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

[Bowfinger]

Interesting update.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...se-32-000-supposedly-lost-emails-turn-up.html

IRS inspector told congress yesterday that they are investigating potential criminal activity for Louis Lerner now that many (if not all) of the "missing" emails have been recovered.



So, the IRS sends reps to talk to congress and claim they tried so hard to retrieve all the emails but they were gone because of drive crashes. Now it turns out that they simply never asked for them to be retrieved? Wow, the lies continue.

The brief snippets from your source are really ambiguous, but I don't think that's what they're saying. The IRS did search for Lerner's missing emails; they searched the PCs of 82 of her coworkers and recovered some 24,000 emails that were lost from Lerner's drive crash. What the IRS did NOT do was search backup tapes because, according to IRS policy at that time, email backups were kept only six months before being either reused or destroyed (presumably depending on the age of the tape cartridge). The IRS admitted several months ago they never searched backup tapes due to this retention policy.

What this story appears to refer to are those backup tapes. I've read two possible explanations. I don't know if either or both are correct. The first is that the IRS never actually destroyed the old tapes because of funding. (It's actually rather expensive to have tapes shredded through a secure, third-party service.) The second is that when tapes are reused, old data may not be fully overwritten if the more recent backup was shorter than the previous backup. It is thus sometimes possible to recover old data from the end of the tape. But again, I don't know for sure since there has been no official information released, to my knowledge.

Also, if you read your article closely, the Deputy TIGTA did NOT say they are investigating potential criminal activity for Lois Lerner. He was not that specific, and it appears the context was the failure to search these tapes. If so, that wouldn't be on Lerner, but would instead be on Koskinen or whoever failed to produce the information requested. Once again, however, we really need more context beyond the brief clips and quotes provided.

If the missing emails reveal wrongdoing by Lerner, it's possible there will be two criminal cases, one for the targeting and one for the coverup (or at least the failure to respond properly). It is also still possible there was no criminal activity. Time will tell.

 

[ivwshane]

These guys want more? I guess the two years of making them look like partisan idiots who buy anything so long as it confirms their beliefs, regardless of truth are back for more!

 

[soundforbjt]

Gotta keep the base riled up...election mode.

 

[Fern]

The brief snippets from your source are really ambiguous, but I don't think that's what they're saying. The IRS did search for Lerner's missing emails; they searched the PCs of 82 of her coworkers and recovered some 24,000 emails that were lost from Lerner's drive crash. What the IRS did NOT do was search backup tapes because, according to IRS policy at that time, email backups were kept only six months before being either reused or destroyed (presumably depending on the age of the tape cartridge). The IRS admitted several months ago they never searched backup tapes due to this retention policy.

What this story appears to refer to are those backup tapes. I've read two possible explanations. I don't know if either or both are correct. The first is that the IRS never actually destroyed the old tapes because of funding. (It's actually rather expensive to have tapes shredded through a secure, third-party service.) The second is that when tapes are reused, old data may not be fully overwritten if the more recent backup was shorter than the previous backup. It is thus sometimes possible to recover old data from the end of the tape. But again, I don't know for sure since there has been no official information released, to my knowledge.
-snip-

Mmm. Really? They never even asked the IT guys for copies of emails and you're willing to type out all that in an effort to excuse it?

We'll see what happens, but if I understand correctly if TIGTA believes they find criminal activity he's have to refer it to Holder. I think most of have learned by now where that's likely to go.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Mmm. Really? They never even asked the IT guys for copies of emails and you're willing to type out all that in an effort to excuse it?

We'll see what happens, but if I understand correctly if TIGTA believes they find criminal activity he's have to refer it to Holder. I think most of have learned by now where that's likely to go.

Fern

Where is it likely to go, and why, specifically?

 

[Bowfinger]

Mmm. Really? They never even asked the IT guys for copies of emails and you're willing to type out all that in an effort to excuse it?

It's unfortunate that you've developed the habit of consistently misrepresenting words and positions that don't toe the official RNC narrative. It's partisan cognitive dissonance at it's worst. That is not what I said, nor what the Deputy TIGTA said. Try again.

