She was visited by the epa or the texas equivalent to the epa doing an investigation. She was visited by the atf and harassed by the atf. Of course, she was harassed by the irs on numerous occasions. All she wanted was what every other organization thats trying to exercise the First Amendment wants and deserves as a taxexempt. Because of that, as the chairman has said, the right to exercise the First Amendment is there primarily so citizens can criticize government and not be afraid of government harassing them through their use of government administrative bureaucrats. All of these things happened to her. Fbi, osha, epa, atf, irs harassed her because of exercising her First Amendment right, and i appreciate the fact that the witnesses are here to tell us how government oppressed them for exercising that. I would yield back to the chairman. Thank you. Well move to our witnesses. We have with us today katherine engelbrecht, found. Mrs. Cleat that mitchell. Ms. Becky gerritson, president of the wah tum ka tea party and mr. Jay psych low, chief council of the American Center for justice. Please stand up, raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony youre about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god. Let the record reflect the witnesses answered in the affirmative. I think you know how this works. You get approximately five minutes to make your statement. Well be a little bit flexible. Well start with you katherine. Youre recognized. Katherine, hit the thank you. Good morning mr. Chairman. My name is katherine engelbrecht, im the chairman of true the vote, a nonprofit Election Integrity group, the founder of king street patriots and president of engelbrecht manufacturing. Thank you for this opportunity to share my story with you today, though at the outset it must be said that it is a story with a central theme that is shared by countless thousands of other americans who have not yet been heard from, though i pray that they will be. It must be made publicly known that across this country, citizens just like me are being targeted by an administration willing to take any action necessary to silence opposition. I am an average american who prior to 2009 had never been active in the processes of government. But after volunteering to work in the polls in texas in the 2009 elections, i saw fundamental procedural problems that i felt couldnt go unaddressed. So i started true the vote, an organization that grew into a National Movement to ensure every American Voter has an opportunity to participate in elections that are free and fair. My life before i got involved and spoke out for Good Government stands in stark contrast to the life i now lead. As a wife, a mother, a Small BusinessWoman Working with my husband, raising our children and participating in my church and pta, the government collected my taxes and left me and my family in peace. But once i helped found true the vote and king street patriots, i found myself a target of this federal government. Shortly after filing irs forms to establish 501 c 3 andc 4 taxexempt organizations an assortment of federal entities including Law Enforcement agencies and congressman cummings came knocking at my door. In nearly two decades of running our Small Business my husband and i never dealt with any Government Agency outside of filing our annual tax returns. We had never been audited. We had never been investigated. But all that changed upon submitting applications for the nonprofit statuses of true the vote and king street. Since that filing in 2010 my private businesses, my Nonprofit Organizations, my family and i have been subjected to more than 15 instances of audit or inquiry by federal agencies. In 2011 my personal and business tax returns were audited by the Internal Revenue service, each audit going back for a number of years. In 2012 my business was subjected to inspection by osha on a select occasion when neither my husband nor i were present. Though the agency wrote it found nothing serious it still issued fines in excess of 20,000. In 2012 and 2013, the bureau of alcohol tobacco and firearms conducted comprehensive audits in my place of business. Beginning in 2010, the fbi contacted my Nonprofit Organization on six separate occasions wanting to cull through membership monday fests in conjunction with domestic terrorism cases. They eventually dropped all matters and have redacted nearly all my files. All of these incursions into my affairs began after filing applications for tax exemption. There is no other remarkable event. Theres no other reason to explain how for decades i went unnoticed but now find myself on the receiving end of interagency coordination into and against all facets of my life, both personal and private. Bear in mind, distinguished ladies and gentlemen of this subcommittee, these events were occurring while the irs was sun jekting me with multiple rounds of abusive inquiries, asking about facebook and twitter, questions about my political aspirations and demands to know the names of groups i had spoken with, the content of what i said and everywhere i intended to speak. The answer to these sorts of questions are not of interest to the typical irs analysts but certainly of interest to a political machine that would put its own survival against the Civil Liberties for a private citizen. This government attacked me because of my political beliefs, but i refused to be cast as a victim, not to the irs, not to the fbi, not to osha, not to asf or any other Government Agency, i