I think ███, in a subsequent 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.

BY

Q: Do you know whether EO 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

Q: Do you know generally the level of involvement EO Technical 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, within 3 days 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.

BY

Q: We've been told that EO Technical was involved because they were going to give legal guidance on the -- this difficult issue of how to determine whether the 501(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.

BY

Q: 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, 2011.

A Uh-huh.

Q: 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?

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 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.

Q: Did you understand the Tea Party movement, you personally, to mean more than organizations with just the word "Tea Party" in their name?

A Yes.

Q: 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.

Q: Did you understand organizations involved in the Tea Party movement to be involved in political advocacy?

A Not necessarily.

BY

Q: I think I'm -- I think I'm a little confused at this point. So when you were identifying potential Tea Party cases, were you --and quote/unquote, 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?

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 I asked them when I went out for this information.

BY

Q: 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 5131( 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

Q: 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 aware of that.

BY

Q: 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 --

BY

Q: 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 -- 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

Q: Did your screeners understand that they had the option of 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.

BY

Q: Did screeners send cases to you between May 2010 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.

RPTS
DCMN

[ 3:35 p.m. ] BY

Q: 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. ]

BY

Q: 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.

BY

Q: Directions by who?

A I gave them directions.

Q: 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 didn't want them to spend their time with the instructions that the BOLO would instruct.

Normally, as I looked at the BOLO on 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.

Q: And when the cases were sent to 7B22, 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 BOLO action would be taken by someone in that group.

BY

Q: Did you receive questions from your screeners about the language in the BOLO, about how to interpret it?

A I don't recall that.

Q: So the screeners in your group did use the BOLO? Is that fair?

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 to Group 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 what my --

BY

Q: Someone in California would be a determination specialist working a case?

A Sure.

Q: 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.

Q: The BO --

A There's multiple reasons that could happen. I mean, you know, the case development, your answers to your questions can produce situations.

BY

Q: 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.

Q: So the BOLO told you where to send that particular case, right, to group --

A Not for screeners.

Q: 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 particular issue.

███: Do you have that iteration?

███: Yeah.

███: I mean, you can look at the BOLO, and it -- it 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.

BY

Q: 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

Q: So I'm handing you a document. I'm not 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.

[ ███ Exhibit No. 5 was marked for identification. ]

███: Thanks.

BY

Q: So it's called the BOLO iteration history and it's dated 4/30/2012, and it lists the different iteration of the relevant section 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.

Q: 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 seen it before. I think this is a work product of the TIGTA.

BY

Q: You're correct. This is a compilation of all the different BOLOs. I think -- 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.

BY

Q: 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 screeners send all of those things to Group 7822?

A Correct.

Q: So anything that occurred on the BOLO went over to 7822 --

A Correct.

Q: -- 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

Q: And so to be clear, we're not just talking about the Tea Party iterations, we're talking about whatever else was on the BOLO?

A That's correct.

BY

Q: In early June -- July 2011, you became aware that Lois Lerner had a meeting with some individuals to discuss, amongst other things, the way that Cincinnati was screening Tea Party cases. Is that correct?

A When did I become aware of that?

Q: Well, actually, did you become aware

A I --

Q: -- in July --

A I --

Q: -- of 2011?

A Again, I had I was at the -- the email I refreshed earlier, before I looked at that email, I didn't recall it. I mean, 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.

Q: Were concerns expressed by Lois Lerner ever communicated to you?

A Not to my recollection.

BY

Q: Now that you've been refreshed?

███: Other than the July '11 email we talked about earlier?

███: No.

███: 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.

███: Yeah.

███: I don't --

███: This is

BY

Q: 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 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 --

Q: Not other than the email.

A But, no, that

Q: 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.

BY

Q: 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.

███: Okay.

███: So --

BY

Q: So you've had a chance to review the email?

A Uh-huh.

Q: When was that email from? Can you tell me the date of the email?

A July 5th, 2011.

Q: And on July 5th, 2011, who communicated to you that Ms. Lerner had expressed concerns at this meeting?

A That email was from

Q: And what were the concerns that relayed to you that Ms. Lerner had?

A There's multiple ones in this email, and that's --

Q: 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 pattern. And if I had saw a pattern, I would hpve responded, which I did not. So I really

███: ███, that's -- yeah.

███: I don't -- really don't recall the email other than refreshing at this point.

███: Is that not an accurate --

███: No.

███: -- reflection of what's in the email.

