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

[boomerang]

I don't see that happening. The IRS is blatantly lying and destroying evidence with at least the passive support of the Obama administration, as witnessed by the total lack of interest in prosecuting the felon who leaked the information in question. They know they are beyond the law. Why then would they turn over anything that might be a smoking gun simply because some pissant judge so ruled? The BATFE under Carter simply ignored dozens of judicial rulings and orders, and the IRS under Obama is just as unlawful.

You're kinda making me want to dig out my passport to refresh my memory on when it's due to expire. :hmm:

 

[Fern]

I'd like to know more about how an email addressed to Grassley 'accidentally' ended up in Lerner's inbox.

Fern

 

[ivwshane]

Oops...
http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-27/lerner-e-mail-report-expected-within-weeks-irs-says.html

The hard drive included e-mails and other information from January 2009 through June 2011. The IRS has released e-mails showing that Lerner sought unsuccessfully to have the data recovered

I'm still looking for a source for the actual email (it was reported on tv) and it destroys another conspiracy theory.

I'm so glade republicans aren't using this for political purposes:

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/ameri...-bill-offers-1m-reward-lost-lerner-irs-emails

/s

 

[ivwshane]

Yeah, but it's a lot easier to "lose" printed documents at need. 😀


Hmm.
Two possibilities here. One is that Lerner's hard drive honestly did crash ten days after the Pubbies sent a letter indicating that they had learned of the discriminatory practices and she really really really wanted to recover her emails, just not badly enough to get them from the device purchased and maintained to save those emails. The other is that Lerner's hard drive needed to crash ten days after the Pubbies sent a letter indicating that they had learned of the discriminatory practices, so going to the back-up tape would have been at cross-purposes.


I don't see that happening. The IRS is blatantly lying and destroying evidence with at least the passive support of the Obama administration, as witnessed by the total lack of interest in prosecuting the felon who leaked the information in question. They know they are beyond the law. Why then would they turn over anything that might be a smoking gun simply because some pissant judge so ruled? The BATFE under Carter simply ignored dozens of judicial rulings and orders, and the IRS under Obama is just as unlawful.

If only your world was powered solely on beliefs, it would be a truely hellish place.

Watch out!!! The progies are coming!! The progies are coming! And they've got their institutional side kick the IRS with them!!!

You are becoming a joke poster along the lines of stewox.

 

[werepossum]

If only your world was powered solely on beliefs, it would be a truely hellish place.

Watch out!!! The progies are coming!! The progies are coming! And they've got their institutional side kick the IRS with them!!!

You are becoming a joke poster along the lines of stewox.

Just out of morbid curiosity, are you even capable of imagining Obama doing anything at all to which you would react with something other than "Please sir, may I have another"?

 

[ivwshane]

Just out of morbid curiosity, are you even capable of imagining Obama doing anything at all to which you would react with something other than "Please sir, may I have another"?

Yeah, anything and everything related to the patriot act that he supports. His appointing of industry insiders to help him create/direct policy (especially when dealing with economics). Any war/aggression outside the limits of presidential power without congresses support.

 

[Bowfinger]

Oops...
http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-27/lerner-e-mail-report-expected-within-weeks-irs-says.html



I'm still looking for a source for the actual email (it was reported on tv) and it destroys another conspiracy theory.

I think I linked them earlier in the thread, but this Washington Post article has them, near the end of the article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...irs-lost-emails-from-key-witness-lois-lerner/

I'm so glade republicans aren't using this for political purposes:

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/ameri...-bill-offers-1m-reward-lost-lerner-irs-emails

/s

For those so eager to impeach someone, clowns like that would be a great place to start. Unfortunately, being a useless bottom feeder doesn't seem to be a high crime, especially not in Texas.

 

[Bowfinger]

I'd like to know more about how an email addressed to Grassley 'accidentally' ended up in Lerner's inbox.

Fern

It didn't. That's apparently yet another dishonest story being catapulted by the nutter media. Tell you lies, tell you sweet little lies ...