We'll see what happens, but if I understand correctly if TIGTA believes they find criminal activity he's have to refer it to Holder. I think most of have learned by now where that's likely to go.

Fern

Indeed, we'll see. Holder is on his way out, Republicans control Congress, and this is extraordinarily high profile. If there is good evidence of criminal activity, I don't know how the AG could ignore it. Nor should he. As I've said from the beginning, any actual wrongdoing should be appropriately punished, absolutely. Unlike so many on the right, I am simply unwilling to jump straight to conviction based on innuendo and speculation. As we have seen so many times in this case, many of the right's fervent allegations have been methodically destroyed as more evidence comes out. Hopefully, we will start getting more honest information from Congressional Republicans now that that scumbag Issa is out of the show.

 

[Fern]

Where is it likely to go, and why, specifically?

The same place the other referrals (2 re: Lerner by my count): No effing where.

A little update for those interested. The DoJ itself appears to have been involved in the IRS: http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertw...volved-in-irs-targeting-lerner-emails-reveal/

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

The same place the other referrals (2 re: Lerner by my count): No effing where.

A little update for those interested. The DoJ itself appears to have been involved in the IRS: http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertw...volved-in-irs-targeting-lerner-emails-reveal/

Fern

Who did those referrals and what evidence was there to merit criminal prosecution? Can you provide details?

Nice editorial piece from some conservative guy, btw. Not only do I not see anything problematic there, but the guy seems to be flailing desperately to create a bigger scandal.

Why do people read these ridiculous right wing op eds from Forbes so much? I mean hasn't your ample experience with them shown you that you can't trust random internet ranting from these guys? Why continue to allow yourself to be duped? Does it just feel good to have your biases confirmed?

 

[Jhhnn]

Gawd. More empty grandstanding. From the article-

Some Democrats tried to diminish the significance of location thousands of Lerner's emails, pointing out that the IRS doesn't yet know if some or all – of them are already included in more than 70,000 other messages the IRS has already turned over to Congress.

'So as I understand it from your testimony here today, you are unable to confirm whether there are any, to use your own words, new emails, right?' New York Democratic Rep. Caolyn Maloney asked Camus.

'That is correct,' he replied.

'So what's before us may be material you already have, right?' she shot back

'That is correct,' he said.

Maloney threw up her hands and wondered aloud: 'So may I ask, why are we here?'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...osedly-lost-emails-turn-up.html#ixzz3Szc1tKHf
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[fskimospy]

Gawd. More empty grandstanding. From the article-

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...osedly-lost-emails-turn-up.html#ixzz3Szc1tKHf
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Who knows? It's not possible to know the answers right now. There may very well have been some wrongdoing and if there was I hope the people responsible pay for it.

That's not why conservatives are so obsessed with this though. Modern conservatism is built around a culture of victimhood. Look at everything that has happened since Obama was elected. Threats of gun confiscation, FEMA camps, death panels, etc, etc. it's all about feeling besieged and picked on.

 

[Bowfinger]

[ ... ]
A little update for those interested. The DoJ itself appears to have been involved in the IRS: http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertw...volved-in-irs-targeting-lerner-emails-reveal/

Fern

Wow! The DOJ initiated contact with the IRS to discuss possibly prosecuting organizations filing fraudulent applications. It's a world gone mad.

 

[Fern]

Wow! The DOJ initiated contact with the IRS to discuss possibly prosecuting organizations filing fraudulent applications. It's a world gone mad.

How would you know what they were doing? They won't disclose the info. The DoJ handed over only 2 pages heavily redacted and withheld 832 pages.

But you avoid the major point; Assigning this to DoJ appears to be a violation of the appearance of impartiality. If what the DoJ was doing in conjunction with the IRS was appropriate they should turn over the info. If it is truly concerned about taxpayer data there are simple ways to handle that.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

How would you know what they were doing? They won't disclose the info. The DoJ handed over only 2 pages heavily redacted and withheld 832 pages.

But you avoid the major point; Assigning this to DoJ appears to be a violation of the appearance of impartiality. If what the DoJ was doing in conjunction with the IRS was appropriate they should turn over the info. If it is truly concerned about taxpayer data there are simple ways to handle that.