███: 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 -- I still don't recall this email. I don't recall what, you know, response, if any, that I provided ███ ███ - to

███: Then I think if his memory's not refreshed, we ought to --

███: That's all.

███: -- we need to move on.

BY

Q: During the period your screening group was instructed to send cases to Group 7822, did you have any knowledge of how cases would · be processed once they got to Group 7822?

A I did not.

Q: You didn't have any knowledge of the level of scrutiny the cases would --

A I did not.

Q: -- 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 --

Q: That's it.

A -- you know.

███: Thank you very much.

███: Okay.

███: 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 just have a short follow-up and then I'm going to turn it back over to ███·

BY

Q: 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

Q: Okay. So my question is, I just want to be clear, do you have personal knowledge of the motivations of Washington and how they worked the Tea Party cases?

A I do not.

Q:Thank you.

BY

Q: 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

Q: ███ 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.

Q: 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.

Q: And is that because you have no personal knowledge?

A That's correct.

Q: Okay. Thank you.

BY

Q: 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?

███: And because it's a broad question, because we don't 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

Q: ███ 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.

Q: So you had the authority to approve those cases?

A Sure did.

Q: And did you, in fact, approve any Tea Party cases?

A I can't address that. I don't know.

Q: 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 5,000 cases a month go -- go through our group, and that, you know, some cases --

███: ███ can you speak up?

███: I didn't -- I didn't really, you know, thoroughly address all cases like that.

███: And I want to also elaborate, if it's okay, as to 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.

BY

Q: Okay. And as you sit here today, you have no recollection of approving a Tea Party case?

A I do not.

Q: Okay.

███: May I take just one second?

███: Please.

BY

Q: So in August of 2010, if a Tea Party application for (c) ( 4) 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 composite of everything that's in that case that an agent would make a determination as to what bucket it should go into or to what group it should be assigned.

Q: Who would decide whether or not it ended up with 7822?

A That would be the agent.

Q: And how much of their decision would be guided by the BOLO? 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 --

BY

Q: Well, let's say in August of 2010.

A I really am not able to address what would be in the -- in the agent's mind.

BY

Q: Yes. Actually, I have another question. Once EO 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 case?

███: And it was at EO Technical?

███: That's right. It's while this --this whole issue is being reviewed by EO Technical.

███: So you're talking· about that short window of time from the end of February to April?

███: Sure.

███: Well, no.

███: I mean, I

███: I think her question -- I think her question is after you became aware that EO 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 --

BY

Q: 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

Q: 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 EO Technical said they wanted these cases, and say this case has no political activity and we're going to go ahead 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.

Q: 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. ███: -- could they -- could he then approve in any way?

███: Right. Because I think that's the confusion, that you could have gotten --

███: Once --

███: -- a Tea Party case.

███: 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

Q: Right. So as soon as -- so every time you had a Tea Party case, after the instructions were given by EO 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.

Q: Okay.

BY

Q: Just a last question. So the August 12th, 2010, BOLO, it says that these cases involved various local -- local organizations and the Tea Party movement are applying for exemption under 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4).

███: Just so we know what you're reading from.

███: I'm reading from -- from the TIGTA BOLO compilation.

███: Okay.

███: And then the -- it's the BOLO that was in existence August 12th, 2010.

BY

Q: The direction is for any cases in this group, any cases should be sent to Group 78 -- 7822. In reality, does that mean each case shall be sent to 7822 after it's considered on the merits or is it automatically sent?

A Each case would be, you know, judged on its merits and the facts and circumstances in that case. I can't categorically say that, you know, these cases are automatic. As I indicated before, this BOLO is not a document that is paramount in my --

Q: Okay.

A -- with my screeners. And the directions on here were, you know, adhered to by, you know, the entire --

Q: Okay.

A -- division.

BY

Q: ████ could I direct your attention to Exhibit 2 for just a moment, please?

A Okay.

Q: So, sir, if you could -- if you could look at that second email there from the bottom. That's from ████ to ███

A Okay.

Q: -- cc'ing you and █████ on Monday, April 5th, 2010.

A Okay.

Q: See that email? It says, what information would you like? We are holding the cases pending guidance from EO Technical, because ███ didn't want all the cases sent to D.C.

A That's correct.

Q: Do you recall that email?

A Yes, I do.

Q: So as of April 5th, 2010, when tells ███ tells ████ ███ and cc' s you that, we are holding the cases pending guidance from EO Technical, did you have discretion to approve Tea Party cases on your own?

A Are we talking about these cases we were holding?

Q: Yes, sir.

