tv Capital News Today CSPAN July 18, 2013 11:00pm-2:01am EDT
the republican staff. i believe there has been information shared between the majority staff and the minority staff; however, we do not have currently on file an authorization from the chairman allowing us to share that information directly. >> chairman sent a letter saying mr. cummings was included the group to see 6103 you could come comply with that? >> i would have to review that. i believe it's accurate. >> all right. i want to make sure we understand to the extend if somebody pushes back on 6103 we have two problems. one, make sure the scope is narrow enough it only includes 6103, that's open to consideration including by the chairman. and secondly, the question of who gets the information, which currently in open session would not be appropriate. even in closed session would not available to us; is that correct? >> yes, that's correct, sir. >> and mr. george, your need to
here on the side of caution, if you were wrong and came before us and you disclosed 6103 would you be protected by something called speech and debate? >> no. what could happen to you if you release 6103 information. if you erred on the side of liberal? >> anywhere from removal of position to criminal prosecution, sir. >> thank you. i recognize the ranking member. >> thank you. i want to begin by picking up where chairman left off. i'm asking about troubling testimony we heard yesterday about personally intervening to block the committee from receiving documents. i listened to what you just said. i want to take that no to consideration as i asked. the hearing yesterday and the
acting head testified that the irs was about to send us documents last week. with information related to category of progressive or left leaning groups that may have received they determined it wasser. admissible to share the information with our committee. because it related to cat dwoirs that rather than specifically identifiable taxpayers. i want to read exactly what he said yesterday under oath and get your response. he -- and i quote, we were imminently going to produce a document in an unredacted form that would indicate that identity of a grouping of entities that we
felt were similar in a kind of scope as tea party. in terms of the grouping so it wouldn't be able -- you wouldn't be able to identify a particular taxpayer because a grouping was so broad. and he, meaning you, mr. george, reached out when he learned that we were about to produce this information and express concern and indicated a disagreement without internal expert whether this was 6103 protected or not. mr. george, is that true? >> -- >> did you personally contact mr. werfel's office? >> yes, i did. and i -- can i explain why? >> please. >> i was contacted by council on my staff about the overall situation that you described and there was a dispute there was some concern because the career
irs officials that you referred to, yeah. you cited mr. werfel -- >> yes. >> had indicated their original position was this was 6103 protected information. >> okay. >> and then lo and behold after all of this has broken in to the public, they all of a sudden changed their legal, you know, decision. >> okay. >> with position to that. without providing me personally with an illegal able -- analysis. i had subsequent conversations with my staff, we're still in the process of discussing this. but if i'm going to -- i'm going earn a side of protecting confidential -- to release it sensitive taxpayer information. >> let me say this. i understand your term willie nilly. these were not willie nilly
people, as i understand it. let me finish. i think we need to be careful with those kinds of words. career people like the career people that sat here. according to mr. werfel. they were experts. we ask whether it happened before. that is inspector general intervening personally in a production of documents to congress based on a disagreement with career irs experts. mr. werfel went back to his office and checked and provided us with this response, let me read it, keep in mind. i had my check with the council and one retired disclosure council. none of the people we checked with called the situation with the inspector general told the irs that a planned release of information by the irs would institute a 6103 violence after the irs disclosure council determined that particular material was releasable to the public or congress under section
6103. end of quote. are he's saying it's unprecedented. >> the first time for everything, sir. again, i repeat, i would rather make a mistake on protecting the privacy of a taxpayer -- >> as i understand. let me finish. here is my concern. first they disclose as a tea party category, then several weeks later we learned there was also a progressive category. then a week after that, we discover there was a category for occupy groups. now we understand there are other progressive category, but that you intervened to prevent us from seeing them. mr. george, i'll go to have as much information as possible so question draw accurate conclusions about the treatment of all of the groups. all of them. as i said a little bit earlier in the hearing, we don't just represent conservative groups. i have a lot of screfts in my district, believe it or not. ly fight for them just as hard
as more liberal progressive groups. mr. werfel testified yesterday that the irs has asserted its position that he has been in further discussion with your office and that if you, if you had will send over document to the committee. you said the discussions are continuing. is that what you said? >> that's correct. if you can come to an agreement you will allow us to see the document. >> most definitely. we're going to comply with the law, sir. >> how soon do you think the decision might be made? >> i don't know, sir. i don't know the answer to that. >> are they planned meetings are? >> they are ongoing. it's going to be sooner rather than later. i can't give you an example. >> as i understand. these are documents, of course, we want you to stay within the law. i don't want you to get in trouble or anything like that. i want to make sure that there is some type of decision made then we know about it because we
want this investigation to go forward. and so that is very important for us. i think the information would be helpful. >> mr. cummings, if i may. to the chairman's indulgence. the information has been provided to congress to the committees with the ability to receive 6103 information. we're not withholding anything. progressive we learned about that recently the name was being used by the internal revenue service. so, you know, and as they indicated in my opening statement, we just as recently as last week received new information that is disturbing and that we need to pursue. so, you know, this is not a clean cut matter, sir. >> i'm not saying it's clean cut. i'm saying we would like to know. you said a number of things and just in that one minute but apparently it's an ongoing process. we are in ab ongoing process, and you're trying to do your job. we're try dog --
do ours. all i'm asking you to do is when the information becomes available and things that do not violate your restrictions that you have, for example, 6103 problems we would like to have it. >> okay. >> thank you very much. >> i thank the gentleman. let me ask the few questions. mr. george, first of all, this all started with different tea party groups and groups, i guess, some with the name patriot 9/11 asking irs certification as a tax exempt organization, and as i recall the motivation was by number of members of congress who said what is going on here? we have report from our constituents. is that sort of the genesis of
this? >> that in addition to media reports about -- >> right. about this going on. you tiffed today you conducted an audit, it wasn't an investigation that we know that, and you mentioned today that irs provided you with this list of 298 organizations tea party, patriot, 9/11, that is correct. it's not something you just went after on your own. >> right. >> it appears to, i don't know, if you hear the witness today from cincinnati? we've had a whole bunch of folks say it's cincinnati, cincinnati. and the committee is trying to act in a responsible matter try to find out where -- how it all occurred who was responsible for what. did you hear today mrs. hofacre,
she said that all of her cases were tea party -- i guess patriot and they were referred -- he was looking for guidance from washington and waiting on that. is that what you found in your audit? >> i only heard bits and pieces. >> i'm going defer. >> the answer is yes. >> the answer would be -- yes. the question has been recently our progressives treated, and it's been intimated you have tried to block, oh, certain information or groups that they may have gone after or treated. is there any indication that progressives were treated differently? have you -- in your part of the audit, did you look at progressives or you said a few minutes ago this is a fairly recent? >> we look at the criteria they
gave us for the bolo that only had tea party on it. -- [inaudible conversations] >> that was the crux of your. >> they gave us which was what mr. george submitted for the record in the ohm opening statement. object the listing are the tea party criteria interration that started in prein may 2010 and went all the way through when the cincinnati staff changed the criteria back to include policy positions. >> and you trace it all the way to mrs. lerner and the staging and coming out on may 10th, 2013, that was your testimony. she was the one that actually confirmed conservative targeting. that's what you testified today. so what you're saying is sort of a diversion their tactic, try to undermine your audit and your report. from my standpoint.
they try to undermine -- they try to close the information and try to keep us from moving forward. you aren't through with your information, are you? >> that's exactly right. >> and audit i said audit or review. >> if you don't mind, thank you, sir. that's an important distinction. we are working with the fbi and the department of justice. we heard both witnesses today. one from cincinnati who testified, and created a direct link to washington and we heard from mr. hull, a 48-year veteran of irs. he continued the link up to both lois lerner's office and indicated one of the two political appointee -- did you get that far? how far have you gotten in tracing it up the line? part of the audit we didn't interview anyone from chief council office. our timeline show it was
consulted at some point. >> you can confirm that -- >> we can confirm. >> we are all in an ongoing review how it started, who was responsible. we have miss lerner exercised initially fifth amendment right. we may be call her back. this is an ongoing process. do you think it should be closed down, mr. george? >> not at all. if i may, the moment i was made aware of the fact that other groups were similarly, you know, you know, spotlighted by the irs i directed my staff to commence review of that. however, give the work we're doing with the fbi and with the department of justice we have to hold many of the things we otherwise would be doing allow for the completion of their work or that work. >> you're dotting your i's and crossing your t's.
