Dreadclaw69 wrote: Sebster, before you go and start telling other people to read you may wish to heed your own advice. If you had actually read you might have discovered that the IRS and the TIAG have admitted that they targeted conservative groups. That cannot be disputed. It is a matter of record.
"The IRS inspector general said this week that while some liberal groups were given extra scrutiny by the tax agency, they were not subjected to the same invasive queries as tea party groups"
So when you say "targeted" you mean "given more scrutiny than other groups, but not the only group scrutinised, and with no comment on whether that scrutiny was due to political motivation or something else".
Well then yeah, okay.
The only question is whether there was political bias - and I have said consistently that is what this investigation is looking at, the TIAG's report which you quoted "seems to confirm" bias was at play. The investigation will answer whether it did or did not.
Absolutely.
Still trying to talk about motivation while the investigation is attempting to establish it doesn't seem productive.
You're still trying to justify what the IRS did on the basis of something that was ruled to be unconstitutional. Have you any idea how ludicrous the point you are trying to make is?
I'm not trying to justify what the IRS did. I'm trying to make clear what is currently known, and what is yet to be determined. I am doing this because there's a lot of people who have jumped to conclusions.
Scott wrote earlier today about the motion that True the Vote is bringing against the IRS in the federal court in the District of Columbia. The motion asks for expedited discovery with respect to the IRS’s destruction of evidence relevant to True the Vote’s case, an order prohibiting further destruction of evidence, and other relief. I have read True the Vote’s brief in support of its motion. It appears powerful. The brief is posted below; you can read it for yourself.
But first, these observations. Under federal law, a party has a duty to preserve data that may be relevant to any actual or likely lawsuit. This duty arises from the party’s own knowledge; it is not necessary for a court to tell it not to destroy information, or for an adverse party to make such a request. The fundamental, shocking fact that is emphasized in True the Vote’s brief is this: at the time of Lois Lerner’s hard drive crash in June 2011, the IRS was already under a legal duty to take steps to ensure that information was not lost, and had been under such a duty for nearly a year, at a minimum. I am speaking here only of the normal requirements that are imposed on any party to a lawsuit, or potential lawsuit. Federal law probably imposes a higher duty on federal agencies, but that is a subject for another day.
True the Vote’s brief points out that the first lawsuit alleging discriminatory targeting of conservative groups was filed by a pro-Israel group called Z Street, Inc., on August 25, 2010. On that date, at the very latest, the IRS had a legal duty to take measures to ensure that no emails, correspondence, memoranda, notes, or other evidence of any sort that could be relevant to the case was lost or destroyed. (Congressional investigations, or other information known to the IRS, may have triggered the duty at an earlier date.) Lois Lerner’s communications would have been at the very top of the list of materials that the IRS had a legal duty to go out of its way to preserve.
But, according to IRS representatives who have testified before Congressional committees, the IRS ignored the law. Instead of making sure that relevant information was preserved, the IRS blithely continued erasing back-up email tapes every 90 days. Further, the IRS continued its policy of assigning each employee a ridiculously small space on an email server, and then authorizing employees (like Lois Lerner) to delete at will to keep space open. And, finally, when Lerner’s hard drive crashed ten months after the Z Street case was commenced, the IRS made no effort to preserve it, but rather, by its own account, recycled the hard drive in a business-as-usual manner.
Any private company that conducted itself in this way would be crucified. It happens from time to time, but rather rarely nowadays, as the duty to preserve evidence is well known in the business world. The IRS’s account of its own behavior is, frankly, shocking. I can hardly imagine what a federal judge would do to a party that took no steps to preserve documents, erased backup tapes, allowed employees to delete relevant emails and memos, and “recycled” the crashed hard drive of its principal witness, all while the lawsuit was pending.
sebster wrote: "The IRS inspector general said this week that while some liberal groups were given extra scrutiny by the tax agency, they were not subjected to the same invasive queries as tea party groups"
So when you say "targeted" you mean "given more scrutiny than other groups, but not the only group scrutinised, and with no comment on whether that scrutiny was due to political motivation or something else".
We can stop this dance now. The IRS admitted targeting conservative groups. That fight is settled
Perhaps you missed the following from the same article;
"In a letter sent late Wednesday and released Thursday, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration J. Russell George said that just 30 percent of groups with the word “progressive” in their name were put through special scrutiny for tax-exempt applications, but 100 percent of groups with “tea party,” “patriot” or “9/12” in their name were subjected to invasive questioning. “TIGTA concluded that inappropriate criteria were used to identify potential political cases for extra scrutiny — specifically, the criteria listed in our audit report. From our audit work, we did not find evidence that the criteria you identified, labeled “Progressives,” were used by the IRS to select potential political cases during the 2010 to 2012 time frame we audited,” Mr. George said.
That finding contradicts claims by congressional Democrats who said liberal groups were targeted too — and, they argue, that suggests the scrutiny by the Internal Revenue Service didn’t have a political bias.
Hours after the letter was released, acting IRS chief Daniel Werfel said that while an initial investigation has found no evidence of bias or political motivation, he didn’t disagree with the auditor’s conclusions."
Dreadclaw69 wrote: We can stop this dance now. The IRS admitted targeting conservative groups. That fight is settled
Oh okay, so you're plan is just to ignore the distinction I made in how you use the word 'target' and how I explained. Okay, that's totally constructive. Good job.
Perhaps you missed the following from the same article;
"In a letter sent late Wednesday and released Thursday, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration J. Russell George said that just 30 percent of groups with the word “progressive” in their name were put through special scrutiny for tax-exempt applications, but 100 percent of groups with “tea party,” “patriot” or “9/12” in their name were subjected to invasive questioning.
Perhaps I missed it? Perhaps I fething missed it? Or possibly I made that very fething point pages ago in this thread.
"Now, you can argue that groups with conservative flags like 'Tea Party' were more likely to be flagged purely on that word search, and that argument has a basis on the limited stats we've been given so far (30% of groups with progressive were sent for further review, 100% of 'Tea Party' were flagged for further review). That isn't conclusive, because we can't just assume all groups are equally likely to be needing further scrutiny - it could well be that 70% of progressive groups were clearly engaged in greater charity, while none of the Tea Party groups were - that can only be established with a case by case review."
sebster wrote: Oh okay, so you're plan is just to ignore the distinction I made in how you use the word 'target' and how I explained. Okay, that's totally constructive. Good job.
You're the one ignoring the fact that the IRS admitted to targeting conservative groups. This is a settled issue. You're going over old ground that has been covered, and the conduct in question admitted to. Whatever distinction you may have made no longer has any bearing on this point. The IRS conceded that they targeted right leaning groups and admitted it. You are engaging in a fantastically academic exercise of spinning your wheels.
sebster wrote: Perhaps I missed it? Perhaps I fething missed it? Or possibly I made that very fething point pages ago in this thread.
"Now, you can argue that groups with conservative flags like 'Tea Party' were more likely to be flagged purely on that word search, and that argument has a basis on the limited stats we've been given so far (30% of groups with progressive were sent for further review, 100% of 'Tea Party' were flagged for further review). That isn't conclusive, because we can't just assume all groups are equally likely to be needing further scrutiny - it could well be that 70% of progressive groups were clearly engaged in greater charity, while none of the Tea Party groups were - that can only be established with a case by case review."
This is ridiculous.
I agree. It is ridiculous that you continue to pretend that the IRS did not target conservative groups, even though they admitted to such conduct. You managed to omit some vital context from both the post you responded to, and the quote you say addressed the point;
whembly wrote: Factually true. Even the IRS' own IG confirmed it.
Nope, it's false. 16 groups were identified for greater scrutiny based on having the word 'progressive' in their name.
Now, you can argue that groups with conservative flags like 'Tea Party' were more likely to be flagged purely on that word search, and that argument has a basis on the limited stats we've been given so far (30% of groups with progressive were sent for further review, 100% of 'Tea Party' were flagged for further review). That isn't conclusive, because we can't just assume all groups are equally likely to be needing further scrutiny - it could well be that 70% of progressive groups were clearly engaged in greater charity, while none of the Tea Party groups were - that can only be established with a case by case review.
But what you absolutely, completely cannot say is that only conservative groups were considered for further review. That is absolutely, definitively incorrect.
So Sebster you claimed that the IRS's own IG did not confirm the targeting, yet the article I linked to and quoted (and was omitted by your good self) stated; :
"In a letter sent late Wednesday and released Thursday, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration J. Russell George said that just 30 percent of groups with the word “progressive” in their name were put through special scrutiny for tax-exempt applications, but 100 percent of groups with “tea party,” “patriot” or “9/12” in their name were subjected to invasive questioning. “TIGTA concluded that inappropriate criteria were used to identify potential political cases for extra scrutiny — specifically, the criteria listed in our audit report. From our audit work, we did not find evidence that the criteria you identified, labeled “Progressives,” were used by the IRS to select potential political cases during the 2010 to 2012 time frame we audited,” Mr. George said.
That finding contradicts claims by congressional Democrats who said liberal groups were targeted too — and, they argue, that suggests the scrutiny by the Internal Revenue Service didn’t have a political bias.
Hours after the letter was released, acting IRS chief Daniel Werfel said that while an initial investigation has found no evidence of bias or political motivation, he didn’t disagree with the auditor’s conclusions."
The IRS IG confirmed that targeting occured. Again, this is another point that is settled and established.
“TIGTA concluded that inappropriate criteria were used to identify potential political cases for extra scrutiny — specifically, the criteria listed in our audit report. From our audit work, we did not find evidence that the criteria you identified, labeled “Progressives,” were used by the IRS to select potential political cases during the 2010 to 2012 time frame we audited,” Mr. George said.
So the criteria identified are separate from the term "progressive". Why did the report not list them?
Guys, I don't think the administration's going to take the Obamaphones back if you refuse to fight to the last man on this particular rampart. When the organization in question is admitting wrongdoing and people are getting fired and emails are getting conveniently lost, the battle's over.
So if nothing was being done wrong, if the law was being applied fairly, and if no one was being targeted why would the people involved want to prevent Congress seeing their communications?
Seaward wrote: Guys, I don't think the administration's going to take the Obamaphones back if you refuse to fight to the last man on this particular rampart. When the organization in question is admitting wrongdoing and people are getting fired and emails are getting conveniently lost, the battle's over.
No, the issue is that I happen to think government inquiries are serious business. I've got work colleagues who've been called up to testify before them after they discovered fraud and mismanagement, and I can tell you it's no picnic, even when you're on the side of law.
With that in mind, all I've ever wanted to do here is explain to people what is actually known, and what is not. At this stage we know the IRS procedure was terrible, and we know it impacted one side of politics a lot more than the other. What we don't know is if that heavier impact was the result of deliberately targeting one side of politics for no reason but their political allegiance, and if that was the case, then whether that targeting was a deliberate policy with intentional political goals. The disappearance of large amounts of emails is strongly suggestive of the latter in some form, but it is not evidence in and of itself.
Recognising the difference between reality and the kind of stuff getting bandied about in this thread is important.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So if nothing was being done wrong, if the law was being applied fairly, and if no one was being targeted why would the people involved want to prevent Congress seeing their communications?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So if nothing was being done wrong, if the law was being applied fairly, and if no one was being targeted why would the people involved want to prevent Congress seeing their communications?
Well, for one thing, evidence submitted in the course of a public Congressional investigation is a matter of pubic record and, given how strident Issa's committee had been prior to those emails I would have buried them as well. It seems prudent.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So if nothing was being done wrong, if the law was being applied fairly, and if no one was being targeted why would the people involved want to prevent Congress seeing their communications?
Well, for one thing, evidence submitted in the course of a public Congressional investigation is a matter of pubic record and, given how strident Issa's committee had been prior to those emails I would have buried them as well. It seems prudent.
They send out a warning saying "we have to be careful what we write because it is a permanent record that they can request". There is nothing bad about that statement, verbal or written.
People can pretend that they knew what they were warning about and jump to conclusions based on their own guess, but that's really it.
It could have been a warning to remind people not to talk about their top secret plan to crush the tea party, it could have been a warning to remind people not to include any protected information, it could have been a warning to remind people not to call somebody "Senator Asshat" and "Representative Tinydick" because they would see it.
Perception of incrimination. Or is it....hhmmmm. "Perfect". Look at the timing of the email and what happen a few days before the email.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Perception of incrimination. Or is it....hhmmmm. "Perfect". Look at the timing of the email and what happen a few days before the email.
Breotan wrote: Did the email specifically address inappropriate remarks and was it a policy memo? Or was it a "shut yer traps, morons!" warning to key people?
That's the vibe the email is giving. Not sure if there was an email chain. Because that has a perception of a "pick and choose" thing
Edit
Woops If that one email they're harping on and the rest of the train is ignored.
Of the emails I can see, and am commenting on, Lerner's was at 1:50 pm on April 9th 2013, and the reply was at 2:45 pm of the same day; so I don't see the issue.
Rep. Steve Stockman @SteveWorks4You
Follow
We just filed a resolution directing the Sergeant-At-Arms to arrest Lois Lerner for contempt. Statement coming in minutes. #IRSscandal
3:43 PM - 10 Jul 2014
Rep. Steve Stockman @SteveWorks4You
Follow
Pelosi, CNN and the New York Times all endorsed the House's power to arrest those in contempt of Congress. I hope they'll be consistent.
4:16 PM - 10 Jul 2014
Rep. Steve Stockman @SteveWorks4You
Follow
Pelosi, just three weeks ago: “I could have arrested Karl Rove on any given day (for contempt)...There’s a prison here in the Capitol."
4:30 PM - 10 Jul 2014
Rep. Steve Stockman @SteveWorks4You
Follow
CNN endorses the House's power to arrest, going so far in 2008 as to televise potential locations where Rove would be jailed for contempt.
Rep. Steve Stockman @SteveWorks4You
Follow
NY Times: "From the Republic’s earliest days Congress has had the right to hold recalcitrant witnesses in contempt - and even imprison them"
4:32 PM - 10 Jul 2014
Rep. Steve Stockman @SteveWorks4You
Follow
Dear @WhiteHouse,
We have pens and phones, too...along with four Supreme Court decisions and federal law.
“It’s time to for House to stop tacitly endorsing this administration’s illegal activity by refusing to hold him accountable. I expect Democrats to defend and even praise criminal activity. The question is whether Republican leadership will join them in mocking the House and breaking the law,” said Stockman.
Contempt of Congress is a criminal offense (Act of January 24, 1857, Ch. 19, sec. 1, 11 Stat. 155.) Congress’ power to hold someone in contempt has been recognized by the United States Supreme Court four times.
Democrats admit the House has the power to arrest those in contempt of Congress. “I could have arrested Karl Rove on any given day,” former House Speaker and current House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi told The Huffington Post just days ago, on June 20. “I’m not kidding. There’s a prison here in the Capitol. If we had spotted him in the Capitol, we could have arrested him.”
CNN has also recognized Congress’ power to arrest those in contempt of Congress, going so far in 2008 as to televise potential locations where Rove would be held.
The New York Times also recognizes the House’s power to arrest.
“From the Republic’s earliest days, Congress has had the right to hold recalcitrant witnesses in contempt — and even imprison them — all by itself. In 1795, shortly after the Constitution was ratified, the House ordered its sergeant at arms to arrest and detain two men accused of trying to bribe members of Congress. The House held a trial and convicted one of them,” the Times wrote in a Dec. 4, 2007 editorial.