A Not at that point, because they had been identified as cases that really had issues that needed development.

Q: And what cases were you holding at that point?

A They were cases that had been identified from that first case that we sent to EO Technical, which was at the end of February.

Q: How many cases were you holding at that point?

A I couldn't tell you at this time. I really don't know.

Q: Ballpark number? A handful? Dozens? A hundred?

A Oh, I don't believe it was a hundred. Probably more than a handful. I really don't know the answer to that question.

Q: Okay. Let me direct your attention to Exhibit 3 for a moment, please, sir.

A Okay.

Q: Now, at the very bottom of that, of the first page of that exhibit, it's an email from you to ████ on Thursday, June 2nd, 2011. So we're skipping ahead a year now, a little over a year, right? And you say, ███ the following are issues that could indicate a case to be considered, a potential Tea Party case, and sent to Group 7822 for secondary screening. And then you list those criteria. Do you recall sending this email?

A Yes.

Q: So as of June 2nd, 2011, did you have -- did you, in your role there on June 2nd, 2011, have the authority to approve a potential Tea Party case on your own?

A Depending, again, on the facts and circumstances and the issues that were presented in the case file, I would make a decision based upon the total facts.

███ And I think it's just important that this is all hypothetical in that you've already asked whether he remembers handling these cases. He doesn't. I guess I'm trying to put it in context the best as we can.

███: And this question has been asked and answered approximately 10 times now. He keeps giving the same answer.

███: I appreciate that, ███· This is, like, the fifth or sixth time that you've now interrupted our questions. You've had an equal amount of time to ask the witness questions. I'd respectfully ask that you respect the witness' time, and stop interrupting.

BY

Q: ███ you say in that email, this is Exhibit 3, you list these criteria. Let's go to -- let's go to number one, where you say, Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 Project is referenced in the case file. If those words were referenced in the case file that you receive, would you have the independent authority to approve that case?

A This, first off, is not my criteria. I have said before I asked the three senior agents in my group, when they reviewed cases, what would they look for for a potential auto revocation case. I have never said or was I ever given direction concerning the inability to perform my function, which includes closing cases.

Q: Your email seems to indicate, sir, that if -- if a case file referenced the terms Tea Party, Patriots or 9/12 Project, it would be sent to Group 7822 for secondary screening. Is that not the case? Am I misreading your email?

A The email really is referencing ████ request for do applications state Tea Party? If not, how do we know the applicant 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.

Q: 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 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.

Q: 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.

BY

Q: 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 cases?

A No, no, no. Did I say -- I'm sorry.

Q: Yeah, you said that.

A I'm sorry.

Q: 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.

BY

Q: ███ --

███: Thank you for clarifying.

BY

Q: --I want to shift gears a little bit here. Sir, it's my understanding that at some point in the spring of 2012, 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.

Q: 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.

Q: Do you recall who interviewed you?

A I believe it was ███

Q: And, sir, were you interviewed alone?

A No.

Q: 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 --

Q: And these people you reference, are they people from D.C. or Cincinnati?

A Both.

Q: Okay. So you were not the only Cincinnati employee who was interviewed at this time?

A That's correct.

Q: And what kind of questions did ███ and ███ and everyone else ask you?

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 ███

Q: 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.

BY

Q: 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

Q: 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.

Q: 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.

Q: 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 interview?

A Not to my -- not to my knowledge.

Q: Did you ever speak to ███ about this interview process?

A No, I did not. Not to my knowledge.

Q: Sir, to your -- let me ask you this first. Did you ever speak to your area managers about this interview?

A Not to my knowledge.

Q: The people who were interviewed by the Washington folks, were they just the group managers or were they also line employees?

A They were line employees.

Q: Okay.

A I believe these interviews lasted 3 days, and I was on day one.

Q: Okay.

A If that gives you a scope.

Q: 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.

Q: 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.

Q: Okay. And, sir, do you know, when this investigation concluded, how long it took, approximately?

A For me or --

Q: 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 the entire 3 days, and I do -- those dates are somewhere.

███: Yeah. And, again, you-- I'mnot sure if ████ understands investigation versus interviews versus review of documents versus reports. I think he's clarified his involvement --

███: Sure.

███: -- in what they were doing and that's what he knows.

BY

Q: 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.

Q: 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.

Q: So you were never made aware of the results or anything like that?

A I was not.

Q: Okay. Did anything change as a result of this investigation?

A Not to my knowledge.

