Treasury Department inspector general J. Russell George has been as much the subject of lawmakers’ ire recently as the IRS itself. George on Thursday will defend himself against accusations from Democrats, led by House Oversight Committee ranking member Elijah Cummings, that he concealed evidence that the agency targeted liberal groups applying for tax exemption and personally intervened to prevent the IRS from disclosing to Congress information showing they appeared on its now-infamous “Be on the Lookout” lists. “None of this information has been withheld from Congress,” George will say in prepared testimony. “TIGTA provided it in an unredacted form to the tax committees entitled to receive this information weeks ago.”

George will also take a shot at the IRS, charging that the agency failed to disclose BOLO lists that included the terms “Progressive” and “Occupy.” “New documents from July 2010 listing the term quote ‘Progressive’ unquote but noting that ‘Progressive are not considered Tea Parties’ were provided to TIGTA last week, on July 9th, 2013,” George will tell the committee. “They were not provided during our audit…I am disturbed that these documents were not provided to our auditors at the outset, and we are currently reviewing this issue.”

George will nonetheless defend the integrity of his report, which Cummings and House Ways and Means Committee ranking member Sander Levin have impugned. He will explain that his report focused on the terms “Tea Party,” “Patriots,” and “9/12″ because “these were the terms [the IRS] used to select the potential political cases.” The other BOLO entires — including “Progressive” and “Occupy” — “were not used to select cases” for the type of scrutiny tea-party groups received from IRS higher-ups.

Levin last month released 14 BOLO lists that contained the term “Progressive,” and, in a letter to George, faulted him for his failure to call attention to those lists in his May report, which concluded that tea-party groups had been the subject of inappropriate scrutiny. In his response to Levin, George said, “Our audit did not find evidence that the IRS used the ‘Progressives’ identifier’ as selection criteria for potential political cases between May 2010 and May 2012.”

Though the term “Progressive” is found on several BOLO lists, IRS screeners were instructed to treat groups whose applications fell in that category differently from those of tea parties. Whereas tea-party applications were automatically elevated for extra scrutiny and coordination with officials in Washington, D.C., screeners were merely told a 501(c)(3) designation “may not be appropriate” for progressive groups.

A February 2012 BOLO instructs Cincinnati screeners to elevate the applications of groups affiliated with the Occupy Wall Street movement to the same group that handled tea-party cases. It is unclear whether any Occupy-affiliated group ever applied for tax exemption, and Cummings’s office, which released the BOLO, did not respond to a call seeking clarification.