IRS Scandal explodes. "no evidence that would support a criminal prosecution."

[xBiffx]

DP

 

[xBiffx]

Lol! The email says nothing about making emails not searchable. In fact this conversation, as bowfinger noted, is a reminder that emails are searchable and a confirmation that so are OCS messages, which was a question brought up to Lerner by one of her employees.

Man! If only this investigation was powered by wishes and beliefs!

Don't worry guys! Issa will find another piece of bait to hook you with!

Did you even read the email? It clearly states that OCS messages are not searchable. Something that Lerner thinks is "Perfect."

Sure, one of her employess asked. In the words of Captain O'Hagan "I'll believe ya when me shit turns purple and smells like rainbow sherbet."

 

[ivwshane]

Did you even read the email? It clearly states that OCS messages aren't searchable. Something that Lerner thinks is "Perfect."

Lol! Did you read the email? She says OCS messages are not set to automatically save however it is recommended to treat all messages as if they could be saved. In the email it is then stated how one might save them. Again this is a response to a question asked by one of lerners employees that she said she would get clarification on.

Reading is hard!

 

[theeedude]

Did you even read the email? It clearly states that OCS messages are not searchable. Something that Lerner thinks is "Perfect."

Sure, one of her employess asked. In the words of Captain O'Hagan "I'll believe ya when me shit turns purple and smells like rainbow sherbet."

The person asked "Make sense?"
She answered "Perfect."
If that's Republican smoking gun, they are the ones smoking something.

 

[xBiffx]

Lol! Did you read the email? She says OCS messages are not set to automatically save however it is recommended to treat all messages as if they could be saved. In the email it is then stated how one might save them. Again this is a response to a question asked by one of lerners employees that she said she would get clarification on.

Reading is hard!

Does the term automatically searchable mean anything to you? If someone saves it that doesn't automatically make it searchable. The whole point of her question was to find out if this happens by itself. When she finds out it doesn't happen unless someone manually saves it, she replies with "Perfect." Very telling when she gets a response that basically allows the breaking of the records law unless someone intervenes manually and that is "Perfect."

 

[xBiffx]

The person asked "Make sense?"
She answered "Perfect."
If that's Republican smoking gun, they are the ones smoking something.

Unless there is a follow up email from her asking how to make it automatically log messages or some other automated procedure so that record retention laws can't be ignored, I think its clear what she meant by "Perfect." In fact, her response probably should have been to immediately question the answer she got, but then again, she's demonstrate she's not the best employee, among other things.

 

[emperus]

Given Issa's track record on lying and releasing partial information. I'm sure there is something that will put it in context that he deliberately didn't release.

My guess would be that it sounds like she is warning her employees as to not put personal information in the emails as they will be saved and may get released to congress.

I mean she knows the email she is writing this in will be saved and possible released to Congress, why write something damning in that email. Why wouldn't she just have her secretary call up and get the information.

It's peculiar to think she is that sloppy.

 

[ivwshane]

Does the term automatically searchable mean anything to you? If someone saves it that doesn't automatically make it searchable. The whole point of her question was to find out if this happens by itself. When she finds out it doesn't happen unless someone manually saves it, she replies with "Perfect." Very telling when she gets a response that basically allows the breaking of the records law unless someone intervenes manually and that is "Perfect."

Unless there is a follow up email from her asking how to make it automatically log messages or some other automated procedure so that record retention laws can't be ignored, I think its clear what she meant by "Perfect." In fact, her response probably should have been to immediately question the answer she got, but then again, she's demonstrate she's not the best employee, among other things.

But...but...you really, really, really believe! So it must be true!

 

[xBiffx]

But...but...you really, really, really believe! So it must be true!

I'm thinking the one believing here is you. I don't believe a word of what the IRS, especially Lerner, is saying on the matter. Lerner's actions clearly should call into question her believably for any objective and sane person.