Fern

Why, because that's the only possible answer. Clearly Lerner only used the most feared government agency as a political tool because, um, Benghazi.

Handing over two heavily redacted pages out of 834 is what one does when one absolutely positively has to show people one is above the law. Fuck impartiality, they are too busy fundamentally transforming the nation to worry about little things like that.

 

[Jhhnn]

Who knows? It's not possible to know the answers right now. There may very well have been some wrongdoing and if there was I hope the people responsible pay for it.

That's not why conservatives are so obsessed with this though. Modern conservatism is built around a culture of victimhood. Look at everything that has happened since Obama was elected. Threats of gun confiscation, FEMA camps, death panels, etc, etc. it's all about feeling besieged and picked on.

The best part of this is the supposed victims- the billionaire funders of the right wing noise machine claiming that the IRS tried to impede the normal flow of untraceable cash to their cronies. The Horror!

 

[Bowfinger]

How would you know what they were doing? They won't disclose the info. The DoJ handed over only 2 pages heavily redacted and withheld 832 pages.

I'm basing it on contemporaneous evidence, quoted from the link you provided:

“I got a call today from Richard Pilger Director Elections Crimes Branch at DOJ … He wanted to know who at IRS the DOJ folk s [sic] could talk to about Sen. Whitehouse idea at the hearing that DOJ could piece together false statement cases about applicants who “lied” on their 1024s–saying they weren’t planning on doing political activity, and then turning around and making large visible political expenditures. DOJ is feeling like it needs to respond, but want to talk to the right folks at IRS to see whether there are impediments from our side and what, if any damage this might do to IRS programs. I told him that sounded like we might need several folks from IRS…”
​

But you avoid the major point; Assigning this to DoJ appears to be a violation of the appearance of impartiality. If what the DoJ was doing in conjunction with the IRS was appropriate they should turn over the info. If it is truly concerned about taxpayer data there are simple ways to handle that.

Fern

This is exactly what I mentioned earlier, jumping straight to conviction based on innuendo and speculation. Certainly one can concoct conspiracy theories about the IRS and DoJ plotting to illegally target conservative groups, but one can concoct such conspiracies about any investigations. The reasonable standard is considering the evidence. The evidence shows the DoJ was legitimately looking into potential illegal activity, and initiated a conversation with the IRS to discuss.

As to why they're withholding information from Congress, all I can do is speculate ... same as you. Knowing that Congress leaks like a sieve, and knowing that many Congressman have close ties with some of the organizations that might be investigated, I can certainly see why the DoJ might decide that revealing details of a criminal investigation might be a really bad idea. Again, this is only speculation. Their actual justification might be completely different.

 

[Bowfinger]

Why, because that's the only possible answer. Clearly Lerner only used the most feared government agency as a political tool because, um, Benghazi. ...

It was the DoJ who reached out to the IRS, you bloviating nitwit.

 

[Bowfinger]

The best part of this is the supposed victims- the billionaire funders of the right wing noise machine claiming that the IRS tried to impede the normal flow of untraceable cash to their cronies. The Horror!

Indeed. How dare the uppity IRS expect billionaires to follow the law? Clearly the IRS doesn't know its place.

 

[nickqt]

I'm basing it on contemporaneous evidence, quoted from the link you provided:

“I got a call today from Richard Pilger Director Elections Crimes Branch at DOJ … He wanted to know who at IRS the DOJ folk s [sic] could talk to about Sen. Whitehouse idea at the hearing that DOJ could piece together false statement cases about applicants who “lied” on their 1024s–saying they weren’t planning on doing political activity, and then turning around and making large visible political expenditures. DOJ is feeling like it needs to respond, but want to talk to the right folks at IRS to see whether there are impediments from our side and what, if any damage this might do to IRS programs. I told him that sounded like we might need several folks from IRS…”
​

This is exactly what I mentioned earlier, jumping straight to conviction based on innuendo and speculation. Certainly one can concoct conspiracy theories about the IRS and DoJ plotting to illegally target conservative groups, but one can concoct such conspiracies about any investigations. The reasonable standard is considering the evidence. The evidence shows the DoJ was legitimately looking into potential illegal activity, and initiated a conversation with the IRS to discuss.