am not a victim because a victim has no options. I do have options, and i intend to use them to the fullest extent of my capabilities. As an american citizen im part of a country that Still Believes in freedom of speech, and so i will continue to speak out here in congress and all across this country,ly continue to press in every legal way possible as i did by filing suit against the Internal Revenue service. No american citizen should be willing to accept a government that uses its power against its own people. After all the tyranny and all the things that have been done to my organizations, my family and me, many people would quit. And, mr. Chairman, Many Americans have quit. I have heard over and over that people are afraid to tell their stories. But know this, my experience at the hands of this government in the last five years have made me more determined ever than before to stand before you and to all of americans and say i will not retreat, i will not surrender. I will not be intimidated and i will not ask for permission to exercise my constitutional rights. Ive come before you today, mr. Chairman, on behalf of americans just like me asking for a solution to end this ugly chapter of political intimidation. There was a time when people of good will were encouraged to participate in the processes of government, not targeted because of it. I applaud your request of the Internal Revenue service to withdraw a proposed regulation limiting political speech by Nonprofit Organizations that action should be taken quickly and without fail because if it is not, it will codify into law the very thing that brings me here today. If those regulations pass, Nonprofit Organizations across the country will be destroyed. No american regardless of their political affiliation should support the silencing of political speech. Beyond ending the proposed irs regulations, i ask you, i implore you as representatives to the people of this great nation to pass a law that protects all citizens of this country from the increasing use of such abusive practices, pass a law that exposing government officials who trample on the rights of ordinary citizens. Do not allow them to continue to cower behind avail of secrecy of use of unethical and unfair behavior. Send the president a bill that makes public persons agencies regulated, no restricted selectively released files. Give us a truly transparent process. Protect the people, restore liberty to the people because we will not be silenced. Thank you for this opportunity, mr. Chairman and committee members. Thank you ms. Engelbrecht and god bless you, we appreciate you being here today. I would like to enter into the record a letter that chairman issa and i sent to the new commissioner of the irs, john cosco anyone two days ago where we highlight some of the things you reference in your testimony, specifically how this rule was being prepared long before the tig nah report came into existence and how lois lerner was intricately involved in putting this rule together. I would ask for unanimous consent to enter this into the record. Without objection that will take place. Ms. Mitchell, you are now recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee. Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear here today. Im a practicing attorney, and i deal with the irs and have dealt with the irs on a daily basis for many, many years. What i do is i help people obtain the taxexempt status or to fit their activities within the proper section of the tax code depending on what it is they want to do. I want to make three primary points here today. Ill be happy to answer questions at the appropriate time. First, the irs scandal is real. Its not pretend. Its real. Number two, the irs scandal is not just a boneheaded bunch of bureaucrats in some Remote Office contrary to what the president of the United States told the American People on sunday. And number three, the irs scandal is not over. It is continuing to this day, and the department of justice investigation is a sham. It is a nonexistent investigation. With regard to point number one, let me tell you in one sentence what the irs scandal is. The irs at the direction of some political elites in washington, not in cincinnati, but washington, took what had been for decades a process of reviewing applications for exempt status that a 5013c company would expect to take three to four weeks and they converted the process into one that took three to four years and in some cases is still not over. Number two, the line agents in the irs had their work disrupted and halted by washington. In 2010, true the volt filed its application for c 3 status and did not obtain that c 3 status until we sued the irs. So in september they granted it. People shouldnt have to sue to get their taxexempt status. When lois lerner and president obama accused line agents in cincinnati of being responsible, ladies and gentlemen, that is a lie. I knew when lois lerner said that in may of 2010, when she admitted that it was happening, after we knew it was happening its sort of like we knew we were targeted its just that she finally admitted it. I knew it hadnt happened in cincinnati because the first time i really became aware of this was with a group that i represent. We filed for taxexempt status in october of 2009. Besides cashing our check for our filing fee, we did not hear from the irs again until june of 2010 and we didnt hear from cincinnati. We heard from washington. That group did one thing. It lobbied against obama