>> precisely. >> you are subject to criticism like we are. thank you, my time has expired. we have mr. connelly is next. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome back. >> thank you. >> mr. george, we all have political backgrounds, i would assume. once you were appointed by president bush to your present position, you saw yourself as a nonpartisan professional; is that correct? >> yes, yes, sir. >> mr. george, there have been reports with respect to the scope of your audit or review including by the spokesperson if your office that you met with the chairman of the committee and certainly he -- he helped limit the scope of the review. >> that's incorrect sir. >> that's incorrect? >> the report i did see that did not occur. >> so karen, your spokesperson, who quoted, and said, i quote
daryl issa had specifically asked that investigators narrow -- they did just that. according to them that's an inaccurate statement? >> that's correct. >> on basis would she make such a statement? >> it was not without my authorization, and she misspoke, sir. >> she misspoke. did you have meetings with the chairman of the committee about the nature of this audit? >> i had one meeting with the chairman, and, if any,ing i was berated because he thought i failed to provide information to him that he thought he was entitled to. i'm sorry, what? this was actually, sir, it was put tout me it was after the audit was issued. there was no meeting prior at all. and so other statements attributed to overs in your operation that, for example,
looking at we can had a conversation about the pie chart. 298 organizations were not identified. do you remember your answer under oath to me could it include progressive organization? >> i recall the discussion, i don't recall what i said. >> yoat, we were unable to make that determination, sir, because the name were neutral in many instance. in that you couldn't necessarily atroibt one affiliation to another. that's not exactly what you said in july on the letter on the same subject. you said it would be inappropriate for nonpartisan inspector general with responsibility for tax administration and law enforcement to apply political label to the organization based solely on the name of the organization subjective assumptions about what those names mean. >> i beg to differ.
i don't see an inconsistency in that at all. i believe that one, the statement that i made about the inappropriateness about the nonpartisan inspector general to determine progress, i have no idea what it stands for, sir. teddy roosevelt ran for president under the progressive party banner. could you consider him a democrat? or republican? >> today i most certainly would, mr. george. he pry that's a different matter. >> women. >> well, so i want to make sure you are under oath again. it's your testimony as it was in may. at the time you testified here in may, you had absolutely no knowledge of the fact that any screening the word progressive, democratic, never came up. you only looking at tea party and conservative-related labels. you were unacare -- unaware of any playing that
could be seen as a progressive side? >> i was unaware of the name on the 298 names except for tea party, 9/11, and patriot. >> no knowledge at that time? >> i was aware of those groups being on the list. it subsequently made aware to me of groups that might have progress in it that groups might have some other names. i have if i give some of the name i'm in violation of 6103. >> huh-uh. >> but you gave name about the tea party. >> that's the groupings. >> oh, i see. i see. one is not a violation. one is. so let me ask you, at the same time when you were at the table in may, you had already, and you knew you had asked for an investigation of a total of examination of 55 e-mail on the subject matter; is that correct? >> i'm so glad you raised that
issue, sir. it's important this matter be clarified. i was told there was a smoking gun, there was an e-mail that the internal revenue service provided to us that indicated that someone directed the review -- the targeting of tea party group and such an e-mail existed. the author and the investigators are two different part of it. 5,000 e-mail, i don't recall the timing of it, i might refer to mr. kutz to give a little more flavor to this, but the authors did not have the wherewithal to go all 5,000, whatever the number was, e-mail. when that was brought to my attention because of the due diligence i think is necessary whenever you conduct any audit, i instructed my deputy of the inspector general for investigations to use the facilities that he has, the capabilities he has to review that. >> well, yeah.
congressman, i would say there was irs said at one point there was a may 2010 e-mail out there that elaborated on the criteria being used. that was a pre-- before the actually list itself in august. we were trying to determine also who actually authorized and developed the criteria inappropriate being used. so that was what was in the referral to oi the office of investigation to look for. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. george, the information that mr. cummings and connelly are talking about that 6103 and your expert, i think you said earlier mr. mccarthy is the one you shouldn't release the name of the entity. is that accurate? your chief council? >>. >> just tell us.
i want to know the number. how many entity are we talking about you want to make public and there are 6103 concern. what was the number? there was one raised by the irs counsel they changed the position we asked for more information on. there's a second one that would be dreeted similarly. >> two entities. >> two entities not two terms? >> two term at this point. i don't know how many entity it would cover? >> do you have an idea? >> no, i do not. >> i'm looking at your testimony, mr. george, you said new document from july 2010 listing the term, quote, progressive, provided last week on july 9, 2013. you're disturbed they weren't provided earlier. we are currently reviewing the issue. what can you tell us. without violating 6103 what can you tell us? >> great question, sir. i don't know if the circumstances. i may to defer to mr. kutz.
i don't know i just learned about it. >> we don't know, mr. congressman, in the document mr. george submitted to the record we were given a listing. >> i you said it once. i had it from date of may 17, 2012 document until we issued the report later. they had multiple level of concurred with the analysis. they had all kinds of opportunities to tell you this. they didn't tell you suddenly it appears because the democrats keep talking about it appearing out of nowhere. you're currently reviewing it. is there anything else you can tell us about the curptd review? >> it tells me i'm concerned there may be additional pieces of information we don't have. i am very concerned about that, sir. >> but can we put the slide up. i want to walk through the numbers. and this is largely developed from your report and interview and mail our staff looked at. when you walk through this, you know, we start february 2010 you
have one tea party case and nothing on the progressive name, occupy name whatever term is being used. you move down 18-0 this be somewhere 40 to 60 and 0 and 100-0 and finally at the end it's 96-7 is the score. none of those seven groups, to my knowledge, were ever denied a status they sought. if i do my math right there's 195 indications that you don't know about the overall universe of 298. u.s. "usa today" reported that twelve applications got some kind of scrutiny. they were all approved. none of the tea party conservative groups were. there was obviously disfair treatment here. i think the idea mr. connelly keeps raising. the evidence doesn't point to that at all. >> i don't want to repeat it. it showed it.
it show what was relevant. the other tab of the fact the groups were never approved. the fact when they hung out in the limbo status they were denied the opportunity appeal any decision. there was no decision rendered. everything you have looked at, that happened with tea party 9/12 patriot conservative groups; correct? >> the criteria in our report is what we understand to be accurate. >> all right. >> that was used. all right i understand. mr. chairman, i -- yield back. >> mr. chairman. >> can i have a unanimous consent? >> no problem. >> thank you so much. just before we were finished i was going ask to enter to the record the communication from the head of investigation to the principle on the subject we were talking about. the review of the it. >> i thank the chairman.
thank you if being here. according to mr. hull, i had privilege of listening to this morning with the direct testimony. during a meeting in july of 2011, miss lerner instructed her subordinate to at the tea party applications should hens forth be referred to advocacy applications. is that right? >> what she did is change the criteria to no longer include tea party names in the. that's what you're referring to. july 2011 any the criteria was changed from tea party to what you have -- that's correct. that's my understanding. that's what is in the document mr. george submitted for the record. just to be clear the two test cases he was working in washington on were both filed by
group affiliated with the tea party movement; right? >> only one, sir. >> only one. >> correct. >> do you think it was pretext yule for miss lerner to label the applications as advocacy cases when they were really tea party cases? >> well, she was trying to fix the problem. she actually, i think, recognized then that the criteria were inappropriate to use any names regardless of political. and she was trying to fix it. it wasn't perfect criteria. it was better than using the name tea party, 9/12 and patriot. >> okay. tea party didn't work. so advocacy would at that point. >> political advocacy. >> political advocacy. >> yes. >> mr. hull testified that the tea party test cases pending in washington were transferred from him in august of 2011 with no explanation, and assigned to hilary. is that reflectively your
findings as well? >> yes, sir. >> no explanation? just a transfer. that's interesting that, mr. hull, as we thereon this morning and note his record, the tenure and service extensive service, 48 years, in fact. do you have any sense whether she has anywhere near the practical experience of mr. hull? >> we don't have anything on that, sir. >> she had four months. before being put in this job. she told committee staff in an interview that prior to july of 2011, she had no experience with 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) groups. applying for any tax exempt tax-exempt status. do you find it would be odd to transfer the tea party advocacy cases with someone with decades of experience to someone with
little or no experience? >> we don't know, i mean, in the time we have -- the issue you're talking about, contribute to the delays that we describe in our report but we have no knowledge. >> but i would add, congressman, given the fiscal constraint facing the entire nation, especially those confronting the internal revenue service, i'm not surprised they would have made a decision like that. unfortunately going have to continue to make some of these haphazard type of decisions because of a lack of resources or manpower. ..
>> congressman, thank you for helping me clarify the opening statement that i issued today in terms of the report in the previous testimonies before a variety of committees. the house and senate made it patton the clear that we have not found such motivation, political motivation. again,. >> mr. chairman, i yield back.
in. >> appreciate you being here. you been doing this for about a decade. and the been involved in the case quite like this? >> this is the most worse example ever experienced the only as an inspector general of the committee staff for almost 25 years and a former white house staffer. i have never experienced anything like this. >> the fact that people are trying to misinterpret the findings of career employees who over the course of the existence of our organization -- the irs has misspent or could be spent
in more efficient supportive voice. a variety of publishing changes that the irs has agreed to in terms of making changes. to have our reputation to my career people. i am a political appointee. i expect this. even though i don't think i deserve it in this instance, i expected to be my career people neither deserve it nor should they have to expected. and it is troubling. >> certainly we can sense the frustration over their witnesses . it was apparent that there were willing to come here and open the test my -- testified. there were during their jobs. the belt essentially drawn and the bus. you have any sense as to why somebody would buy some with
clearly was not responsible? >> i don't have facts that i could provide to justify that. but this is troubling that is happening. >> in no, i guess i hate to say we're almost getting use of that year. listening to reports come out about how this pesky you to video was as possible for the death of the americans. the store was propagated for three weeks. then we year mr. carney and other folks hire up and the irs by me on these two rogue agents in cincinnati. you might think that they want to change to a storyteller. we have proven both of those are not the case. the american people are getting frustrated. they're extremely anxious to year we find and where this goes what continues to make it so difficult?
and again, i have to preface my response by saying text policy was decisions of the department within the scope of the assistant secretary for tax policy. it has been since the nixon the ministration, but it is extremely -- and i indicated this earlier, when a provision of law prevents me from selling you and others information that i have. am unable to do so. all have to leave it at that. >> elizabeth testified that she could not process to party applications pending cincinnati because she was waiting and guidance and washington. mr. hall testified that he could not provide guidance because he was ready for directions promising your leaders including chief counsel office. is that consistent with the findings?