“In 1821, the Supreme Court upheld Congress’s right to hold people in contempt and imprison them. Without this power, the court ruled, Congress would “be exposed to every indignity and interruption, that rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy, may mediate against it.” Later, in a 1927 case arising from the Teapot Dome scandal, the court upheld the Senate’s arrest of the brother of a former attorney general — carried out in Ohio by the deputy sergeant at arms — for ignoring a subpoena to testify,” the Times wrote.
The full text of Stockman’s resolution:
RESOLUTION
Providing for the arrest of Lois G. Lerner to answer the charge of contempt of Congress
Whereas Lois G. Lerner, former Director, Exempt Organizations, Internal Revenue Service, has been found to be in contempt of Congress for willfully and intentionally refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena duly issued by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, thereby obstructing the Congress in the lawful exercise of its constitutionally mandated legislative powers; and,
Whereas such behavior is an insult to the dignity of the House of Representatives, an attack upon the integrity of its proceedings, works violence upon the rights of the House collectively, and therefore implicates the long-recognized inherent power of the House to punish and commit for contempt, privileged under the Constitution; and,
Whereas recent history with similarly contumacious and insolent witnesses such as Eric Himpton Holder, Junior, strongly suggests that the present statutory judicial rubric set up to punish and reform such insubordinate and obstructionist witnesses would be ineffective in this case, as it is likely that the US Attorney for the District of Columbia would refuse to perform his lawful duty to bring the offending contemnor Lerner before a Grand Jury and prosecute the same for her misconduct pursuant to section 104 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (2 U.S.C. 194) and section 102 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (2 U.S.C. 192); and,
Whereas the executive and judicial branches’ prolonged and dawdling failure to prosecute Attorney General Holder’s insolent contempt of the 112th Congress strongly suggests that a like proceeding against contemnor Lerner would be similarly futile, and the threat of such prosecution has clearly been insufficient to encourage contemnor Lerner to be honest and candid with the Congress regarding the heinous actions of the Internal Revenue Service;
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Speaker issue his warrant, directed to the Sergeant-at-Arms, or his deputy, commanding him to arrest and take into custody forthwith, wherever to be found, the body of Lois G. Lerner, and bring her to the bar of the House without delay to answer to the charge of contempt of its authority, breach of its privileges, and gross and wanton insult to the integrity of its proceedings, and in the meantime keep the body of Lerner in his custody in the common jail of the District of Columbia, subject to the further order of the House. While in custody, Lerner shall enjoy no special privileges beyond those extended to her fellow inmates, shall not access any computer or telephone, and shall not be visited by anyone other than her counsel, clergy, physician, or family.
d-usa wrote: Everybody is getting sued and arrested by the Republicans!
She's held in contempt... I wished they would've done this ages ago.
Same with Holdner over the Fast & Furious scandal.
The Speaker suing the President? Yeah man... that's totally weak-sauce. The House has two major power: Power of the Purse™ & Impeachment Proceedings. But to attempt to sue the President? That's ticky-tacky stuff.
WASHINGTON—A federal judge on Thursday ordered the Internal Revenue Service to explain how it lost two years’ worth of a former official’s emails, and tapped a magistrate judge to find out whether the documents can be obtained from other sources.
At a hearing in a conservative group’s lawsuit, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan gave the IRS until Aug. 10 to provide a sworn declaration explaining how the email loss occurred. The IRS previously has said that the emails were lost because the top agency official’s computer crashed in 2011, and backup tapes were routinely reused after six months.
Emails from the time show that the now-retired official, Lois Lerner, asked IRS technicians to restore her hard drive, but they were unable to do so, agency officials have said.
Ms. Lerner has become a focus of congressional investigations into the agency’s treatment of conservative groups that applied to operate as tax-exempt organizations. An inspector general reported last year that the IRS targeted tea-party groups for long delays and intrusive questions. Republican lawmakers also believe that Ms. Lerner tried to influence the agency to take action against larger conservative groups, including Crossroads GPS. Democrats say the controversy has been exaggerated, and liberal groups were drawn into the net as well.
Judge Sullivan also said he would assign federal magistrate John Facciola to explore ways of obtaining the IRS records from other sources.
The orders came in a lawsuit by Judicial Watch, a watchdog group that has been seeking IRS records related to the targeting controversy under the Freedom of Information Act.
The judge also asked about the ongoing Treasury Inspector General probe into the lost emails, which Judicial Watch senior attorney Ramona Cotca said in court that the group had never heard of and later told reporters that the Justice Department did not inform them of.
Really? A Politico reporter knows more about this case than someone filing litigation? Good job Judicial Watch.
And, to be specific, what the Judge ordered, according to the article, was this:
Judge Emmet Sullivan gave the government 30 days, until Aug. 10, to file a declaration signed by “appropriate” IRS officials under oath — sworn to be the truth under penalty of perjury — addressing the lost emails. The judge said the declaration, which should also include ways to recover the emails, will help inform the court about whether there is a need for limited discovery as requested by conservative watchdog Judicial Watch.
A second federal judge has now ordered the IRS to explain under oath how the agency lost emails from former division director Lois Lerner, the woman at the heart of the Tea Party targeting scandal.
U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton told Obama administration lawyers on Friday he wants to see an affidavit explaining what happened with Lerner's hard drive. The IRS claims her computer suffered a crash in 2011 that wiped her email records at the time clean.
But at a hearing examining a lawsuit against the IRS by conservative group True the Vote, Walton said he wants to know what happened to Lerner's hard drive, which allegedly was recycled. He asked for an affidavit from those involved in handling the crashed drive.
The order is another boost for those questioning the agency's claims that many Lerner emails from that time period are not recoverable.
A day earlier, in a separate case brought by conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan gave the tax agency 30 days to file a declaration by an "appropriate official" to address the computer issues involving Lerner.
In that case, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton alleged there "has been a cover-up that has been going on."
After the True the Vote hearing, group counsel Cleta Mitchell accused the IRS of playing a "shell game," by arguing that the plaintiffs could not prove any emails were lost.
True the Vote brought its case to court after facing multiple inquiries and extra scrutiny from the IRS, the FBI and other federal agencies.
True the Vote is now seeking a motion to speed up discovery and "preserve and prevent further destruction" of IRS emails and missing documents.
The group also wants a forensic expert to investigate how the emails were lost and examine whether the data is recoverable.
"The fact that the IRS is statutorily required to preserve these records yet nevertheless publicly claimed that they have been 'lost' appears to evidence bad faith," Mitchell wrote in a letter last month to the tax-collecting agency.
Lerner, who has since retired, headed the IRS unit that reviews applications for tax-exempt status, at the time when the agency was accused of subjecting conservative groups to additional scrutiny.
Meanwhile, Texas Republican Rep. Steve Stockman took things a step further on Friday, filing a resolution directing the House sergeant-at-arms to arrest Lerner on charges of contempt of Congress.
These orders from the federal judges escalates the stakes significantly...
Congress has limited power to hold witnesses accountable without cooperation from the Department of Justice. Just look at Holder... he's still in contempt. And a Rep. is laughably trying to the House's Sargent at Arms to arrest Lerner.
A federal judge, however, can level contempt charges that can keep uncooperative witnesses in jail, sometimes indefinitely, and perjury in federal court will be a lot more difficult for the DoJ to ignore than perjured testimony before Congress.
They are going to say the same thing they have been saying:
"The hard drive crashed, we couldn't get anything from it, there are no archived copies going back that far, we have tried to restore it, we have found a bunch of emails that were saved by other people, we have provided them, kthanks. I swear under oath that this is what happened, blah blah blah."
And then I will point you back to what a few people tried to tell you many many pages ago about there being zero proof that this is not what happened and more then enough plausible deniability to make sure that nobody ever gets into any trouble.
Jihadin wrote: Saying it for Congressional records and putting your name on a official document before a Federal Court Judge are two different monsters.
Only if there is any proof whatsoever that they did something wrong, which there isn't. We have not seen a single shred of actual factual evivdence that something was done on purpose. None. Nada. Zip. Nothing. Nichts. Zero.
Congress has an easier time punishing anybody for anything so far than any federal court judge with the evidence (zero) that we have. There is more risk saying "you know, we lied to everybody about everything, oops, sorry" than there is in doubling down on a court document. There is nothing that will ever hold up in court saying that they did anything bad on purpose. Not with any of the "evidence" we have seen so far.
I've explained that many many many many pages ago.
Contempt of Congress varies from your understanding of contempt of court....neither fall under nor report to the executive branch. The IRS does. The executive branch has limited power to protect any level of it's minions from either. You can't possibly believe that either Congress or the Court would allow a contempt of their proceedings to go unpunished...especially under the 4 Circuit....yes, we all know that they have has a more liberal shift under the current administration, but we also know they are swinging back to the middle. And the judicial branch is and will always be the "tie breaker" between their sibling branches. No court...not even the 9th Circuit...would allow such a heinous disrespect for their authority to stand... and that disrespect is the prolonged assertion that no wrong was done. We would not be here arguing this, at this time, if wrong was not committed. The court's role is to see at what level the wrong was ordered. And given the salaries of lowly IRS examiners, it is highly unlikely that they chose to endanger themselves and their families willingly in such a systemic manner. The AFGE didn't get together and say "Hey! You know what sounds like an awesome Friday team building practice? raking some organizations over the coals in a manner that could get us all put in prison. GROOVY!" So...continuing to deny there was an issue, not explaining what went wrong or creating a fall person would not be the best path...especially for " same person that is already on all the congressional records saying the exact same thing." No matter what that person's personal political leanings, they would be ignorant to continue on the same path...it leads to ruin.
Jihadin wrote: Contempt of Congress varies from your understanding of contempt of court....neither fall under nor report to the executive branch. The IRS does. The executive branch has limited power to protect any level of it's minions from either. You can't possibly believe that either Congress or the Court would allow a contempt of their proceedings to go unpunished...especially under the 4 Circuit....yes, we all know that they have has a more liberal shift under the current administration, but we also know they are swinging back to the middle. And the judicial branch is and will always be the "tie breaker" between their sibling branches. No court...not even the 9th Circuit...would allow such a heinous disrespect for their authority to stand... and that disrespect is the prolonged assertion that no wrong was done. We would not be here arguing this, at this time, if wrong was not committed. The court's role is to see at what level the wrong was ordered. And given the salaries of lowly IRS examiners, it is highly unlikely that they chose to endanger themselves and their families willingly in such a systemic manner. The AFGE didn't get together and say "Hey! You know what sounds like an awesome Friday team building practice? raking some organizations over the coals in a manner that could get us all put in prison. GROOVY!"
The only way they get contempt of court is if they don't fill out the letter. Which they will do.
The court will decide if a wrong was commited. Which will go something like that:
Court: "IRS, please explain under oath what happened"
IRS: "The hard drive crashed, we did not have any backup copies, we got what he could from other users and provided that to congress."
Court: "Okay. Congress, what evidence do you have that a wrong was committed."
Congress: "We don't have a single shred of evidence. But come on, we all know this is bs."
Court: "To bad that 'we all know it's bs' is not actual evidence. Case dismissed."
So...continuing to deny there was an issue, not explaining what went wrong or creating a fall person would not be the best path...especially for " same person that is already on all the congressional records saying the exact same thing." No matter what that person's personal political leanings, they would be ignorant to continue on the same path...it leads to ruin.
They explained what went wrong. The hard drive crashed, they had no other backups, they got what they could from other people who had personal copies. Sorry.
If anybody had any solid evidence to the contrary they would have come forward by now.
Jihadin wrote: Contempt of Congress varies from your understanding of contempt of court....neither fall under nor report to the executive branch. The IRS does. The executive branch has limited power to protect any level of it's minions from either. You can't possibly believe that either Congress or the Court would allow a contempt of their proceedings to go unpunished...especially under the 4 Circuit....yes, we all know that they have has a more liberal shift under the current administration, but we also know they are swinging back to the middle. And the judicial branch is and will always be the "tie breaker" between their sibling branches. No court...not even the 9th Circuit...would allow such a heinous disrespect for their authority to stand... and that disrespect is the prolonged assertion that no wrong was done. We would not be here arguing this, at this time, if wrong was not committed. The court's role is to see at what level the wrong was ordered. And given the salaries of lowly IRS examiners, it is highly unlikely that they chose to endanger themselves and their families willingly in such a systemic manner. The AFGE didn't get together and say "Hey! You know what sounds like an awesome Friday team building practice? raking some organizations over the coals in a manner that could get us all put in prison. GROOVY!"
The only way they get contempt of court is if they don't fill out the letter. Which they will do.
The court will decide if a wrong was commited. Which will go something like that:
Court: "IRS, please explain under oath what happened"
IRS: "The hard drive crashed, we did not have any backup copies, we got what he could from other users and provided that to congress."
Court: "Okay. Congress, what evidence do you have that a wrong was committed."
Congress: "We don't have a single shred of evidence. But come on, we all know this is bs."
Court: "To bad that 'we all know it's bs' is not actual evidence. Case dismissed."
So...continuing to deny there was an issue, not explaining what went wrong or creating a fall person would not be the best path...especially for " same person that is already on all the congressional records saying the exact same thing." No matter what that person's personal political leanings, they would be ignorant to continue on the same path...it leads to ruin.
They explained what went wrong. The hard drive crashed, they had no other backups, they got what they could from other people who had personal copies. Sorry.
If anybody had any solid evidence to the contrary they would have come forward by now.
whembly wrote: D... the next phase would be for someone from the IRS' IT department, under oath, to describe how their email system is architected.
If it's anywhere close to industry standards... then, they're likely lying through their teeth.
Not a single human being on the entire continent is aware of how the IRS email system is architected? Not a single person on the entire continent hates the IRS enough to let the cat out of the bag? Not a single person on the entire continent is able to produce a single piece of paper that shows that the IRS has already lied?
People hate the IRS. People hate Democrats. People hate Obama. But not a single person anywhere who knows how the system is actually setup has come forward saying "I know how the system works, everything they are saying is bs".
If there is any evidence, we would have already seen it. But we have not.
Knowing that they are full of gak means nothing in any court unless you can prove it. Which we covered multiple times already.
Don't get me wrong, I'm convinced that the IRS folks are full of crap and lying through their teeth.
I just realize that there is nothing that will hold up in any court to hold them accountable once you get past reasonable doubt and plausible deniability.
whembly wrote: D... the next phase would be for someone from the IRS' IT department, under oath, to describe how their email system is architected.
If it's anywhere close to industry standards... then, they're likely lying through their teeth.
Not a single human being on the entire continent is aware of how the IRS email system is architected? Not a single person on the entire continent hates the IRS enough to let the cat out of the bag? Not a single person on the entire continent is able to produce a single piece of paper that shows that the IRS has already lied?
People hate the IRS. People hate Democrats. People hate Obama. But not a single person anywhere who knows how the system is actually setup has come forward saying "I know how the system works, everything they are saying is bs".
If there is any evidence, we would have already seen it. But we have not.
Knowing that they are full of gak means nothing in any court unless you can prove it. Which we covered multiple times already.
Don't get me wrong, I'm convinced that the IRS folks are full of crap and lying through their teeth.
I just realize that there is nothing that will hold up in any court to hold them accountable once you get past reasonable doubt and plausible deniability.
whembly wrote: D... the next phase would be for someone from the IRS' IT department, under oath, to describe how their email system is architected.
If it's anywhere close to industry standards... then, they're likely lying through their teeth.