The actual story is that this unnamed organization put Grassley's invitation in Lerner's envelope, and presumably vise-versa (though Grassley hasn't said so, to my knowledge). They were inviting both Grassley and Lerner to appear at their event.

 

[Attic]

"These aren't the droids you are looking for." Is worth a shot, but when someone catches on it's absurd to start hurling insults because they have the audacity to point out the absurdity of the deception.

"We tried to retrieve those emails". Sounds pretty good and works if everyone buys into it. Bigger problem here is that a significant majority of folks realize it's a lie and it doesn't matter.

We'll still get "WMD's in Iraq" or "If you like your plan you can keep it" or "it was because of youtube video" or "tax breaks for rich will create jobs" or whatever else is convenient for the idiots in office to use.

 

[Bowfinger]

"These aren't the droids you are looking for." Is worth a shot, but when someone catches on it's absurd to start hurling insults because they have the audacity to point out the absurdity of the deception.

"We tried to retrieve those emails". Sounds pretty good and works if everyone buys into it. Bigger problem here is that a significant majority of folks realize it's a lie and it doesn't matter.

We'll still get "WMD's in Iraq" or "If you like your plan you can keep it" or "it was because of youtube video" or "tax breaks for rich will create jobs" or whatever else is convenient for the idiots in office to use.

You are long on innuendo, but seem consistently lacking in facts. You do realize the IRS released an email chain, dated July, 2011, showing Lerner working with IT to try to recover the files from her lost drive? Granted, that's not as compelling as some RNC blowhard pulling accusations out of his rectum, but surely that mail evidence deserves some consideration.

 

[werepossum]

Yeah, anything and everything related to the patriot act that he supports. His appointing of industry insiders to help him create/direct policy (especially when dealing with economics). Any war/aggression outside the limits of presidential power without congresses support.

Good to know, thanks.

 

[ivwshane]

"These aren't the droids you are looking for." Is worth a shot, but when someone catches on it's absurd to start hurling insults because they have the audacity to point out the absurdity of the deception.

"We tried to retrieve those emails". Sounds pretty good and works if everyone buys into it. Bigger problem here is that a significant majority of folks realize it's a lie and it doesn't matter.

We'll still get "WMD's in Iraq" or "If you like your plan you can keep it" or "it was because of youtube video" or "tax breaks for rich will create jobs" or whatever else is convenient for the idiots in office to use.

You know what the difference is between your other examples and the missing email? Facts! The fact is lerner's drive crashed and she did try to have it recovered, we have the emails showing this! We have an IRS/lerner admitting to wrong doing and she has already stepped down, so exactly what would she be hiding that an organization would be willing to cover for her? Sure you can come up with something but do you have even a shred of evidence to back up your claim? No, no you don't.

 

[Fern]

It didn't. That's apparently yet another dishonest story being catapulted by the nutter media. Tell you lies, tell you sweet little lies ...

The actual story is that this unnamed organization put Grassley's invitation in Lerner's envelope, and presumably vise-versa (though Grassley hasn't said so, to my knowledge). They were inviting both Grassley and Lerner to appear at their event.

Thanks. A mix up in envelopes makes more sense.

BTW: I'm not sure it was the media who made the mistake about the invitations being emailed. It could be me as many articles don't mention the envelope mix up and go on to mentions emails continually. I.e., the mistake could be mine alone.

Fern

 

[Bowfinger]

Thanks. A mix up in envelopes makes more sense.

BTW: I'm not sure it was the media who made the mistake about the invitations being emailed. It could be me as many articles don't mention the envelope mix up and go on to mentions emails continually. I.e., the mistake could be mine alone.

Fern

That's not the first time I saw that version of the story. It was attributed to a specific source, but I don't remember who. But it's not just you.

 

[Attic]

You know what the difference is between your other examples and the missing email? Facts! The fact is lerner's drive crashed and she did try to have it recovered, we have the emails showing this! We have an IRS/lerner admitting to wrong doing and she has already stepped down, so exactly what would she be hiding that an organization would be willing to cover for her? Sure you can come up with something but do you have even a shred of evidence to back up your claim? No, no you don't.

