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

[Jhhnn]

OK. Let me clear something up because it appears that Bowfinger and Jhhnn are both incorrectly assuming something about me. I do not believe what Judicial Watch believes. I do not believe that the conversation they had with justice department attorneys shows that the emails exists, have always existed, and that there exists some sort of new backup location for them. What I think it shows is that the justice department attorneys were being incredibly dumb and spoke about thing which they had little knowledge. I think that more questions were raised than answered when the admin attorney stepped in and attempted to clarify their ignorant comments.

I still think this is important and should be addressed. It shows a lack of competence on the part of the justice department otherwise.

I'm willing to bet the tune changes once you realize that I don't agree with the JW conclusion here. I just think they raised some question that still need to be answered.

If you were being honest with yourself, you'd say "I never looked at it that way" "I didn't realize that" or "perhaps I was mistaken".

There is absolutely no reason to think that anything Fitton said is true at all. Given that part of it is demonstrably false, it undercuts his credibility entirely.

Yes, he raises questions that need to be answered. The problem is, they were answered before he rephrased them in a propaganda wrapper. He deliberately leads you to the conclusion he wants while offering no real evidence at all.

If what you want to see is conspiracy, he'll help you do it.

 

[Jhhnn]

We definitely need clarity on exactly what was backed up and where. I can remember years ago reading a story about the system Fitton seems to be describing. The claim was that every single email, order, and official transaction for the entire federal government was backed up every night, so that for example if the IRS headquarters in destroyed at noon on 8/29/14 there exists a rebuildable record up to close of business on 8/28/14. It's virtually a requirement; otherwise if the IRS computers and paper records are destroyed with an Oklahoma City or 9-11 type attack, all pending IRS business disappears and the IRS would have literally no idea who owed what. A nuclear bomb in D.C. and the federal government would be starting from near zero if its business is not backed up, as even rules agreements would suddenly disappear. That kind of record would indeed be onerous to search, as you would have to rebuild the entire IRS database for the years in question to search it. But from what we've seen, it's entirely possible that the IRS really is that incompetent and its records are totally unduplicated even this long after 9-11.

Oh, please. You're talking about an overnight backup, not an archive. It's quite common in business. Today's files are backed up until tomorrow. Tomorrow's files are then backed up right over the top of today's backup. Today's files are gone as soon as that happens, by design. Some systems preserve a few days to cover a simultaneous disaster & backup failure, but no more.

The kind of record you're talking about likely never existed.

You already knew that.

 

[werepossum]

Oh, please. You're talking about an overnight backup, not an archive. It's quite common in business. Today's files are backed up until tomorrow. Tomorrow's files are then backed up right over the top of today's backup. Today's files are gone as soon as that happens, by design. Some systems preserve a few days to cover a simultaneous disaster & backup failure, but no more.

The kind of record you're talking about likely never existed.

You already knew that.

Nope. An overnight backup does you zero good if your building disappears. Also does you zero good if you have a file corruption problem not immediately detected, as good files are overwritten with corrupt files. I'm talking about backups that are persistent in secured, off-site locations, solely for reconstruction in case of catastrophic facility loss.

 

[Jhhnn]

Nope. An overnight backup does you zero good if your building disappears. Also does you zero good if you have a file corruption problem not immediately detected, as good files are overwritten with corrupt files. I'm talking about backups that are persistent in secured, off-site locations, solely for reconstruction in case of catastrophic facility loss.

And you're talking out your ass. Overnight backups are physically carried offsite or sent electronically to a remote server. My wife carried the backups for a law firm home with her every night. As I offered, they can be and often are a few days deep to cover file corruption issues.

You merely assert the existence of "backups that are persistent in secured, off-site locations, solely for reconstruction in case of catastrophic facility loss."

WTF good would it do anybody to have ancient files to restore from backup, anyway?

Only current or near current files are suitable for that purpose.

You already knew that, as well.

 

[werepossum]

And you're talking out your ass. Overnight backups are physically carried offsite or sent electronically to a remote server. My wife carried the backups for a law firm home with her every night. As I offered, they can be and often are a few days deep to cover file corruption issues.

You merely assert the existence of "backups that are persistent in secured, off-site locations, solely for reconstruction in case of catastrophic facility loss."