 

[ivwshane]

Since reading is hard I thought I'd summarize the emails, apparently they are too long to follow for some:

Lerner: I was talking about email best practices today and a question came up about OCS.
Maria: While OCS messages aren't searchable it is advised to treat them as such.
Lerner: I understand. Thanks!

 

[theeedude]

Unless there is a follow up email from her asking how to make it automatically log messages or some other automated procedure so that record retention laws can't be ignored, I think its clear what she meant by "Perfect." In fact, her response probably should have been to immediately question the answer she got, but then again, she's demonstrate she's not the best employee, among other things.

"Makes sense?" "Perfect"
I think you are right, it is clear what it means. In fact, it makes perfect sense.

 

[ivwshane]

I'm thinking the one believing here is you. I don't believe a word of what the IRS, especially Lerner, is saying on the matter. Lerner's actions clearly should call into question her believably for any objective and sane person.

You can't even understand or follow an email conversation without thinking there is a conspiracy going on and you are talking about other people being objective and sane?! Lol! You must be trolling, no one is this hypocritical.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

She was obviously pleased that the OCS records were not searchable. She's a partisan scumbag who casually abused her power and needs to go to jail. Here's more fuel for the fire.

http://globegazette.com/news/opinio...cle_bd31b703-e8cd-51c7-a8cb-a0fd026c307e.html

Iowa tie further damages credibility of Lerner, IRS (Editorial)

Ironically, it was an email that was not “lost” that plunked Iowa into the circus surrounding Lois Lerner and the Internal Revenue Service.

Last week it was determined that Lerner, the former head of the IRS division that processes applications for nonprofit status, attempted to target U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa.

The emails involving Grassley show Lerner mistakenly received an invitation to an event that was supposed to go to Grassley. Both were being invited to the same event. The event organizer apparently offered to pay for Grassley’s wife to attend. Instead of forwarding the invite to Grassley’s office, Lerner emailed another IRS official suggesting to refer the matter for an audit.

“Perhaps we should refer to exam?” Lerner wrote.

Grassley hadn’t even seen the invitation, much less accepted it. Another IRS official waived off Lerner, saying an audit would be premature.

Of course, if it weren’t for the recent controversy involving the IRS, the Grassley situation would probably have never been made public.

However, when thrown into the muck with the two following situations, it’s going to stick for a while.

First, the revelation follows a highly questionable claim. More than a year after Congress began investigating Lerner’s IRS division’s improper targeting of conservative and some progressive groups, the IRS reported thousands of requested Lerner emails had been lost after her computer crashed.

Prior to that, when questioned by Congress, she invoked her constitutional right to refuse to testify and avoid self-incrimination.

The combination of these factors speaks volumes.

“We have seen a lot of unbelievable things in this investigation, but the fact that Lois Lerner attempted to initiate an apparently baseless IRS examination against a sitting Republican United States senator is shocking,” said Rep. Dave Camp, R-Michigan, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. “At every turn, Lerner was using the IRS as a tool for political purposes in defiance of taxpayer rights.”

Grassley also released a statement after the situation became public.

“This kind of thing fuels the deep concerns many people have about political targeting by the IRS and by officials at the highest levels,” Grassley said. “It’s very troubling that a simple clerical mix-up could get a taxpayer immediately referred for an IRS exam without any due diligence from agency officials.”

Last week, a group of Republican senators -- including Grassley -- said they want to expand a Senate investigation to look more closely at how the agency lost the e-mails.

The way events have unfolded, we believe a thorough and independent investigation is warranted.

It is alleged Lerner’s division forced hundreds of conservative nonprofit applications to fill out lengthy questionnaires, in some cases allegedly asking illegal questions of them and delaying their applications for long periods of time.

The connection with the U.S. senator from New Hartford has only reduced the already low credibility of Lerner and the IRS.

 

[Cozarkian]

If that's truly all there is, then as you note, Issa has no smoking gun.

It's not all there is, read some more articles to place this email exchange in context.