care. In the fall of 2009, spring of 20 10rks something a 501 c 4 organization is permitted to spend 100 of its Program Expenditures doing. We didnt get the taxexempt status for that organization until july of 2013. When i took on the representation of Catherine Engelbrecht and her two organizations in the fall of 2011 this is now a year after she has sent her application to the irs and shes heard nothing, and when i talked to the assigned agent in cincinnati in october of 2011 saying were going to supplement the application to try to help make it easier for you to process, he told me at the time, oh, theres a task force in washington. We cant do anything until we hear back from washington. Number three, this scandal is not over. The lying has not stopped. I represent one tea party group, Tea Party Patriots who applied in december 2010. They still dont have their c 4 status. There are lies upon lies in this ugly episode. The commissioner of the irs lied to congress i believe it was this committee 234 march of 2012 or april of 2012 when he said there was no targeting. How many communications from the irs to members of congress who inquired about the status of applications and whether there was targeting, how many communications were there in which agents of the irs told congress that there was no targeting . Those are lies. Lying to congress is a crime. Department of justice refused to investigate who it was who was responsible for releasing the confidential Tax Information of Coke Industries to the president s economic adviser who in turn released it to the press or released the National Organization of marriages tax return, i represent nom. We sued irs to try to get to the bottom of why our confidential Tax Information was made available to our political opponents. Where is the fbi in investigating . That is a criminal offense. Its a criminal offense also for the irs to have released to confidential donor information of the texas Public Policy 230u7b dags and the republican governors Public Policy council, conservative organizations whose donor information was released by the irs. Thats a criminal offense. Who is investigating that . And then finally the lies again, it is a lie, it is a felony to lie to a federal agency, and yet the irs on the day after thanksgiving in proposing these regulations, the agent from the irs who transmitted those proposed regulations in the formal publication says that there are no related documents. Thats what it says on the website. Related documents, none. Yet, i have submitted a fouryear request on behalf of Tea Party Patriots for turned lying background documents, they said we cant get your those documents until april. The Public Comment period closes february 27th. So there are no documents but it will take them until april to get them to us. Thats a lie. They also lied when they transmitted those regulations and said that the the purpose of the regulations was the tip that report. There are too many lies, mr. Chairman. Its time to get to the dog, time for the fbi to investigate those criminal acts. Its time for the irs to cooperate as we try to get to the truth of why its happened and how to make it stop. Thank you. Thank you, ms. Mitchell. Ms. Garretson. Thank you. Thank you for inviting me here to speak. I cant tell you how much i appreciate you holding this hearing. Unfortunately im not hear to carry a message of joy or thanksgiving. Im in absolute grief for my be loved country. Eight months ago i along with five other victims laid out our cases about irs abuses in a Committee Just like this. At that hearing we learned details about the irs leaking confidential donor information to opposition groups when proven this is a felony. We learned of serious constitutional violations of the first and fifth amendments. We witnessed multiple violations of the administrative spreed your act as well as the Internal Revenue code. Louis learner outright lied to the American People blaming the scandal on a few rogue agents in cincinnati knowing full well that the targeting involved irs offices across the country including her very own office in washington, d. C. Lois lerner took the fifth for a reason. Government employees dont go rogue en masse. Their orders originate somewhere. Yet even with all these known violations of the law, no one has been blamed, shamed, fired, arrested or brought to justice. Because of that i have to ask how many people in congress are taking this seriously. Since my last testimony in congress, i still have not been contacted by the fbi. The fbi told the wall street journal that no one would be charged with a crime, yet they havent even interviewed the witnesses. Are you going to let them get away with this . If so, then i must say it again, my government has forgotten its place. It appears that many in washington fear regular citizens standing up for constitutional limited government. Why in america is it now considered a threat to our government to study the founding documents and to advocate for responsible spending. Why is giving out copies of the constitution, discussing pending legislation or even creating legislative score cards a threat to this administration . Obviously these activities are viewed as subversive to their agenda. Otherwise, they wouldnt have tried to stop us. In my previous testimony i explained that our application was complete and accurate. We easily qualified for a 501 c 4 status, yet that did not stop the irs from demanding information they were not entitled to. Unconstitutional requests