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

[xBiffx]

lol, yikes. Yes indeed, emailing (like texts or any other non-spoken form of communication) indeed carries with it potential for misunderstanding context...which is exactly why you DON'T take many people "at their word" in those situations. Taking a text or email at face value with a perfect stranger is one thing, but taking words at face value when emailing, say, your good friend Rodney Dangerfield would make you a fool.

Perhaps that's why they have a guideline (as do most corporations) that you should conduct yourself professionally, even when doing personal things at work?

Emailing Rodney Dangerfield at this point would make anyone look like a fool. :\

 

[DominionSeraph]

Since you're so smart, why didn't you catch the misspelled title on 5/8/14?

What does that make you, that it took you three months to notice?

What does it make you that you can't note that the repetition might mean something?

teap teap teap teap teap teap teap teap teap teap teap teap

 

[Jhhnn]

Perhaps that's why they have a guideline (as do most corporations) that you should conduct yourself professionally, even when doing personal things at work?

Emailing Rodney Dangerfield at this point would make anyone look like a fool. :\

Still having trouble with that getting over yourself part, huh?

Listen carefully to hear the world's smallest violin playing just for you, and all the other right wing assholes in the world.

Work that up into the usual persecution complex snit, give us all a good laugh.

Or just nut up, quit whining.

 

[Jhhnn]

What does it make you that you can't note that the repetition might mean something?

teap teap teap teap teap teap teap teap teap teap teap teap

Maybe he could sing it to something like "Duke of Earl"-

"Teap, teap, teap... teap of teap, teap, teap... cuz I'm the teap of teap"

Or something even more mindless, like "Crimson & Clover".

 

[dank69]

Maybe he could sing it to something like "Duke of Earl"-

"Teap, teap, teap... teap of teap, teap, teap... cuz I'm the teap of teap"

Or something even more mindless, like "Crimson & Clover".

I'm thinking he's more of a Stryper guy.

 

[brycejones]

Now 1806 posts and still nothing to support the thread title......

 

[TerryMathews]

I'm thinking he's more of a Stryper guy.

You misspelled AC/DC

 

[dank69]

You misspelled AC/DC

We shouldn't paint him with these labals.

 

[Bowfinger]

Guess we will see how this turns out.

Another federal judge tells IRS to explain itself on lost emails.

This caught my eye:

Only question I have is why? Why would they want to stop a third party from attempting to get information that could exonerate them. After all, the IRS has claimed nothing but innocence. If that is the case, then they should have nothing to fear from an independent expert and should actually welcome it.

The request for external forensics review was denied:

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/irs-tea-party-emails-109821.html

The IRS won what might be Round One in a series of contests pitting tea party groups against the agency, with a federal judge rejecting a conservative group’s bid for a court-appointed forensics expert to hunt for ex-official Lois Lerner’s lost emails.

Judge Reggie Walton of the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia said True the Vote’s lawsuit against the IRS failed to show “irreparable harm” in its injunction relief request and that “the public interest weighs strongly against the type of injunctive relief the plaintiff seeks.”

“Despite the general distrust of the defendants expressed by the plaintiff, the Court has no factual basis to concur with that distrust … and therefore concludes that the issuance of an injunction will not further aid in the recovery of the emails, if such recovery is possible, but will rather only duplicate and potentially interfere with ongoing investigative activities,” he wrote in a court memorandum posted Wednesday afternoon.
[ ... ]
The judge also rejected the group’s argument that because pro-Israeli group Z Street sued the IRS on a similar tax-exempt application matter in 2010, that the IRS was legally obligated to save all the emails as evidence because it was under investigation.
[ ... ]
He also noted that the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration is already investigating the matter using forensic experts — a probe that will simultaneously protect confidential taxpayer information.

More at the link.

 

[Bowfinger]

Deeper and deeper you go. Lacking a clean room and specialized hardware, a head crash or controller failure will commonly make a drive unrecoverable. That is a true statement. A head crash will often damage not only platters, but one or more of the heads, making the head(s) inoperable. In a controller failure, it depends on how the controller failed and how badly one needs the data. In some cases, swapping the controller with an identical model with identical firmware will work if the controller didn't cause damage or write garbage to the drive as it failed. (This does NOT require a clean room as long as you don't open the drive casing.) This varies by manufacturer and model of drive, however, and often comes down to luck of the draw. ...