>> yes. >> i'm assuming that chief counsel will be questioned more poorly in the future? >> we did not interview chief counsel as part of the audit. there were in our time line as being consulted and one of the reasons for the lay. >> are there plans? >> again, as i indicated earlier we're working with the program of justice as well as the fbi. a component of that and the continuing review of this matter. another liberty. >> and outrage that his republicans and china to implicate the white house. it was an election year. there were groups with different political views and there was a political appointee who has been implicated. sent up the food chain. so i think it's only fair that we continue to look.
this happened about 40 years ago . i don't think is that average is considering the fact that people are trying to plug of misleading stories. it wouldn't be employees asking for the fifth on the come to testify. anyway, thank you for your work. i'm out of time and usher is more become. >> is a common from pennsylvania is recognized. >> you know, when mr. georges year and said it is an outrage if this is true. want to say to my took a lot of heat for folks back home. i was implying that perhaps what you said in your report was in the complete story. does want to go back to that. in the committee he hearing the
chairman asked you some clarifying questions to mylan a question. and like to ask some clarifying questions about those clarifying questions. to refresh your memory here is what you said. the chairman said, were there any bolos issue for a progressive liberal groups? the only be on the lookout used to refer cases for political review with the ones that we destroy our with our report. there were others used for other purposes. there lookout for indicators of no frauds of the to be referred to the group that handles those issues. there were notes to refer state and local chapters. as we continue our review of this matter we have recently had the fight some others for concerns.
i can get into more detail. it's still incomplete. the chairman said so clearly it is fair to say, there was one for two-party but not for a move on our progressive. i'm not in a position to give you a response in that question at this time. the chairman said i only ask if they're is a least one. are you aware of a least one that was targeted in which they were targeted politically but did not fall into this car report we have before us? mr. george, you said under the report, the review, the purposes of the audit that we conducted which was to determine whether there were looked at in the context of political campaign intervention, there were no others. the chairman said thank you. so, to be clear, first you said the only one they you head of
footnote 16 of my out a report, it enologist the existence of others and the fact that we did not -- the charge of that on it was not on how they were utilized. >> your new their work -- >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> i will yield back. >> you can only yelled back when you have time, what we think is an omen. begun out to the gym and from south carolina. >> how long have you been the inspector general? >> i was confirmed in november of 2004 for this current -- >> how do you view your job? >> i consider one of the most important inspector general responsibilities in the federal berman given the row that the ira's place in the lives of every single american and anyone else who has a tax obligation to the united states of america. >> i have always thought of inspector general's as really
having no friends to reward and foes to punish. ago when the facts take them. >> that is exactly how i have comport myself, sir. >> but when i see quotes like this one from one of our colleagues and the other side of the aisle the law rather than discuss the facts of your investigation of your background or your reputation for integrity , i just want to say, this is a republican appointed inspector general, someone who has donated and worked for perot and republicans. the we to believe he has been the objective? i think one of your colleagues, a man by the name of michael horowitz, inspector general for the department of justice. you know, he had a connection to lan neighbor. he was appointed by this administration. but i decided to do something novel and encourage my colleagues and the other side to do it, allow the person to do their job before you judge them based on connections.
so i let mr. horowitz do his job. guess what, he was fantastic, straight down the middle calling balls and strikes. could not tell he had any political connection. so what is your reaction? you have questions with the ones you just sent from my colleagues and the other side of the aisle and when your integrity is attacks like it was by my colleague responsible for this ," what is your reaction? >> on not being put here, but they don't know that i was a page at the 1980 democratic national convention. they don't know that i was a founder of the howard university college democrats. yes, you know, i saw the light and joined bob dole's staff during college, but i have, i think anyone who has worked with me on either side of the political spectrum will agree that i call it as a see it. i have never allowed political,
personal political views to affect decisions. we work with democrats and republicans to get legislation passed. i continue to do so. and so i mean, again, i have been in washington now for two decades. i know sometimes politics is played and works. it's unfortunate because, you know, when i was doing my due diligence by talking to some of the first i agee's who were appointed by jimmy carter and then later fired by ronald reagan and some rehired, they said to me, do not take this job . if you are perceived to be too aggressive the administration is angry you. if you're perceived to be not aggressive enough congress is angry as you. and while i love this job and i just have the greatest after work with me, i am willing to make -- to do it.
up make personal sacrifices and in many other ways, but i am serving the people of the greatest nation on earth. i have no regrets. >> mr. george, i have to be honest and you are a lot more magnanimous that i am because i think it's disgraceful. i think when you attack people just because you have a political opportunity and you go through their background and find some tangential connection to a republican or democrat and then walk to disparage their work because of that -- somebody has a problem with your audit -- and this was not an investigation. it was an audit. in your work is ongoing, you know, you have republican and democratic shares, republican it to our credit prosecutors. i can't tell the difference in the inspector general's, which is why i never thought to ask. just tell me what the facts are. and you don't prosecute cases,
do you? you don't convene a grand jury. >> that is correct. >> your for them to the department of justice. >> that is correct. >> i will remind my colleagues and the other side of the aisle, one of those referrals to the department of justice for the will full disclosure of confidential information was declined by the department of justice. so i a per-share work. keep going. keep at it. tell what detractors do you down. i yield back. >> thank you. >> real quick, it in your former job your deputy staff director at this committee. is the correct. >> that's correct. >> is served under democratic chairman. is the correct. >> yes. >> and in your three years working or approximately three years working, have you ever seen him function in a political matter being buys when the other? >> i haven't been there for three years, but 18 months. >> in your 18 months of yours in that? >> no. it is not a political
organization. >> the way you described his behavior were using? >> i haven't seen any political behavior. >> i appreciate that. i yield to the july the from the district of columbia. >> mr. george, i asked staff to get out what was the charge for the audit. the charge was you were to look for inconsistent treatment of applications. that's the word want to focus on, and consistent the treatment of applications. he testified earlier today the you did not know of the -- of the handling of progressive groups. you didn't know that some of the
man had a two or three year wait. mr. george, my question really goes to the methodology they you were using. you have used words previously like targeted. it seems to me that one has to look at the entire universe in order to know whether any specific groups have been targeted, even though you were not told about progressive groups. if you're charged to look for inconsistent treatment of applications, doesn't that necessarily drive you to look at the implications from progressive groups to the extent possible and applications from conservative groups to the extent possible?
that's my question. >> okay. i'm going to defer. >> we were not labeling anybody. >> that's not my question, whether you were labeling. here's my question. my question goes to methodology. you were focused on the tea party, the way in which to party groups were treated. >> all groups. >> all groups. >> you were focused on all groups. how could you not have -- how could you not have in the ordinary course of doing your work discover the treatment of the progressive group. why would you not have reported the treatment of both groups to the committee. ami, you didn't know the treatment of some of the progressive groups. in that says -- that goes to
offline methodology. if all the groups are on the table, one concludes targeting only after comparing the group's i don't see evidence of that kind of comparison and your work >> if i may, first of all, again, we did not tow line by line to say this is the progressive group. this is the conservative group. >> how could you find that there was starting of a two-party group? because that would have to be compared to something else? because it can't possibly target everybody or else you would use the word target. if you are targeting it means you're picking them out from the universe, were you were wrong to use the word target of all. >> ma'am, it was because they used tea party, the groups of were highlighted / targeted had
the name tea party. >> if you were born even yesterday, it would mean the have to look at occupy groups. you don't mention occupy groups. >> the same category talk congressman. there were and what was called the historical tac. there were not -- on sorry. there were not on the political advocacy groups tab that we were provided and charged with. >> are charged with looking at inconsistencies among groups. >> the tax code thought.
>> i don't know. it charged with inconsistent treatment. i don't believe you are dishonest. the ee the your political to be heavily the testimony demonstrates the you were not using the appropriate methodology in order to me your charge with what is defined, whether there was inconsistent treatment. you would've had to put the universe before you responsibly make that -- answer my question. >> just because -- >> reelected over 600 cases. only 72 of them were two-party cases. we sampled from cases that were outside of this 298 cases. 175 statistically. should have been included in the political review. we did look at them and label as a sort of political thing.
based on substance in the case there is evidence in the file that they should have been looked at as political cases. in the same light, 298, 31 percent had no evidence of a file a political campaign intervention and perhaps should not been looked at. reelected 72 come over 600 cases still. we did look go a little bit. but the lane was political advocacy. the process tens of thousands of cases a year. there are only 300 in this group >> where the statue says 51%. and obviously you narrowed their focus. >> that's correct. lynyrd it to political advocacy cases. >> i think digitally. we now go to this a common. >> thank you all for being back. as you know from some of our previous inquiries, i am one of
ocala ssc it. i have not necessarily given you a free pass, but i wanted just apologize. the guise of the messengers and your getting beat up in the middle of this when we are throwing out red herrings. we are talking about these lists. i would like you to comment on this. even though there may have been two different lists, we do know that the tea parties were singled out because 100 percent of those were either detained for a long amount of time or systemically to taint in terms of any kind of result for some as much as three years and more. is that not correct? >> there were actually five different towns, the potential abuse of historical -- potential abuse of corrugated processing, was called emerging issues. that's where the tea party was.
these other for less other, we said very clearly in our report that we did not let them. that doesn't mean there's not something wrong with whatever doing. >> but there were not treated in the same way as these. is that correct? with that message be clear today . >> we don't know if they got delayed. we know that a large group of people the significant delays, on average some 600. >> 100% of the tea party cases gutted the late. >> some were actually approved. >> how many were approved? >> have to get that in the record. >> i read your report five times. i feel like i know you. i want to go on a little bit further. it has been reported widely that lowe's lerner found out about this in july of 2011. there was a sensitive case report it actually started back as early as april of 2010.
is that not correct? think it's on page 32 or 33. april of 2010. and that report actually went to los learner. she could have known that it was meant to be reported. it was going to the executive. we also know that it went out. could it have gone to her desk? >> i loma. >> she gets a summary. she would not get the actual -- >> she would get a summary of the sensitive case reports. so with that indicate these are tea party cases? >> we don't know. >> why would we not call these progressive cases from february of 2010 until july of 2011? why would we not have called those progressive cases? >> i don't understand the question. >> do we call them tea party
cases because the majority of them were tea party cases? >> recall the two-party cases because that was -- >> why would the irs call them to party cases? we are missing the whole point. if there were predominantly progressive cases when we have referred to them as progressive? >> i believe they generally referred to them meaning tea party, nine, 12, and patriots. they actually have the word patriot in them. there is some combination. it is a frequent combination. >> to you think predominantly of these were liberal groups? >> ninety-six or t party. why go through make a judgment. you really don't think -- some
of them have the words liberty, freedom. i don't think we could make the judgment based upon certain words. that wasn't earlier charge. the substance of the case and see if it in actual evidence. >> knowing what we know now, let me get to so we don't follow this, if we have come as we start to look at these particular cases, knowing the you can't classify conservative liberal, tea party nine tow patriot groups treated predominantly differently than the occupy or progressive groups that we have? >> we don't know. we did not on it occupied with the others to really know everybody that got into the to under 98, whether they were conservative or whatever, they were treated -- the average time in our report was well over 500 days that there were sitting waiting. we know there were 96.
