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

[ivwshane]

Campaign.

 

[ivwshane]

Limits! He was.

 

[ivwshane]

Talking about.

 

[ivwshane]

Anonymous contributions.

 

[Zorkorist]

Eat shit, oh so ashamed.

-John

 

[xBiffx]

I need none.

Contribution limits aside, transparency doesn't limit anybody's right to spend money on politics.

It all boils down to knowing who's paying and for what.

I mean, when rich people give money to buy University facilities, clinics, art museums or whatever, the want their name on on it. When they give money to buy politicians & influence elections, they don't want anybody to know about it.

Go figure.

At least you are eventually being honest here with why you are OK with the IRS behavior here. Even if your viewpoint is warped and this is just another case of justifying the means to an end, your honesty is admirable.

Some day you'll get over the SC decision. Some day you'll realize that giving the IRS this kind of power/latitude is going to bite everyone in the ass on both sides of the political spectrum. It's those unintended consequences again. The rich already run this county, they did before the SC decided on campaign contributions and they will after and you aren't going to stop that with a group of rogue employees at the IRS.

 

[Jhhnn]

At least you are eventually being honest here with why you are OK with the IRS behavior here. Even if your viewpoint is warped and this is just another case of justifying the means to an end, your honesty is admirable.

Some day you'll get over the SC decision. Some day you'll realize that giving the IRS this kind of power/latitude is going to bite everyone in the ass on both sides of the political spectrum. It's those unintended consequences again. The rich already run this county, they did before the SC decided on campaign contributions and they will after and you aren't going to stop that with a group of rogue employees at the IRS.

I haven't claimed that the IRS was right in using bolo lists or in holding teatard groups to a higher standard than others.

I point out that the ongoing "investigation" is a contrivance designed to obfuscate the central issue & to weaken the Government of the People in its ability to resist the corruption fostered by what really are anonymous slush funds directed by America's wealthiest & their chosen toadies.

Apparently, you see that as worthy of your support & endorsement. Anonymously, of course, just like the money.

 

[werepossum]

Nope, highly unlikely. You won't accept anything I say, of course. so I hoped one of P&N's resident disk "experts" would have corrected you. Remember how they went on and on about how it was virtually impossible to crash a drive so badly it was totally unrecoverable? They are now strangely silent.

Your approach can certainly cause disk errors, but that's it. With drive protection technology, merely shaking a laptop is unlikely to cause a head crash, especially a catastrophic one. It is also harder than one would think to erase a drive with just a magnet. Actually erasing the whole drive, such that none of it is readable, requires a suitable degaussing tool. I wouldn't expect you to know that, but that's the point. If a nominal tech guy like you didn't know this, it's nonsensical to expect Lerner to know it.

Your plot will not render the drive so inoperable that it cannot be accessed with special recovery equipment. That's the part you missed, that Lerner's drive had a "critical electronic or mechanical problem" so severe it could not be forced into a Ready state, even for their diagnostic and recovery equipment. Couple this with all the other holes in your conspiracy theory (which you are ignoring), and it's clear to any rational person you are spouting purely self-serving nonsense.

Finally, I'll note you've ignored all but one of the points I raised. You can't refute them and lack the integrity to concede them, so you just pretend they don't exist. This is typical of you. I know others have called you on this as well. "It's only a flesh wound!"

No, we went on and on about how it's very uncommon for a drive to honestly fail so as to be completely unreadable; intentionally making a drive unreadable short of dismounting the platters is a completely different story. AT's resident experts are being strangely silent because they never said what you so wished to hear. Induce a hard rotating strike between head and platter and the drive will never go into a ready state. And it's very simple to erase a hard drive with a powerful magnet to the point of being unreadable by the drive heads; it's only difficult to do so to a level that prevents the platter being dismounted and its residual magnetic signatures pulled off. This is why the FBI maintains a clean room where unreadable drives can be disassembled, their platters mounted in equipment with highly sensitive magnetic heads, and the residual magnetic signatures pulled off to be assembled into a virtual representation of the hard drive. If intentionally doing this was difficult, the FBI could use a simple un-erase program on any drives which didn't coincidentally suffer a catastrophic hard drive failure.

 

[Jhhnn]

No, we went on and on about how it's very uncommon for a drive to honestly fail so as to be completely unreadable; intentionally making a drive unreadable short of dismounting the platters is a completely different story. AT's resident experts are being strangely silent because they never said what you so wished to hear. Induce a hard rotating strike between head and platter and the drive will never go into a ready state. And it's very simple to erase a hard drive with a powerful magnet to the point of being unreadable by the drive heads; it's only difficult to do so to a level that prevents the platter being dismounted and its residual magnetic signatures pulled off. This is why the FBI maintains a clean room where unreadable drives can be disassembled, their platters mounted in equipment with highly sensitive magnetic heads, and the residual magnetic signatures pulled off to be assembled into a virtual representation of the hard drive. If intentionally doing this was difficult, the FBI could use a simple un-erase program on any drives which didn't coincidentally suffer a catastrophic hard drive failure.