that violated even their own rules. The information they demanded from us had nothing to do with our tax status. Why must the irs know who is coming to our meetings . Why did they need to have copies of every speech ever given and the credentials of those speakers . Why did they need to know who our donors were . Theres clearly something wrong with this. The irss targeting of the wet tum ka tea party and other conservative religious groups is profoundly disturbing. Im offended a member of congress of the United States senate would continually request the irs to go after americans like me because they do not agree with our values. This sun precedented. Never before has the federal government tried to muzzle Everyday Americans solely because of their political view. The governments of third world nations intimidate and harass dissenting citizens. It does not happen in the land of the free until recently. Its shocking. Its pathetic. Its infuriating and depressing. But most troubling of all is congress has not stopped this. Its actually gotten worse. During these past eight Months Congress has quietly sat by while the irs has proposed to cover up their targeting by rewriting the rules for 501 c 4 s, rules which are an ardent attempt to shut us down completely. One of our most sacred fundamental rights in this country is freedom of speech. But the irs under this administration wants to strike out 226 years of history with a key stroke. Under these new rules, we are not allowed to use the words oppose, vote, support, defeat or reject. Were not allowed to mention on our website or in any communication that would reach over 500 people even the name of a candidate who is running 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election. We are not allowed to mention the name of a Political Party if they have a candidate running for 60 days before an election. No more Voter Registration drives, no more conducting get out the vote drives. No creating or distributing voter guides outlining incumbents voting records oopsz. We cant even host candidates for debates or forums less than 60 days before a general election. Our officers and our leaders cannot speak publicly about incumbents, legislation and or voting records without jeopardizing our tax the tus. Does this sound like the land of the free or the home of the brave to you . The political targeting carried out by the irs is a fundamental transformation of the america we all grew up in. Like catherine, im not here as a victim because i refuse to be a victim. I am a Born Free American woman, and these abuses of power put all americans liberties at risk. Our government is using its agencies as weapons against its own citizens, and history shows that unaddressed abuses of power lead to greater abuses of power. I, along with my fellow americans are looking to you on this committee to restores the faith that you really do represent us. We implore you to use the full force of the law to stop these abuses immediately and to bring to justice not only those who gave the orders, but all who helped carry them out. I want the federal government to know and the irs to know that you will not divide us, you will not conquer us, and we will not be silenced. Thank you. Thank you mrs. Garretson. Mr. Sakhalin. Chairman and ranking members, members of the committee, on behalf of the American Center for law and justice, thank you for allowing me to participate in todays hearing. I represent 41 organizations that have filed a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue service. My first job out of law school was with the office of chief counsel of the ir sfrmts. I was a trial lawyer for chief counsels office. Im proud of that heritage in my legal career. Im disappointed and dismays with what the irs is doing. I have prepared comments. Id like those to be made part of the record. Im going to deviate from those for the moment because of a recent revelation. Before i do that, mr. Cartwright id like to give you information about the progressive groups that were targeted. However, this is the irss own statistics through july 29 of last year. 104 conservative organizations, according to the irs were targeted. They were asked 1552 questions. The average question per group was 15, that did not include the subparts. 48 were approved which was an overall Approval Rating of only 46 . Indeed seven progressive groups somehow got caught up in this drag net because of their names. They were asked a total of 33 questions or 4. 7 questions per organization. Seven of them were approved. Thats 100 . This wasnt an equal opportunity discrimination. This was targeted discrimination coming from the Internal Revenue service. What id like to address now is that our view is that that determination came from the highest ranks of the Internal Revenue service. Just yesterday it was brought to the publics attention that an email had been sent by lois lerner, the former head of taxexempt. She pled the fifth amendment. Based on the evidence that came out yesterday, if i was her lawyer, i would have told her to plead the fifth also. Here is why. An email from lois lerner with ruth mad grill from the office of tax policy, United States department of the treasury. It went to janine cook, Deputy Division counsel and associate chief counsel of the irs taxexempt and Government Entities division. I went to victoria judson, Division Counsel, associate chief counsel, taxexempt and Government Entities division. It went to nancy j. Marks, Division Counsel and associate chief