Proudly displayed ignorance is not your best color. Deductive reasoning is not terribly difficult. Skip to video to see how many folks can achieve it.

You are not in good company in your position here, which doesn't say much, but it nonetheless is the case here. Fact remains if the intent was to retrieve the emails after the drive crashed, that the emails would have been retrieved. If the intent was to destroy the emails intentionally and destroy the ability to retrieve them, then you would fail to use back up tapes, fail to recover a drive with bad sectors (straight forward), and fail to properly report the whole thing to national archives and records. You might even do this with a monster IT budget of 4.4billion dollar budget over the past 4-5 years while crying about budget excuses for the inability to recover the drive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-_oBdQKItg

Perhaps the issue isn't partisan. Most folks get it.

 

[ivwshane]

Lol! You just really really believe and there isn't a fact in the world that would change your mind!

You are truely fucking retarded!

 

[Fern]

I think I linked them earlier in the thread, but this Washington Post article has them, near the end of the article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...irs-lost-emails-from-key-witness-lois-lerner/
-snip-

I read the emails you linked. I see no specific mention of her wanting to recover her emails.

This is mostly a tech question I don't know the answer to - but if Lerner specifically asked to retrieve emails wouldn't the tech people have just gotten them from the server?

Also, weren't they still doing tape backups at this time? If so, why screw with the bad HDD? Just get the data off the back up.

When Lerner writes "private documents" could this actually be private stuff (non work related) that wouldn't be backed up? I.e., my server back up program allows me to state with specificity what files are backed up. If so, no real reason to back up purely personal stuff (e.g., pics shared with friends etc.).

Cliffs: Not entirely clear to me that she's asking for copies of her email or why fooling with her HDD would be the best approach if that's what she wanted.

Fern

 

[Bowfinger]

Proudly displayed ignorance is not your best color. Deductive reasoning is not terribly difficult. Skip to video to see how many folks can achieve it.

You are not in good company in your position here, which doesn't say much, but it nonetheless is the case here. Fact remains if the intent was to retrieve the emails after the drive crashed, that the emails would have been retrieved. If the intent was to destroy the emails intentionally and destroy the ability to retrieve them, then you would fail to use back up tapes, fail to recover a drive with bad sectors (straight forward), and fail to properly report the whole thing to national archives and records. You might even do this with a monster IT budget of 4.4billion dollar budget over the past 4-5 years while crying about budget excuses for the inability to recover the drive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-_oBdQKItg

Perhaps the issue isn't partisan. Most folks get it.

You remind me of a crack addict denouncing the evils of alcohol. You would be a lot more convincing if you showed you have any understanding of the issues beyond the noise from the nutter media, and if you actually backed your polemics with facts and evidence. As it stands, your post is totally fact free, unsupported RNC talking points. In particular, your insistence that recovering lost data after a drive crash is somehow easy and certain is simply ignorant, with no basis in reality.

The only valid point raised is why didn't the IRS try a tape recovery, to restore at least get six months of the lost email? There may well be good reasons -- I can think of a couple of potential technical hurdles -- but I'd like an explanation.

 

[ivwshane]

Who knows how it works at the IRS but in companies I have worked for (large companies), there wasn't some universal IT group that handled everything. Most IT departments comprise of specialized IT personnel. Therefore one might guess that hard drive data recovery would be handled by one group and email recovery would be handled by another and there isnt any reason to believe that communication between the two would have been mandatory or would have happened.

But that's just a guess with no factual basis behind it with regards to the the IRS's IT department.

 

[werepossum]

You remind me of a crack addict denouncing the evils of alcohol. You would be a lot more convincing if you showed you have any understanding of the issues beyond the noise from the nutter media, and if you actually backed your polemics with facts and evidence. As it stands, your post is totally fact free, unsupported RNC talking points. In particular, your insistence that recovering lost data after a drive crash is somehow easy and certain is simply ignorant, with no basis in reality.

