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

[Bowfinger]

should you find it suspect if that user has also violated the data retention and backup policies?

You don't know that either of those two assertions are true. It's yet another example of treating supposition and innuendo as fact.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally Posted by Bowfinger:

Sigh. One of the reasons P&N is such a useless cesspool is it has too many people who cannot separate fact from supposition and innuendo. They mindlessly swallow whatever swill their favorite propaganda source spews with no attempt at critical thought and no effort to verify its accuracy.

[ ... ] Given that all her emails have to go somewhere, seemingly the only potential for an actual net loss in Lerner's emails is on email threads strictly between Lerner and other IRS employee's whose emails have also been lost.

Not exactly. While those internal IRS emails may have been lost as well, the real issue is that we lost all external email from that period. That is a legitimate concern. Of course contrary to Congressman Camp's innuendo, those emails aren't necessarily to the White House, Justice Department, or "Democratic offices" (though some may have been). It is likely that most were the same sort of innocuous external emails most of us have: commercial messages (suppliers, trade and professional material, ads, and spam), personal email, and all the usual forwarded stuff that you either love or hate (Yay! Aunt Emma sent me more cat pictures!)

As you note, the IRS made a great effort to recover her internal emails, and indeed produced 24,000 of them from 82 other employee computers. We simply do not know what else was lost, however.

Hard drives simply don't crash that often.

Actually, in an organization with thousands (tens of thousands?) of PCs, hard drives do crash that often. Especially if those hard drives are in low-bid PCs that have been kept for too many years. That is just speculation, however. I do not know that this was the case within the IRS, but it is certainly consistent with your next point:

The other perhaps more scandalous issue is the backwards nature of federal IT, at least specifically at the IRS. Email retention and archiving has been so cheap for years now that it's sad they haven't upgraded. ...

This is not unique to the IRS. I have first-hand experience with two other very large corporations that had similarly incompetent policies at one time. That said, I always thought such policies were horribly short-sighted. When Google can afford to give people gigabytes for free, it's hard to defend policies that limit people to 150 MB, or later 500 MB, of stored email.

The defense to such policies has always been, "The user needs to take responsibility for cleaning up old email and manually saving anything important." That's a great theory, but I've never seen it work in practice.

[ ... ] There are ways to recover everything from a failed drive in many cases. The IRS would have us believe each and every incident was completely catastrophic and unrecoverable. ...

Link? As far as I've read, it's only Lerner's drive they said was unrecoverable. The others were merely reported as crashed, with no information about recovery attempts. In Lerner's case, they did send her drive to their forensics folks to attempt recovery. I would expect the IRS has top notch people and tools for this since they probably run into a lot of "customers" with "crashed" drives. Again, this is admittedly speculative.

Perhaps you're forgetting a critical detail: can you explain exactly how anyone would know who Lerner sent emails to (or received them from) now that all her emails in/out of the IRS were conveniently destroyed once investigators began snooping around? ...

But that's not when it happened. Lerner lost her hard drive in July, 2011. One of the Washington Post articles has the dated emails corroborating this, as she worked with IT to try to get her data back. All of the controversy around this started nearly a year later. The first newspaper stories were published in February, 2012. Congress didn't get visibly involved until March, 2012, and that's when Commissioner Shulman was first asked to appear. Mitchell filed her "True the Vote" lawsuit in May, 2012. Finally, TIGTA started its audit in June, 2012.

In short, if Lerner was deliberately destroying evidence, she seems to have the gift of prescience. She beat the investigators by a good nine to ten months.

By the way, that's also why all the smoke from Mitchell is baseless. She can't claim the IRS broke the law and destroyed this evidence when it happened ten months before she filed suit.

We could still get additional details from inside the IRS, but since they haven't been cooperating since the beginning ...

I don't know. Sending the drive to their internal experts and pulling email from 82 other employees' PCs seems to show some good faith.


One other piece of disinformation, not in any of the comments I quoted, is the declaration that Lerner broke the law because she failed to print and file all of these emails. There are two problems with this claim. First, we have no idea what she did or did not print. There has been no mention of any effort to reconcile Lerner's paper files with emails from this period.