We finally have that detailed technical testimony, direct from the IRS technicians involved. It comes in the form of sworn affidavits, submitted in the Judicial Watch lawsuit: http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Judicial-Watch-v.-IRS-01559.pdf

The second statement is the most interesting one, from the forensics technician (John Minsek, page 8 of the .pdf). I was surprised at how far he went to try to recover Lerner's drive. Not only did he use that "specialized hardware" I mentioned, he actually did use a "clean room" of sorts (clean box?), and tried replacing both the controller card and the heads, carefully ensuring he had an identical model and firmware revision according to his testimony.

His efforts were unsuccessful. He was experiencing some sort of controller error that kept it from ever entering a ready state. I don't know if that indicates a more serious hardware problem, or is merely that "luck of the draw" issue I mention when trying to swap controller cards. Either way, he was ultimately unable to recover any data at all from the drive. It does show that the problem was beyond merely writing bad data to the drive, or reformatting it.

Finally, at one point I speculated that when the IRS tech said the drive was "scratched", he might have meant he wiped the drive and not that it was physically damaged. I was wrong about that. (This is related to me not expecting the IRS to try a clean room recovery.) Today's affidavits report that a drive platter was physically scored. They also confirm that there was no evidence of intentional physical damage.

Anyway, aside from the implications for this story, I found the second statement interesting in its own right. It is quite detailed. It's worth a read if you'd like insight into advanced drive recovery tactics.

 

[Jhhnn]

The request for external forensics review was denied:
More at the link.

Helluva fishing expedition, ain't it? They're putting every line in the water, hoping to not get skunked.

How far has it come? Way out in the weeds, far, far away from the original apology & retribution, that's for sure.

They're left going on about a lost email harddrive failure conspiracy as if it weren't obvious from the beginning that it was water passed under the bridge.

There's a little failboat floating on it, way down river.

 

[Zorkorist]

Have you got the IRS on your ass too, John?

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

If not, I can probably implicate you in an ongoing investigation.

-John

 

[ivwshane]

The investigation was warranted, I think we all agree on that. What we all don't agree on is how the investigation was carried out.

I as well as several others pointed out the numerous partisan leaks and innuendos, while others not only took the leap of faith but also spread the nonsense.

My question is for those that took the leap; do you still believe what Issa is feeding you? Are you capable of seeing how poorly and partisan Issa has handled this investigation?

 

[Zorkorist]

Who is ISSA?

I hope it isn't a bunch of Lawyers, because we already did that.

I think we are beyond lawyers and it's easy to see the corruption in the Obama administration.

-John

 

[Jhhnn]

The investigation was warranted, I think we all agree on that. What we all don't agree on is how the investigation was carried out.

I as well as several others pointed out the numerous partisan leaks and innuendos, while others not only took the leap of faith but also spread the nonsense.

My question is for those that took the leap; do you still believe what Issa is feeding you? Are you capable of seeing how poorly and partisan Issa has handled this investigation?

Heh. Blind partisanship runs deeper than that. All Repub "scandals" are merely symptoms of older leaps of faith & contradictions now embedded in their belief system. They can't even begin to recognize Issa as a charlatan. They just want more red meat.

When Sarah Palin still gets over on them along with Ted Cruz & Rick Perry, you have to realize that you're dealing with damaged goods.

 

[Bowfinger]

Helluva fishing expedition, ain't it? They're putting every line in the water, hoping to not get skunked.

How far has it come? Way out in the weeds, far, far away from the original apology & retribution, that's for sure.

They're left going on about a lost email harddrive failure conspiracy as if it weren't obvious from the beginning that it was water passed under the bridge.

There's a little failboat floating on it, way down river.

I think in large part that's because it's all they have left. All of their purported scandals have fallen apart, eventually exposed as molehills (or less) rather than the mountains they'd been duped into buying. The IRS "scandal" has similarly disintegrated as the facts have come out. Their remaining hopes were pinned to Lerner's hard drive. It was a perfect prop because the possibilities were endless. Anything they wanted could be in those missing emails. Their heads danced with fantasies of all the evil Lerner was hiding.