counsel for taxexempt and Government Entities and a Senior Adviser who conducted a probe for stephen miller, by the way, with hole by paz into the impropriety months before this email. What was this email . It was an email we will work, quote, off plan, to device rules to curtail the activities of 501 c 4 organizations. Offplan. Thats very different from saying two rogue agents in cincinnati. If i was lois lerners attorney, i would have told her to plead the fifth amendment, too, because theres serious liability. With regard to the facts of this case, we have 41 clients. Late in december i haves i was contacted by the United States department of justice, the fbi and ms. Bosser man was on the call as well. They requested at that point they might want to after the first of the year interview three of our 41 clients. They said theyd get back with us after the first of the year. They did. And about the same day they got back with us, of course, the announcement about ms. Bosser mans political contributions was made public. That was followed up by a statement to the wall street journal by an fbi source that there was indeed no criminal investigation. My offices comment back, the lawyer in my office tasked with dealing with this issue is a former assistant United States attorney. If there is no criminal investigation, why do you need to speak to our comments . No comment. They said they will not discuss the on going investigation. The next question which i think is a very serious one is the fact that the fbi, in desiring to speak with our client, we raised the concern of barbara bosser man. Mr. Cartwright with due respect, its not because of her capabilities as a lawyer. Im sure shes a fine lawyer, a career lawyer. You cited an ethics rule. Chairman jordan, you cited the rule. The obligation is not on the department of justice. Its on the lawyer. The lawyer has to avoid the appearance of impropriety. If youre heading up the investigation and were assuming she is. Know one has ever been very clear on that. You cant head up the investigation in an impartial method if the public thinks theres even a potential for bias or an inappropriate position. It was very simple for the department of justice to solve this. They didnt have to go in and ask for her political position. She should have the she has the affirmative obligation to tell her supervisor, i could be compromised in this, it would be best if someone maybe from public corruption took a look at that. Im just saying that for the record so were clear on the evidence. But what we have right here in the few moments i have left. She may have said she could have said that and the department say no, we want you to head the investigation. Thats my hunch. Thats why im saying that i dont want to impugn her integrity. I dont think its fair to do that. I agree. I agree. I dont know what statements she made. She did have the obligation. Let me say this, the irs attempt now to change the rules falls on two systematic problems. Number one, you dont get to change the rules for a posthoc justification of your prior bad and illegal comment, number one. Number two, remember that the acting commissioner, when this first broke, proposed a scenario where he would do a 40 Self Certification to grant exemptions to the c 4 organizations if they would self certify that no more than 40 of their activity was deemed political. My clients do not exercise that. If some client of some lawyer did exercise that, there are over 300 of these groups targeted, if they did exercise that, how would you like to be the lawyer that told their client to exercise the 40 rule and then nine weeks later the irs say, by the way, 40 , weve changed the definition of political activity. You dont get to change the rules in the middle of the game to justify your bad behavior. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Through, mr. Sec low. We appreciate that. Recognize the choice chair of the committee. Thank you, mr. Chairman and thank you to the witnesses. This targeting issue is obviously very concerning. But understanding the government being what it is, understanding human nature, people are apartment to abuse their power. Whats even more concerning for me is that once you have an admission of that, once you have somebody taking the fifth amendment, theres zero interest in rectifying any of this, in what the irs has done, what the fbi has done, the Justice Department, gri with the witnesses. This is a total sham and the American People arent getting the answers. Ms. Engelbrecht, you mentioned in your statement but it bears repeating, you had 20 years in bids, zero issues with any agencies. You file for king street and true the vote for status and youre visited by how many different agencies . Which ones . Fbi. Fbi, irs, bureau of alcohol tobacco and firearms. Atf. Osha. Osha. And the texas branch of the epa. You mentioned very eloquently youre going to keep fighting, and i see that obviously. When you have to deal with this, you have a business, other things, trying to impact the country in a positive direction, when you have to deal with these agencies like this, it makes you less effective in pursuing your message. It has to. Am i right . It certainly gives one pause to think there is interagency collusion against private citizenses. Its the weaponization of government. Do you think people similarly sit rated to you may look at what happens to people to speak out and decide i dont want to deal with that and im just going to remain silent . Thats absolutely