Not a single human being on the entire continent is aware of how the IRS email system is architected?
There has been reports of ex-contractors who has already spoken on this.
Not a single person on the entire continent hates the IRS enough to let the cat out of the bag?
Irrelevant.
Not a single person on the entire continent is able to produce a single piece of paper that shows that the IRS has already lied?
Huh? Are you even following this? They lied numerous times. Ain't no "low level" employees in Cincy boyo.
People hate the IRS.
They're the boogie man... sure.
People hate Democrats.
Que?
People hate Obama.
Que? He was elected twice dude. o.O
But not a single person anywhere who knows how the system is actually setup has come forward saying "I know how the system works, everything they are saying is bs".
Because they want to keep their job?
If there is any evidence, we would have already seen it. But we have not.
There's enough incriminating evidence to keep asking questions.
Knowing that they are full of gak means nothing in any court unless you can prove it. Which we covered multiple times already.
True. Perjury has an extremely high threshold to courts.
Don't get me wrong, I'm convinced that the IRS folks are full of crap and lying through their teeth.
I just realize that there is nothing that will hold up in any court to hold them accountable once you get past reasonable doubt and plausible deniability.
A federal judge, however, can level contempt charges that can keep uncooperative witnesses in jail, sometimes indefinitely, and perjury in federal court will be a lot more difficult for the DoJ to ignore than perjured testimony before Congress.
This ruling is different as, per the article, the judge is requesting an affidavit from the people who handled Lerner's hard drive when it crashed; as opposed to a signed statement from "appropriate" IRS officials.
In the latter case the IRS will issue a signed statement putting up the same argument they've been making the entire time.
In the former case the court cannot do anything without a subpoena, and the employees being subpoenaed would be well within their rights (and minds) to plead the 5th.
A federal judge, however, can level contempt charges that can keep uncooperative witnesses in jail, sometimes indefinitely, and perjury in federal court will be a lot more difficult for the DoJ to ignore than perjured testimony before Congress.
This ruling is different as, per the article, the judge is requesting an affidavit from the people who handled Lerner's hard drive when it crashed; as opposed to a signed statement from "appropriate" IRS officials.
In the latter case the IRS will issue a signed statement putting up the same argument they've been making the entire time.
In the former case the court cannot do anything without a subpoena, and the employees being subpoenaed would be well within their rights (and minds) to plead the 5th.
An Affidavit is sworn before a Notary Officer
Written Declaration under Oath is sworn before a Federal Govt agent under penalty of perjury under 18 USC 1001, 18 USC 1621
whembly wrote: If it's anywhere close to industry standards... then, they're likely lying through their teeth.
Which we have covered repeatedly saying "No, the federal government isn't anywhere close to industry standards".
Right... but, I have a hard time believing that.
I work in the IT industry and I'm extremely curious how it's all architected. Having that information, that'll provide insight as to whether any restoration is possible.
The Federal Judge gave a verbal order and its on paper. They have to comply with a Court Order. No Subpoena required.
To nondescript parties that may no longer work at the IRS, assuming they ever did. Absent an explicit list of names, which would basically be a series of subpoenas, these people have to do absolutely nothing.
Hell, the court doesn't presently seem to know who the relevant people are. Indeed, they may not even know who they are as they may not have been aware Lerner's drive was the one they were working on.
whembly wrote: If it's anywhere close to industry standards... then, they're likely lying through their teeth.
Which we have covered repeatedly saying "No, the federal government isn't anywhere close to industry standards".
Right... but, I have a hard time believing that.
I work in the IT industry and I'm extremely curious how it's all architected. Having that information, that'll provide insight as to whether any restoration is possible.
Two words should showcase how the architecture is implemented:
Lowest
Bidder
Keep that in mind whenever you think about trying to compare the private sector to the public sector.
The Federal Judge gave a verbal order and its on paper. They have to comply with a Court Order. No Subpoena required.
To nondescript parties that may no longer work at the IRS, assuming they ever did. Absent an explicit list of names, which would basically be a series of subpoenas, these people have to do absolutely nothing.
Hell, the court doesn't presently seem to know who the relevant people are. Indeed, they may not even know who they are as they may not have been aware Lerner's drive was the one they were working on.
Sullivan did not target any parties. He targeted IRS as a whole concerning the lost info
Judge Emmet Sullivan gave the government 30 days, until Aug. 10, to file a declaration signed by “appropriate” IRS officials under oath — sworn to be the truth under penalty of perjury — addressing the lost emails. The judge said the declaration, which should also include ways to recover the emails, will help inform the court about whether there is a need for limited discovery as requested by conservative watchdog Judicial Watch.
Also, we are forgetting
The judge also assigned federal magistrate John Facciola, an expert in e-discovery, to find out if there is another way to retrieve the emails.
whembly wrote: If it's anywhere close to industry standards... then, they're likely lying through their teeth.
Which we have covered repeatedly saying "No, the federal government isn't anywhere close to industry standards".
Right... but, I have a hard time believing that.
I work in the IT industry and I'm extremely curious how it's all architected. Having that information, that'll provide insight as to whether any restoration is possible.
Two words should showcase how the architecture is implemented:
Lowest
Bidder
Keep that in mind whenever you think about trying to compare the private sector to the public sector.
Only in the case of particularly large corporations where the rules of bureaucracy come into play and the pool of bids for a contract is relatively large.
Hmm….maybe Microsoft MSFT +1.52% is to blame for this whole IRS-email thing.
Just last week, “…a second federal judge has now ordered the IRS to explain under oath how the agency lost emails from former division director Lois Lerner, the woman at the heart of the Tea Party targeting scandal. U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton told Obama administration lawyers on Friday he wants to see an affidavit explaining what happened with Lerner’s hard drive. The IRS claims her computer suffered a crash in 2011 that wiped her email records at the time clean.”
Ah-hah! It’s a brilliant ploy. Can’t provide emails requested by the courts? Then just blame the computer guys! The computers crashed. It was a blue screen of death. You know what’s it like with Windows, right? We’ve all had this happen to us before. Who hasn’t had their computer crash? Curse you, Microsoft! This must be your fault! You’ve foiled us again!
I don’t know if the IRS did anything wrong – that’s for the courts to decide. But I do know a little something about information technology. And this is an IT issue. Judges. Lawyers. IRS people. Congressmen. The Media. Everyone’s trying to get to the bottom of the lost emails. But there’s one group of people missing from the conversation: the tech people. I don’t mean the ones who work for the IRS. They’re scrambling, I’m sure. The ones who should be subpoenaed are the ones who work at IT firms, like mine, across the country. They will tell a different story. When we hear that emails were just “lost,” especially in 2011, we scratch our heads in amazement. Ask any IT firm, the clients they serve, or the IT people that work in corporate America: e-mails don’t get “lost.” And frankly, computers don’t really crash very often. That was a great excuse in…oh…1995. But not anymore.
In other words: you can’t blame Microsoft. Nice try.
Let’s assume that Ms. Lerner was using Microsoft Outlook as her email client. Outlook is still the most popular email software around (at least for now). Outlook is a client-side software which means that it’s installed on a desktop computer. It does save data. But it’s reliant on a server-side, email messaging platform in order to send out emails, like Microsoft Exchange or something similar. Sometimes a copy of that email does reside locally. But every IT firm I know who sets up products like Exchange (particularly in these times of cheap storage space) also configures it to save emails on the server as well. This enables the IT staff to administer users’ mailboxes, security, rules and, of course, backup the data. And it enables users to access their email online or from any other device they choose. In today’s corporate environments (and that includes 2011) it’s actually more difficult to setup a server-based email system where emails are NOT centrally saved.
In today’s corporate environments, computers running even older versions of Windows are more portals than desktops. As explained above, emails are almost always by default saved on a central server. Ms. Lerner likely did her document and spreadsheet work (assuming that’s the kind of thing a director actually does) on files that were automatically stored on a server somewhere else too. Even if she was saving this work locally, it’s Network Administration 101 to have these files automatically backed up to another location. Small businesses like mine pay around $25 per month to have all of our files automatically backed up using services like Carbonite or Mozy. I find it hard to believe that backups weren’t taken or stored since 2011 by the IRS’ IT team.
The “computer crashed” story also seems implausible for another reason: computers don’t really “crash” any more. OK, I admit that this may happen once in a while. But I just don’t see this happening at clients like it did many years ago. One reason is that so many of my clients are now using Apple AAPL +1.05% products and Apple products are really well made. But, say what you want about Microsoft, they learn and adapt. And Windows has become a very, very reliable system. Maybe Ms. Lerner’s version of Windows was a very old one but I would have to go back pretty far before Windows XP to find a version of Windows that would crash a hard drive so bad that it couldn’t be recovered. Was it a virus that did this? Something that snuck its way into the IRS’ network? That’s more of a concern to me. Not Windows.
And one other thing: Every accountant (like me) knows that the IRS’ record retention policy ranges from 3-7 years for businesses. We generally use seven years as a rule of thumb for our clients. Imagine me telling an IRS auditor that I couldn’t retrieve the information requested from two years ago (this investigation began in 2013) because my “computer crashed.” Even my smallest clients back things up and have them stored for years – especially server based data stored in their accounting and…yes…email systems. It’s too easy and inexpensive not to do this with today’s services.
So did Ms. Lerner’s computer really crash, wiping out all her data, including emails? That story’s really hard to believe for anyone with an IT background. It’s easy to blame Microsoft for our problems. That used to be a great excuse. But that excuse is getting harder and harder for anyone, even the IRS, to make.
Besides Forbes, Gene Marks writes daily for The New York Times and weekly for Inc. Magazine.
U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton told Obama administration lawyers on Friday he wants to see an affidavit explaining what happened with Lerner’s hard drive. The IRS claims her computer suffered a crash in 2011 that wiped her email records at the time clean.”
Ah-hah! It’s a brilliant ploy. Can’t provide emails requested by the courts? Then just blame the computer guys!
How is this being done? The argument being made is that the relevant data from Lerner's drive could not be recovered; that is not a necessary indictment of the "tech guys".
Ah-hah! It’s a brilliant ploy. Can’t provide emails requested by the courts? Then just blame the computer guys!
How is this being done? The argument being made is that the relevant data from Lerner's drive could not be recovered; that is not a necessary indictment of the "tech guys".
By standing by "the dog ate my hard drive" story, yeah... I'd say it is an indictment of the "tech guys".
Judge Walton's order would hopefully give these "tech guys" a forum to explain what truly happened.
By standing by "the dog ate my hard drive" story, yeah... I'd say it is an indictment of the "tech guys".
How? The fact that data cannot be recovered from a drive according to SOP is not an uncommon occurrence, especially when dealing with drives used by people that don't understand technology (Lerner). So I really don't see how sticking with that story indicts the "tech guys".
Judge Walton's order would hopefully give these "tech guys" a forum to explain what truly happened.
Or hang themselves regarding their careers, assuming they can even be identified or subjected to the order. I mean, if I were in their position I would make myself as small as possible in the course of legal and media proceedings because I would gain absolutely nothing from being significant, and stand to lose a lot.
By standing by "the dog ate my hard drive" story, yeah... I'd say it is an indictment of the "tech guys".
How? The fact that data cannot be recovered from a drive according to SOP is not an uncommon occurrence, especially when dealing with drives used by people that don't understand technology (Lerner). So I really don't see how sticking with that story indicts the "tech guys".
You can forensically recover a crashed hard drive. "Crashed" is the operative word... the "IT geek" in me is asking how did it crash?
Look at this image:
You basically have multiple storage "platters" with mechanical parts. If any of the "mechanical parts" broke... then, the forensic operator can rebuild it.
If the IT department destory'ed her hard drive via what I call the mangler, ie:
Then, yeah... duh, it can't be recovered. However, the department will need to describe how/why it was chosen to be physically destroyed.
Neverthanless... we still need a full accounting how the IRS' email system is architected. It's troubling that we don't know this yet...
Judge Walton's order would hopefully give these "tech guys" a forum to explain what truly happened.
Or hang themselves regarding their careers, assuming they can even be identified or subjected to the order. I mean, if I were in their position I would make myself as small as possible in the course of legal and media proceedings because I would gain absolutely nothing from being significant, and stand to lose a lot.
True... but, Walton's order is required under oath. Those key folks will be identified.
You basically have multiple storage "platters" with mechanical parts. If any of the "mechanical parts" broke... then, the forensic operator can rebuild it.
I know what hard drives look like.
Your comment would only be relevant if the the intact drive, or some of its platters, still could be found and that relevant data could be recovered from them.
whembly wrote: You can forensically recover a crashed hard drive. "Crashed" is the operative word... the "IT geek" in me is asking how did it crash?
Look at this image:
>image snipped<
You basically have multiple storage "platters" with mechanical parts. If any of the "mechanical parts" broke... then, the forensic operator can rebuild it.
If the IT department destory'ed her hard drive via what I call the mangler, ie:
>image snipped<
Then, yeah... duh, it can't be recovered. However, the department will need to describe how/why it was chosen to be physically destroyed.
Neverthanless... we still need a full accounting how the IRS' email system is architected. It's troubling that we don't know this yet...
I was under the impression forensic groups already tried, and failed, to recover data from her crashed hard drive? I'm pretty sure that is stated numerous times throughout this thread.
As to the grinder, which I don't think we've heard either way about yet, I can tell you that it is SOP in the government to destroy physical media (including hard drives, CDs, DVDs and thumb drives, among others) when it can no longer be used, especially if it has at any point held PII information (which Lerner's most certainly would have). So while I can't say IF the drive was destroyed, I can say that it would be absolute SOP to do so. When I was at Anti-Trust, we had a giant shredder truck come around once a month. Loud as all hell when it hits the hard drives.
whembly wrote: You can forensically recover a crashed hard drive. "Crashed" is the operative word... the "IT geek" in me is asking how did it crash?
Look at this image: >image snipped< You basically have multiple storage "platters" with mechanical parts. If any of the "mechanical parts" broke... then, the forensic operator can rebuild it.
If the IT department destory'ed her hard drive via what I call the mangler, ie: >image snipped< Then, yeah... duh, it can't be recovered. However, the department will need to describe how/why it was chosen to be physically destroyed.
Neverthanless... we still need a full accounting how the IRS' email system is architected. It's troubling that we don't know this yet...
I was under the impression forensic groups already tried, and failed, to recover data from her crashed hard drive? I'm pretty sure that is stated numerous times throughout this thread.
Nope... typically, from what I understand, the agency would request that resource from the FBI. (they're one of the best, because they get to have all the cool toys )
As to the grinder, which I don't think we've heard either way about yet, I can tell you that it is SOP in the government to destroy physical media (including hard drives, CDs, DVDs and thumb drives, among others) when it can no longer be used, especially if it has at any point held PII information (which Lerner's most certainly would have). So while I can't say IF the drive was destroyed, I can say that it would be absolute SOP to do so. When I was at Anti-Trust, we had a giant shredder truck come around once a month. Loud as all hell when it hits the hard drives.
I'm pretty sure they said were destroyed, but the current head kinda walked back that statement.
I still don't think we definitively know... yet.
Also, keep in mind that the IRS was being sued by the Isreali non-profit group prior to this event. The SOP, should've been, that these things be saved in case it's needed for discovery.
Lerner was a senior IRS official, not a guy that tried to recover a hard drive.
And, let's be honest, there aren't many people in significant hiring positions that would care enough to remember the name of IT guy X who was sort of involved in the IRS scandal.