Second, the law doesn't require that she preserve all email. It requires she preserve "official records". Official records has a subjective definition, and is interpreted by each individual. Lerner may well have printed and filed everything she considered a record. Again, we don't know, however, because I've seen nothing reported about it.
​

I'm going to shamelessly bump myself since the same disinformation continues to be presented as fact. Wise up, folks. The "facts" you suck from Fox, or Darrell Issa, or partisan blogs like discoverthenetwork.org are at best heavily filtered and spun, and are often outright fabrications. This has been proven again and again and again. If you continue to rely on them as sources, you're a sucker who's doomed to be foolishly misinformed. Never accept anything they claim unless you can corroborate it with reputable sources. Remember your hero's mantra, "Trust, but verify." (Only skip the trust part and move straight to verify.)

 

[TerryMathews]

You don't know that either of those two assertions are true. It's yet another example of treating supposition and innuendo as fact.

The only way it isn't true is if the IRS isn't held to any sort of retention standard.

One would think that the IRS would be subject to the same standards it imposes on its subjects: precious 7 tax seasons. How else would they be able to dispute claims from a subject regarding communication with an examiner?

 

[Jhhnn]

should you find it suspect if that user has also violated the data retention and backup policies?

None of it really matters other than for the purposes of mudslinging, given Repubs' reticence to, you know, actually investigate the original allegations. They already have what they want. Wrapping this up runs counter to their purposes. With the election coming up, they want to control the discussion, keep it on the emotional side, lead away from issues they don't want to talk about. Come November, they'll have cycled through their most popular numbers at least once. They'll growl over this bone for awhile, see what else opens up that they can use to tear down the Democrats. That's what you do when you're dodging the political consequences of your own disastrous & un-changed policy, foreign & domestic.

 

[TerryMathews]

That's what you do when you're dodging the political consequences of your own disastrous & un-changed policy, foreign & domestic.

And that is why neither party gets anything done.

 

[Bowfinger]

The only way it isn't true is if the IRS isn't held to any sort of retention standard.

One would think that the IRS would be subject to the same standards it imposes on its subjects: precious 7 tax seasons. How else would they be able to dispute claims from a subject regarding communication with an examiner?

L2Read. For the third time:

"One other piece of disinformation, not in any of the comments I quoted, is the declaration that Lerner broke the law because she failed to print and file all of these emails. There are two problems with this claim. First, we have no idea what she did or did not print. There has been no mention of any effort to reconcile Lerner's paper files with emails from this period.

"Second, the law doesn't require that she preserve all email. It requires she preserve "official records". Official records has a subjective definition, and is interpreted by each individual. Lerner may well have printed and filed everything she considered a record. Again, we don't know, however, because I've seen nothing reported about it."
​

You have zero information about how much of Lerner's missing email qualifies as "official records," nor do you have any clue what she did or did not print and file. Therefore, your insinuation, "should you find it suspect if that user has also violated the data retention and backup policies?" is, in fact, drawn from supposition rather than fact. My reply was correct.

 

[Jhhnn]

You don't know that either of those two assertions are true. It's yet another example of treating supposition and innuendo as fact.

It's a leap of Faith. We all use them. I believe that my wife loves me. I believe that Al Qaeda won't attack me in my sleep. Some people believed that bankers wouldn't lend you more than you could afford to pay back. Sometimes we're right, but not always. He believes that the IRS is guilty of... whatever semi-plausible sin is ascribed to them, readily accepting anything confirming that bias. He has mistaken simulated rationality for the real thing & has no idea what you're talking about.

It's deeper than the discussion at hand, whatever it might be. It's about attitudes & suppositions. What sort of discussion do you expect from the basic POV of "IRS! Evil! Bad! Enemy!"? It's been standard right wing propaganda since the 70's, reinforced God only knows how many times. It's a core belief, one they don't question. The rest flows from there.

 

[Jhhnn]

And that is why neither party gets anything done.

Straight to the bunker o' denial.

Admit it to yourself. The ownership society was the roaring 20's, all over again, just riding different financial vehicles. The aftermath of neither serve the vast majority of Americans in the slightest. Both were the product of letting Wall St have their way with us because they weren't properly constrained. That lack of constraint is Repub policy then and now, unchanged. They'll waltz us right into it again, given the chance. They believe in it. Just the way it is.

Afghanistan & Iraq are what they are, total disasters, artifacts of arrogant Neocon military ambitions.

What do they have for us today? More of the same, just with different "scandals" of distraction.

 

[werepossum]

L2Read. For the third time:

"One other piece of disinformation, not in any of the comments I quoted, is the declaration that Lerner broke the law because she failed to print and file all of these emails. There are two problems with this claim. First, we have no idea what she did or did not print. There has been no mention of any effort to reconcile Lerner's paper files with emails from this period.