>> if i can ask one more question, we have been told by irs employees that the case names actually were appeared on the summary of this sensitive report that one up. is that accurate? the case stems are actually on there, the ones that went to ms. lerner? >> we know they're on the actual case reports. >> can you check back with us? that would make a big difference because it would indicate that she probably knew about it as early as april of 2010, some 14 months before she changed it. >> the first time that we know of her knowing his july 2011 but we will check. >> thank you. i appreciate the patients. >> thank the gentleman. whenever to the gym and from massachusetts. would you also include indigenous request. >> wrigley a short quick analysis to see if you can find one or more of these nearly 300
files that your people could potentially go through. >> it is clearly not conservative. if you find one more would you inform the ranking member and myself? i know an exhaustive extensive search by take time, but it is there. the ranking member and i would love to know anecdotally that at least one likely @booktv will then go to the ways and means committee to ask for a detailed look. right now we showed that there seven that have an impressive. >> may be more than one. >> progressives likely are not conservative groups. >> we did not look below the name. there were three with the word progressive. there were no occupy. >> have taken too much time. out come back. i think all of us here at some point are going to want to know if nearly 300, how many of them,
if you dig down into whether deliberately or accidentally was set aside in this could the people. the ranking member and myself, were talking about a lot of things but we don't argue about the facts. people get abused. one thing that i think we're are going to now at the end of this hearing, records cut section out and abused in the process. does the undeniable part. now we want to bolster dive a little bit in to find out why. certainly i don't think any of you or any of us here think that this behavior was exceptional. >> i don't know whether you were in a room. i indicated that the requested that my staff take a look to see how these other groups were treated. again, during the course of this additional review the we are doing with the fbi and the justice department, some of this
has to be held in advance until that aspect of the work is done. we will try to comply with a request. >> maybe you and i should speak offline. it would be our considered opinion to my belief, that this committee could receive knowledge which cannot be made public so that at least we can understand whether or not there was a there there, even if it had to be withheld. we want to be public but we certainly join together to say if you find certain things in your investigation, we would like and consistent with the seven new rule. the non public disclosure. at least we know how to plan going forward. >> are just been informed that we can't comply. >> is the gentleman yield? >> of course. >> yield as much time as the ranking member once. >> are just want to get this straight. >> willie quickly, put some kind of time line on that?
>> it could take us almost as long as a month from now. >> of lightning time will be going. >> we look forward to hearing by the time we come back. they look to your staff. we will work together. >> thank you for your patience. >> certainly. >> in your testimony you may statement that there is some concern. i want to the -- your statement was the letter from ranking member cummings to the chairman states that i failed to disclose to congress that we found no evidence of political motivation . i read the letter. this not what it says. if i could read you what it says
, mr. george did not disclose to the committee had in his report or testimony that he met personally with his top investigator, tasks and to conduct a review of 5,500 e-mails. does this official conclude that there was no indication of pulling these selected applications politically motivated. the fact this official reported was very important. that's quite a distinction for what you were sitting in your testimony. wanted to make sure were on the same page. the fact of the matter is you never told this committee. he never disclosed. >> well, two reasons. again, you were not in the room and i explained this earlier. i was told by my staff that there was a smoking gun e-mail in which -- in which an irs employee either acknowledge that he or she was charged with
targeting the party people. again, no is a new once you that my colleague can address in a moment. there were roughly 5,000 e-mails that the auditors have not had a chance to review. but that -- >> you never told us that you charged bigger investigators are looking to 5,500 e-mails. >> it was very important. this was a non it. it was no more than an audit, sir. >> no indication important to share that information. >> i don't know whether there was an e-mail that was destroyed . >> the survey was in amongst the 5,500. he thought it was very important. found nothing in it was politically motivated. >> that was his opinion.
and then if under of when people i subject to a lot more potential penalties regarding their behavior in response to questions and additional affirmation available, who knows whether not this e-mail will surface. i don't know. >> on not ask anyone in may surface, the 5,500 the jars your visit to look through the nose indicated the organization is needed to be pro because the irs employees are not sure of a process them, not because there were under stall. they indicated that there was unclear processing directions and the groupon to make sure their guidance on processing the application. this is a very important nuance. 5500.
you had it in their early jeff report and discovered it. what's that all about? >> the investigator said that our reports were that there were supported the fact that we see an ineffective management. a report also said there was no political motivation. >> but you don't think it's important that you like to 5500 e-mails and add a report this is the words i just quoted. you don't think it would be employed for us to know that? hyperventilating about being something more than it is. >> we thought it was important because it confirmed a report. he told us it did. >> what did you put it in a? >> it think it's important because it confirms the report is wrong and gives us the kind of substance that may stop some of this allegation is running around rampant. the reason facts the support your report that are important.
>> this is an ongoing matter. if the conclusion of this and if he were to make the same allegations maricopa we join you . this is an ongoing review. we are working with the fbi, the department of justice, subsequent work on looking at various other treatment. >> it would have been helpful to have that an inappropriate time. opened the door to a lot of people going off and directions. >> not to use to just. >> i did not suggest. i'm suggesting that if elected in your report instead of scrubbing and out, tell us that you have an investigator involved. 5500 e-mails and found out that there was no indication in pulling the selected applications. think it would've been important that the right time on that. i don't know if you want any more time on that. >> the gentleman yield spec is-
24 seconds. navettes is a woman from florida >> from ohio, would you like me to yield? >> i know that some of our colleagues on the other side have attacked the manner in which your honor was conducted. a ranking member cummings wrote a letter requesting a he. he him plenty of it was purposely tailored. the assertions. >> his assertions. >> now. >> were there any fact that your team uncovered that or intentionally left out of the audit? >> what should it should not be included. some which have a tangential relationship. others that might be, you know, in hindsight being
extraordinarily important. in the vast majority in between which is why there are different iterations of it which is why the subject of the audit is included in almost every step of the audit process to make sure that we don't misstate facts or that if they do something that is of great import the we neglected to mention that we are in a position to include it. so -- >> you know, i mean with respect to what mr. cheney was talking about, we were told that what they found founded the facts. rebought that made us feel good that the report was accurate. we did say something in addition because these stories and we found. any facts that were left out, there was to skew the results of the report. >> it didn't change the report. we justin say we did. >> and the answer is no.
nothing that has been alleged to read all changes our conclusion that the irs engaged in inappropriate behavior and showed gross mismanagement in the process of operating this program. >> what was your reaction to the letter that the ranking member since? if you had a chance to read that? >> i just -- in passing. so much paperwork. again, this is why i am -- a highly contentious issue if there's a feeling that it's not perfect, what we've done. being human beings, from the old school. by definition being a human being we're imperfect. i can't say anything but a human does is perfect. what i mike give him a gold star in it.
of course. he did do that. >> this is washington, after all. thank you. we yield the balance of my time. >> if you are such of republican political hack, a been a look look -- a little critical of a couple of things. if you were favoring the republicans we got the time line. the last time you were in front of this committee testifying on may 30th of last year you shared with the irs commissioner initial findings of your audit a two-party patriot nine to zero used to target groups. four days later you share them with the chief counsel at the treasury. you did share with us. think about this. you put it in context, the middle of a presidential election year. this kind of important to mention. your calling the balls and strikes here. he played down the middle of. he teaches us to share that information with the chairman of
the committee. and with the committee that has jurisdiction. you know what, not going to because the with the politically motivated. this idea is just baloney. now wish you would have shared it, frankly. that made that point clear. it makes no sense. his the other thing, look at the facts. the media reports one are to left-wing groups said they experienced delays, but they get approved. i know of dozens and dozens and dozens of conservative groups that got not only delayed but still haven't been approved because one of them is in a district and is what prompted the chairman and night to request the gun in the first place. the other side can say all the baloney that one, with the facts on the facts. i get fired up again, as i do. but look, you were calling the balls and strikes because frankly i would love to have that permission in may 2012 that dozens and dozens and dozens of
conservative groups are being targeted in you chose not to give it to the committee had asked for the audit. that's fine, but this idea that you're favoring republicans, just don't get it. >> the was never a consideration for politics. >> and you're proving that. >> because the politics have been the case, police in the -- release and that is before the election would have been dynamite for the republican side . he wanted to play republican politics it could have a heck of an impact by showing the there were going after tea party people systematically at a time in which there were up for election. >> the most important factor that i took into consideration is that the audit was incomplete. >> thank you. we now go to the gentleman from illinois. >> is a woman from illinois is recognized. he can certainly yield time.