Lerner was a senior IRS official, not a guy that tried to recover a hard drive.
And, let's be honest, there aren't many people in significant hiring positions that would care enough to remember the name of IT guy X who was sort of involved in the IRS scandal.
If the IT manager/Email admin pleads the 5th, I guarantee you those names would be remembered.
That those who testified to Congress committed perjury.
That's not a thing which can't presently happen.
But, to entertain you, the absolute worst case scenario for anyone who stood before Congress is for evidence to be produced that supports a perjury case. This does not mean they will be tried for perjury.
If the IT manager/Email admin pleads the 5th, I guarantee you those names would be remembered.
Sure, by people like you, but most people would forget it within the year; much more quickly than the name would be forgotten if a person with either title provided testimony.
I was reading about this on another site. Basically the manufacturer stated that the chances of a hard drive failing in the manner described was 1 in 36 in any given month. The chances that all 7 people in question having their computers fail in the timeframe stated by the defense mean that someone is 340 time more likely to win the lottery, with the powerball number, plus the megamillions number.
cuda1179 wrote: I was reading about this on another site. Basically the manufacturer stated that the chances of a hard drive failing in the manner described was 1 in 36 in any given month. The chances that all 7 people in question having their computers fail in the timeframe stated by the defense mean that someone is 340 time more likely to win the lottery, with the powerball number, plus the megamillions number.
Dammit....some people have all the luck.....wait...
cuda1179 wrote: I was reading about this on another site. Basically the manufacturer stated that the chances of a hard drive failing in the manner described was 1 in 36 in any given month. The chances that all 7 people in question having their computers fail in the timeframe stated by the defense mean that someone is 340 time more likely to win the lottery, with the powerball number, plus the megamillions number.
This is a fascinating example of a lie of omission made by someone technically knowledgeable enough to know that the layman won't have the ability to know this isn't true. Forget for the moment we don't know which manufacturer provided the drives in question, and that the exact rate of failure is a trade secret that that this guy is only 33% likely to know - we don't need to know that.
The chance of any individual drive failing is relatively low regardless of manufacturer, yes. However, that's burying the fact that manufacturers often have bad runs of drives - for example, Seagate recently had a series of drives with a bad firmware that led to failures very early in the bathtub curve unless you flashed the firmware (coincidentally, they were manufactured just before the window in which the alleged crashes occur; though no one knows if the drives in question are Seagates). If you're a very large vendor who buys a great deal of hard drives in bulk, statistically you will have a great deal of hard drives that are all part of a bad batch.
For highest amounts of data security, hard drives can be put together in something called a RAID array. This is a set of drives, 2 or more, that have the data either mirrored or divided up among them, The exact functionality is beyond the scope of this post, but the idea is that if a single hard drive fails, you won't lose data. However, if you have a multiple simultaneous drive failure (2 drives if raid5), you lose it all. As such, most manufacturers of these systems recommend not using drives all made by the same vendor (i.e don't use 5 identical Seagate drives) to avoid having multiple simultaneous drive failures.
Google did a giant survey in 2007 that looked at drive failures in a population of, if I recall, like 25,000 drives and found that the biggest predictor of drive failure is manufacturer, because some just make really lousy hard drives. Unfortunately, they didn't name any specific vendor on this; but they found rates as high as 9% in the drives they own for specific vendors as I recall. If you are a large organization that buys drives in bulk, such as the IRS (or my company) you will definitely see very large batches of bad drives pop up (as I have seen firsthand in my company).
TL;DR the "1 in 36 failure/lottery analogy" is speculation based on zero concrete info pulled out of someone's ass while ignoring data that person certainly knows in order to feed a pre-ordained viewpoint.
Ouze wrote: If you are a large organization that buys drives in bulk, such as the IRS (or my company) you will definitely see very large batches of bad drives pop up (as I have seen firsthand in my company).
We lost about 30 or so power supplies all in the same 2 week period when I worked at ATR. The IT guys were getting a little ... tense when people kept calling.
Ouze wrote: If you are a large organization that buys drives in bulk, such as the IRS (or my company) you will definitely see very large batches of bad drives pop up (as I have seen firsthand in my company).
We lost about 30 or so power supplies all in the same 2 week period when I worked at ATR. The IT guys were getting a little ... tense when people kept calling.
But my brother is a sys-admin and he tells me that a power supply only has a 3% change of failure in the first 5 years so you would have been more likely to win the lottery than losing all those power supplies.
Ouze wrote: If you are a large organization that buys drives in bulk, such as the IRS (or my company) you will definitely see very large batches of bad drives pop up (as I have seen firsthand in my company).
We lost about 30 or so power supplies all in the same 2 week period when I worked at ATR. The IT guys were getting a little ... tense when people kept calling.
But my brother is a sys-admin and he tells me that a power supply only has a 3% change of failure in the first 5 years so you would have been more likely to win the lottery than losing all those power supplies.
Ouze wrote: If you are a large organization that buys drives in bulk, such as the IRS (or my company) you will definitely see very large batches of bad drives pop up (as I have seen firsthand in my company).
We lost about 30 or so power supplies all in the same 2 week period when I worked at ATR. The IT guys were getting a little ... tense when people kept calling.
But my brother is a sys-admin and he tells me that a power supply only has a 3% change of failure in the first 5 years so you would have been more likely to win the lottery than losing all those power supplies.
You just perjured yourself on Dakka my friend
Quick steam, plead the 5th!
If he does, nobody will ever forget the name "steamdragon"
Ouze wrote: If you are a large organization that buys drives in bulk, such as the IRS (or my company) you will definitely see very large batches of bad drives pop up (as I have seen firsthand in my company).
We lost about 30 or so power supplies all in the same 2 week period when I worked at ATR. The IT guys were getting a little ... tense when people kept calling.
But my brother is a sys-admin and he tells me that a power supply only has a 3% change of failure in the first 5 years so you would have been more likely to win the lottery than losing all those power supplies.
No problem bro. Just put on a nice suit, go to court, and swear under oath that you "can't recall selling arms to the Contras ever making that post". If needed, you may repeat that you "can't recall" up to 88 times without being called on it.
Ouze wrote: No problem bro. Just put on a nice suit, go to court, and swear under oath that you "can't recall selling arms to the Contras ever making that post". If needed, you may repeat that you "can't recall" up to 88 times without being called on it.
Didn't think you were around to see that on TV concerning Ollie North
Edit
Something to do with US Hostages
Edit
His suit was the "Brown" dress uniform of Marine Corp
Ouze wrote: If you are a large organization that buys drives in bulk, such as the IRS (or my company) you will definitely see very large batches of bad drives pop up (as I have seen firsthand in my company).
We lost about 30 or so power supplies all in the same 2 week period when I worked at ATR. The IT guys were getting a little ... tense when people kept calling.
But my brother is a sys-admin and he tells me that a power supply only has a 3% change of failure in the first 5 years so you would have been more likely to win the lottery than losing all those power supplies.
You just perjured yourself on Dakka my friend
Quick steam, plead the 5th!
Too late! I'm drowning in subpoenas!
I've already read reports by an electrical engineer, a janitor at an electrical plant, and an old middle school science project telling me everything you could possibly lie about, so no funny business!
Ouze wrote: If you are a large organization that buys drives in bulk, such as the IRS (or my company) you will definitely see very large batches of bad drives pop up (as I have seen firsthand in my company).
We lost about 30 or so power supplies all in the same 2 week period when I worked at ATR. The IT guys were getting a little ... tense when people kept calling.
But my brother is a sys-admin and he tells me that a power supply only has a 3% change of failure in the first 5 years so you would have been more likely to win the lottery than losing all those power supplies.
You just perjured yourself on Dakka my friend
Quick steam, plead the 5th!
Too late! I'm drowning in subpoenas!
I've already read reports by an electrical engineer, a janitor at an electrical plant, and an old middle school science project telling me everything you could possibly lie about, so no funny business!
Dogma was the only one brave enough to answer my question. Had this occured during the GW Bush's Administration, but instead of conservative groups the IRS targeted progressive groups, would you still defend the IRS' actions?
d-usa wrote: If you could show me a single place where I defended the IRS then it would be a question worth answering.
It was more of a general question to the participants of the thread. (honestly, never had a big problem with your posts in this thread).
If I remember, you're in the camp of: gak, they're doing it again, but realistically we can't do anything about it because it's in both party's interest to maintain plausible deniability.
And that's fine... but, the BS is strong here... I mean, fething rancid.
This is IT admin 101. This is my industry.
This is like, in the clinical world, you don't wash your hands prior to caring for your patients. It's that basic D.
I absolutely refuse to believe that the IRS' IT department is ran with the same budget/competencies as your local DMV...
But just because some previous administration have done this (which, by the way, those emails were found and released. And, I would add that it's not an apples-to-apples comparison either) shouldn't grant current/future administrations carte blanche to do the same thing.
Right now, there's two possible outrageous scandal:
1) The IRS was given direction to use their powers to give Conservative Groups a hard time (ala, Nixon)
or...
2) The IRS is so incompetently ran, such that the whole department could potentially be discredited. If tax payers are expected to maintain e-paper trails for 7-10 years, then the IRS (the investigator/enforcer) must abide by those same standards as well.
Dogma was the only one brave enough to answer my question.
What question? You have asked several, and several people have answered them.
whembly wrote: If tax payers are expected to maintain e-paper trails for 7-10 years, then the IRS (the investigator/enforcer) must abide by those same standards as well.
I believe the present scandal regards those organizations that are not required to pay taxes.
...which, by the way, those emails were found and released...
Actually, no, many never were. That was much of the reason for Issa's support for the move away from Lotus Notes.
I was talking about the mass firing of the DAs in the previous administrations. The Bush administration initially didn't release those emails... but, after some time, they were "found".
I was talking about the mass firing of the DAs in the previous administrations. The Bush administration initially didn't release those emails... but, after some time, they were "found".
I know, but data recovery requires time. And there is no reason to believe the Bush Administration released all of the relevant emails.
whembly wrote: Had this occured during the GW Bush's Administration, but instead of conservative groups the IRS targeted progressive groups, would you still defend the IRS' actions?
I would have said the exact same thing I have said here: That while the IRS's explanation is technically possible*, it's also super fishy, it's unlikely but possible that it was a politically motivated cover-up, and the whole affair should be thoroughly investigated.
(*and not, like, how you could technically win the lottery if you buy a ticket).
whembly wrote: Had this occured during the GW Bush's Administration, but instead of conservative groups the IRS targeted progressive groups, would you still defend the IRS' actions?
I would have said the exact same thing I have said here: That while the IRS's explanation is technically possible*, it's also super fishy, it's unlikely but possible that it was a politically motivated cover-up, and the whole affair should be thoroughly investigated.
(*and not, like, how you could technically win the lottery if you buy a ticket).
The head of the IRS confirmed Wednesday that investigators looking into missing emails from ex-agency official Lois Lerner have found and are reviewing "backup tapes" -- despite earlier IRS claims that the tapes had been recycled.
IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, testifying before a House oversight subcommittee, stressed that he does not know "how they found them" or "whether there's anything on them or not." But he said the inspector general's office advised him the investigators are reviewing tapes to see if they contain any "recoverable" material.
The revelation is significant because the IRS claimed, when the agency first told Congress about the missing emails, that backup tapes "no longer exist because they have been recycled."
It is unclear whether the tapes in IG custody contain any Lerner emails, but Koskinen said investigators are now checking.
Republicans on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee first raised questions about the backup tapes on Monday, releasing a partial transcript from an interview with IRS official Thomas Kane. In it, Kane said "there is an issue" as to whether all the backup tapes were destroyed. Asked if they might still exist, he said he didn't know but "it's an issue that's being looked at."
Investigators in Congress and with the inspector general's office want to see those backup tapes because of the possibility they might contain emails that otherwise were lost in Lerner's apparent hard drive crash in 2011. Lerner is the former IRS official at the center of the controversy over agency targeting of conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status -- the agency's acknowledgement last month that years' worth of emails were lost has infuriated GOP investigators.
The so-called backup tapes are considered a last resort option for recovering any missing emails. Though certain federal employees are supposed to store certain communications, the backup tape system was used at the IRS to store such data for a six-month period.
"There are still many unanswered questions," Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said Wednesday.
Several other questions have been raised in recent days over how Lerner's emails disappeared and when the agency learned about it.
The House Ways and Means Committee claimed Tuesday that Lerner's hard drive was only "scratched," but not necessarily damaged beyond repair. Asked about that claim on Wednesday, Koskinen claimed not to know much about that allegation.
"It concerns me," Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., said.
Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers are calling for a special prosecutor to investigate why the IRS delayed telling Congress and the Justice Department that the emails from Lerner disappeared.
According to a transcript from a July 17 interview, Kane told oversight committee investigators that senior leadership in the IRS learned about the apparent hard drive crash in early February. Koskinen, though, did not mention issues with Lerner's emails at a March 26 hearing, or at a subsequent committee staff meeting, according to Republicans.
"You guys sat on the information for several months," Rep. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., said Wednesday.
Koskinen, though, said he was advised in February only that there was a discrepancy in the number of emails turning up from Lerner before 2011 and that there was a "problem" with Lerner's computer. He said the problem was not described to him in any greater detail at the time.
He said they found out about the hard-drive crash in April.
Republicans claim that the new details emerging raise concerns about how forthcoming the agency has been.
"It is unbelievable that we cannot get a simple, straight answer from the IRS about this hard drive," House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich., said in a statement Tuesday.
Democrats, meanwhile, slammed Republicans for continuing to bring Koskinen before the congressional committees.
"This is unseemly, it's embarrassing, this is not a proper way to run an investigation," Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., said.
Man the IRS folks are strangely incurious about the whereabouts of those backup tapes (most likely from their ex-vendor Sonasoft).
dogma wrote: The IRS claimed that the drives no longer existed because they had been recycled, they claimed that the tapes did not exist at all. Sloppy journalism.
Evidently, they found the hard drive and that it was "scratched".
Evidently, they found the hard drive and that it was "scratched".
Jesus wept.
That isn't what the article claims. It claims only that the House Ways and Means Committee claims the drive was merely scratched. It does not cite any direct source which enabled said Committee to reach said conclusion.
Evidently, they found the hard drive and that it was "scratched".
Jesus wept.
That isn't what the article claims. It claims only that the House Ways and Means Committee claims the drive was merely scratched. It does not cite any direct source which enabled said Committee to reach said conclusion.
I'm just pointing out they're still fixated on her hard drive.
What we need is the IRS' Email Admin to submit a description of how their email system is architected. Similar to how Stephen Manning, a top IT official for the IRS explained the hard drive issue.
...
The IRS has stuck by its story that tax-exempt applications by conservatives got slow-rolled because of bureaucratic bungling not because the groups opposed President Obama’s policies. Now the slow drip of email evidence to congressional investigators is casting further doubt on that tale.
In 2009 the Pennsylvania group Z Street applied for tax-exempt status for its mission of educating people about Israel-related issues. In 2010 an IRS agent told Z Street that its application was delayed because the tax agency’s Washington, D.C. office was giving special scrutiny to groups whose missions might conflict with Administration policies. The IRS’s “Be On the Lookout” list that November also included red flags for groups referring to “disputed territories.”
Z Street sued in August 2010 for viewpoint discrimination and its case is headed for discovery in federal court. Emails uncovered by the House Ways and Means Committee show that the IRS and State Department were conferring in 2009 about pro-Israel groups like Z Street and considering arguments to deny their tax-exempt applications.