The only valid point raised is why didn't the IRS try a tape recovery, to at least get six months of the lost email? There may well be good reasons -- I can think of a couple of potential technical hurdles -- but I'd like an explanation.

lol Your particular contribution has been to posit that perhaps for two years Lerner had no "official business", so I think we all know whatever explanation the IRS cares to float - including none - you'll dutifully lap up.

 

[Bowfinger]

I read the emails you linked. I see no specific mention of her wanting to recover her emails.

This is mostly a tech question I don't know the answer to - but if Lerner specifically asked to retrieve emails wouldn't the tech people have just gotten them from the server?

Also, weren't they still doing tape backups at this time? If so, why screw with the bad HDD? Just get the data off the back up.

This thread needs a sticky at the top of each page covering basic facts of this story, similar to the way a poll appears at the top of each page. I don't imagine vBulletin supports that. But anyway ...

The email was not on the server. At that time, the IRS had a 150 MB limit on the amount of email each person could have on the mail server. Anything more had to be either deleted, or archived on one's PC hard drive. Lerner apparently had two years of mail, dating back to 2009, archived on her PC. When her drive crashed, her mail archive file was unrecoverable.

The mail servers were backed up to tape, but the tapes were only kept for six months before being scratched and reused. It therefore might have been possible to recover about six months of Lerner's missing email by restoring from their oldest backup tape. Everything older than that would have still been lost, however. For reasons not yet explained, IRS IT apparently did not attempt that partial tape restore.

When Lerner writes "private documents" could this actually be private stuff (non work related) that wouldn't be backed up? I.e., my server back up program allows me to state with specificity what files are backed up. If so, no real reason to back up purely personal stuff (e.g., pics shared with friends etc.).

We have no way of knowing what documents Lerner was trying to recover. I would imagine she had all sorts of work files on her PC, some filed in mail and others stored in directories. (That's the way it is with me, for example.) But that is sheer speculation. Anything is possible.

Cliffs: Not entirely clear to me that she's asking for copies of her email or why fooling with her HDD would be the best approach if that's what she wanted.

Fern

Because that's the only place those files still existed.

 

[Bowfinger]

lol Your particular contribution has been to posit that perhaps for two years Lerner had no "official business", so I think we all know whatever explanation the IRS cares to float - including none - you'll dutifully lap up.

You're lying again, Stewie. Don't you have proggie conspiracies to uncover?

Ever going to own up to your big lies, like your whopper about the administration claiming 60% of the targeted organizations were not conservative? (Note: that's a rhetorical question. I'm sure that's inconceivable to you. It would require integrity you clearly lack.)

Go play.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
The only valid point raised is why didn't the IRS try a tape recovery, to at least get six months of the lost email?

If their back up works like mine all the emails, not just six months, would be on the tape.

The only way there would be only 6 months of emails is if Lerner wiped her drive after each 6 month period. I've never heard of that. I suppose the back up could be instructed to include only files of a certain date (i.e., 6 month period). But that makes no sense to me.

Fern

 

[Bowfinger]

If their back up works like mine all the emails, not just six months, would be on the tape.

The only way there would be only 6 months of emails is if Lerner wiped her drive after each 6 month period. I've never heard of that. I suppose the back up could be instructed to include only files of a certain date (i.e., 6 month period). But that makes no sense to me.

Fern

No, that's not the situation here. Only servers were backed up to tape. PCs were not backed up. In order to keep her server email to less than 150 MB, Lerner was archiving old email to her PC. This removes the mail from the server. It unfortunately also removes it from any future backups.

Note that this is not unique to Lerner. That mailbox size limit is documented in one of the IRS procedure manuals linked earlier in this thread. I've also worked with two giant corporations that had similar policies, at least for a time. It's a policy intended to save money by reducing storage costs (enterprise-class SAN storage is many fold more expensive than cheap consumer PC drives). In my opinion, however, it is an extremely short-sighted and risky policy.

 

[Jhhnn]

Fact remains if the intent was to retrieve the emails after the drive crashed, that the emails would have been retrieved.

The contention that crashed drives are 100% recoverable is delusion in support of conspiracy fantasy, a desperate leap of faith into absurdity.