WTF good would it do anybody to have ancient files to restore from backup, anyway?

Only current or near current files are suitable for that purpose.

You already knew that, as well.

Lois Lerner's emails are gone due to a convenient hard drive crash and the IRS policy limiting email storage in a location subject to being backed up. How then do you propose to recreate a ruling agreement with a few days of backup? You cannot. If tapes are recycled every seven days, then seven days later anything stored on that hard drive is gone forever. Yet there are literally thousands such agreements each month in the IRS alone, both ruling agreements on specific code interpretations and ruling agreements on specific taxpayers' taxes. If there are no persistent backups, then any such agreement dies with the building, if not with a specific hard drive.

 

[Jhhnn]

Lois Lerner's emails are gone due to a convenient hard drive crash and the IRS policy limiting email storage in a location subject to being backed up. How then do you propose to recreate a ruling agreement with a few days of backup? You cannot. If tapes are recycled every seven days, then seven days later anything stored on that hard drive is gone forever. Yet there are literally thousands such agreements each month in the IRS alone, both ruling agreements on specific code interpretations and ruling agreements on specific taxpayers' taxes. If there are no persistent backups, then any such agreement dies with the building, if not with a specific hard drive.

Of course there are persistent archives of such material, hopefully with duplicate storage facilities. That's not the same as "backing up the whole govt everyday".

Your characterization of the drive crash as "convenient" merely suits the ends of conspiracy theorizing. It's actually been highly inconvenient for the IRS unless you believe in that.

 

[xBiffx]

Of course there are persistent archives of such material, hopefully with duplicate storage facilities. That's not the same as "backing up the whole govt everyday".

Your characterization of the drive crash as "convenient" merely suits the ends of conspiracy theorizing. It's actually been highly inconvenient for the IRS unless you believe in that.

This is the question raised by this whole argument. Are emails ever part of the persistent backup? That was the confusion created by the justice department and shown by JW and supposedly cleared up by the admin attorney. It would appear at first glance that emails aren't part of this backup. However, it would reason that some emails would have to be depending on their content. I think THAT is perhaps what the justice department attorneys were referencing.

It probably doesn't matter because it doesn't affect the issue at hand a great deal but it still deserves an answer and clearing up.

Just because people have questions, doesn't mean they believe in some giant conspiracy. Actually, to any third party observer, your replies in this posts lately are the ones bordering on conspiracy theory. Not everyone who questions the IRS here thinks what you keep regurgitating. Actually, what you've been saying really says a whole lot more about your brain than it does about those you wish to attack on the matter.

 

[Bowfinger]

OK. Let me clear something up because it appears that Bowfinger and Jhhnn are both incorrectly assuming something about me. I do not believe what Judicial Watch believes. I do not believe that the conversation they had with justice department attorneys shows that the emails exists, have always existed, and that there exists some sort of new backup location for them. What I think it shows is that the justice department attorneys were being incredibly dumb and spoke about thing which they had little knowledge. I think that more questions were raised than answered when the admin attorney stepped in and attempted to clarify their ignorant comments.

I still think this is important and should be addressed. It shows a lack of competence on the part of the justice department otherwise.

I'm willing to bet the tune changes once you realize that I don't agree with the JW conclusion here. I just think they raised some question that still need to be answered.

You're still starting with the presumption that Fitton's third-hand hearsay is credible, and that it must therefore be the Justice Department lawyers who created confusion. I' don't share that presumption. For now, Fitton's rumor is unsupported, and he bears the burden of proof. He will need to offer something much more substantive, e.g., names, exact quotes, etc.

 

[xBiffx]

You're still starting with the presumption that Fitton's third-hand hearsay is credible, and that it must therefore be the Justice Department lawyers who created confusion. I' don't share that presumption. For now, Fitton's rumor is unsupported, and he bears the burden of proof. He will need to offer something much more substantive, e.g., names, exact quotes, etc.

Yep, because if the conversation never happened or the content wasn't as Fitton said it was, you'd be seeing a different reaction from the admin attorney. Instead of, "the justice department attorneys meant this" when they were talking about the backup he would have said something like "the justice department attorneys never said that". As it stands, he never refutes their answer, he just refutes what they meant by it, or what he thinks they meant by it. You'd think they would have come out and said what they meant by now. Maybe its because they know they screwed up and didn't know what they were talking about? Who knows.