In an April 16, 2009 email, Treasury attache to the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem Katherine Bauer sent IRS and Treasury colleagues a 1997 JTA News article sent to her by State Department foreign service officer Breeann McCusker. The subject was whether 501(c) groups buying land in Israel’s disputed territories were engaged in “possible violations of U.S. tax laws.” The article chronicles the controversy and whether “ideological activity” can “legally be financed with the help of U.S. [tax] dollars.”
“Thought you might find the below article of interest—looks like we’ve been down this road before,” Ms. Bauer wrote. “Although I believe you’ve said you can’t speak to on-going investigations, I thought it was worth flagging the 1997 investigation mentioned below for you if it can be of any use internally when looking for precedence [sic] for the current cases.” A Treasury spokesman declined comment on Ms. Bauer’s behalf.
The “current cases” would have been applications like Z Street’s in which Israel-related activity was apparently being scrutinized for its ideological and policy content. The government says Z Street got special scrutiny because it was focused in a region with a higher risk of terrorism, which is hard to believe and in any case doesn’t explain all of the IRS’s behavior.
It doesn’t cover, for instance, why one questionnaire we’ve seen from the IRS to another Jewish group applying for tax-exempt status asked, “Does your organization support the existence of the land of Israel?” and “Describe your organization’s religious belief system toward the land of Israel.” No matter the answers, they should not affect the processing of an application for 501(c) status. The State-IRS emails reveal a political motivation for IRS scrutiny that gives Z Street powerful evidence for its suit charging IRS bias.
...
The interesting fact here is that under federal law, a party has a duty to preserve data that may be relevant to any actual or likely lawsuit.
Z Street filed in August of 2010, thus the IRS had a legal duty, at a minimum, to take measures to ensure that no emails, correspondence, memoranda, notes, or other evidence of any sort that could be relevant to the case was lost or destroyed. So, when Lerner’s hard drive crashed TEN MONTHS AFTER the Z Street started, the IRS made no effort to preserve it, but rather, by its own account, recycled the hard drive & server's backup tapes in a business-as-usual manner.
We'll hear more of this in the next couple of weeks. Stay tuned...
whembly wrote: So, when Lerner’s hard drive crashed TEN MONTHS AFTER the Z Street started, the IRS made no effort to preserve it, but rather, by its own account, recycled the hard drive & server's backup tapes in a business-as-usual manner.
Hasn't this bullcrap been dispelled several times over? It's been posted several times, in articles in this thread, that the IRS sent the drive to a forensic recovery group who determined that data could not be retrieved. Has there been some massive revelation that this attempt at data recovery was a lie or something that I missed?
whembly wrote: So, when Lerner’s hard drive crashed TEN MONTHS AFTER the Z Street started, the IRS made no effort to preserve it, but rather, by its own account, recycled the hard drive & server's backup tapes in a business-as-usual manner.
Hasn't this bullcrap been dispelled several times over? It's been posted several times, in articles in this thread, that the IRS sent the drive to a forensic recovery group who determined that data could not be retrieved. Has there been some massive revelation that this attempt at data recovery was a lie or something that I missed?
Well... the House's Means & Ways committee suggests otherwise.
Also, the IRS has yet to provide the paper trail (Service Tickets / Invoices) that had occured.
So, no... it hasn't been dispelled.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: The data recovery service was in Benghazi, Libya.
Evidently... because that's where they want the truth buried.
Man, I would love to go to the UK. I'd go to Warhammer World, and have bangers & mash, and maybe even toad in the hole, and go to the Tower of London... but I'd still rather Australia first.
Ouze wrote: Man, I would love to go to the UK. I'd go to Warhammer World, and have bangers & mash, and maybe even toad in the hole, and go to the Tower of London... but I'd still rather Australia first.
That just means she's stupid, like lots of other people that use their work email accounts for personal correspondence.
Ouze wrote: Man, I would love to go to the UK. I'd go to Warhammer World, and have bangers & mash, and maybe even toad in the hole, and go to the Tower of London... but I'd still rather Australia first.
Australia's beaches are pretty damn awesome due to the epic views.
Given the amount of censoring in that email release, that's obvious.
Also it has been obvious from the beginning. But, you know, this is basically a witch hunt designed to rope in conservatives. And one which most relevant conservative Congressmen are now pot-committed to.
Jihadin wrote: Would have been better witch hunt if Jay Carney and Obama not inserted themselves into situation
Not really, after the IRS admission some GOP politician was guaranteed to latch onto it as a means of gaining clout. Predictably it was Issa, because he needed to clear his own tax issues.
It's actually pretty surprising how big a deal it HASNT been here in Cincinnati. I thought it would have been a major talking point for the KY Election especially, but it doesn't seem to be.
Jihadin wrote: Would have been better witch hunt if Jay Carney and Obama not inserted themselves into situation
Not really, after the IRS admission some GOP politician was guaranteed to latch onto it as a means of gaining clout. Predictably it was Issa, because he needed to clear his own tax issues.
True. Since I am firm believer of setting one up for failure I would not have said a word but "Its under investigation so we cannot comment." and let the Republicans hang themselves by their own rope.
cincydooley wrote: It's actually pretty surprising how big a deal it HASNT been here in Cincinnati. I thought it would have been a major talking point for the KY Election especially, but it doesn't seem to be.
Its basically just a national thing. Which makes sense given that its a national organization with national scope, basically leaving out local politics.
True. Since I am firm believer of setting one up for failure I would not have said a word but "Its under investigation so we cannot comment." and let the Republicans hang themselves by their own rope.
cincydooley wrote: It's actually pretty surprising how big a deal it HASNT been here in Cincinnati. I thought it would have been a major talking point for the KY Election especially, but it doesn't seem to be.
Its basically just a national thing. Which makes sense given that its a national organization with national scope, basically leaving out local politics.
The Ky campaigns between McConnell and Grimes has been pretty.... Muddy so far, so I am a bit surprised I haven't seen any reference to this in any of their ads thusfar.
The Ky campaigns between McConnell and Grimes has been pretty.... Muddy so far, so I am a bit surprised I haven't seen any reference to this in any of their ads thusfar.
"right-wingers are donkey-caves"
"whacko wing of the GOP"
"crazies that will take us down"
and so forth...
Is it bad that I agree with every one of those?
Nah.. but you don't work for the Government... right?
None of those are any indication of illegal targeting or wrong doing though.
But we could go back a couple of pages where people were taking the "remember guys, everything is a public record" memo to indicate that it was an instruction to keep discussion of the evil master plan to break the laws out of the emails and I talked about the likelihood of it being a reminder that the "crazies that will take us down" are going to read that you called them donkey-caves and crazies...
So the House has not done anything legitimate since Obama has taken office and the Republicans gained the majority since they have at least a smidgen of bias against him?
It's telling that the media is having a hard time dismissing this.
No it isn't, its controversial and controversy sells. That's not really a complicated thing.
You're missing the point.The name calling and whatnot is not the issue, it's her persecution of groups is the problem. Her so called "not so professional" emails is simply a mirror into her mind(or lack thereof ) and a confirmation of her likely abuse of her position and violation of trust in
singling out groups that she obviously hates.
Hence her actions to plead the 5th.
All of this is ridiculously controversial, but those media outlet definitely tried to bury it by labeling the Republican/Conservatives are at fault.
You're missing the point.The name calling and whatnot is not the issue, it's her persecution of groups is the problem. Her so called "not so professional" emails is simply a mirror into her mind(or lack thereof ) and a confirmation of her likely abuse of her position and violation of trust in
singling out groups that she obviously hates.
Hence her actions to plead the 5th.
All of this is ridiculously controversial, but those media outlet definitely tried to bury it by labeling the Republican/Conservatives are at fault.
So here is our standard answer to any question about Republican actions against the ACA, about Benghazi, about the IRS, etc etc etc:
You're missing the point.The name calling and whatnot is not the issue, it's their persecution of Obama is the problem. Their so called "not so professional" comments are simply a mirror into their minds(or lack thereof ) and a confirmation of their likely abuse of their positions and violation of trust in
singling out a President that they obviously hate.
All of this is ridiculously controversial, but those blogs definitely tried to bury it by labeling the President at fault
Because according to you, if you don't like somebody and are on record as not liking somebody then nothing you ever do could possibly be legitimate.
You're missing the point.The name calling and whatnot is not the issue, it's her persecution of groups is the problem.
How is that a problem? People in government and corporate positions bitch about certain sorts of clients all the time, but that doesn't mean they are unprofessional when carrying out their duties.
If this was a Republican administration, do you really believe media outlets would choose to report crazies over donkey-caves? If you do, I have a healthcare plan I’d like to sell you. Don’t worry, you can totally keep your doctor. Totally.
One cannot favor or disfavor either party in capacity of her job. She portrayed a negative perception towards conservative groups which seems to have carried over into her professionalism needed for the job
The IRS, the President, and his No. 1 Muse: Kathryn Ruemmler
The president’s longest serving White House counsel, Kathryn Ruemmler, was, until her sudden departure for Latham & Watkins, “a regular presence in the Situation Room and the Oval Office, making legal judgments and helping coach other senior officials on how to discuss them publicly,” according to the Washington Post. Our first article, “All The President’s Muses,” described Ms. Reummler’s outsized role in the aftermath of the Benghazi tragedy. It’s undisputed she starred in the president’s expansive use of executive powers, increased secrecy and recent Supreme Court reversals.
With the near daily revelations from the IRS, the question becomes, what exactly might Ms. Ruemmler know?
The Inspector General of the Treasury confirmed that the IRS targeted the president’s political opposition with audits, harassment and denials of tax-exempt status. Patrick Howley reported from congressional hearings that even more IRS computers surrounding Lois Lerner and the White House had crashed. Now the IRS is claiming that the number is greater than seven (the prior count) but fewer than 20. There may be emails on back-up devices, but the IRS still claims it isn’t sure.
The burning question is: have they looked in the White House?
We know that “when the House Energy and Commerce Committee subpoenaed the White House for documents relating to the almost $400 million in taxpayer money lost on Solyndra, White House counsel Kathryn Ruemmler refused, writing: ‘The committee’s extremely broad request for documents—now a subpoena—is a significant intrusion on executive branch interests.’ Ruemmler added that the investigation ‘was driven more by partisan politics than a legitimate effort to conduct a responsible investigation.’” Ironically, if ever there was an expert in partisan politics, it’s Kathryn Ruemmler, who also served in the Clinton White House.
The Washington Post reported that Ms. Ruemmler was “very deliberate” and “a fierce opponent of public disclosures that could expose communications within the executive branch, especially those between the president and his advisers.” Ms. Ruemmler’s intense protection became “the focus of growing criticism of the White House’s insular and often secretive posture.” Simple logic dictates that Ms. Ruemmler’s “fierce” protection and President Obama’s promised “transparency” are mutually exclusive.
Ms. Ruemmler’s recent midnight departure from the White House left her actions largely unscrutinized. Yet, she was squarely in the middle of the IRS controversy from the very beginning. As she told the Wall Street Journal, “The White House really sees everything, and you touch everything.”
As White House counsel, Ms. Ruemmler led the president in all federal appointments. Her fingerprints are all over the president’s attempt to appoint Mary Smith, a colleague from Ms. Ruemmler’s days in President Clinton’s Counsel’s office, to head the powerful Tax Division of the Department of Justice. Senator Grassley blocked that confirmation, leaving the White House “very upset.” In response, Lois Lerner suggested auditing Senator Grassley.
Not long ago, the president said he knew nothing about the IRS target-hunting. Roger Aronoff reported that both the White House Chief of Staff and White House Counsel Ms. Ruemmler knew about the targeting of conservative groups at least a month before (the now infamous) Ms. Lerner “planted a question” regarding the IRS’ abusive actions. “President Obama later claimed on national television that in terms of the IRS scandal, there wasn’t a ‘smidgeon of corruption’ in his administration, and blamed the whole episode on ‘bone-headed decisions’ of bureaucrats.”
Ms. Ruemmler claimed she did not tell the president—prompting even some Democrats, including Lanny Davis, a prominent Democratic crisis manager, to call for her resignation more than a year ago. Yet, she remained safely in place.
“Either Ruemmler was incredibly incompetent or the White House is lying about when Obama knew of the scandal,” writes Ed Morrissey at Hot Air. “We got a big hint . . . when Obama changed the context of a question about his awareness of the scandal to his awareness of the IG report, which is pointedly not the same thing.” Or, perhaps Mr. Obama was simply on the 17th at Pebble Beach and couldn’t be reached.
Soon we learned that it wasn’t just Cincinnati bureaucrats who had targeted the president’s political opponents with IRS terror tactics. The effort was directed from D.C. Next came the revelation of substantial foot traffic (155 visits) from IRS official Sarah Hall Ingram, who oversaw tax-exempt organizations, to the White House from 2009-12, when she left to oversee IRS implementation of Obamacare—another of Ms. Ruemmler’s projects.
In an incredible stroke of luck, the emails on multiple computers that might reveal IRS agents’ communications with the White House were precisely the ones that mysteriously disappeared.
That lucky streak continued when by mere happenstance Ms. Ruemmler left the White House shortly before IRS Commissioner Koskinen was forced to admit that thousands of emails between Ms. Lerner, the White House and others were “missing.” At least now we know why the president so frequently visits Las Vegas.
Ms. Ruemmler has buried evidence before. It took counsel for Merrill Lynch defendants six years to find evidence that she had hidden when she prosecuted four Merrill executives—and then it was only produced accidentally by the third team of Department lawyers assigned to the case. The long-hidden evidence also proved that the “disclosure letter” Ms. Ruemmler signed to defense counsel was false and misleading.
In a later appeal, the Fifth Circuit held that Ms. Ruemmler and her team “plainly suppressed” evidence favorable to the defense. That finding establishes a clear violation of the ethical rule for federal prosecutors (Rule 3.8)–not to mention the Supreme Court’s admonition that the United States Attorney should “seek justice.”
If Magistrate Judge John Facciola, appointed by Judge Emmet Sullivan to “assist the parties” in finding the missing IRS emails from other sources, or if a special prosecutor is appointed to conduct a real investigation as Judge Sullivan ordered in the Ted Stevens case, Ms. Ruemmler’s history, and her knowledge of the IRS scandal, could lead to many questions.
Ms. Ruemmler wouldn’t be the first White House counsel to be forced to take the witness stand or participate in a cover-up. Anyone remember John Dean?
These IRS emails are today’s White House Watergate tapes. Who and how many people in the White House were recipients or senders? Surely, their computers haven’t crashed, too. How could 155 visits by a key IRS agent be missed by White House Counsel—the president’s fiercest protector?
So what did Ms. Ruemmler know and when did she know it?
We should probably check the White House emails to see if Obama ordered that the servers be destroyed so that Republicans can't talk to each other...
Snarkyness aside... you do bring up an oblique point...
I think we need to convene a Special Prosecutor to get to the bottom of this.
But, Republicans in general probably don't want one (even though they're giving lip-service to it), because if we truly do get a special prosecutor, then the Republican wouldn't be able to stage all those committee hearings and doing the "hey, look at me! I'm tough in the face of Obama's IRS scandal!!!!" for their constituents.
Alternatively, they don't believe the prosecutor would find anything. Something which is, in my opinion, the most likely scenario.
whembly wrote: ...then the Republican wouldn't be able to stage all those committee hearings and doing the "hey, look at me! I'm tough in the face of Obama's IRS scandal!!!!" for their constituents.
