Roskam to Miller: You’re Arguing the IRS is Not Corrupt, But the Subtext is, You’re ‘Just Incompetent’
IRS Commissioner Admits He Didn’t Think He Needed to Notify Congress of IRS Targeting
WASHINGTON — This morning, Congressman Peter Roskam (IL-06) questioned IRS Commissioner Steven Miller at the Ways and Means Committee hearing on how much Mr. Miller knew about the IRS targeting groups based on their beliefs.
To watch the video, click here or the image below.
“On the one hand you’re arguing today that the IRS is not corrupt, but the subtext of that is you’re saying ‘look we’re just incompetent.’”
TRANSCRIPT:
REP. PETER ROSKAM: Mr. Miller, you may object to the word “targeting” but it’s used it’s used in the IG report 16 times so it’s a common understanding of the word and so I would just suggest that it’s a well-settled doctrine and we not waste a lot of time parsing on it. You admit that you spoke Ms. Lerner and Celia Roady about the planted question before hand. Can you tell us more about that conversation?
IRS COMMISSIONER STEVEN MILLER: I did not speak to Celia Roady and I believe I did talk to Lois [Lerner] about the possibility of, now that the TIGTA report was finalized, now that we knew all the facts, now that we had responded in writing and everything was done, that it made sense to start talking about this in public.
ROSKAM: Can you walk me through the logic that animated in your mind at that time where you thought it would be a good idea to make a public disclosure to the American Bar Association rather than coming and following up on your duties to disclose that to the House?
MILLER: So we were going to do it at the same time, I believe. Our intent was to talk to you all at the same time.
ROSKAM: But that didn’t happen, did it?
MILLER: It did not happen I don’t believe.
ROSKAM: What other recollection do you have or what other experiences do you have when you were talking with Ms. Lerner about this scheme to have the planted question at the ABA?
MILLER: I’m not sure what you’re asking sir.
ROSKAM: I’m asking what’s your recollection of that conversation?
MILLER: We talked about what would be said and how we might do it.
ROSKAM: Where did the conversation take place?
MILLER: I believe it was over the phone.
ROSKAM: What day did the conversation take place?
MILLER: I’d have to look back at my notes on that, sir.
ROSKAM: You’ve got notes on that?
MILLER: I’d have to try and find them. I’m not too sure.
ROSKAM: Why did you say you had notes when you don’t think you have notes?
MILLER: Sir, please.
ROSKAM: Please. Do you have notes or don’t you have notes?
MILLER: No.
ROSKAM: Okay, let’s shift gears. A little while ago you were being – you engage with Mr. Reichert on the question as to whether you knew that this committee, that this whole idea of, ‘does the Committee have the right to know this information,’ and then you sort of sheltered yourself from this idea of, ‘well I’ve always told the truth,’ Let’s set that aside for a moment. Now you’re a lawyer and I’m a lawyer. You know that in the process of discovery, Mr. Miller, that when you find subsequent information, counsel has a duty to disclose that to the opposite party. There’s no Perry Mason moments, there’s no gotcha moment, there’s no litigious situation where somebody comes in and says, ‘oh we’re just showing up Your Honor with this information and we haven’t disclosed it to the other side.’ Don’t you acknowledge that you had a duty based on your testimony before this committee of what your actual knowledge was? Did you have a duty, Mr. Miller, to come forward and disclose that information to the committee based on all this cascading inquiries that had happened from the Ways and Means Committee directed to you?
MILLER: I don’t believe so, sir. What’s happening was, I was in possession of some facts, was not in possession of all facts. We had done an internal review to see what we needed to do to get these cases moving because, again, the processing was bad, the listing was bad. Those were two different pieces we were dealing with. TIGTA was in at exactly the same time they were getting all the facts. We were going to wait for them to get all the facts so that it didn’t come in and either mess up their investigation or otherwise give you facts that were not correct.
ROSKAM: So you weren’t concerned about the timing of the TIGTA investigation when you and Ms. Lerner made the decision to move forward and do the planted question. Is that right?
MILLER: It was done.
ROSKAM: ‘It was done.’
MILLER: We had all the facts, and we had made our written response.
ROSKAM: Right, I understand that. So, in other words, you had the actual information? The totality of the information that you’re describing today, you had it all in your possession at the time at which you were under a scheme with Ms. Lerner to go and do a planted question. Is that right?
MILLER: I sort of object to the term ‘scheme.’ We had the information, we were reaching out to the Committee–
ROSKAM: An understanding. A written or not written down, contemplated play. A manipulation. Call it what you will. You had all the information. Isn’t that right?
MILLER: We were reaching out to the Committee at the same time.
ROSKAM: What form did that outreach take?
MILLER: We called to try and get on the calendar.
ROSKAM: You called to try and get on the calendar. Is that all you got?
MILLER: It’s the truth.
ROSKAM: Okay. You know, I find it incredibly ironic. On the one hand you’re arguing today that the IRS is not corrupt, but the subtext of that is you’re saying ‘look we’re just incompetent.’ And I think it is a perilous pathway to go down. There is sort of this notion that hasn’t been satisfactorily answered, and that is ‘if the targeting wasn’t targeting, if the targeting wasn’t based on philosophy, how come only conservatives got snagged?
MILLER: They didn’t, sir. Organizations from all walks and all persuasions were pulled in. That’s shown by the fact that only 70 of the 300 organization were Tea Party organizations of the ones that were looked at by TIGTA. –
ROSKAM: This testimony is in contradiction of the I.G. testimony. I yield back.
###