Q: All right. Sir, I want to turn to the TIGTA audit. It's my understanding that the TIGTA audit began in March of 2012. When did you become aware of the fact that TIGTA was conducting an audit?

A There's a document that I was notified to participate in an interview with the -- the TIGTA individual.

Q: 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 was notified by ███ that I was scheduled for an interview on Monday, August 6th.

BY

Q: And what day was this email from

A This was on July 26th.

Q: Is this email just to you or to others in your determination?

A It was to others.

Q: You and others?

A Correct.

Q: Okay. How many others?

A One, two, three, four, five, six, seven.

███: Eight.

███: Seven and two copies.

BY

Q: 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.

Q: Okay.

BY

Q: 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.

BY

Q: But you were aware that it had something to do with the evaluation of Tea Party applications?

A I believe I did.

Q: And you knew that from a conversation with ███?

A I don't recall.

Q: 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

Q: And, were you, in fact, interviewed by TIGTA?

A Yes, I was.

Q: On that date referenced in the email?

A Yes, I was.

Q: And that's the only time that you were interviewed by TIGTA?

Were you ever interviewed another date?

A No, I wasn't.

Q: And, sir, I think you made reference to this before, but you were interviewed with ███ in the room?

A She --

Q: Is that correct?

A She sat by my side.

Q: Directly by your side

A Yes, she did.

Q: -- like ███ is today?

A Right to my right.

Q: What was her role in the interview?

███: If we can have a moment just to talk with Mr. --

███: Sure.

███: -- ███ on this.

███: Go off the record, please.

[ Discussion off the record. ]

███: Back on the record, please. BY

Q: ███ what was ███ role in your interview with TIGTA?

A I wasn't told.

Q: 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 in anything with, you know -- normally, I think what I'm trying to say, these interviews were one-to-one, and -- and so she was there.

Q: So you were not made aware beforehand that she would be there?

A I can't recall that.

Q: Okay. And you mentioned before that you had other interactions with TIGTA in your career. Is that dght?

A Occpsionally, for different situations.

Q: Sure.

A Uh-huh.

Q: 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.

Q: Was ███ there on your behalf? Was she representing you?

A She was not, to my knowledge.

Q: Okay. So you did not ask her to be there?

A I did not.

Q: Okay.

BY

Q: 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.

Q: And why did you feel it was -- you said you were surprised, 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.

Q: 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.

Q: 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.

Q: 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.

Q: How do you feel about the appropriateness of ███ being in that interview?

███: 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.

BY

Q: What are your feelings now?

A Probably about the same.

BY

Q: Did you -- did you ask TIGTA why ███ was in the room?

A I did not.

BY

Q: And, ████ are you familiar with the TIGTA audit report they put out last month?

A I have read it over.

Q: 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 --

BY

Q: What parts do you think are inaccurate?

A Not so much inaccurate, but not fully investigated or fully described.

Q: 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 at was the part that was pertaining to me.

Q: ███ to your knowledge, has anyone in the IRS been disciplined as a result of the actions that are contained within the TIGTA report?

A Not to my knowledge,

███: Well, when and where? You don't know anyone anywhere?

███: No, I do not. Not about this TIGTA audit.

BY

Q: 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?

BY

Q: 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?

Q: Have you 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.

Q: 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 to or anything about it, because I wasn'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.

Q: Okay. So you're just generally familiar with the fact that it may have happened?

A Sure.

Q: Okay. ███ are you aware of media reports that the Cincinnati office of the IRS improperly released nine applications for tax exempt status to a media group?

A Am I aware of that? Yes.

Q: Do you have any personal knowledge of this?

A I do not.

Q: To your knowledge, has anyone been held responsible for that inappropriate release?

A I do not know that.

Q: ███ have you ever discussed applications for tax exempt status with any officials in the National Treasury Employees Union?

A Specific --

Q: Applications.

A Applications?

Q: That's correct.

A I don't believe I have.

BY

Q: Have you ever discussed the process for evaluating groups of applications with the national --

A Not with the national office. I have very limited contact with the union.

Q: 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.

Q: 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.

BY

Q: ████ were you aware of inquiries from Members of Congress about potential targeting of conservative groups by the IRS?

A Inquiries by Congress?

Q: 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.

[ 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 --

███: Email chain.

███: Email chain dated February 24th, 2012, from ███ ███ to █████ and ████

███: Was that 24th or 4th?

███: 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 3:46p.m.

So I guess if the question is 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 --

BY

Q: What do you --

A -- was asking me.

Q: What do you recall the question in the email to be?