"Second, the law doesn't require that she preserve all email. It requires she preserve "official records". Official records has a subjective definition, and is interpreted by each individual. Lerner may well have printed and filed everything she considered a record. Again, we don't know, however, because I've seen nothing reported about it."
​

You have zero information about how much of Lerner's missing email qualifies as "official records," nor do you have any clue what she did or did not print and file. Therefore, your insinuation, "should you find it suspect if that user has also violated the data retention and backup policies?" is, in fact, drawn from supposition rather than fact. My reply was correct.

lol It all depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. Lerner could merely declare that anything incriminating is not "official records". The White house could declare that it received no emails from anyone whose emails are "lost" merely by redefining the meaning of the term. It's all subjective.

You guys are so incredibly fundamentally dishonest that it's amusing.

 

[Jhhnn]

lol It all depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. Lerner could merely declare that anything incriminating is not "official records". The White house could declare that it received no emails from anyone whose emails are "lost" merely by redefining the meaning of the term. It's all subjective.

You guys are so incredibly fundamentally dishonest that it's amusing.

Yep, all conspiracy theory, all the time. Anything to hold up the contrived & un-solvable controversy over the emails. Forget the original objective. That's some gooood mud!

It's like Clinton being hounded over Whitewater for years, turns out all they could bust him for was lying about a blowjob he received years later.

 

[werepossum]

Yep, all conspiracy theory, all the time. Anything to hold up the contrived & un-solvable controversy over the emails. Forget the original objective. That's some gooood mud!

It's like Clinton being hounded over Whitewater for years, turns out all they could bust him for was lying about a blowjob he received years later.

'Cause he knew the same rule Obama knows - destroy the evidence.

 

[Jhhnn]

'Cause he knew the same rule Obama knows - destroy the evidence.

All conspiracy theory, all the time. It's a disease.

 

[TerryMathews]

Yep, all conspiracy theory, all the time. Anything to hold up the contrived & un-solvable controversy over the emails. Forget the original objective. That's some gooood mud!

It's like Clinton being hounded over Whitewater for years, turns out all they could bust him for was lying about a blowjob he received years later.

You just proved my point far better than I could hope to otherwise.

To reduce the Lewinsky/Jones scandal to "got a blowjob in office" is both patently false and extremely dishonest but par for the course for you.

No one gave a damn he received a blowjob. It became relevant because Jones was using Lewinsky as a pattern of behavior. It cost the Clintons millions of dollars in settlement costs and legal fees. It cost Bill his license.

Your comparison is the exact reason why this is a problem. The Office of the President is not above lying, cheating, stealing, and making evidence disappear to cover up for wrongdoing. Your example of Clinton is perfect evidence of that.

 

[TerryMathews]

Straight to the bunker o' denial.

Admit it to yourself. The ownership society was the roaring 20's, all over again, just riding different financial vehicles. The aftermath of neither serve the vast majority of Americans in the slightest. Both were the product of letting Wall St have their way with us because they weren't properly constrained. That lack of constraint is Repub policy then and now, unchanged. They'll waltz us right into it again, given the chance. They believe in it. Just the way it is.

Afghanistan & Iraq are what they are, total disasters, artifacts of arrogant Neocon military ambitions.

What do they have for us today? More of the same, just with different "scandals" of distraction.

Obama has as many big wig Wall Street donors as any Republican. His cabinet is stuffed with them. Why do you think none of the big banks were ever prosecuted over fraud related to the losses suffered by Freddie and Fannie?

Admit it to yourself. The Democratic party is just like the Republican party: authoritarian elitists wearing a colored costume.

 

[Jhhnn]

You just proved my point far better than I could hope to otherwise.

To reduce the Lewinsky/Jones scandal to "got a blowjob in office" is both patently false and extremely dishonest but par for the course for you.

I didn't do that. You claim that I did quite erroneously. Read what I wrote very carefully. It's entirely true.

No one gave a damn he received a blowjob. It became relevant because Jones was using Lewinsky as a pattern of behavior. It cost the Clintons millions of dollars in settlement costs and legal fees. It cost Bill his license.

All set up through illegal collusion between Starr's office & Jones' legal team.

Your comparison is the exact reason why this is a problem. The Office of the President is not above lying, cheating, stealing, and making evidence disappear to cover up for wrongdoing. Your example of Clinton is perfect evidence of that.