Are you joking? They could, and would, still be able to do that; even if it didn't involve committee hearings.
Sounds like a witch hunt with more than a smidgen of grandstanding. The speaker even definitively refused to explain the connection between his analogy, opening statements, and the larger issues regarding Lerner.
"I want us to analyze when there is a potential appearance of a conflict."
No, Mr. Gowdy, you want to grandstand while browbeating a witness. Double points for using the word "bastard" and talking over the witness.
Twenty different Obama administration officials have lost or destroyed a portion of their email traffic. Email traffic that was, in some cases, under subpoena or in others requested as part of a larger inquiry into the conduct of the executive branch.
House Committee on Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) expressed his frustration at the revelation that another Obama official, Marilyn Tavenner, the director of the Center for Medicare Services, deleted emails in the wake of the botched Healthcare.gov website roll out, stating, "It defies logic that so many senior Administration officials were found to have ignored federal recordkeeping requirements only after Congress asked to see their e-mails [sic]."
Yes, Rep. Issa, it does defy logic.
The brazenly contemptuous stonewall-and-erase-evidence approach to congressional inquiries preferred by the Obama administration is perhaps this president's greatest affront to our constitutional system of government.
When you have records going missing across an administration, it is impossible to conclude anything other than it is a coordinated and condoned cover-up, and not just a series of incompetent, coincidental keystrokes wiping out information.
The conclusions get even uglier when you realize that the IRS dismissed the government contractor responsible for maintaining back-up files of their emails concurrent with Lois Lerner and her band mysteriously having their computers flatline.
The question is, where are the Democrats in the face of this obvious malfeasance?
During the Watergate scandal that brought down the presidency of Richard Nixon, a few Republicans came forward and urged the president to come clean. Yet, the silence is deafening from Democrats in both the House and Senate in the wake of this obvious obstruction of the congressional oversight function.
Where are the patriots on the Democratic side, who are willing to stand up to an executive branch that has declared them inconsequential?
The Democrats' partisan acquiescence to Obama's declaration of war against congressional prerogatives sets the precedent that future presidents can hardly be faulted for following. A precedent that makes a mockery of the legislative branch and brings into question why we bother even providing office space for Congress at all?
With 20 Obama officials from all over the government losing critical emails, one wonders what, if any, is the threshold for Democratic outrage?
When are the Democratic Party and their elected officials going to put our nation ahead of partisanship?
If the past few years are any indication, I'm not holding my breath.
But hey... you're buying the whole "Most Transparent Administration Ever™" schtick... eh?
Not really.
I think we are just buying the whole "whembly really really really hates Obama so everything that happens while Obama is president is pure intentional malicious evilness because Obama" schtick
But hey... you're buying the whole "Most Transparent Administration Ever™" schtick... eh?
Not really.
I think we are just buying the whole "whembly really really really hates Obama so everything that happens while Obama is president is pure intentional malicious evilness because Obama" schtick
Whatever man.
I did give Prez Obama kudos for authorize air strikes / humanitarian in northern Iraq.
Now, lets see if the administration goes back to Congress to continue this effort under the War Powers Act™ within 60 days.
When you have a propensity and a reputation for beating dead horses it doesn't really behoove you to also get sensitive about people recognizing the pattern.
When you have a propensity and a reputation for beating dead horses it doesn't really behoove you to also get sensitive about people recognizing the pattern.
Can only let the horse lead you to water but not lead the horse to "something something something"
When you have a propensity and a reputation for beating dead horses it doesn't really behoove you to also get sensitive about people recognizing the pattern.
Depends on whether the issue is dead or not... eh?
*sigh*
A rant is coming...
It just seems like that the idea that Republicans are just going to "politicize" these *lost* emails from 20 different government employees... that it's fair to lie and say they've been lost, or to violate the federal records-keeping act and delete them shortly after their writing, to insure they never fall into enemy hands.
Here's the thing... the Republicans ARE going to politicize the emails.
That's the whole fething point.
Isn't that what happens in an actual democracy with competing parties vying for public affection?
Isn't that what happened during the Iraq/Afghanistan wars during the Bush years?
Abu Gharib? Clinton's Perjury? Iran-Contra? Even... fething Watergate?
This is the only thing that keeps either party within a fething parsec of good behavior, is the understanding that if you deceive the public, or act with gross incompetence, that behavior is going to be politicized and used against you.
That's what freedom of the press gives us... and that's why I've always spazz over the old-school medias favorable reporting on Democrat-anything.
Besides the obvious public policy effects, there is of course a more tangible reason why records should be retained and, when subpeonaed by Congress, disclosed to that body:
It's. The. Law.
D'uh!
If the party I oppose shows perfect contempt for following the law when it sees a political advantage in doing so, why should I not support the same law-breaking actions when the party I supportdecides it might find some advantage in doing so?
Is that what we want?
feth no.
This is what I mean that this current administration is setting dangerous precedents.
I'm of the belief that if Obama unilaterally grants Amnesty to all illegals... then, feth it... I want my turn.
Imagine a Republican President permanently granting PPACA waivers...
Imagine a Republican President takes Bush's old idea and privatize Social Security...
Imagine a Republican President orders the IRS to not collect certain taxes...
Prosecutorial discretion is a thing ya know.
All because you could argue that Congress ain't doing gak about it, so it falls onto the President schtock.
So who's unreasonable here? The Republicans? Who lawfully demand the evidence in order to mount legal criticism against this Administration... or the Democrats and their bureaucratic supporters who illegally refuse to do so?
The Converse of that is if the party pushes it too hard... then, the public can rectify it by voting for the other guy.
So... when crazy whembly is bitching about this... it's out of concerns for the precedence that this administration may build that subverts the will of Congress.
But, if you want to dismiss me as a looney... meh, go ahead.
But if you're willing to have a debate... let's have at it!
Lerner was a cog in this administration... so, "this administration".
I'm pretty sure its just Lois Lerner with a dash of the IRS. To the extent that it is the Administration the matter is nothing more than grandstanding.
No, there isn't too much data to analyze. If you believe that, then you're a gak data analyst.
That's the WHOLE fething POINT of these investigation.
Don't you find it odd... that maybe even a little more than a smidgen of corruption, that about 20 employees across multiple departments lost their emails. Emails that were subjects to actual investigations?
That's the WHOLE fething POINT of these investigation.
Well, no, the point of these investigations is now justifying the investigations themselves as numerous Congressmen and Senators have hitched their carts to them, but don't want to make any proactive changes to 501(c).
At any rate, if there is too much data to analyze, why even investigate?
Don't you find it odd... that maybe even a little more than a smidgen of corruption, that about 20 employees across multiple departments lost their emails. Emails that were subjects to actual investigations?
Investigations which occurred long after the emails were sent or received, so no.
jamesk1973 wrote: So...if it reflects badly on the Democrats and this administration it is grandstanding.
No, its grandstanding because its grandstanding. If there was any real desire to effect change legislation would have been put forward altering 501(c), instead we see Congress chasing Lois Lerner.
On July 10, D.C. federal judge Emmet Sullivan gave the IRS thirty days to provide him sworn declarations in the Freedom of Information Act suit filed by Judicial Watch, seeking much of the same information the IRS has effectively kept from Congress. After an “extraordinary” hearing, Judge Sullivan ordered the IRS to tell him under oath exactly what happened to Lois Lerner’s hard drive. He demanded sworn declarations specifying what the agency had done to recover the thousands of emails missing. Time’s up.
The IRS filed its “declarations” yesterday. As an attorney who has read the filings and who has written extensively about this dedicated judge in my book Licensed To Lie, I could not in good conscience sign those filings. It’s not that they are false. Oh no, . . .each is very carefully worded to be literally true (hence, not perjurious). But, each says little, answers less, and reveals nothing that would actually lead to recovery of the emails or to anyone’s accountability for their disappearance in any form. In fact, the few pages say less than has already been revealed elsewhere.
Judge Sullivan may be quite impressed with IRS declarations—but not favorably. He’s the kind of judge who expects forthrightness and good faith, along with truth from the government. He wants to know what every citizen who gave any thought to the issues would want to know—real answers. Those emails have not disappeared. Remember, Emmett Sullivan is the no-nonsense and gutsy judge who held DOJ lawyers in contempt for their gamesmanship. He later named an independent special prosecutor of his own choosing to investigate the Department upon discovery that it had hidden evidence favorable to the defense in its corrupt prosecution of US Senator Ted Stevens.
Judge Sullivan knows better than to trust the government’s blanket, bald, and rote denials of wrongdoing and the existence of evidence. He’s seen the difference between an internal investigation’s results and the fresh report of an independent prosecutor who has neither a job, nor power, nor a personal or political agenda to protect.
While Judge Sullivan might appreciate the details of the tests IRS technicians ran on Lois Lerner’s laptop, like us, he will probably have more questions than ever upon reading the IRS’s flaccid verbiage.
Who among us doesn’t receive and send emails from more than one device—each of which often has a different server? Did Lois Lerner have a desktop computer? Did she have any other device on which she could or did receive office emails? Did she have a Blackberry, a smartphone, an iPad or other similar devices? Where are those now and what servers did each use?
As AIM reported earlier, an American Center for Law and Justice complaint cites Lerner—and her comrades Douglas Shulman, Sarah Hall Ingram, Nikole Flax and Judith Kindell—for “repeatedly us[ing] nonofficial, unsecure, personal email accounts to conduct official IRS business, including sending tax return information and official classified documents to non-agency email addresses. . ..” Did their home computers crash too?
And what about Sara Hall Ingram, who was Commissioner of the tax-exempt section of IRS from 2009 to 2012? She made 165 trips to the White House . . . then was promoted to head the IRS division managing Obamacare. Clearly, since the IRS’s competence in record retention is so stunning, it should be entrusted with the nation’s healthcare. Was that promotion payback for Hall’s and Lerner’s work targeting political opposition to the president and illegally sharing taxpayer information with the White House?
Speaking of the White House, who among the staff there received emails from Lerner, Hall, and friends? It’s already been disclosed that Hall was talking with the White House about lawsuits attacking the controversial contraceptive mandate in Obamacare—the recent Supreme Court reversal in Hobby Lobby poking yet another hole in the incomprehensible legislation.
Like many of us, Judge Sullivan just might have already read that Deputy Associate Chief Counsel of the IRS, Thomas Kane, admitted to Congress on July 21 that the number of hard drive crashes had not only expanded from one (Lerner’s) to seven, but had risen to just fewer than twenty; and, there might be copies of the emails on back up devices, but they weren’t sure yet. How long does that take? It’s been weeks—actually years.
Yesterday’s declarations mention nothing of these facts. Apparently, Mr. Kane, who is not even in the Treasury’s Office of the Inspector General, but rather, has coordinated the IRS’s painful and pathetic “response” to multiple Congressional inquiries, believes that his superficial representations are all that Judge Sullivan should need.
Mr. Kane obviously hasn’t read Licensed to Lie. Judge Sullivan won’t be fooled again by a “just-trust-us” internal investigation—especially when Mr. Kane and his colleagues provided no details and no timeline. Of course, the IRS says it will give Judicial Watch the documents that it has already found—after it reviews them. No IRS official has even asserted to Judge Sullivan that he was trying to find the emails elsewhere.
And someone in the IRS recommended that Lerner’s hard drive be given to an outside technician to retrieve the emails, but instead, it was destroyed. Who made that recommendation? Who over-rode it? Who authorized the destruction of a hard drive containing evidence of correspondence with the White House? How would that excuse work for a taxpayer’s records? Oooops, sorry. That’s a felony.
When these few pages of declarations were written, Mr. Kane must have forgotten that Defendant Lerner alone “accumulated more than 1,600 pages of emails and documents related to official IRS business in a nonofficial, unsecure, personal email account, including almost 30 pages of confidential taxpayer information.”
What about her “personal” email accounts, other devices, the multiple devices of others—not to mention the servers? That’s right—no declaration mentioned the servers. Yet, everyone knows emails reside on servers, and there had to have been multiple servers.
It looks like Magistrate Judge John Facciola, who has expertise in electronic discovery, will indeed have to provide substantial assistance to the parties to locate the emails and perhaps issue some subpoenas to have devices brought into court, get data from servers, or open discovery for depositions. The parties have until September 24 [whembly: Remember this date kids! ] to resolve it with the Magistrate’s help.
The IRS claims it has found about 24,000 of Lerner’s emails on the computers of others. Why weren’t hard copies retained as was required by the Federal Records Act? Whose computers in the White House have been checked? Did they all crash at the same time too—just losing the emails with the IRS?
There are far more questions than answers from the IRS declarations. And law-abiding citizens want to know.
The only thing these miserly declarations prove is that IRS has abdicated all responsibility and has no interest in finding the emails. But Judge Emmet Sullivan does.
Sidney Powell worked in the Department of Justice for 10 years and was lead counsel in more than 500 federal appeals. She served nine U.S. Attorneys from both political parties and is the author of Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice.
That free commercial for his book was an entertaining read.
Of course something that you should take to heart while you swoon over every word ushered by the investigators:
"Judge Sullivan knows better than to trust the government’s blanket, bald, and rote denials of wrongdoing and the existence of evidence. He’s seen the difference between an internal investigation’s results and the fresh report of an independent prosecutor who has neither a job, nor power, nor a personal or political agenda to protect."
We could have appointed an independent prosecutor a long long long long time ago. But some people in congress have a job, power, and personal and political agendas to protect...
Of course something that you should take to heart while you swoon over every word ushered by the investigators:
"Judge Sullivan knows better than to trust the government’s blanket, bald, and rote denials of wrongdoing and the existence of evidence. He’s seen the difference between an internal investigation’s results and the fresh report of an independent prosecutor who has neither a job, nor power, nor a personal or political agenda to protect."
We could have appointed an independent prosecutor a long long long long time ago. But some people in congress have a job, power, and personal and political agendas to protect...
Well, no, its because she's obnoxious, opinionated, and trying to sell a book. She makes no effort, at all, to analyze the facts of the case and simply proceeds on the assumption that the IT personnel working for the IRS are lying; without actually saying as much.
Well, no, its because she's obnoxious, opinionated, and trying to sell a book. She makes no effort, at all, to analyze the facts of the case and simply proceeds on the assumption that the IT personnel working for the IRS are lying; without actually saying as much.
Lazy analysis, and lazier journalism.
Dontcha know? She's Bootstrapp'n™!!
The thing you keep missing is that Judge Sullivan is a bulldog in getting the answers.
...
MINUTE ORDER. In light of [26] the Declarations filed by the IRS, the IRS is hereby ORDERED to file a sworn Declaration, by an official with the authority to speak under oath for the Agency, by no later than August 22, 2014.
In this Declaration, the IRS must:
(1) provide information about its efforts, if any, to recover missing Lois Lerner emails from alternate sources (i.e., Blackberry, iPhone, iPad);
(2) provide additional information explaining the IRS’s policy of tracking inventory through use of bar code property tags, including whether component parts, such as hard drives, receive a bar code tag when serviced. If individual components do not receive a bar code tag, provide information on how the IRS tracks component parts, such as hard drives, when being serviced;
(3) provide information about the IRS’s policy to degauss hard drives, including whether the IRS records whose hard drive is degaussed, either by tracking the employee’s name or the particular machine with which the hard drive was associated; and
(4) provide information about the outside vendor who can verify the IRS’s destruction policies concerning hard drives.
...