Right back around to your hard drive hum job mindfuck.

Prove that Lerner knew about Camp's letter 10 days after it was dated.

Prove that Lerner knew her drive was the only repository for her email.

Prove that she had the technical knowledge to destroy her drive.

Prove that there was any reason to send the drive to the FBI 10 months before the scandal broke.

Prove that you're not a propaganda troll.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Prove that Lerner knew about Camp's letter 10 days after it was dated.

Prove she didn't. I find it hard to believe that the director of the department specifically referenced in the Camp letter wouldn't have been immediately advised of this letter in some manner. Although we have no proof, the timing of the hard drive "failure" is highly suspicious and does not appear to be mere coincidence. I'd like to know more about the "secret research project" and who was pressuring Lerner as well. Immunity is needed so we can get to the bottom of this and move on.

 

[Jhhnn]

Prove she didn't.

The burden of proof is on the accuser. Period.

If it cannot be proven that she knew of Camp's letter, the rest is... conspiracy theory. Imagine that.

There will be no immunity for Lerner. Issa et al all get entirely too much mileage with the chumps the way it is. They'll wring it out for the last drop of slime.

 

[xBiffx]

The burden of proof is on the accuser. Period.

If it cannot be proven that she knew of Camp's letter, the rest is... conspiracy theory. Imagine that.

Both sides are making accusations here, so there goes that argument.

Doesn't matter if it can be proven or not, her behavior is what's important, regardless of her motivations.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The burden of proof is on the accuser. Period.

If it cannot be proven that she knew of Camp's letter, the rest is... conspiracy theory. Imagine that.

This whole thing smells. I don't know what happened, but it certainly doesn't look good.

 

[Jhhnn]

Both sides are making accusations here, so there goes that argument.

Doesn't matter if it can be proven or not, her behavior is what's important, regardless of her motivations.

Hogwash. The only accusation I'm making is that jumping to conclusions is rampant among the conspiracy theory aficionados.

Why would Lerner allegedly destroy her drive if she didn't know about Camp's letter?

Prove she knew, and we'll deal with the rest of it one step at a time, not one giant leap of faith at a time.

Is it not more likely that a routine hard drive failure has become a convenient point of conspiracy?

 

[Jhhnn]

This whole thing smells. I don't know what happened, but it certainly doesn't look good.

Proof matters entirely. As the latest email disclosure shows, there was still a lot going on around 501(c)4 stuff months after the drive failure. Destroy the evidence & keep doing the same thing? WTF kind of sense does that make?

 

[xBiffx]

Hogwash. The only accusation I'm making is that jumping to conclusions is rampant among the conspiracy theory aficionados.

Why would Lerner allegedly destroy her drive if she didn't know about Camp's letter?

Prove she knew, and we'll deal with the rest of it one step at a time, not one giant leap of faith at a time.

Is it not more likely that a routine hard drive failure has become a convenient point of conspiracy?

So now you represent an entire side of this issue? That's rather conceited of you.

Perhaps Lerner is smart enough to realize that she was engaging in bad behavior and doesn't need a letter to tip her off? I mean, there are plenty of reasons why a person might want to destroy information and conceal their inappropriate activities, independent of a letter. Who knows, but one thing is for sure, the letter really doesn't matter. It's another red herring.

You keep using the word routine, I don't think you truly know what it means and how it doesn't automatically apply here just because you think it does. Her hard drive may have been routine failure but when any rational person steps back and see the bigger picture, the plethora of hard drive failures here deserves another look.

 

[Bowfinger]

No, we went on and on about how it's very uncommon for a drive to honestly fail so as to be completely unreadable; intentionally making a drive unreadable short of dismounting the platters is a completely different story. AT's resident experts are being strangely silent because they never said what you so wished to hear.

Then it should be quite easy for your to quote the comments supporting your tales. I won't hold my breath.

Induce a hard rotating strike between head and platter and the drive will never go into a ready state. And it's very simple to erase a hard drive with a powerful magnet to the point of being unreadable by the drive heads ...

Repeating the same disinformation doesn't make it magically true. The IRS used special recovery hardware that accessed the drive directly, bypassing all of the interface and OS error processing that might confuse your Windows PC. They were still unable to put the drive into a state where it could accept commands, thus exposing a "critical electronic or mechanical failure." This was in spite of trying two replacement controllers and a replacement head stack. You are out of your league here.

 

[Jhhnn]

So now you represent an entire side of this issue? That's rather conceited of you.