As to why they're withholding information from Congress, all I can do is speculate ... same as you. Knowing that Congress leaks like a sieve, and knowing that many Congressman have close ties with some of the organizations that might be investigated, I can certainly see why the DoJ might decide that revealing details of a criminal investigation might be a really bad idea. Again, this is only speculation. Their actual justification might be completely different.

Listen.

Conservative white men are the biggest victims in the entire universe.

Everyone is coming at them to take away their stuff, because KingObummer, Ben Ghazi, and Feminism.

It's why there are barely any white men left in positions of power anymore.

Biggest. Victim. Ever.

 

[werepossum]

It was the DoJ who reached out to the IRS, you bloviating nitwit.

Of course. The IRS was merely acting on request of the DOJ, didn't do anything, stopped doing it once they were caught, admitted doing wrong, went back to insisting nothing wrong was done and if they only had their mysteriously lost emails could prove it, and never actually asked their IT people to look for the missing emails on the backup tapes, which obviously shows how the IRS is the victim in all this.

It all boils down to people like you defending this because you feel government should be used aggressively against your political enemies.

 

[Bowfinger]

Of course. The IRS was merely acting on request of the DOJ, didn't do anything, stopped doing it once they were caught, admitted doing wrong, went back to insisting nothing wrong was done and if they only had their mysteriously lost emails could prove it, and never actually asked their IT people to look for the missing emails on the backup tapes, which obviously shows how the IRS is the victim in all this.

It all boils down to people like you defending this because you feel government should be used aggressively against your political enemies.

You're lying again.

 

[Jhhnn]

Of course. The IRS was merely acting on request of the DOJ, didn't do anything, stopped doing it once they were caught, admitted doing wrong, went back to insisting nothing wrong was done and if they only had their mysteriously lost emails could prove it, and never actually asked their IT people to look for the missing emails on the backup tapes, which obviously shows how the IRS is the victim in all this.

It all boils down to people like you defending this because you feel government should be used aggressively against your political enemies.

I believe that's the chinese fire drill argument- just run around yelling incoherently & waving your arms in the air.

 

[werepossum]

You're lying again.

You're a bad person who obviously will say anything and everything to protect using the government as a political weapon, which is a very bad thing no matter which side does it.

I believe that's the chinese fire drill argument- just run around yelling incoherently & waving your arms in the air.

Oddly enough, I think the same about the defense. The conservative argument here is quite concise - the IRS set up a special task force to shunt conservative groups' applications into limbo, gave legally protected donors' information to left wing media, and initiated investigations into donors individually based solely on their donations to conservative groups. By contrast, the far left's defense has been a twisting dervish figuring out ways to potentially explain away this behavior as each new fact comes out. You've oscillated between "never happened" and "accidentally happened" and "should have happened" as the winds blow you.

 

[Bowfinger]

You're a bad person who obviously will say anything and everything to protect using the government as a political weapon, which is a very bad thing no matter which side does it.

You're still lying. It seems to be the only card in your deck.

 

[Jhhnn]

You're a bad person who obviously will say anything and everything to protect using the government as a political weapon, which is a very bad thing no matter which side does it.


Oddly enough, I think the same about the defense. The conservative argument here is quite concise - the IRS set up a special task force to shunt conservative groups' applications into limbo, gave legally protected donors' information to left wing media, and initiated investigations into donors individually based solely on their donations to conservative groups. By contrast, the far left's defense has been a twisting dervish figuring out ways to potentially explain away this behavior as each new fact comes out. You've oscillated between "never happened" and "accidentally happened" and "should have happened" as the winds blow you.

Never admit that the IRS apologized for the accidental release of that information, information that becomes public anyway when non-profit status is achieved. Always represent it to be something it's not.

Never admit that right wing billionaires have created a shadowy network of paper entities designed expressly to skirt the law or that the IRS has good reason to examine that rather closely.

Never admit that their goal is to finance politics while disavowing the fact & the responsibility of doing so. They'd like for us all to believe that the money behind teatard ravers just fell from the sky.

 

[Zorkorist]

How you can crucify private enterprise, when it's only sin is TRYING to influence Government, flabbergasts me.

The obvious villain, is Government.

-John