Seems like either Judge Sullivan is pretty convinced the IRS has these answers and/or Sullivan iss getting angry over the IRS’ intransigence and opacity in dealing with the court.
I stole this off of twitter, but...let me just say that my antennae go up when I hear someone telling me what didn't happen, without actually telling me what did happen.
dogma wrote: And what does Justice Sullivan intend to do if the emails are not produced? Or if there were no efforts made to recover data from alternative devices?
...
U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan, who presided over the trial, held a hearing on February 13, 2009, at which he held the prosecution in contempt for failing to turn over documents to Stevens’s defense. He ordered a special investigation of the case.
It was later discovered that the prosecution failed to disclose an interview with Allen, and the prosecution knowingly allowed Allen to contradict what he had said in the interview and lie under oath at the trial.
...
My guess is "nothing" as he has no standing to file civil charges, and criminal charges related to any form of disclosure seemingly have no grounds. Moreover, a judge simply claiming to lack satisfaction does not invalidate the response to an order.
Whether IRS / EPA and HHS email were deleted by accident or intentionally, the fact that they were lost should be a call to action.
If that kind of sloppiness regarding subpoenaeddocuments is occurring, there should be serious concerns.
It's the idea that we must emphasis that many of these documents, belong to the public. Federal officials are entrusted with preserving them BY LAW and that they do not own them.
In many private sector circumstances, those who "lost" or failed to preserve required docs would likely face serious consequences. Not "retraining" like some government officials are pushing.
Federal officials are entrusted with preserving them BY LAW and that they do not own them.
Yeah, that's completely false. Emails sent in an official capacity are the property of the organization under which the individual is acting, with their data policies governing whether or not they are retained and for how long in the case that they are. This is not necessarily a matter of law, merely a matter of policy.
In many private sector circumstances, those who "lost" or failed to preserve required docs would likely face serious consequences. Not "retraining" like some government officials are pushing.
Ok, but this isn't the private sector. And, as stated up thread, the Lerner emails were not necessarily documents which required preservation.
If that kind of sloppiness regarding subpoenaeddocuments is occurring, there should be serious concerns.
Sure, but the solution isn't chasing Lois Lerner, or any IRS employee for that matter. Doing so is mere grandstanding, as I've said
Really? This is a very casual dismissal of a system your democrats set up in the 1970's.
Remember Watergate?
Remember hidden/destroyed tapes that lead all the way back to then President Nixon?
Your saying that we shouldn't go after Lerner and Obama is like saying we should not have gone after E. Howard Hunt, G. Gordon Liddy and then POTUS Richard M. Nixon.
The IRS's SUPPRESSION/VIOLATION of a certain political group through possible direction from the White House is very much a same situation of where then standing President Nixon was suspected to have misused government resources in order to exact damage upon a political rival group. And once the illegal activities are exposed, there is a concerted effort to hide/destroy the evidence after it was subpoenaed.
This is why most moderates no longer trust the current president or his party. The whole thing stinks of hypocrisy.
Your saying that we shouldn't go after Lerner and Obama is like saying we should not have gone after E. Howard Hunt, G. Gordon Liddy and then POTUS Richard M. Nixon.
Hunt and Liddy explicitly broke the law, it does not appear that Lerner did the same. Further, it does not seem that Obama committed an impeachable offense, unlike President Nixon who was almost certainly guilty of conspiracy.
The IRS's SUPPRESSION/VIOLATION of a certain political group through possible direction from the White House is very much a same situation of where then standing President Nixon was suspected to have misused government resources in order to exact damage upon a political rival group.
ff
No, it really isn't. Watergate involved burglary and an actual conspiracy, neither of which are evident here.
Your saying that we shouldn't go after Lerner and Obama is like saying we should not have gone after E. Howard Hunt, G. Gordon Liddy and then POTUS Richard M. Nixon.
Hunt and Liddy explicitly broke the law, it does not appear that Lerner did the same. Further, it does not seem that Obama committed an impeachable offense, unlike President Nixon who was almost certainly guilty of conspiracy.
The IRS's SUPPRESSION/VIOLATION of a certain political group through possible direction from the White House is very much a same situation of where then standing President Nixon was suspected to have misused government resources in order to exact damage upon a political rival group.
ff
No, it really isn't. Watergate involved burglary and an actual conspiracy, neither of which are evident here.
Only reason they were able to make the case against Nixon and his crew were because of the tapes.
We know that there were emails that were destroyed. This is very analogous to the "missing tapes".
And oh yeah, what happened at the IRS was a federal crime. A crime that either Lerner oversaw or has actively covered for those who committed the actual deeds. So, yeah, Lerner = Hunt & Libby.
Question, "Who, so far, has been fired and prosecuted for the crimes committed by the IRS in this case?".
2nd Question, "Why are you so willing to forgo any concept of accountability?"
This combined with some past posts where you have not been as forgiving to the conservatives makes you come across as a bit biased.
I believe you when you say that you are moderate, just felt I should ask for clarification on your stances.
Btw, my use of the term "your democrats" is solely a reference to your defending them (as the established party in power / the party in control of the IRS) here.
Btw, my use of the term "your democrats" is solely a reference to your defending them (as the established party in power / the party in control of the IRS) here.
jamesk1973 wrote: If using the IRS as a political weapon is not dealt with now, just wait until the other party gets into power.
Then let the lamentations begin.
This presumes it actually was used as a political weapon and that, if it was, anything can be done to stop such action without legislative changes; something no one seems keen to attempt. Not surprising given that many conservatives complained at length regarding the IRS' proposed regulatory changes.
"A Department of Justice attorney told a Judicial Watch attorney on Friday that it turns out the federal government backs up all computer records in case something terrible happens in Washington and there's a catastrophe, so the government can continue operating," Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton told Fox News's Shannon Bream.
"But it would be too hard to go get Lois Lerner’s e-mails from that backup system," Fitton continued, paraphrasing the DOJ official. "So, everything we’ve been hearing about scratched hard drives, about missing e-mails of Lois Lerner, other IRS officials, other officials in the Obama administration, it's all been a pack of malarkey. They could get these records, but they don’t want to."
I wonder how hard they are paraphrasing them though, it's not like Judicial Watch are unbiased or anything. And Fox would probably take any kind of paraphrasing as something to latch onto. I wouldn't get your hopes up whembly.
Ouze wrote: Either his "paraphrasing" was actually mistaken - my guess - or someone's in contempt for not complying with a lawful subpoena.,
motyak wrote: I wonder how hard they are paraphrasing them though, it's not like Judicial Watch are unbiased or anything. And Fox would probably take any kind of paraphrasing as something to latch onto. I wouldn't get your hopes up whembly.
If that's true... then why destroy Lerner’s Blackberry AFTER the IRS knew her computer had crashed and after a Congressional inquiry was well underway??? What could possibly be a *good* reason for this?
IRS Shocker: Filing Reveals Lerner Blackberry Destroyed
The device was wiped AFTER Congressional inquiry began
The IRS filing in federal Judge Emmet Sullivan’s court reveals shocking new information. The IRS destroyed Lerner’s Blackberry AFTER it knew her computer had crashed and after a Congressional inquiry was well underway. As an IRS official declared under the penalty of perjury, the destroyed Blackberry would have contained the same emails (both sent and received) as Lois Lerner’s hard drive.
We all know by now that Lois Lerner’s hard drive crashed in June 2011 and was destroyed by IRS. The emails of up to twenty other related IRS officials were missing in remarkably similar “crashes,” leading many to speculate that Lois Lerner’s Blackberry perhaps held the key. Now, the Observer can confirm that a year after the infamous hard drive crash, the IRS destroyed Ms. Lerner’s Blackberry—and without making any effort to retain the emails from it.
Judge Sullivan has had to pry information from the IRS to learn anything about Ms. Lerner’s Blackberry. Now, with these latest revelations, I’m confident he’s not finished.
In two elusive and nebulous sworn declarations, we can glean that Ms. Lerner had two Blackberries. One was issued to her on November 12, 2009. According to a sworn declaration, this is the Blackberry that contained all the emails (both sent and received) that would have been in her “Outlook” and drafts that never were sent from her Blackberry during the relevant time.
With incredible disregard for the law and the Congressional inquiry, the IRS admits that this Blackberry “was removed or wiped clean of any sensitive or proprietary information and removed as scrap for disposal in June 2012.” This is a year after her hard drive “crash” and months after the Congressional inquiry began.
The IRS did not even attempt to retrieve that data. It cavalierly recites: “There is no record of any attempt by any IRS IT employee to recover data from any Blackberry device assigned to Lois Lerner in response to the Congressional investigations or this investigation,” according to Stephen Manning, Deputy Chief Information Officer for Strategy & Modernization.
Lerner was issued another Blackberry for Valentine’s Day 2012—also after she came under fire for her targeting
of conservative groups. The IRS still has that Blackberry. It’s now in the possession of the Inspector General of the Treasury, but the new device would not have the data from the prior three years. That was most likely the point of getting the new device.
According to Mr. Manning, however: “standard IRS practice and policy in the collection of electronic data does not include collecting data from Blackberry devices because the email of a Blackberry user is collected through the process of collecting the contents of the user’s Outlook mailbox files.” Notably, the affidavit does not explain IRS standard procedure for handling the technology of individuals who are the subject of Congressional oversight hearings or of retrieving data on a Blackberry after its owner’s computer has crashed. One would think that was a “no-brainer.”
This most recent revelation of destruction of evidence and refusal to retain data and documents despite a Congressional inquiry is beyond outrageous. It screams of guilt and creates a presumption in the law that the evidence would prove what those who were targeted and harassed claim. Judge Sullivan, like most Americans, wants the “missing” emails that we all know are there somewhere.
Aside from the fact the IRS was required to keep hard copies, we now know they should exist on Blackberry servers as well as Google and perhaps others. Indeed, the Department of Justice has disclosed that they all should be on a government server—as we suspected.
Judge Sullivan has already appointed federal Magistrate Judge John Facciola to assist the parties in finding the emails on other devices. Between the two of them, they can demand production of the emails from the servers, and there are still more questions to answer.
What are all the servers the emails went through? Blackberry is touted as the most secure, so surely the emails should be found there. All of the data on her current Blackberry should be provided immediately to Judge Sullivan, for whatever insight it might provide. There’s no reason for the IRS to hold out on that. It should be given to Darrell Issa and Congress also. Nothing required in the production of the emails through the Blackberry could possibly hamper the Inspector General’s investigation.
And what about “ghost” email accounts? The IRS should be able to determine, or Judge Sullivan can, whether any of the officials whose emails are missing used personal accounts or other names for business emails they didn’t want going through the federal system even though they were required to do so.
One thing is clear: the IRS has no interest in recovering the emails. It has deliberately destroyed evidence and another direct source of the emails it claims were “lost.” It has been blatantly negligent if not criminal in faiing to preserve evidence and destroying it instead.
Don’t be surprised if Judge Sullivan decides it’s time to order production of everything on that Blackberry, issue subpoenas to third party servers including Blackberry for the dates covered by the Blackberry the IRS destroyed, unleash Judge Facciola, allow Judicial Watch more discovery, prohibit the IRS from destroying anything else, and start a list of lawyers who would make a good special prosecutor.
While these actions screams some sort of guilt because of the timing.
I know in most corporate dingle berry environment, the "Days to Keep Messages" options is permanently set by admins to "Forever"... because it's part of their official communication (thus permanent records).
I'm sure that the wiping of her Blackberry after a Congressional inquiry was established, and the fact that no records were retained as required by law is just yet another unhappy coincidence. As we all know there is not a smidgen of corruption....
"A Department of Justice attorney told a Judicial Watch attorney on Friday that it turns out the federal government backs up all computer records in case something terrible happens in Washington and there's a catastrophe, so the government can continue operating," Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton told Fox News's Shannon Bream.
"But it would be too hard to go get Lois Lerner’s e-mails from that backup system," Fitton continued, paraphrasing the DOJ official. "So, everything we’ve been hearing about scratched hard drives, about missing e-mails of Lois Lerner, other IRS officials, other officials in the Obama administration, it's all been a pack of malarkey. They could get these records, but they don’t want to."
Sorry, why are we taking the word of a DOJ attorney when it comes to IRS procedure? I worked for DOJ for nearly 10 years, and there are several fishy parts to this:
1. Even if we take what the attorney says at face value (and I don't), this is not an official DOJ release (which would come through O-Com). So saying "DOJ admits" is a lie. But I guess "DOJ attorney says to his buddy" doesn't have quite the same click bait to it.
2. I regularly participated in data backups for cases. Those back ups had 0 to do with email systems. They were backups of electronic discovery, litigation databases, and underlying evidence data. Unless her email had already been added to a litigation database as evidence, there is 0 reason for it to be in the backup system.
3. Taking the word of a DOJ attorney on an IT issue? Sure, I regularly go to my stock broker to get medical advice too.
Frankly? This whole article is pretty much clickbait fluff, designed to do exactly what we see it has done: have people who are already inclined to agree with what it says pass it around, while being able to completely distance itself from its rank bs.
"A Department of Justice attorney told a Judicial Watch attorney on Friday that it turns out the federal government backs up all computer records in case something terrible happens in Washington and there's a catastrophe, so the government can continue operating," Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton told Fox News's Shannon Bream.
"But it would be too hard to go get Lois Lerner’s e-mails from that backup system," Fitton continued, paraphrasing the DOJ official. "So, everything we’ve been hearing about scratched hard drives, about missing e-mails of Lois Lerner, other IRS officials, other officials in the Obama administration, it's all been a pack of malarkey. They could get these records, but they don’t want to."
Sorry, why are we taking the word of a DOJ attorney when it comes to IRS procedure? I worked for DOJ for nearly 10 years, and there are several fishy parts to this:
1. Even if we take what the attorney says at face value (and I don't), this is not an official DOJ release (which would come through O-Com). So saying "DOJ admits" is a lie. But I guess "DOJ attorney says to his buddy" doesn't have quite the same click bait to it.
The 24/7 news strikes again...eh?
2. I regularly participated in data backups for cases. Those back ups had 0 to do with email systems. They were backups of electronic discovery, litigation databases, and underlying evidence data. Unless her email had already been added to a litigation database as evidence, there is 0 reason for it to be in the backup system.
While that's interesting... we don't KNOW what the backup system is used/configured for the IRS. Right? They don't use the same as the DOJ's...right?
3. Taking the word of a DOJ attorney on an IT issue? Sure, I regularly go to my stock broker to get medical advice too.
Which was derived from the ongoing TruthToVote litigation.
Frankly? This whole article is pretty much clickbait fluff, designed to do exactly what we see it has done: have people who are already inclined to agree with what it says pass it around, while being able to completely distance itself from its rank bs.
Uh huh.
Frankly, the whole IRS' actions on this is utter and complete BS.
While that's interesting... we don't KNOW what the backup system is used/configured for the IRS. Right? They don't use the same as the DOJ's...right?
Kind of my point in the whole thing. We do we give a crap what a DOJ attorney has to say about IRS procedure? Does he work at the IRS? No. Does he do IT for the IRS? No.
So why do we give a crap what he has to say again?
Oh right, because it feeds the notion of "GIANT GUB'MINT CONSPIRACY!".
While that's interesting... we don't KNOW what the backup system is used/configured for the IRS. Right? They don't use the same as the DOJ's...right?
Kind of my point in the whole thing. We do we give a crap what a DOJ attorney has to say about IRS procedure? Does he work at the IRS? No. Does he do IT for the IRS? No.