Your lame misplaced self righteousness is noted. When Clinton lied, It was about his personal life, not his job. Nobody died. That can't be said for his successor. There's the small matter of a few $T difference in terms of expense as well.

Perspective. Get some. Or keep getting used.

 

[TerryMathews]

I didn't do that. You claim that I did quite erroneously. Read what I wrote very carefully. It's entirely true.



All set up through illegal collusion between Starr's office & Jones' legal team.



Your lame misplaced self righteousness is noted. When Clinton lied, It was about his personal life, not his job. Nobody died. That can't be said for his successor. There's the small matter of a few $T difference in terms of expense as well.

Perspective. Get some. Or keep getting used.

The modern Democrat: perjury and obstructing justice are OK as long as its for a blowie.

 

[Bowfinger]

lol It all depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. Lerner could merely declare that anything incriminating is not "official records". The White house could declare that it received no emails from anyone whose emails are "lost" merely by redefining the meaning of the term. It's all subjective.

You guys are so incredibly fundamentally dishonest that it's amusing.

Go play, child. You are pathetic. I made two specific points, neither of which is in the least debatable or ambiguous. First, the record retention requirements in question cover "official records" specifically, not all email. Second, we have no information yet about what email Lerner did and did not print and file. Therefore, we have no way to determine if she complied with the record retention requirements or not. Those are facts, no matter what Fox told you. That you chose to dispute these facts only reinforces your lack of integrity.

Perhaps I should bump some of your earlier whoppers in this thread -- none of which you've acknowledged or corrected -- to remind everyone what a lying weasel you've become. You know, like this steaming pile of possum excrement:

"The Obama administration has claimed that sixty percent of the groups targeted ... were not conservative groups."
​

Tell us lies
Tell us sweet little lies
(Tell us lies, tell us, tell us lies)

 

[Bowfinger]

The modern Democrat: perjury and obstructing justice are OK as long as its for a blowie.

Speaking of lies...

You're doing it again. That is nothing at all like what Jhhnn actually said. Don't be a Wereweasel. Read the words, all the words, and nothing but the words.

 

[ivwshane]

Issa is a scumbag. If any of you are the slightest bit serious about finding the truth to this issue then you should be calling for this guys resignation.

http://crooksandliars.com/2014/06/issa-blamed-ibm-software-loss-22-million

 

[TerryMathews]

Speaking of lies...

You're doing it again. That is nothing at all like what Jhhnn actually said. Don't be a Wereweasel. Read the words, all the words, and nothing but the words.

No but it is what he implied when he referred to my misplaced self-righteousness.

 

[fskimospy]

lol It all depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. Lerner could merely declare that anything incriminating is not "official records". The White house could declare that it received no emails from anyone whose emails are "lost" merely by redefining the meaning of the term. It's all subjective.

You guys are so incredibly fundamentally dishonest that it's amusing.

Lol. As per usual, anyone who tells you inconvenient facts must be lying to you or part of a conspiracy. It couldn't possibly be that you are ignorant and delusional.

 

[Jhhnn]

Obama has as many big wig Wall Street donors as any Republican. His cabinet is stuffed with them. Why do you think none of the big banks were ever prosecuted over fraud related to the losses suffered by Freddie and Fannie?

Admit it to yourself. The Democratic party is just like the Republican party: authoritarian elitists wearing a colored costume.

That's so tedious, so predictable, so utterly parrot-like.

Democrats aren't trying to kick the little guy when he's down, you know, like now in the Lesser Depression. Not trying to disavow ideological failure in causing it to happen. Not trying to invade anybody. Not going on about the oh so tender Job Creators when there aren't any jobs & not killing what jobs there are with govt cutbacks.

The big guys are always going to get their piece. What does the little guy get from repubs other than derision? Guilt trips over economic circumstances beyond their control? A circus of puffed up scandals?

 

[kage69]

The cognitive dissonance republicans and their base are willing to perform during desperate times is again nothing short of impressive to me.
I really hope the contempt the GOTP has towards their responsibilities, as well as the intelligence and funds of taxpayers , brings them all they deserve come 2016.

 

[Matt1970]

"The Obama administration has claimed that sixty percent of the groups targeted ... were not conservative groups."
​

Oh, well there you have it, Case closed.

 

[Bowfinger]

Oh, well there you have it, Case closed.

/facepalm

Try to keep up, dumbass. That is a quote from Werepossum, and he was lying. The Obama administration never made such a claim.