>> i think you for being here. i am recalling that when you appeared before this committee before i specifically asked you house some of the progressive groups have been included. either your testimony nor your report reveals the you had limited their investigations solely to targeting of conservative political campaigns when you wrote the congressman he stated that you were non-partisan. when i ask you at the ways and means hearing how the sun started, you stated that you met with staffers from the oversight subcommittee. worthies democratic staffers or republican staffers or both?
>> they do sell much for this opportunity. i don't know whether it was you or ms. norton who inquired about the first time that i sat down with mr. as a. i was informed that as tough global to of my staffers, three of my staffers met with acheson, a staffer of the government reform majority staff on march march 8. this was prior to the audit. so i wanted to clarify that now. >> there were no democratic staff or staffers present. >> its my understanding. >> did anyone ever raised any concerns that there may not have been any democratic staffers prison? >> no one raised a concern to me about that. i don't know. >> i wasn't there.
>> and so basically you initiated the audit. >> the letter was the ranking member received. >> you actually initiated. it was in a letter that was easy . >> if the gentleman wants to be involved in protecting these groups, we are happy to have you help us with the tea party complaints. i will tell you over in the senate, the senate democratic leaders were constantly sending
letters to the others, from the other side asking that they go after these groups. these are on the record. >> i will help you. >> we got. >> the copy of that, but we did not get a copy of the response to that letter. >> thank you very much for yielding. >> mr. george's response to the record. >> without objection. >> mr. george, there has been a great deal of discussion about whether you found any white house involvement or political motivation in your investigation , in your report. and i believe this statement on page nine of your written testimony makes clear that you
found nothing of the kind. no documents, no witnesses, nothing. is that correct? >> that is correct as of the time of the audit, sir. >> i'm suggesting this was an ongoing review. no conclusions beyond it's an ongoing header his hitting as of this moment that his been found that would suggest to any kind of political motivation or involvement coming from the white house. >> that is correct. >> i yield back. >> i want you to understand
something to hit listening to the of the side of gun in his television shows. there is reify trustee i said i have questions. i will reserve judgment. in know what to make it clear. for us to inquire about things that may have been left out, he even you said it may have been of the different. >> that's my job. that's my question. >> alaskan, i would expect chairman dennis and. >> and i think it's a good day you can to carry aight. i don't understand it. so let him come in with his people and explain. >> thank the gentleman.
we now go to the june from tenet the june and from what carolina has been pushed of penicillin from tennessee. if you're going to argue, take the time. >> thank you. recognize the gentleman. optical bit of your time i just want to make sure they get a couple of things straight. earlier there were inquiring about what i have called a 55 -- 5617 different e-mails the came out on keyword searches of a number of virus and police. those keyword searches obviously, we talked about the 912. now, was lighter made a series of denials and statements and attempted to take the fifth before this committee. i don't see your listed as somebody that you did a search on in this group. it's up on the board. can we require a a -- inquiry as
to whether a similar searches been done on harry mills? >> sir, i have my deputy conducted or authorized? >> these are all cincinnati people. again, this committee has not present there is political intent. we are looking for the communication to find out why something even the president has said was wrong when on. this is a search that was done during the course of the audit. it was a limited search. >> the were not going to go into current -- >> will then i just use the term briefly. certainly when somebody refuses to its questions we would hope that you have preserved the as records. it is the intent to work with justice and yourself to make
sure that individuals had take the fifth before this committee not only appropriately have their official mail check the because there's been a record of a number of individuals using private mail to circumvent official mail on the ability the you would also make efforts with the justice department if appropriate to determine whether or not they may have used such a technique. that is been repeatedly seen by this committee. i'm not asking for your answer. realize there are ongoing investigations into possible wrongdoing. >> i would just say the fbi just as to permit utilized different -- >> they got more authority. >> well, among other things. again, not trying to confirm or deny an investigation at this time. it's a review. >> your best effort -- if you need your time back and let me know, but your best for the fattest in the correctly to mike
going to of have your people -- and the work going to work on an offline, or going to have your people take we currently know which is on the keyword basis 96 groups, busty party or 912 patriot, seven compass progressive and currently you don't have any specific knowledge of time delays that occurred. we have a lot of knowledge that these were 500 or so days. the breakdown of groups that may have been caught up in the net that may not have been conservative mantillas progressive but may not have been liberal groups. going to make every effort to get that information and give it to was an unacceptable format. >> mr. chairman, if i could, one of the questions that came up, a lot of questions. one of the names on there, the inspector general testified that would want to be in the position of trying to characterize a liberal conservative.
one of the things, the ways and means committee in the senate finance committee, which provided a list of them. so congress has these lists if it will be appropriate for congress to do an analysis with an analyst at who is liberal and to his conservative. i don't know if that will be an option that would satisfy what you're looking for. >> the ranking member and i have agreed that we will find a way to try to do that within our halls. you have been a federal employee for 20 years so. twenty-five. compared to the first panel you're a newcomer. how long have you worked for the federal government? >> twenty-three years. >> including your time here. >> about 13 years. >> from. [inaudible question] you served here under democratic chairman. i'm not trying to and ask you
any questions for a moment, nor do i as a mere politics. mr. george, in your regular dealing him about yourselves and the people you deal with three treasury and irs, do you routinely either tell people what your politics are, republican, democrat, other, or do you routinely ask them what their top politics are? >> with the exception of his children because of the fact that i hired him, so i could guess with his winnings work -- >> at least two like to my lot. we like to mundo the size of the aisle. >> i have no idea whatsoever. >> go ahead. >> i've not. that is not the kind of thing would feel comfortable talking about. >> the irs, none.
>> that's good. that's the way at think we wanted to be. thank you. >> thank you. sometimes in cases like this that are controversial there is collateral damage among the innocent. i want to ask you a line of questioning here about the irs office of chief counsel. it's my understanding that the irs office of chief counsel. it provides the agent organization unit with guidance regarding how to process the applications of 501c for tax-exempt status. >> yes, that's my and the standing. >> in the past the chairman has described that and is unusual,
atypical, and a break from ordinary procedure be a hit contrary to those descriptions, several iras and please have basically said that the decision to consult with the counsel's office is consistent with their usual practice. for example and, through a direct successor as the tax law specialist, the what it was common for us to ask whether assistance in review. further she said it was for the purpose of an extra pair of eyes. ..
orders that that was the correct, sir. >> okay. when we were here last time, we were talking about three categories that were given extra scrutiny. that came out of the hearing. >> you have any recollection of the facts or circumstances around the? people that were cortical. >> the last category was a category that the internal revenue service itself divides,
the uppercase and lowercase tea party, and so -- >> let me get this straight. just speaking about the fine points, the irs actually adopted a category for greater scrutiny. >> i would ask unanimous consent that the german have an additional 15 seconds. >> thank you, sir. >> so the irs actually came up with this term to be on the lookout for her. for individuals who are critical. cemented with a memo that lois lerner had in 2007. i think that this is part of the expanded criteria that we use. the only thing was the patriots that include government spending and government debt and taxes, this is how the country is being
run. these are being used by the screeners when lois lerner asked what is actually going on that came from the screeners that were actually going through the cases. >> many americans live in fear of government. whether you're a liberal or democrat or conservative, you don't care all about that the more that we discuss in the house come in the more we find that this is deeply disturbing. so when we talk about this question about these cases being shipped from cincinnati up to
washington, some believe it is the complex cases. cases that were sent from cincinnati to washington, it is basically the tea party folks and then we have also heard from the individual that he had this taken from him with 40 years of experience and given in giving somebody with very little experience with these cases. the complexity that drove us, doesn't appear to be case. it was a politics that mattered and that left us more fearful of the rs with what they are doing. have you said and encountered what we have said? >> i mean, no, the irs has one of the most important roles in the federal government and it is one of the organizations that
most americans at one point in their lives or another will have to interact with. it has to have this trust of the american people. we live in a voluntary compliance system. it can undermine this nation. it revolves around trust. >> i appreciate your testimony. inspector generals are there for that purpose regardless of what administration has talked about, there needs to be a check on us. going back to this, i referenced that the gentlewoman listed this as part of the washington person off. have you found that an investigation? >> see that she testified on it on the panels.