I agree, there needs to be more if this is going to mean anything. Its amazing why I keep asking questions about it, isn't it? Kinda like I want to find out if there's more or if this is a herp derp by JD. It'd be nice to clear the air here.

 

[Bowfinger]

This is the question raised by this whole argument. Are emails ever part of the persistent backup? That was the confusion created by the justice department and shown by JW and supposedly cleared up by the admin attorney. It would appear at first glance that emails aren't part of this backup. However, it would reason that some emails would have to be depending on their content. I think THAT is perhaps what the justice department attorneys were referencing. ...

We know the IRS backed up email servers nightly, and kept the tapes for six months. Therefore, yes, the IRS had persistent email backups. What they did not do, however, is back up email that had been deleted from the server. Lerner's "lost" email had been deleted from the server to meet quota, and was thus also taken out of the nightly backup process.

More broadly, the IRS apparently did not back up personal computers. That's pretty common, in my experience, but it is a hole in most companies' DR plans. If critical business documents are stored only on a local PC, they may be lost in a disaster.

 

[xBiffx]

What they did not do, however, is back up email that had been deleted from the server. Lerner's "lost" email had been deleted from the server to meet quota, and was thus also taken out of the nightly backup process.

They are working on this case and they didn't know what the IRS director testified to months ago? So you're going with incompetence, I guess. I'll buy that. It would explain why they remain silent over this as well.

 

[Bowfinger]

Yep, because if the conversation never happened or the content wasn't as Fitton said it was, you'd be seeing a different reaction from the admin attorney. Instead of, "the justice department attorneys meant this" when they were talking about the backup he would have said something like "the justice department attorneys never said that". As it stands, he never refutes their answer, he just refutes what they meant by it, or what he thinks they meant by it. You'd think they would have come out and said what they meant by now. Maybe its because they know they screwed up and didn't know what they were talking about? Who knows. ...

Nobody is denying the conversation occurred, or even that they talked about backups. It's Fitton's spin that is in question. I also don't find the administration's rebuttal at all unclear:

However, an administration official told Fox News Monday night, “There was no new back-up system described last week to Judicial Watch. Government lawyers who spoke to Judicial Watch simply referred to the same email retention policy that Commissioner (John) Koskinen had described in his Congressional testimony.”
​

For most people, that refutes Fitton's rumor just fine. Random rumors don't warrant anything more formal or elaborate.

 

[xBiffx]

Nobody is denying the conversation occurred, or even that they talked about backups. It's Fitton's spin that is in question. I also don't find the administration's rebuttal at all unclear:

However, an administration official told Fox News Monday night, “There was no new back-up system described last week to Judicial Watch. Government lawyers who spoke to Judicial Watch simply referred to the same email retention policy that Commissioner (John) Koskinen had described in his Congressional testimony.”
​

For most people, that refutes Fitton's rumor just fine. Random rumors don't warrant anything more formal or elaborate.

Had that come from anyone other than an administration attorney I think you'd be right and that would be fine for most people.

 

[Bowfinger]

They are working on this case and they didn't know what the IRS director testified to months ago? So you're going with incompetence, I guess. I'll buy that. It would explain why they remain silent over this as well.

You're sliding back into your pathological dishonesty mode again. There is still no evidence of any contradiction or incompetence. You reached your conclusion first, and keep trying to pervert reality to fit it.

 

[xBiffx]

You're sliding back into your pathological dishonesty mode again. There is still no evidence of any contradiction or incompetence. You reached your conclusion first, and keep trying to pervert reality to fit it.

You're still in your tool mode. There is definitely evidence of contradiction, otherwise what the hell have you been complaining about and citing this whole time?

I haven't reached a conclusion, just given possible outcomes.

 

[Bowfinger]

Had that come from anyone other than an administration attorney I think you'd be right and that would be fine for most people.

No, most people aren't starting with your presumption that Fitton was honest and accurate. If you instead start with the understanding that Fitton is an adversary who is suing the federal government, the administration quickly brushing him off is unremarkable. Anti-administration conspiracy claims are a dime a dozen.