the case. Ms. Garretson, what was the irs asking you to provide . It seems like these were very invasive and intrusive questions. They sent me a list of approximately 80 queps. It was an eightpage document. Some of the questions they asked, they wanted to know all of my members names. They wanted to know volunteers names. Which by the way, we already know lois lerner disclosed for Tax Information she got caught redhanded in an email, this stuff is supposed to be confidential. We know a lot of times its not kept confidential. They wanted copies of every peach ever given, credentials of who the speakers were. They wanted to know if any of our members or volunteers were going to run for office and if so, what office . Remember this was the 2012 election cycle when we got this questionnaire. They wanted to know if i had they wanted to know any communications that i have had with any legislative body, even within my own representative. They wanted emails, phone contact. They wanted to know what i was saying to my legislator. Ill ask a similar question for you. Just seeing that, a lot of people getting involved in politics for the first time, youre seeing all these questions, you think that some people just look at that and say i dont want to have to deal with this . In other words, this has caused some people to silence themselves . Absolutely. We have a group in alabama who said they got their letter and said were not going to do this and they stopped. Ms. Mitchell, do you agree with mr. Sec low, this idea they were targeting everybody, liberal groups as well, that is false in your judgment, correct . Its absolutely false. The records dont substantiate that. I know thats one of the things that people have been using since last summer as a means of trying to discredit or to thwart the investigation. Ill give you one example. There was a report that was released by published in usa today last september which was an internal irs document that listed 162 organizations that were on the watch list or Development List at the irs. And i think the number that cuz calculated was 83 were conservative. Ill give you the example. This was a document prepared in november of 2011. King street patriots is listed on there with a it says on the report likely approval, november of 2011, likely approval. Also on that list is one of the few liberal groups, progress texas. And references in the comments that this is an organization that appears to engage in antirick perry propaganda, november 2011. Fast forward, progress texas gets its taxexempt status by may of 2012. King street patriots did not get its taxexempt status until two months ago after going through yet more rounds of questioning. Thank you. Im about out of time. I want to ask mr. Sec low, what the administration is trying to do with this c 4, is it safe to say that if that is in effect, that would disproportionally affect conservative groups . In other words, a lot of the labor unions and environmental groups would not be affected by that. Is that correct . Correct. A lot of those are exempt under different provisions of the Internal Revenue code. In that regard and with regard to the questioning aspect of this and the Chilling Effect which i think is what youre going after, we have a client, Pro Life Organization that is one of the ones targetsed. The questions to them were so draconian in nature, this is what they asked. Talking about the clients pro life position, this is the irs. The presentation of viewpoints or positions are unsupported by facts is a significant portion of the organizations communications. The facts that pro purport to support the viewpoint or positions are distorted. This is from an irs agent. You make substantial use of inflammatory and disparaging terms and express concerns more on the basis of strong emotional feelings than objective evaluations. The approached used in the organizations presentation is not aimed at developing an understanding on the part of the intended audience or read ship because it does not consider their background or training in the subject matter. Who gave the irs the authority to say this, and how is it that the president of the United States can say theres not a smidgeon of corruption when the documents by the way, some of these signed by lois learner or holly pass how can they possibly say this . The thing i dont understand, mr. Chairman, as the president was making his statements, as members of this committee were making statements, we had the documents in our possession from offices all over the country coast to coast. The agents told our clients it was being managed out of washington, and with the email released yesterday we know how high up the chain. I would urge the committee, when you Start Talking about associate chief councils divisional counsels, this is as high as it gets. Well said. Thank you, mr. Chairman. As i said at the outset of this hearing, i am deeply troubled regarding irs employees improper handling of applications for taxexempt status. However, i am encouraged that Senior Leadership of the agency during this period has been removed. In december the Senate Confirmed a new commissioner of the irs and he has pledged his commitment to cooperating with congress and reforming the agency. I do look forward to working with him. While i welcome the opportunity to hear the concerns of these witnesses to participate in this hearing, i do fear that the committee is once again presenting only one side of the story. The committees tenmonthlong investigation has