so then it leads to the question and she actually sent this to washington leadership and shouldn't they have known that this is happening? >> all we know is that it goes to congressman lynch and lois lerner started asking questions that we briefing june of 2001 and that is what we know at this point. there could be more, but that is what we know on the audit. >> with akamai would like to yield the balance of my time. >> will the gentleman yield for 15 seconds over here? >> there has been a lot of debate year in and year out. i know the are not tax experts. but if i understand the letter of the law on this with the primary group, kid must have the majority of the activity and not a few will political, but social
welfare. >> just. >> throughout this audit, and the targeting, did you find him using that standard, in other words, looking for less than 49% or less, or did you find that they were looking for nuances? the reason i asked that is evil from your audit for 2010, we were basically asking what did you do in the last cycle, auditing as though they had granted some which they haven't yet granted so i asset is his own so they are symbols of information that they were not using with the existing law, but looking for advocacy that could've been certainly less than 50%. >> i have heard that we haven't seen it in writing as far as we know. our issue is using names is the
wrong thing to do. that is what we recommend we should be doing going forward. >> thank you, your back. >> the fact that you included this for willful misconduct and the political donor, does that concern you about the issue? >> it does not, sir just because of the various standards. >> is a new fbi director, has he talked to you about the irs targeting this case? >> no. >> have you been in contact with the fbi? >> notes the upcoming pennsylvania conversations with the fbi? >> no. >> can you give me a number? >> [inaudible]
>> we will now move on to the gentle lady from california. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have the highest regard to the inspector general and we cannot do our job if we don't have inspector general's little guide us. but we do need that an id that is not anyway but it's been something in one way or the other. let me ask you this. last week almost eight weeks after you publish your audit, a committee received an e-mail dated may 3 that reveals the you had tasks ahead of your investigation office to run a search of the irs. according to your head investigation come the purpose of the nonsearch was to determine if an e-mail existed that directed the staff to target the tea party and other political organizations. so you're looking for any evidence that the staff had directed to target the tea party
groups. as well as other political organizations. is that correct? >> i do not know what the e-mail said, but i know that i was informed by an auditor. >> we were looking for an e-mail. >> okay, so going on, the e-mails were exchanged to explain how this was supposed to work. this is where your head investigator wrote. it provided us with a list of employees and questions and the keyword search terms in a time for the e-mails. the pool be available in also resulted in several e-mails and they use keywords to search to identify the e-mails they wanted to review. an earlier this week the ranking member of our committee
requested a specific search term and late last night he received a document from your offers that talks about this. so this is what the for key search terms were. patriots, 912, and c-4. now, that seems completely skewed if you are an unbiased and impartial watchdog. especially if you want to have search terms that don't include progressive left-leaning terms at all. why don't you search for the term progressive and it was mentioned the listed tea party groups.
>> i was told there was a specific e-mail that identifies the tea party patriot. in his e-mail was the smoking gun. >> all right come you have said that, you have testified that before, we know that. but when you're doing a search, you are an impartial impartial search third-party notice that another of other groups. the search for these other terms when you are searching by e-mails. >> well, the list that we were focused on,. >> i have a training workshop with powerpoint that list both parties and you have redacted.
we don't know if the second bullet is. and you have done a training program on this. sooner e-mails we're looking for is one we were told existed but could not find that you're talking about a limited search that we do that we are looking for. >> this is july 20, 2010. >> we received it. >> use other than the way of the ranking member, you described it as follows, we reviewed all cases that the irs reviewed as
potential political cases and did not relate this to the tea party. how can you make that statement when the only entity that was being searched for were tea party patriot. >> because most of the complaints we received were allegations that they were being targeted. >> will the gentlelady will yield for questions. >> i certainly will. >> not to be the devil's advocate, but maybe to help you here, if they had searched the broader group and found what they were looking for, which would've been somebody talking about people for their politics, that would've gone gone against, which there is no evidence of them being targeted. if we look to every e-mail of every employee, we could find
them talk about democratic actively. >> we don't want them targeting one group or the other. >> but it wasn't about targeting groups. this was looking for whether there was political and 10 and if they looked further and found political intent it could be what mr. maloney was saying. so they could have been doing more and i will tell you from my personal observation when we went to the irs and did a joint investigation with the new commissioner. >> my point is that in his letter to mr. levin, he said that we reviewed all cases but the irs identified as potential cases and did not limited to the tea party. this would suggest that in fact he did.
>> or they might find nothing. >> i understand. we went through every employee of the irs or the one of our challenges quite frankly is the inspector general works for and with the irs and the irs gave us the same terms when we were looking for things. so to the extent, the odd thing is the irs suggested these terms is the right terms and so the inspector general was here yesterday, it would've been his employees that suggested this. >> but the presumption of of these theories has been that the president is trying to take down his political enemies. >> only on your side of dow. >> no comment happen. as mitch mcconnell put out.
>> is not honest committee. >> there have been references made by any number of members. but i think that the point is that we don't want to see the irs targeting any group. is that correct? >> we saw the targeting based on keyword tea party. >> we saw them. they are targeting because they got an influx and as a result they were trying to find a way to streamline the profit and it turned out that it didn't hit a mine but taking more time. the question for us is whether or not these entities are exclusively for social welfare purposes, which they are not. it was the irs that made it primarily. now we are looking at the irs agency trying to determine this,
unless you do a specific audit i could agree with you. >> the interesting amount during the 2,092,010. matt, the special began, by that time there was this. and i go back to euclid for my mathematics. i am that old. but the fact is that it is such a lonely number that i wouldn't call it a rush or an influx just seems to be the loneliest number and that is when we began to see that the first one. that is how this thing gets to be one in a hundred and people realize that they began spinning
us to washington. one of the challenges that we face as we may find other misconducts and we are asking to use the resources to help find them if they exist. but the key word of this and so on, predominantly began almost early on in with the tea party question. many of us question what the right amount is and whether 60%, and you can self-declared us, you can do this according to the commissioner that that is the current commission's decision and that is over and above the current law. so work with the gentlelady on all kinds of reforms. the we are trying to stay focused, and i will say once again that we do not intend on
going anywhere except for where the facts and testimonies lead. they're no allegations from the witnesses about the president being involved. we're at the point of lois lerner and the office of the consul not as were we are in our investigation. we will continue and you're welcome to come to interview. >> i would love to. thank you, sir. >> renumber to the gentlelady. >> it is called the advocacy cases iteration. it was given to us by representatives of the irs uses for political advocacy. if the irs is doing something beyond our company never made it apparent after doing an audit. if other people were misused, it is the one submitted for the
record that it is on the document that says tea party until lois lerner changed it. that is a key piece of evidence and they never change their stories for a year. she didn't apologize for anything else. islamic record everyone's. >> think it's. >> we now go to the gentlelady from new york. >> thank you. i want to follow up on the gentlelady's mention of the screening workshop on july 28, which clearly states in the training manual, look for terms such as republican, democrat, tea party, and look for
progressive. they were looking for full progressives when they were looking for this political activity. so i think it is very clear that in their training manuals they were saying look for political activity, republican democratic, conservative liberals, and tea party and progressives. so did you have this training manual and did you see this? >> ma'am, we receive that document last tuesday. over a year of conducting on it. >> you know why you never receive this document. >> no, but it raises concerns.
you think about these e-mails in the 5000 e-mails that they are trying to look for would you agree that the irs is training the emplaced likewise look at progressives? >> we will have to review that and make that determination. that would require us either to audit this order as i've indicated before, i have instructed my staff conductor nodded to see how this will be utilized. unfortunately, most of the us have to wait until after we have completed our work with the fbi with the department of justice. >> see macvicar from the training manual that they were asking them to look at
progressives as well? >> i'm not sure. >> i think you should look at it and study it. to get back to us and mr. george, you have been -- you've been and in this a long time. you know there is democrats and republicans out there, liberals and conservatives. it's hard for me to believe that it is beyond belief that you would conduct an audit that only looked at tea parties and that makes no sense whatsoever. i know that i wrote a letter of recommendation in support of you even though you were a republican because we work together and i respected your work. and i cannot believe you called for an odd it that only looks at tea parties when you know there is a hold parlay and that is called going after people.
some republicans, and i have a list of them, they have tried to steer the president is where that come in saying that he did this or that, that he tried to blame someone by excluding them as part of the political establishment. they were asked to do an audit come in eighth grade class, people asking for status, they would look at both sides. how did you get to this point we look at tea parties only when occupy wall street and others are just as active if not more active and would certainly be under consideration. that is just common plain sense. i think that some of your statements have not been an ability to defy logic and
believe that no one was looking at any other area and common sense if they have have certain regulations that they thought the law should be changed, i don't think there should be any exemption of tax-deductible political activity. but you know that there is political activity on both sides. why would you look at those? that would be the fair thing to do. that would be the, something to do and that an appropriate audit. like saying look for the wrongdoing in the bank would but only look at overdraft fees and everyone knows there's a lot of other areas you could look out. so if you limit it, it defies logic and i'm mystified that a professional would put forth an audit the looks of this thin sliver of training documents when plain common sense dictates
that there is a red of political activity. >> another was in the questionnaire, but mr. george, could you have an answer? >> yes, i appreciate it. first of all, we received allegations from members of congress and from media reports about a particular activity that would occur and it is patriots and we were charged with a request from congress as well as who are audit processors were and are audit plan to look at how tax exempt organizations were treated. never once did i ever indicate that we would limit the review to how these particular groups -- >> but you did see that yes, but it takes a year. this took a year and you wanted us wait another year before completing this and that doesn't
mean that serves the american people or the irs well. once we find that the irs is engaged in inappropriate behavior, there are many examples of this, we alert them so that they can understand that american taxpayers are not unduly harmed in the irs can take collective action. and i hope this discussion, obviously, i hope it will benefit any other group that might be inappropriately targeted for lack of a better word or treated by the internal revenue service. but i think you would acknowledge groups regardless of the political persuasion, they should not have had to wait three years to get the status approved. that was wrong. i don't care what political party or view that they hold. i don't care. but i do care that the irs does the job they are supposed to do.