A Talking again about the BOLO. And we have gone through that, that I had nothing to do with the BOLO, you know, from any aspect.

Q: And to clarify, this is a question from ███ to you or ███ to █████ or Ms. Lerner to ███

A The email is from to myself and

Q: 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 ████

BY

Q: Is the congressional --

███: Is that correct?

███: Yes.

███: Okay. That's correct.

BY

Q: 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.

███: There you go.

BY

Q: 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.

BY

Q: Does it say what date the meeting was?

A Umh --

Q: 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.

Q: 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.

███: Oh, yeah.

███: I mean, I'll tell you what it says right here. I just got back from a meeting, so, I mean --

BY

Q: Okay.

A -- you know, I'm not sure if that was on the 24th or when it was, but still, you know.

Q: ███ 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 I?

███: Do you remember or not?

███: I do not remember.

███: That's fine.

RPTS
DCMN

[ 4:35p.m. ]

BY

Q: ███ now on May 10 of this year, 2013, Ms. Lerner 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.

Q: Were you aware before she did that that she was going to appear at that panel?

A I was not.

Q: Were you aware that she had publicly acknowledged the information contained in the TIGTA audit on that --

A I did not.

Q: 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.

Q: And how did you become aware of that fact?

A The newspaper.

Q: Have you ever spoken to Mr. Werfel about his --

A I have not.

Q: Do you know what this review will entail?

A I do not.

Q: Have you been contacted by anyone in IRS leadership to discuss your involvement with Tea Party cases?

A I have not.

Q: 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.

Q: Okay. ███ do you have a personal email account?

A Yes, I do.

Q: Have you ever used your personal email account to conduct official government business?

███: Outside of communications with counsel.

███: Not that I recall.

BY

Q: Okay. 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.

Q: 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.

Q: 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?

A I do not.

Q: Why not?

A I just am aware of the process. And I really at this point in time have no definitive knowledge that would lead me to believe that that is true.

Q: 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.

Q: 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?

███: That's right.

BY

Q: 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.

Q: 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 that.

BY

Q: ███ if the IRS -- I think you mentioned this before, the IRS has paid for your travel here today, correct?

A Yes they did.

Q: Are they paying for your counsel, too?

A No, they are not.

Q: Who is paying for your counsel, sir?

A I am.

Q: 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.

Q: Okay. We appreciate it.

A Thank you.

[ Discussion off the record. ]

BY

Q: A moment ago when you were talking with my colleagues about the TIGTA interview --

A Okay.

Q: 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.

Q: 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.

Q: Did you withhold any information during the TIGTA interview because ███ was in the room?

A No, I did not.

Q: Did you answer any of TIGTA' s questions differently because ███ was in the room?

A I don't believe I did.

BY

Q: You mentioned that you had done TIGTA interviews before. Do you know about how many?

A Probably two.

Q: And do you know whether or not those interviews were conducted pursuant to a TIGTA audit or a TIGTA investigation?

A TIGTA investigation.

Q: The other two were TIGTA investigations?

A Yes.

Q: And are you aware of what -- the context of the interview regarding the issue we're talking about today?

A Do I know what now?

Q: 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 investigation?

███: Yes. I do know it was an audit.

BY

Q: And the first two interviews you did were TIGTA investigations?

A Correct.

BY

Q: And this was one was an audit?

A Correct.

BY

Q: 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 analyzing 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 my manager, who elevated it to the Washington office for direction and guidance from EO 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.

BY

Q: 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 that Washington was involved as well. Do you remember that?

A Not specifically, but, I mean, when you're talking about Washington was involved in screening the cases?

Q: No. And I didn't mean --if I said that, I didn't mean to. What I mean is you were asked was Washington involved generally in this issue, or was Cincinnati only involved? Do you remember that?

A In screening or total?

Q: Just this issue generally.

A Okay. I recall that.

Q: When you said that, yes, Washington was involved, were you referring to the Technical Unit?

A Yes, I was.

Q: Were you referring to any other part of the IRS besides the Technical Unit?

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.

Q: 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.

BY

Q: Our colleagues asked you about your reaction to the TIGTA report. And I wanted to ask if you agreed with TIGTA' s use of 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, you know, as we go through this issue, again --

███: You realize when you stop talking, we're done.

███: Okay.

BY

Q: 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, and I know that what I did was not targeting.

███: Thank you.

███: That concludes the interview, ████ Thank you very much for cooperating.

███: Thank you.

[ Whereupon, at 4:50 p.m., the interview concluded. ]