uncovered no evidence to support claims that the irs was targeting any groups for political reasons. Not one single witness has appeared before this committee and told us that the white house was involved in directing the conduct of the irs employees. The Deputy Inspector general for investigations identified absolutely no evidence of political motivation after a review of more than 5,000 emails of irs employees. That was Russell George. He was the one whose report really sparked this committees hearings. I personally asked him that question, did you find evidence of political motivation for what was going on . He said no. Instead, as we learned in a transcribed interview last year it was a selfdescribed conservative republican manager in cincinnati who oversaw irs employees who developed the inappropriate criteria for examination. Mr. Sec low, you were helpful with some statistics this morning. I wanted to ask you about that. You mentioned 104 conservative groups targeted. Is that the number . This is from the report of the irs dated through july 2010, 104 conservative organizations in that report were targeted. And then seven progressive targeted groups . Seven progressive targeted groups, all of which received their tax exemption. Does it give the total number of applications . In other words, 104 conservative groups targeted . How many conservative groups applied . In the tip that report there were numbers 283 that they had become part of the target. Actually, applications, a lot of the irs justification for this was an increase in applications. There was actually a decrease in the number. Does it give the number of progressive groups that applied . No. The only group that has the progressive no . The one i have the report i have in front of me which is the one which just has the seven. Okay. Thank you. None of those have been denied, though. In addition, the committees investigation into this matter revealed the irs also sought out liberal groups with these words, progressive or occupy in the names. At an Oversight Committee hearing last year Russell George admitted he actually failed to inform our committee that he was aware of progressive groups receiving similar treat as conservative groups. Ms. Mitchell, you favored us with your testimony this morning. Thanks again for coming. We just found out about you monday afternoon. We didnt have too much time to read about you. I saw your extensive cv which is on line, and its it has you as a partner at the Foley Lardner law firm in washington. Is that right . Correct. And it says you are a member of the firms political law practice. Is that correct . Correct. The firm has a taxation practice thats different from the political law practice. Correct. Youre in the political law practice. If im not mistaken, you have personally served as Legal Counsel to the National Republican senatorial committee. Am i correct in that . Among others, yes. You have personally served as Legal Counsel to the National RepublicanCongressional Committee as well. Am i correct in that . Correct. You served as a legislator in oklahoma, am i correct . Correct. Would that be as a republican legislator . No. Actually i was a democrat that, until i realized that would become the government of the government and not the people. Mr. Cartwright, just for the record, not all of us would agree with that. Were entitled to our political views, too. Thank you, mr. Connolly. The question i have for you, in your law practice, your political law practice, how many progressive groups do you represent right now . None, because it doesnt work that way. How many liberal groups . It doesnt work that way. It doesnt work that way, congressman. You testified that you represent Tea Party Groups . I do. So it works that way. Thats right. As i say to people, in this law practice, you cant play for usc and notre dame. You have to pick a team. How many occupy groups do you represent . I wouldnt represent one of them on a bed. Ive represented the aclu however, mr. Cartwright. In light of that members and sta have been excluded from meetings with the inspector generals staff, serious concerns about the im pashlt of the work of the majority of this committee. Sadly only Tea Party Groups are represented before this panel today. One of them has already testified before congress. Since the identity of witnesses was only revealed on monday afternoon i was staff was unable to identify a minority witness on such short notice. As a result, this is not a balanced hearing. This committee is charged with conducting oversight of the federal government. As members of congress, we must exercise that authority in a responsible manner calling this kind of onesided hearing and making false legal allegations, attacking the credibility of career federal employees falls well short of that standard. Going forward i want to see us working together to conduct responsible oversight of the Internal Revenue service. With that i yield back. I would just point out that, first of all, ms. Mitchell doesnt represent progressive groups because it sounds like, according to mr. Sec low, they dont need it. They were seven for seven. I would urge you to have some come and testify and find out what they were asked. The minority had nine days notice of this hearing. Maybe you want to get one of the seven approved out of the seven that were put on some notice. What the minority did have time to do was to write me a letter urging me not to pursue having barbara bosser man come here and answer our questions. You had time for that, but didnt have time to find someone to come testify . Recognize the gentleman from south carolina. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Im a lot more interested in having a balanced investigation than i am a balanced hearing. In that light, ms. Engelbrecht, dipped you hear the president say there was not a smidgeon of corruption . Ive heard he said. Ms. Garretson, did you hear the president say there was not a smidgeon of corruption . Let me translate that. Smidgeon is not a legal term. I assume he meant scintilla. I assume he meant criminality instead of corruption. How is he able to make that conclusion . None of you have been interviewed by the bureau, have you . No, sir. No. According to mr. Sec low, of his 41 clients, three have been interviewed or three were asked to be interviewed. None interviewed yet. So zero of 41 have actually been interviewed. Correct. So the president says theres not a smidgeon of criminality or corruption. Do either of you remember seeing a witness named lois lerner sitting at the very table yall are sitting at . Do you remember her invoking her fifth amendment privilege, the same privilege that she targeted some of your groups for trying to educate people about . Some of your groups just want to simply educate people about the constitution, the one she availed herself of the very second she was exposed to criminal investigation. So how can the president say theres not a smidgeon of criminality when lois lerner invoked the fifth amendment, 41 witnesses havent been interviewed including the two that are here right now . How can he possibly draw that conclusion . Good question. I wish one of the colleagues on the other side of the aisle would ask the president how in the world he concluded no criminality when lois lerner sat in front of them and invoked her privilege against criminality . How do you square that. Mr. Dowdy, if i may, she invoked her fifth amendment privilege which she has the right to do, and you and i respect that, because we know the reason why. It wasnt perhaps as clear as it was made yesterday. She invoked her fifth amendment privilege because she knew after she made a false statement in a planted question at an aba meeting, she knew that, in fact, there was her words and her emails off plan drafting of rules targeting conservative groups. She also said at a forum that people are asking us what we can do. She said i cant do anything until i see the 990s, the tax returns that are filed. That was all going on while she was redrafting the rules with the highest level of the chief counsels office. Mr. Cartwright mr. Sec low, i want to say this. I understand why she invoked her fifth amendment privilege. I dont understand why the hell the president of the United States would prejudge an investigation. I dont either. Before any of your clients were interviewed, before either of these two victims i know you dont like that word, but im using it in the criminal sense of the word, before either of these two victims were interviewed. He has gone on national television. He has prejudged the investigation and in my judgment has compromised the department of justice which leads me to this question, mr. Sec low. There is the option, when you have a compromised investigation and a chief executive who has prejudged the outcome before the jury has even gotten all the evidence, hes got an option of appointing a special counsel, right . Yes, he does. The special counsel regulation says if theres extraordinary circumstances that furthers the public interest. Can you think of anything more extraordinary than government targeting people based on their political beliefs . No. I agree with you 100 . I also would point to the again, the email of june 14, 2012 which was just released. This shows the need for a special prosecutor at this point on the criminal aspect of this. Again, mr. Cartwright, when you asked about no evidence of politics, let me quote from the email. Dont know who in your organization is keeping tabs on c 4s, but since we mentioned potentially addressing them off plan in 2013 ive got nye radar up and this seemed interesting. These are coming from the most senior people within the chief counsels office of the irs which is a president ial appointee. Its an office i came out of, so i have due respect for the office. At this point to investigate the criminal sanctions or criminal laws applicable i think would be the best way to go because i dont think the Justice Department right now again with due respect to the Justice Department, is institutionally capable of doing this. And i need to say this, also, because i thought the question mr. Cartwright on ms. Mitchells legal representation, she is has an exceptionally excellent reputation in this town. Her clients tend to be conservative because thats who her clients tend to be. Im a conservative, also. Like i said, ive represented the american Civil Liberties union, the National Democratic policy committee as well. I dont think its fair to go after the lawyers in a situation where it is the irs that is trying to use their procedures to justify their illegal conduct. Remember the apology . They offered the apology. The apology is not accepted. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion i believe the ranking subcommittee member said there are 13 people assigned to this investigation, if i heard correctly. 13 people in six months have not had time to interview a single solitary one of mr. Sec lowes clients. 13 people in six months have