it was gross mismanagement, poorly handled. >> i say that you are audit was mismanaged. >> and i would say this. >> the gentlelady's time has expired. >> after time is finished -- >> i would like to have a request of information for this committee that will help us get to the bottom of the. >> i look forward to seeing that in writing. thank you. >> we now go to the gentleman from california. >> thank you, mr. chairman. he testified earlier that i would like ask that you speak about that. there has been a lot of discussion about whether you found white house involvement or political motivation in your report. i believe the statement has made clear that you've done nothing
of the kind. no documents, no witnesses, nothing. is that correct? >> yes. >> i would like to ask you about a number of statements that are colleagues have made, especially since they are based on your report. and i want to ask whether you have identified any evidence to support the claim and chairman iselin on national television and said this. but this was the targeting of the president's political enemy and so that it wasn't discovered until afterwards. during the course of the audit, have you identified any evidence whatsoever that the irs is targeting the political enemies? >> we don't have access to the committee may have. it wasn't on it. it was nothing beyond that
although now there is an ongoing review. >> so far with the activities that you have been engaged in, you haven't found any evidence? >> that is correct. >> we have an ongoing matter that we are working with the justice department on, as well as the fbi. >> that is why clarify my question. >> i have not been informed of anything. >> all right. on june 13, rogers stated that of course the enemies list out of the white house that the irs was engaged in, trying to shut down the conservative viewpoint across the country and enemies that rivals that of another president some time ago. the question is during the course of your audit, have you
identified any evidence relating to this out of the white house? >> no. >> senator cruz said president obama needs to tell the truth and he tried to target his political enemies and went the obama administration, it is so still wrong. my question to you is this. during the course of the investigation, have you talked about the president's political enemies in that we have not found anything this affect. >> he said this and i quote, i don't know about you, but i think the leader of the free world and his advisers have better things to do than dig through other people's tax returns. what they're they are doing is trying to intimidate those to
outside groups and have you identified any evidence that the president or any advisers were digging through the tax returns? >> as to the other advisers, i'm not in a position to give you a definitive answer. >> okay. it has all of these substantiated accusations of five. but also, this is a committee of the united states congress and it appears that 290 applications were investigated and only 72 were read tea party applications. what i would prefer is that i could have witnesses and asked some questions about all 290
applications and not just the tea party applications. the delay and scrutiny, therefore i say the only organization that lately focuses on us is this committee. the title is to investigate tea party application and not all 298. with all due respect, it is a small subset compared to the entire number of applications. so it is unfortunate that i'm called to a committee that i'm a member of and yet i am to participate in some sort of bias towards what we should be asking and i yield back my time. >> would you like to respond to any of the numbers of characterization? >> with all due respect, again, and i alluded to the. >> please stay above the partisan portion if you don't mind. >> no, i don't. it's just that being an
inspector general is on the most difficult jobs in the federal government when you're walking into the secretary's office or whomever when the agency had, you normally are not coming in with good news coming are coming in with bad news you're identifying ways that the organization is not operating well where they are coming in with ways of a better manner. and i have to admit that i'm a little concerned at how this type of form could have and again, i have been around for a while and i have seen this before. but not to this extent. believe me, that is going to show a lot more but not the best
behavior on the part of the internal revenue service says we did with a few other things that we have reported about. those reports will be coming out. i took an oath to uphold the law and i plan to do so as long as i'm in this position. i was the staff director with steve horn and we rely tremendously on the gao help us do our job. and we could not have done it on her own. so i know the role. we never treated an office like this. but to just try to subject that and say that this could have been done differently, this is unprecedented, sir.
>> i thank you. and i remember the gentleman and there is nobody who worked harder and quite frankly the professor came to congress with almost no politics. and we always asked if he could be more republican and the answer was always there can be more honest. it is now the ranking members opportunity to close two you did really well in your last statement. i want you to be very clear. 700,000 people who sent me to this congress did not send me here just to sit and listen. they didn't do that.
and if i have questions, i will ask them. the chairman has questions he asks. there is a question and a document we can get and he asks. he represents the people. the 700,000 people and i represent the 700,000 people. when i put my hand to protect the american people and uphold the constitution, every two years, i mean it. i don't care whether the person is republican or democrat or whatever. that is my job. when you ask questions about a
report that even you say, looking at and what to expect, we might've done things a little differently. but welcome to the club. so i have to tell i'm glad you came. i think you all have been a done a very good job of answering the question. but give us some credit as well. i'm almost every single show, is asked what am i going to do. i said i wanted to get information and i am a lawyer. not necessarily to attack anybody but to give answers.
i am wondering if i missed something, i'm going to ask the question. and as i said, i don't have a monopoly on this one. mr. icily do the same thing. folks always say oh, don't ask you a question known. that is not how it operates. then there is another piece to this. i believe this committee must be about the only oversight but reform. in order to reform, you must have good information. it has to be transparent. it has to be complete. nothing but the truth, so help me god.
so please, i think you should be grateful that we ask you to come back to clarify, and he didn't. mr. chairman, you asked about bill i said about your role, you gave a great answer that i was pleased to hear. but i expect the young lady that was here, i believe in the same way. but it seems that the people came in and they were hard-working americans giving their blood and sweat and tears are not making a lot of money and they put their party hats to
decide and try to obey the law as best as they could. that means it may be the law was not right, maybe we need to do that, you said that maybe we need to do that. no one is trying to attack you or anyone else, just trying to get to the facts. this is it. i said that we do not know how long we will be here. but in this time, this is our time to beat the best we can be and we are better than what we could be so fun. but i am doing is reaching out and trying to get to that better more perfect world. that is what this is all about. nothing less, nothing more, it is simply that and i do not want
to see the irs in this way. i wanted to be the best it can be with the help of god. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i think mr. cummings is right. so without further lamenting, i does have a closing question for you, mr. george. do you know that there was special scrutiny on the organization well together is the term tea party, but obviously you know that special scrutiny of those organizations and that was in your opinion inappropriate at least in the time of the late? >> at two is what you know
today, do you know of similar treatment of specific scrutiny because of the keyname and delay for groups and in other words do you know a progressive groups that as of today were scrutinized for being progressive advocacy groups and ways? >> we mentioned that we don't know. >> okay. so is this committee continues to love, we will close today knowing that tea party patriot groups are held up to special scrutiny here in washington perhaps the office of lois lerner and to this day we know of no pacific equivalent among groups specifically left-wing
groups that are progressive and so on and that is what we have learned today and we certainly charge you as our representatives are we cannot look and continue looking to use all the resources and leverage other resources at the irs to find this and other areas of the irs. many people have characterized today with what i believe and what i say in closing i believe that you and your team have done an excellent job and when i look at the speed of your work, i wish for faster. when i look at the quality of your work, i certainly want to send you back to do more than many areas. the irs is an agency in crisis and they cannot get the procurement right. we have seen that. they cannot get the spending, at
least in the past, anywhere under control which was appropriate to fund that. it raises major concerns about whether they understand the criteria of the law and what they asked how they asked, including how they ask for donor information for the specifics rather than the balance of eligibility and out of other areas, it gives you another is not here today your job. and i have confidence he will do that job as all of us work hard to do. this committee will continue to leverage heavily the hard work the 12,000 or so men and women have worked towards. so would like to thank you. i would like to make one closing statement. that is hopefully we will stop asking people in public with
their political persuasion is unless we are speaking to activities that they did in those activities may compromise their objectivity otherwise every american has a right to believe what they want to believe that we want them to be able to do that. i encourage you to work jointly in me with the ranking member staff anytime you want, listen to their concerns, do the same. because this committee charges you often from one side or the other. but we know that your work is nonpartisan and your results are given to both of us on a consistent basis and also two other committees without us
asking you to make a decision and we appreciate that. with that, the gentleman yield. >> of course. >> were staff always asked for party affiliations and we have talked about the. >> i appreciate that. i believe that they have asked routinely about political contributions and even volunteering. i have instructed my people don't use that as criteria for the decision process but we do have some that campaign, made great contributions, but we have not and did not use it today and you know, i believe interviews the task of the questions extensively. it is appropriate, and we did do that candidly and the reason i
was happy not to hear it asked by my side of the aisle today had to do the. >> okay and with that, i think the ranking member. this has been a long day for you. i know that you could've accomplished a lot of what we are asking for today we let you have this day in the office and without we stand adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]
>> tomorrow, a house hearing for sexual assault for active duty troops and veterans. military survivors of sexual assault and officials from the pentagon have department of veterans affairs testify. live coverage begins at 10:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span2. sumac in 2003, you recommended a historical of crimes committed by the united states unquote. which crimes were you referring to and which would you recommend for such a reckoning? >> thank you, senator. thank you for giving me a chance to respond to that.
i think that this is the greatest country on earth come as i know that you do. america is the right to the world. we have freedoms and opportunities here. with regard to that quote, one of the things that move me as some has mentioned, very rhonda genocide. look that up. he has respect his regret that he didn't do more. when i travel, having been critical, i wanted to see the degree to which clinton's visit in his apology for not having done more, how would that have resonated. >> this weekend, the senate
foreign relations committee takes up the nomination of samantha power to be u.s. ambassador to the u.n. saturday at 10:00 a.m. eastern. on c-span2 baby booktv, live coverage of the harlem book fair including panels of others and your calls and face the comments. and on c-span3, the history of the u.s. political parties. sunday at 1:00 o'clock. >> the former south african president was honored by congressional leaders including house speaker john boehner and majority leader harry reid and minority leader mitch mcconnell. this is an hour and half. [inaudible conversations]
>> ladies and gentlemen, good morning and welcome to the united states capitol. in recent weeks, reports have refocused the world's attention on this remarkable statesman and the rich at expense of his life. at times, it makes us almost feel like we are talking about an old friend. the reason for that, i think, it is scarcely a day goes by without us pointing to nelson mandela as an example. an example of standing on principles and loving your neighbor and extending the reach of freedom. all of these ideals we cherish. and he has lived close to them. it is not a perfect picture and no one is. mandela walked into a small cell of fuller, condemned to prison for life is a terrorist.