Perhaps Lerner is smart enough to realize that she was engaging in bad behavior and doesn't need a letter to tip her off? I mean, there are plenty of reasons why a person might want to destroy information and conceal their inappropriate activities, independent of a letter. Who knows, but one thing is for sure, the letter really doesn't matter. It's another red herring.

You keep using the word routine, I don't think you truly know what it means and how it doesn't automatically apply here just because you think it does. Her hard drive may have been routine failure but when any rational person steps back and see the bigger picture, the plethora of hard drive failures here deserves another look.

Perhaps you're having trouble making an argument coherent even to you & to your will to believe.

There's only 1 thing that connects the drive failure to the alleged conspiracy, and that's the letter Camp allegedly sent 10 days earlier. She had to know about the letter to have reason to destroy her drive. There's no other reason for her to have done so. The proposition is absurd.

There is no proof that she knew about the letter.

There is no proof that any of the other users of the failed drives knew, either.

 

[schmuckley]

Every day someone posts in here.
Yes..It happened,When Nixon did it (and got caught) He was impeached.
5 hard drives fail? umm..no.
Someone took a magnet to those things.
I'm going to go bump the Bhenghazi thread.

 

[Bowfinger]

[ ... ]
You keep using the word routine, I don't think you truly know what it means and how it doesn't automatically apply here just because you think it does. Her hard drive may have been routine failure but when any rational person steps back and see the bigger picture, the plethora of hard drive failures here deserves another look.

This "plethora" of drive failures appears extraordinary only to people who don't understand statistics (or have ulterior motives). The IRS now says there were a total of 6 drive failures over 4.5 years that resulted in lost email. Out of at least 83 drives, that's only 1.6% per year. Normal failure rates for cheap consumer drives are at least double that, and can run as high as 10% depending on the model and age. In spite of the hysterical cries of the right-wing "media", these failures are completely unremarkable.

 

[xBiffx]

There's only 1 thing that connects the drive failure to the alleged conspiracy, and that's the letter Camp allegedly sent 10 days earlier. She had to know about the letter to have reason to destroy her drive. There's no other reason for her to have done so. The proposition is absurd.

Really? Because she couldn't have wanted to conceal her tracks for any reason other than the Camp letter? None? Her behavior was inappropriate. SHE KNEW THAT. It doesn't have to be conspiracy to recognize that.

Sorry, just because that letter fits your little warped narrative doesn't means shit. It is a red herring. But I don't expect you to drop it.

 

[Bowfinger]

Perhaps you're having trouble making an argument coherent even to you & to your will to believe.

There's only 1 thing that connects the drive failure to the alleged conspiracy, and that's the letter Camp allegedly sent 10 days earlier. She had to know about the letter to have reason to destroy her drive. There's no other reason for her to have done so. The proposition is absurd.

There is no proof that she knew about the letter.

There is no proof that any of the other users of the failed drives knew, either.

I think that's a very good point. Lerner's job was dealing with 501(c) organizations, NOT personal tax returns. Why would she be involved with selecting individual 1040s for audit? Further, there is nothing in the letter that should have sent Lerner into such a panic. It was a routine request from Congress about a different matter entirely.

The IRS is always under fire from people who don't like paying their taxes. They must get dozens of such requests from Congress every year. The only reason this Camp letter was different is that it was the right time frame and roughly involved the same area. It's not the first time right-wing propagandists cherry-picked one example out of a stack to create a false time line.

 

[Bowfinger]

Really? Because she couldn't have wanted to conceal her tracks for any reason other than the Camp letter? None? Her behavior was inappropriate. SHE KNEW THAT. It doesn't have to be conspiracy to recognize that.

Sorry, just because that letter fits your little warped narrative doesn't means shit. It is a red herring. But I don't expect you to drop it.

No, YOU know her behavior was inappropriate. That belief is not supported by the evidence.

 

[xBiffx]

No, YOU know her behavior was inappropriate. That belief is not supported by the evidence.

Gotcha. So the IRS apologized for nothing. She was forced to leave for nothing.

Oh wait, Lerner is an idiot and she couldn't have known what she was doing was inappropriate. The IRS just admitted it was wrong because it looks better for them.

Did I get that right, tool?

 

[Bowfinger]

Gotcha. So the IRS apologized for nothing. She was forced to leave for nothing.

Oh wait, Lerner is an idiot and she couldn't have known what she was doing was inappropriate. The IRS just admitted it was wrong because it looks better for them.

Did I get that right, tool?

No, you didn't get that right either. You guys really need to get your facts straight. Lerner's apology came after she was notified of the keyword targeting, two years after her drive crash. Further, her apology wasn't based on anything she did wrong, but what she'd learned her staff had done. Remember, Lerner is the one who ordered the Tea Party BOLO stopped.

Also remember that both TIGTA and the Senate investigation found no evidence of partisan intent in this targeting.