 

[Bowfinger]

You're still in your tool mode. There is definitely evidence of contradiction, otherwise what the hell have you been complaining about and citing this whole time?

I haven't reached a conclusion, just given possible outcomes.

I don't think you even know what your point is anymore. You just want to argue and to avoid admitting Fitton's allegations are self-serving publicity seeking.

 

[xBiffx]

No, most people aren't starting with your presumption that Fitton was honest and accurate. If you instead start with the understanding that Fitton is an adversary who is suing the federal government, the administration quickly brushing him off is unremarkable. Anti-administration conspiracy claims are a dime a dozen.

Most rational people at this point in time are questioning anything coming out of this administration. There's good reason to. Only tools like yourself take whatever they say and run with it. All the while labeling others as conspiracy nuts when the administration has done nothing to deserve our trust, actually quite the opposite over the last 6 or so years.

Also, he's an attorney in the administration, not an IRS IT expert. He knows what he's read, nothing first hand.

 

[xBiffx]

I don't think you even know what your point is anymore. You just want to argue and to avoid admitting Fitton's allegations are self-serving publicity seeking.

Pot, meet kettle. You're projection knows no bounds.

 

[Bowfinger]

Most rational people at this point in time are questioning anything coming out of this administration. There's good reason to. Only tools like yourself take whatever they say and run with it. All the while labeling others as conspiracy nuts when the administration has done nothing to deserve our trust, actually quite the opposite over the last 6 or so years.

Wrong again. Unlike you, I question both. The difference is the IRS has provided sworn testimony and formal evidence, while your boy started a rumor based on nothing but innuendo. The hilarious part is that you still presume it's Fitton who's giving you the straight scoop. At least Stewox and A420 can cite documents to support their conspiracies; bogus documents to be sure, but they're something concrete. All you have is Fitton's word for it.

Also, he's an attorney in the administration, not an IRS IT expert. He knows what he's read, nothing first hand.

Neither are Fitton or his attorney, yet you continue to overlook this. You need to take a good hard look in a mirror before you continue to toss accusations about projecting and tools. You are the poster child.

 

[Jhhnn]

I thought maybe xBiffx was catching on, but every post from 1982 forward indicates the contrary. That's unfortunate.

A person is either willing to entertain conspiracy or not. That's different from being open minded. It's not rational, but rather deeper, an issue of basic belief & manipulation at that level. It's about basic premises. Those premises determine who has credibility & who doesn't.

Anybody who grants Fitton much in the way of credibility is operating on defective premises. Period.

Why has the so called "investigation" gone in this direction, anyway?

Gaps exist in the email, and minute examination of IRS practices at the time won't fill those gaps. That leads to a great deal of speculation which becomes accepted as fact. The absence of evidence becomes evidence of conspiracy in the minds of those willing to entertain it, which reinforces the original false premises entirely.

It's now just corrosive, an attack on the IRS and the govt in general by people like Issa who are sworn to protect & serve it.

They got what they wanted- apologies, changes, heads on plates & even greater freedom to run what is essentially a scam.

They seek no resolution of the original issues at all, because those issues have already been resolved. They could verify their suspicions or set them aside simply by forcing Lerner to testify under immunity, but they refuse. At this point, it's just about tearing down the IRS & the Admin with desperate abandon.

 

[Fern]

A little update: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...tical-expenditures-by-unions/?intcmp=HPBucket

Fern

 

[werepossum]

A little update: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...tical-expenditures-by-unions/?intcmp=HPBucket

Fern

Pretty consistent for Lerner. Ignore multi-million dollar expenditures by left wing organizations, assume right wing organizations are going to break the law so shunt them into limbo.

Some good news for Obama here - this was in 2007. If she's doing that in 2007, not much reason to believe the White House drove her antics in 2010-2013. Obama wouldn't have to direct her, just stay out of her way.

 

[ivwshane]

IRS Scandal explodes. Obamas IRS targets individual teap party members.

Still waiting for this supposed Obama involvement.

 

[Fern]

Still waiting for this supposed Obama involvement.

Still waiting for the IRS to respond to subpoenas etc.

Fern