and he said that i have time to think. i found that my past must be desired. and i would not have been able to achieve the most difficult tasks in life. that was changing myself. i became a better man, he said. and it has made all of us better as well. in the book of job, if a man dies, the question was asked, how will he love again? i know this man well and he will live on in the hearts of every dreamer and those who say that they want to be free. spirit will last. long as so long as we do our part to honor his life and his
legacy and his values. so i would love to thank the members of the congressional caucus to bring us together for this celebration. i am thankful for the gentleman's for joining us today and i think thank all of you for being here today. happy birthday, mr. mandela. [applause] >> let us pray. we give you thanks, almighty god, for the great prophets among us and we honest the greatest of our time, nelson mandela. the model of forgiveness in the wake of tremendous injustices suffered to call us to greatness
beyond most of our imagination. as we continue the celebration of honor, granting that all that attended these proceedings might transcend smallness and limitation and emerge as those desiring to be our best selves in service to our brothers and sisters. dear lord, thank you for inspiring such greatness in nelson mandela and continue to bless south africa and god bless america. [inaudible conversations]
abraham lincoln of south africa, mr. nelson mandela. congresswoman maxine waters is a part of the official united states delegation and she has said many times that it is a day that she will never forget. the culmination of more than a decade of her raising awareness is only she can do about the evils. throughout the 1980s, she organized marches, lots of them. and she lets it ends, lots of them in protests, lots of them at the consulate offices in los angeles and washington dc.
she let in sponsored the legislation that outlawed california's pension when maintaining money in the south african regime, some $13 million. [applause] in the 1990, the year that nelson mandela was released from prison, he served as chair of of the reception committee and he was honored in the united states congresswoman waters was the cochair of the south africa movement and her work has earned her national recognition, but international recognition and she earned the highest honor
that can be bestowed upon a civilian by the south african government, as i have indicated and so it is my pleasure to introduce a fighter, and that is an understatement. but the values that she has lived by and is not only the congresswoman be recognized here in america, but also internationally. maxine waters. [applause] >> the congressional black caucus draws us together here
today to honor and celebrate the legacy and values of nelson mandela, the most significant historic figure in the past 100 years even as he lives in critical condition in a hospital and even as we must face the inevitable as we celebrate his 95 years of life. happy birthday, president mandela. [applause] [applause] and as we celebrate his life, what is the legacy that we have inherited, and what values do we embrace? he taught us so many lessons about determination and leadership and unity and love it can be summed up, it would be best. he said that i have walked that long road to freedom and i have
tried not to falter and i have been missteps along the way. but i have discovered the secret that one finds that there are many more hills to climb and i have taken a moment here to rest and to steal a view of the glorious vista that surrounds me and to look back on the distance i have come. but i can only rest for a moment and with this comes responsibility and i dare not linger. because this wal-mart has not ended. the lesson is that all this on the long walk to freedom and we must all get up and go forward. and let us do so understanding the long road that we have already come through. the people of south africa suffered centuries of colonial rules what would institutionalize this in the
1948 in nelson mandela joined other freedom fighters in the african national congress to advocate freedom and democracy in the world's attention was not focused on africa. as we witness the collapse of colonial rule political independents in 1980, we soon turn our eyes towards south africa. many of us in america began hearing the powerful african voices of activists and musicians, including marian mckeever known as mama africa. it was raising a new group of people.
and the police massacres of hundreds of people were sustained national resistance and international reaction among african-americans, the similarity inspired a new wave of sympathy and solidarity and activism and this was unfolding in the u.s. and students demonstrated at more than 100 universities across the and country, that they want to get their funds from companies involved in south africa. other labor organizations as well begin to focus on their own pension funds and national and local groups will divide faith-based conferences were asked to take action.
it was part of the congressional black caucus that led america to get involved in the struggles in a profound way to free nelson mandela and end apartheid. i was inspired by him and the people of south africa and in los angeles have played an active role in weekly boycotts protested in front of others in beverly hills. we spoke at open mics and city halls around the southland. we organized marches and rallies and we led siddons in the office in los angeles and put our freedom on the line. then i was arrested in front of
the south african consulate in washington dc. in 1986 as a member of the california assembly, i called the divestment during business with south africa and help to make the call to make this a national movement sweeping from state to state and city to city and i did this by offering assembly bills from pension funds in california including california's opposition to the regime. at one point there were over 40 state legislators that were considering this bill in 1987 this movement, which are chair welcomed, the president of the african national congress and at a standing room only gathering, it was during that time that i learned about other important
freedom fighters and others that were so important. it was a particularly memorable year in and everyone we learned learned of the news of his release. twenty-seven years in prison, the members of the movement organized in all night vigil and about at 5:00 a.m. in the morning in l.a., we watch on tv mandella walking triumphantly out of prison say this. as i walked to the gate that lead to my freedom, i knew that if i didn't leave my bitterness and hatred behind them i would still be in prison. a few months later i chair the committee which welcomed him to los angeles, hosting a six-hour rally and concert attended by 90,000 supporters at the los
angeles memorial coliseum. it was all the talk of transitions of democratic rule, the sanctions must continue until the country was said on an irreversible course leading to the transformation into a nonracial country and that includes this. it was finally on band and this includes others who were able to return home from exile. in july of 1991, while i was in south africa as a special guest, participating in the historic national conference after mandela was released, president
bush lifted sanctions with congressional congressional approval and i said that i would not agree to lift the sanctions until i heard this from nelson mandela himself. two years later in the fall 1993 in the middle of the night, i got a call from overseas that was nelson mandela karn and he said that seem, it is time. by november, they publicly declare the transition process irreversible in preparation for the first election that was to take place in april of 1994. and a month later as a member of the official u.s. delegation to witness nelson mandela as the president of all south africa. so today we celebrated the 95th birthday of the third president of a democratic south africa, nelson mandela, but more than that we celebrate the life and
nearly every convention of a society and still find a way to establish himself as a unifying figure. not just for his own people but for people the world over. across the divides of confidence , across the borders of nations. the frontiers of ideologies and even though that kind of leader might be a rarity, it is exactly what the world has been no sudden mandella. then we celebrate today. a leader whose name is synonymous with ideas like hope and determination and reconciliation.
we admire this great man for his stoic endurance all those years in prison when he never lost his faith in humanity and we also admire him for his insistence on what st. paul might call the more excellent way to unity. when others at the time have urged the easier of of division and hate. it is that that helped to transform him from the leader of a cause into the daughter of a nation. so this morning leonidas leader and we do so with republicans and democrats in both senators and members of the house by
reading his own words so that he might inspire those gathered today to have the same kind of courage and foresight that he had. i believe my college will be leading us all. >> i would like to thank our friends for bringing bring us together and for the singular determination to make certain that the united states congress was on record opposing and condemning apartheid. it took remarkable courage and i commend my colleagues for that leadership. [applause]
this is what nelson mandela wrote about his own childhood. at first my father gave me this name, which literally means pulling the branch of a tree or more accurately, troublemaker. my english namely, troublemaker. my english name, nelson, was given to me by my class teacher on the first day i attended school. nobody ever connected with me to give an account of the history of our country. i acquired knowledge by asking questions to satisfy my curiosity. and i watched adults and try to imitate what they did. i came across a few whites as a boy. the local magistrate was white, as was the nearest shopkeeper and occasionally white travelers or policeman passer area and they appeared as grand gods to me. that their role among us was a distant one.
and i thought little if at all about the general between my own people and those curious and remote figures. molson mandela was a freedom fighter. i had no epiphany or single revelation or moment of truth. for this deadly accumulation of a thousand indignities and on remembered moments produced in anger of rebelliousness and a desire to fight the system and imprisoned my people. there was no particular day on which i said i would devote myself to the liberation of my people and instead i simply found myself doing so and could
not do otherwise. the national national day of protest was the first national campaign in which i took part in at the end of the day i felt the exhilaration that springs from success of an important venture that one has helped to plan. the majority of the workers stayed away from work and black businessmen close their shops in the success of this day raise the morale and serve as a warning to the government that the people would resist this to the bitter end. [applause] >> nelson mandela, freedom
fighter, june 26, 1961. a letter from underground. i'm informed that a warrant for my arrest has been issued and the police are looking for me. i've had to separate myself from my dear wife and children and from my mother and sisters to live as an outline my own land. i shall fight the government side by side with you and inch by inch and mile by mile until a victory is won. will you come along with us or are you going to cooperate with the government in its effort to suppress the claims and aspirations of your own people, or are you going to remain silent and neutral and our people for my own part i have made my own choice and i will not leave south africa and nor will i surrender, only through
hardship and sacrifice and militant action can freedom be one. the struggle is my life and i will continue fighting for freedom until the end of my days. [applause] >> april 20, 1964. the dog at pretoria, south africa, i am the first accused and i am a convicted prisoner serving five years for leaving the country without a permit and in my youth i listened to the elders of my tribe telling stories about the old days and amongst those they related to me those wars fought by our ancestors in defense of the fatherland and i hope then that
life might offer me the opportunity to serve my people and make my own humble contribution to the freedom struggle. i have dedicated myself to this struggle and i have fought against domination and i have fought against black domination and i have cherished the ideal of democratic and a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony with an equal opportunity and it is an ideal which i hope to live for and to achieved. but if need be, it is in ideal for which i am prepared to die. >> over a decade ago, i stood in a small cell on robben island
where john lewis was in on june june 23, 1959, from that small cell, nelson mandela, prisoner and husband of this. a new world will be won by those who are in the arena whose garments are torn by storms and whose bodies are named in the courses of the contests. it belongs to those who never forsake the truth, even when things seem dark and grim. to try over and over again to be discouraged were defeated since
the dawn of history, mankind has honored and respected brave and honest people. men and women like you, an ordinary girl who kills from a country village hardly shown on the maps. i sense of devotion to you precludes me from saying more in public and i have argued on. which must pass through many means. one day we will have the privacy that will enable us to share the tender thoughts which we have kept buried in our hearts. nelson mandela. [applause] ..