Here's a liberal bias one with more detail - http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/lois-lerner-irs-lawyer-email-108722.html

And here's a conservative bias one - http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/9/gop-lerner-warned-irs-employees-hide-information/

Piecing this together, here are some important facts:

1. The Treasury Inspector General of Tax Administration launches an investigation into the targeting issue.
2. A draft report of the above investigation is circulated.
3. Twelve (12) days later, Lois Lerner circulates the above email expressing (unjustifiable) concern that Congress might see information contained in emails and asking for advice as to whether a different form of electronic communication could also be scrutinized.
4. Lois Lerner included Nanette Downing in the email, who happens to be the head of exempt organizations examinations
5. After discovering the OCS communications are not automatically saved and are not specifically included in electronic data requests, she expresses great pleasure by responding "Perfect"
6. One month later, before the IG report is published, Lerner uses a planted questioner to make this issue public.

The above points strongly to the inference that the following event also ocurred:

5a). Lois Lerner used the OCS communication to instruct other individuals involved in targeting to use OCS communications for any internal discussions and to make sure they did not save the communications.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I'm thinking the one believing here is you. I don't believe a word of what the IRS, especially Lerner, is saying on the matter. Lerner's actions clearly should call into question her believably for any objective and sane person.

Nor do most people including those who consider themselves Democrats though it only in the low 60% range. Republicans and Independents have a much higher percentage that believe the IRS destroyed the emails or shut down any discussion in emails or other forms of communication.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

5a). Lois Lerner used the OCS communication to instruct other individuals involved in targeting to use OCS communications for any internal discussions and to make sure they did not save the communications.

If this is found to be true...would this be solid grounds for obstruction charges?

 

[Bowfinger]

You're the asshat here.

Let the butt-hurt flow, little one. You'll feel so much better about your dysfunctional self.

Let's quickly dissect your tripe:

Claiming innocence and constantly deflecting when it comes to the IRS. And this time you say you haven't been able to read the real email but yet claim innocence,

No, you flaming shill, I claimed, "It's hard to judge ..." Though there is no smoking gun, your pants seem to be a bit charred. I don't believe I've ever said Lerner is innocent. I've just pointed out again and again that wing-nut propagandists are pushing innuendo and disinformation instead of accurate fact.

as if that makes a difference considering that the pertinent parts were quoted in the linked story.

Critical reading is so hard. One could not tell from that story whether the quote was the actual email, or someone giving a paraphrased version of the email. This has often tripped people here, where they claim, for example, that "Obama said xyz." and it turns out that his actual words were different. The purported quote came from some partisan player paraphrasing the original. The source of a quote matters.

So I, in turn, provide the actual email (which took 20 seconds to find)

Lacking a perfect crystal ball, I had no way to know in advance if it would take 20 seconds to find, or 20 minutes. If it truly took you only 20 seconds, stop your childish bitching. And again, I thank you for posting them.

and you call me an asshat. Fuck you very much.

I called you an asshat for your gratuitously snide comment (and your long history of such behavior). Instead of blaming me, perhaps you might try the mature option of accepting accountability for your behavior, and changing it if you don't like the way people see you.

That email is an enormous revelation on how things were operating at the IRS. I am not surprised you see nothing there. Point of fact, nothing that goes on in email or Office Communicator at the IRS should need to be hidden or questioned on whether Congress can see it. Nothing. Here response is also suspect because she was given an answer that chat messages weren't automatically logged. Clearly, things weren't on the up and up at the IRS. I don't expect you to see that, however. You've clearly shown that there isn't much of a view when your head is up your ass.

What is clear is you've never held a position of responsibility in a large organization. If you had, you would understand that such comments are unremarkable. While they certainly could be due to covering up wrongdoing, it is not in itself indicative of wrongdoing. It could also be a simple, routine reminder that everything said in email can come back to haunt you, so always be professional and measured. It is far too easy for someone with an agenda to pervert a benign but careless comment into something sinister. Your prattle about "nothing ... should need to be hidden" completely ignores this. It's a simple fact of life for anyone in a significant role in a big company. Your written words can take on a life of their own, so always be smart about them.