Except, once again, their dreams are dashed. It's a lot harder to sustain their conspiracy theory with this new information. You have to be a diehard loon to continue to insist Lerner somehow deliberately destroyed her old email, using some amazing technique undetectable by a senior IRS forensics technician. It's time for them to move on, and hope that the upcoming report on the TIGTA investigation has the smoking gun they need. But if not, there's always the FBI investigation. Or if not, then ...

 

[hal2kilo]

Heh. Blind partisanship runs deeper than that. All Repub "scandals" are merely symptoms of older leaps of faith & contradictions now embedded in their belief system. They can't even begin to recognize Issa as a charlatan. They just want more red meat.

When Sarah Palin still gets over on them along with Ted Cruz & Rick Perry, you have to realize that you're dealing with damaged goods.

It's hard to reason with people who have faith. And, I don't mean that in a religious sense.

 

[werepossum]

The request for external forensics review was denied:
More at the link.

We finally have that detailed technical testimony, direct from the IRS technicians involved. It comes in the form of sworn affidavits, submitted in the Judicial Watch lawsuit: http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Judicial-Watch-v.-IRS-01559.pdf

The second statement is the most interesting one, from the forensics technician (John Minsek, page 8 of the .pdf). I was surprised at how far he went to try to recover Lerner's drive. Not only did he use that "specialized hardware" I mentioned, he actually did use a "clean room" of sorts (clean box?), and tried replacing both the controller card and the heads, carefully ensuring he had an identical model and firmware revision according to his testimony.

His efforts were unsuccessful. He was experiencing some sort of controller error that kept it from ever entering a ready state. I don't know if that indicates a more serious hardware problem, or is merely that "luck of the draw" issue I mention when trying to swap controller cards. Either way, he was ultimately unable to recover any data at all from the drive. It does show that the problem was beyond merely writing bad data to the drive, or reformatting it.

Finally, at one point I speculated that when the IRS tech said the drive was "scratched", he might have meant he wiped the drive and not that it was physically damaged. I was wrong about that. (This is related to me not expecting the IRS to try a clean room recovery.) Today's affidavits report that a drive platter was physically scored. They also confirm that there was no evidence of intentional physical damage.

Anyway, aside from the implications for this story, I found the second statement interesting in its own right. It is quite detailed. It's worth a read if you'd like insight into advanced drive recovery tactics.

Interesting posts, thanks. Doesn't really address the issue of whether the damage was intentional though, as one could easily do the same thing by shaking the laptop and following up with a strong magnet without leaving any overt evidence of intentional damage. Alternately, poor baggage handling could bend a drive arm so that normal operation would trash the platter without Lerner being the wiser.

Also interesting that the IRS was sued in 2010 for not following the law in retaining email and then had the exact same problem within the same division in 2011. Intentional or merely institutional arrogance in considering themselves above the law?

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Interesting posts, thanks. Doesn't really address the issue of whether the damage was intentional though, as one could easily do the same thing by shaking the laptop and following up with a strong magnet without leaving any overt evidence of intentional damage. Alternately, poor baggage handling could bend a drive arm so that normal operation would trash the platter without Lerner being the wiser.

Also interesting that the IRS was sued in 2010 for not following the law in retaining email and then had the exact same problem within the same division in 2011. Intentional or merely institutional arrogance in considering themselves above the law?

So why aren't you defending Lerner for allegedly lying....why aren't you proposing a medal for her like you wanted for Ollie North?

I guess the letter after your name matters to you...you always give R's a pass when they commit crimes?

Maybe it was because Ollie personally told you how dangerous OBL was....LOL

 

[werepossum]

So why aren't you defending Lerner for allegedly lying....why aren't you proposing a medal for her like you wanted for Ollie North?

I guess the letter after your name matters to you...you always give R's a pass when they commit crimes?

Maybe it was because Ollie personally told you how dangerous OBL was....LOL

I'm not attacking Lerner for lying to Congress. I'm attacking Lerner for using the full might of the US government to disadvantage conservatives.

 

[Bowfinger]

Interesting posts, thanks. Doesn't really address the issue of whether the damage was intentional though, as one could easily do the same thing by shaking the laptop and following up with a strong magnet without leaving any overt evidence of intentional damage. ...

Perhaps. At this point I think we'd need the drive manufacturer to explain what sorts of problems can cause the observed symptoms in that specific drive and controller.

Also interesting that the IRS was sued in 2010 for not following the law in retaining email and then had the exact same problem within the same division in 2011. Intentional or merely institutional arrogance in considering themselves above the law?

Umm, what lawsuit is that? As best I can remember, the only 2010 lawsuit discussed here is the Z Street suit. It was about alleged discrimination against Z Street because it countered the administration's Israel agenda. There was nothing in that suit about email retention. The only reason it's been brought up is some right-wing media decided that the Z Street suit required the IRS to preserve Lerner's emails before her 2011 disk crash. The judge in the True the Vote lawsuit rejected that theory.

 

[Jhhnn]

Interesting posts, thanks. Doesn't really address the issue of whether the damage was intentional though, as one could easily do the same thing by shaking the laptop and following up with a strong magnet without leaving any overt evidence of intentional damage. Alternately, poor baggage handling could bend a drive arm so that normal operation would trash the platter without Lerner being the wiser.

Also interesting that the IRS was sued in 2010 for not following the law in retaining email and then had the exact same problem within the same division in 2011. Intentional or merely institutional arrogance in considering themselves above the law?

Right back into the speculations & absurd timeline that underly Conspiracy! Conspiracy! Conspiracy!

You know what it means? Not a damned thing.

Buh-bye little failboat! Buh-bye!

 

[werepossum]

Perhaps. At this point I think we'd need the drive manufacturer to explain what sorts of problems can cause the observed symptoms in that specific drive and controller.

Umm, what lawsuit is that? As best I can remember, the only 2010 lawsuit discussed here is the Z Street suit. It was about alleged discrimination against Z Street because it countered the administration's Israel agenda. There was nothing in that suit about email retention. The only reason it's been brought up is some right-wing media decided that the Z Street suit required the IRS to preserve Lerner's emails before her 2011 disk crash. The judge in the True the Vote lawsuit rejected that theory.

From your link, Z Street made that argument in 2010, yet the same exact thing happened in 2011 to stymie yet another investigation. The law seems pretty clear, as does the IRS' continual disregard of it. As long as disregarding the law works in the IRS' favor, odds are the IRS will continue to disregard the law. But hey, laws are for little people, not for those in power.

 

[Bowfinger]

From your link, Z Street made that argument in 2010, yet the same exact thing happened in 2011 to stymie yet another investigation. The law seems pretty clear, as does the IRS' continual disregard of it. As long as disregarding the law works in the IRS' favor, odds are the IRS will continue to disregard the law. But hey, laws are for little people, not for those in power.

I think you need to read that again. In their 2010 lawsuit, Z Street made the argument that their 501(c)(3) application was handled with bias. In their 2012 lawsuit, True the Vote made the argument that their application was handled with bias, and sought Lerner's email as evidence. This is the same issue that Issa, Camp, the Senate, TIGTA, and the FBI are also investigating.

In my earlier link (Politico), True the Vote lost a request for an external forensics expert to examine Lerner's hard drive. They are arguing that even though True the Vote filed its suit about a year after Lerner's crash, the IRS was nonetheless responsible for preserving Lerner's mail due to the earlier Z Street lawsuit. Z Street did not raise that issue itself, however, and has not claimed evidence related to their suit was lost in Lerner's drive crash.

From the Politco story:

[ ... ]
The judge also rejected [ True the Vote's ] argument that because pro-Israeli group Z Street sued the IRS on a similar tax-exempt application matter in 2010, that the IRS was legally obligated to save all the emails as evidence because it was under investigation.

“That connective leap the Court cannot make,” he wrote. ...

In short, the missing emails at issue are Lerner's, for the IRS "Tea Party" targeting controversy that started in 2012 ... nearly a year after Lerner's crash. This did not affect the earlier Z Street investigation, at least based on anything filed so far.