Anyway, toodles. I have 10 minutes to grab lunch before my next meeting. That's another fact of life in big organizations.

 

[Cozarkian]

Since reading is hard I thought I'd summarize the emails, apparently they are too long to follow for some:

Lerner: I was talking about email best practices to keep information hidden from Congress today and a question came up about OCS.
Maria: While OCS messages aren't searchable it is advised to treat them as such.
Lerner: I understand. Thanks! That's great news!

There, I fixed your summary.

Also, keeping in mind that Lerner felt compelled to talk about email best practices after an investigation had been launched into the targeting system but before it was made public.

I know, I'm wasting my words, right? Let me guess, despite Lerner's obvious concern about Congressional access to certain information, the Republicans should just offer her immunity, compel her testimony, ignore any bias and accept every statement she makes as the complete truth, and close the investigation based upon her testimony.

 

[Bowfinger]

She was obviously pleased that the OCS records were not searchable. She's a partisan scumbag who casually abused her power and needs to go to jail. Here's more fuel for the fire.

http://globegazette.com/news/opinio...cle_bd31b703-e8cd-51c7-a8cb-a0fd026c307e.html

Kind of scraping the bottom of the barrel when you have to dredge up some small town newspaper reprinting an old op-ed for a story that was covered over a week ago. It's old news, already discussed in depth in this thread.

 

[theeedude]

Let me break it down for some of you folks who seem to be confused. If you are parsing words, it's not a smoking gun.

 

[ivwshane]

There, I fixed your summary.

Also, keeping in mind that Lerner felt compelled to talk about email best practices after an investigation had been launched into the targeting system but before it was made public.

I know, I'm wasting my words, right? Let me guess, despite Lerner's obvious concern about Congressional access to certain information, the Republicans should just offer her immunity, compel her testimony, ignore any bias and accept every statement she makes as the complete truth, and close the investigation based upon her testimony.

Yes you did indeed fix it to maintain your narrative. You wing nuts can justify anything.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Kind of scraping the bottom of the barrel when you have to dredge up some small town newspaper reprinting an old op-ed for a story that was covered over a week ago. It's old news, already discussed in depth in this thread.

Sorry. I don't have a lot of time to read through several pages of posts to see whether or not this latest bit of Lois Lerner bullshit was discussed or not. I happen to work for a big organization as well and would appreciate your understanding and forgiveness.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Let me break it down for some of you folks who seem to be confused. If you are parsing words, it's not a smoking gun.

It's not a smoking gun. I just looks bad...especially the timing.

 

[Cozarkian]

Yes you did indeed fix it to maintain your narrative. You wing nuts can justify anything.

And your style of wing nut can apparently turn a blind eye to anything, no matter how obvious. Let's give it one more try. Instead of using summaries, let's use her actual words to see if we can answer some questions.

What was the email about?

Re: OCS

Why was she sending an email on that subject?

I had a question today about OCS

How did the question arise?

I was cautioning folks about email

What was the warning provided?

to be cautious about what we say in emails

Why do you need to be cautious about what you say in emails?

we have had several occasions where Congress has asked for emails

And there you have it. Lois Lerner directly admits that she cautioned people not to put information in emails that they don't want Congress to see.

Now, what kind of information would the IRS not what Congress to see? Remember as Lois Lerner said, they would only see "responsive emails," so it would have to be information relevant to an authorized Congressional inquiry. Any non-responsive information could not be provided or redacted.

 

[First]

She was obviously pleased that the OCS records were not searchable. She's a partisan scumbag who casually abused her power and needs to go to jail. Here's more fuel for the fire.

http://globegazette.com/news/opinio...cle_bd31b703-e8cd-51c7-a8cb-a0fd026c307e.html

lol. Oh poor DSF, your partisan colors are showing. They're quite ugly and soooo last season.