So why do we give a crap what he has to say again?
Oh right, because it feeds the notion of "GIANT GUB'MINT CONSPIRACY!".
I give a fething crap because of the IRS' handling of this.
Not once... zero... have I seen the IRS' (or any department for that matter) that describes their IT "Disaster Recover Plans". That's a problem...
This is basic Information Systems 101 stuff.
At this point, I can see this administration is trying very hard to tamp this down until after the November elections. But, we will get answers.
While that's interesting... we don't KNOW what the backup system is used/configured for the IRS. Right? They don't use the same as the DOJ's...right?
Kind of my point in the whole thing. We do we give a crap what a DOJ attorney has to say about IRS procedure? Does he work at the IRS? No. Does he do IT for the IRS? No.
So why do we give a crap what he has to say again?
Oh right, because it feeds the notion of "GIANT GUB'MINT CONSPIRACY!".
I give a fething crap because of the IRS' handling of this.
Not once... zero... have I seen the IRS' (or any department for that matter) that describes their IT "Disaster Recover Plans". That's a problem...
This is basic Information Systems 101 stuff.
At this point, I can see this administration is trying very hard to tamp this down until after the November elections. But, we will get answers.
Again, my point isn't that "ER MER GERD WE DERNT NERD TO NER!!!!"
It's that the guy whose word they are taking, has 0 knowledge of the circumstances.
Let me give you an equivalent:
I work for the FTC. An opposite statement would be me going to someone and saying "Man, IRS is in a bind because their triple redundant systems all failed and the email is gone! But no one is going to believe them!"
A headline reading "FTC SHOWS LERNER DEFENSE CORRECT, REPUBLICANS GIANT POOPY MEANIE HEADS!" would be just as much bs as the article you linked. Do you see my point now?
While that's interesting... we don't KNOW what the backup system is used/configured for the IRS. Right? They don't use the same as the DOJ's...right?
Kind of my point in the whole thing. We do we give a crap what a DOJ attorney has to say about IRS procedure? Does he work at the IRS? No. Does he do IT for the IRS? No.
So why do we give a crap what he has to say again?
Oh right, because it feeds the notion of "GIANT GUB'MINT CONSPIRACY!".
I give a fething crap because of the IRS' handling of this.
Not once... zero... have I seen the IRS' (or any department for that matter) that describes their IT "Disaster Recover Plans". That's a problem...
This is basic Information Systems 101 stuff.
At this point, I can see this administration is trying very hard to tamp this down until after the November elections. But, we will get answers.
Again, my point isn't that "ER MER GERD WE DERNT NERD TO NER!!!!"
It's that the guy whose word they are taking, has 0 knowledge of the circumstances.
Let me give you an equivalent:
I work for the FTC. An opposite statement would be me going to someone and saying "Man, IRS is in a bind because their triple redundant systems all failed and the email is gone! But no one is going to believe them!"
A headline reading "FTC SHOWS LERNER DEFENSE CORRECT, REPUBLICANS GIANT POOPY MEANIE HEADS!" would be just as much bs as the article you linked. Do you see my point now?
Yes... I do see your point.
However... I think everyone is getting stuck in the old “tree falling in the forest” syndrome.
From my perspective, with my background as an Information Systems Professional, the technical excuses to date by the IRS is beyond pathetic.
I work for the VA. I have it in good authority that everything gets put on a secret paper that gets shredded.
Now you have a federal employee telling you that no records exist. I'm fairly certain that I know exactly as much about the case as the DOJ guy. So we probably cancel out.
d-usa wrote: I work for the VA. I have it in good authority that everything gets put on a secret paper that gets shredded.
Now you have a federal employee telling you that no records exist. I'm fairly certain that I know exactly as much about the case as the DOJ guy. So we probably cancel out.
I know what I'm talking about.
With that last posting, few things stood out to me...
This report, supposedly, confirms that all of Lois Lerner's emails actually are saved on a backup system. My reaction? DUH! How could you not? Business/Governmental continuity demands it.
Not to mention... IT'S. THE. LAW.
Also, the fact that the IRS says it would be too hard to retrieve them and so it's not going to trouble itself,... you can now begin to have doubts about the IRS' commitment to finding these emails.
It's just going to be a slow process to get the IRS to fething comply because, If you’re working in the judicial system (rather than politically)... I would think methodically working the investigation and NOT telling the opposition what you know is to be expected.
In addition, there's actually an industry term to *search* from archived data... It’s called eDiscovery Software, and one of it’s primary purposes is to find e-mails for a legal dispute. No magic needed.
It’s always good to go back and remember how this started. Lerner planted a question at the end of an unrelated teleconference. A “woopsie” to deflect from the IG report that was about to be released. Lerner spoke of a few low-level rogue agents working out of Ohio. Now after several iterations of “the truth,” Lerner pleading the 5th, destruction of evidence, and stonewalling we are no closer to the truth than we were when Lerner blamed those eight workers out of the Ohio office.
The law says "records must be kept". It doesn't say what actually constitutes "records" and leaves that determination to individual departments to decide.
The law says "records must be kept". It doesn't say what actually constitutes "records" and leaves that determination to individual departments to decide.
With that last posting, few things stood out to me...
This report, supposedly, confirms that all of Lois Lerner's emails actually are saved on a backup system. My reaction? DUH! How could you not? Business/Governmental continuity demands it.
Not to mention... IT'S. THE. LAW.
Also, the fact that the IRS says it would be too hard to retrieve them and so it's not going to trouble itself,... you can now begin to have doubts about the IRS' commitment to finding these emails. :
You know what you're talking about, so surely you know someone (paraphrasing someone else) from the legal department talking about how the backups work at your company might be bad info further confused by a game of telephone.
With that last posting, few things stood out to me...
This report, supposedly, confirms that all of Lois Lerner's emails actually are saved on a backup system. My reaction? DUH! How could you not? Business/Governmental continuity demands it.
Not to mention... IT'S. THE. LAW.
Also, the fact that the IRS says it would be too hard to retrieve them and so it's not going to trouble itself,... you can now begin to have doubts about the IRS' commitment to finding these emails. :
You know what you're talking about, so surely you know someone (paraphrasing someone else) from the legal department talking about how the backups work at your company might be bad info further confused by a game of telephone.
Except you're missing something here my good friend...
whembly wrote: And, yes, by necessity. Any correspondence done in her line of work is consider permanent records.
Er... no. Unless a subpoena is put in place, I'm free to delete all my work related email as I please. (I don't, but that's more to cover my ass if someone tries to pin a frell up on me...) When we get subpoena requests (which we just got because apparently Issa doesn't like us working against a company he has stock in...), we are required to submit email to a particular holding account.
Now, usual disclaimer about different offices having different policies, but it at least shows that there is no law saying "FEDERAL EMPLOYEES CAN'T DELETE WORK EMAIL!!"
whembly wrote: And, yes, by necessity. Any correspondence done in her line of work is consider permanent records.
Er... no. Unless a subpoena is put in place, I'm free to delete all my work related email as I please. (I don't, but that's more to cover my ass if someone tries to pin a frell up on me...) When we get subpoena requests (which we just got because apparently Issa doesn't like us working against a company he has stock in...), we are required to submit email to a particular holding account.
Now, usual disclaimer about different offices having different policies, but it at least shows that there is no law saying "FEDERAL EMPLOYEES CAN'T DELETE WORK EMAIL!!"
Lerner was subpoena'ed at least before the dingle berry incident.
However, i was referring to the fact thateven the National Archives boss stated that IRS ‘did not follow the law’ on lost Lerner emails (and others) based on the Federal Records Act.
However, i was referring to the fact thateven the National Archives boss stated that IRS ‘did not follow the law’ on lost Lerner emails (and others) based on the Federal Records Act.
No, that isn't what you stated. Moreover, the extent to which the IRS may have failed to follow the law extends only to their possible failure to notify NARA of their loss of records. A claim that is entirely distinct from the one you are making.
Documents also reveal that 75% of targeted non-profit groups were conservative, just 5% were liberal
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released a new batch of Internal Revenue Service (IRS) email documents revealing that under former IRS official Lois Lerner, the agency seems to acknowledge having needlessly solicited donor lists from non-profit political groups. According to a May 21, 2012, memo from the IRS Deputy Associate Chief Counsel: “such information was not needed across-the-board and not used in making the agency’s determination on exempt status.” Later, in her May 10, 2013, remarks in which Lerner first revealed in response to question she planted about the IRS targeting of conservative groups, she conceded that the requests for donor names was “not appropriate, not usual.” The new documents obtained by Judicial Watch also reveal that 75% of the groups from whom the lists were solicited were apparently conservative, with only 5% being liberal.
The documents came in response to an October 2013 Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Internal Revenue Service (No. 1:13-cv-01559)) filed against the IRS after the agency refused to respond to four FOIA requests dating back to May, 2013. The emails are contained in the sixth batch of documents the IRS has been forced to produce in response to the Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit.
Contained in the newly released IRS documents is an email from Deputy Associate Chief Counsel Margo L. Stevens that was sent in response to a question from Lerner concerning attempts to return donor lists the IRS had controversially obtained. In Stevens’ May 21, 2012, email to Lerner, she wrote:
Lois, I wanted to get back with you with respect to your question whether TEGE [Tax Exempt & Government Entities] could return to those organizations from whom donor names were solicited in questionnaires following their submission of applications for recognition of their tax exempt status (under 501(c)(4)), now that TEGE has reviewed those files and determined that such information was not needed across-the-board and not used in making the agency’s determination on exempt status.
Key parts of this email and other documents the IRS produced to Judicial Watch have been blacked out. (Many of the documents are completely blacked out (or partially redacted) seemingly because they are allegedly “pre-decisional” or “deliberative,” information that might be exempt from disclosure under FOIA. The Obama administration’s decision to withhold this information is completely discretionary and is not required by law.)
A subsequent IRS email thread on June 27, 2012, revealed that inappropriately obtained donor lists were being used for a “secret research project” and that a top official wanted then-Acting IRS Commissioner Steve Miller to decide how to handle the issue. The email exchange, with the Subject line “donor names,” included the following:
June 27, 2012: 8:59 AM — David L. Fish, IRS acting director of Exempt Organizations Rulings and Agreements, to Holly Paz:
Joseph Urban [IRS Technical Advisor, Tax Exempt and Government Entities] had actually started a secret research project on whether we could, consistent with 6104, argue that [REDACTED] Joe was quite agitated yesterday when I told him what we were doing. (He was involved when the initial question was raised, but we didn’t continue reading him in). At one point he started saying that this was a decision for Steve Miller–I told him we were already doing it, and that I didn’t know whether Lois had already talked to Nikole [former IRS Chief of Staff to IRS Commissioner Steve Miller] about this. Would not be surprised if he already started working on Lois.
June 27, 2012 9:02 AM — Holly Paz to David L. Fish:
Thanks for the heads up. The decision was made by Steve, based on advice from P and A. [Procedure and Administration]
Lerner’s and other IRS officials’ concerns about how to handle these donor lists came on the heels of an advisory from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) to her and other IRS officials in late March 2012 of “an audit we plan to conduct of the IRS’s process for reviewing applications for tax exemption by potential section 501(c)(4), 501(c)(5), and 501(c)(6) organizations.” The documents produced do not detail the “secret research project” nor disclose how the IRS used the donor names the agency improperly obtained.
Then-IRS Commissioner Miller initially testified to Congress on May 17, 2013 that “instructions had been given to destroy any donor lists,” but donor lists were actually produced to the House Ways and Means Committee four months later. The House Ways and Means Committee also announced at May 7, 2014 hearing that, after scores of conservative groups provided donor information “to the IRS, nearly one in ten donors were subject to audit.” In 2011, as many as five donors to one conservative (c)(4) organization were audited, according to the Wall Street Journal. And this past June, the IRS admitted wrongdoing in releasing the conservative National Organization for Marriage’s (NOM) confidential tax return and donor list, which were published in March 2012 by the Human Rights Campaign. The Human Rights Campaign is the chief political rival to NOM; its outgoing president had been named a national co-chair of the Obama Reelection Campaign. The IRS reportedly agreed to pay NOM $50,000 to settle the lawsuit.
The documents obtained by Judicial Watch also include a July 18, 2012, email to Lerner from Judith Kindell, senior technical adviser to Lois Lerner, showing that 75% of the nearly 200 non-profit 501 (c)(4) political activist groups targeted by the IRS were conservative, and only 5% were liberal:
Of the 199 (c)(4) cases, approximately 3/4 appear to be conservative leaning while fewer than 10 appear to be liberal/progressive leaning groups based solely on the name. The remainder do not obviously lean to either side of the political spectrum.
Shortly after this email exchange, another email chain on June 28 between Lerner and Holly Paz, the former director of the Office of Rulings and Agreements,shows that Lerner believed that the TIGTA and congressional inquiries into the IRS’s practices were “dangerous”:
June 28, 2012 8:57 AM — Paz to Lerner: “Now TIGTA wants to talk to me. I am guessing they read this morning’s paper. [Apparent reference to Wall Street Journal article concerning IRS scrutiny of Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS tax exempt status]Will keep you posted.”
June 28, 2012 9:13 AM — Lerner to Paz: “Not alone. Wait til I am there.”
June 28, 2012 09:17 AM — Paz to Lerner: “Sorry. Too late. He already called me. It was not about WSJ. Just him trying to get better understanding of the scope of the [House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave] Camp [R-MI] request.”
June 28, 2012 8:22 AM — Lerner to Paz: “Just as dangerous. I’ll talk to you soon. Be there in half hour.”
The “dangerous” Camp request to which Paz and Lerner referred was apparently a reference to a letter sent in Mayby Republican Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, David Camp, to IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman requesting copies of all 501(c)(4) applications from 2010 and 2011. Despite the consternation expressed about the “dangerous” Camp applications request, an August 14, 2012, email from Lerner to Paz revealed that as of that date, “…no one from the Hill has shown up to look at them.”
The new documents also include emails further contradicting President Obama’s February 2014 excuse that the IRS targeting was entirely the fault of “bonehead decisions in local offices.” Obama was parroting Lois Lerner’s May 2013 claim that the targeting of conservative groups was the fault of “low-level” employees in Cincinnati for the targeting of conservative groups. In the months leading up to the 2012 presidential election, Lerner and other top IRS officials made it clear that no “advocacy” applications should be approved or denied without express approval from Lerner’s office in Washington, DC:
June 20, 2012: — Email from IRS attorney Michael C. Seton to managers in Exempt Organizations division defining targeted groups’ approval procedures:
Please inform the reviewers and staff in your groups that before issuing any favorable or initial denial rulings on any cases with advocacy issues, the reviewers must notify me and you [Lerner and other senior IRS staffers] via e -mail and get our approval. No favorable or initial denial rulings can be issued without your and my approval. The e-mail notification includes the name of the case, and a synopsis of facts and denial rationale. I may require a short briefing depending on the facts and circumstances of the particular case.
June 29, 2012: – Email from Lois Lerner to Nikole Flax apparently criticizing the IRS Exempt Organizations Determinations Unit for taking too long to categorize non-profits as political and directing that top Washington IRS official Holly Paz would settle disputes over who was to be targeted:
Although Quality was on board and involved with the training, we are seeing some tendency for Determs staff to continue to over -develop political activity issue. When asked why, they say they are concerned that if they don’t, Quality will ding them. If can’t reach agreement, it comes to Holly.
June 26, 2012: — Email from Lerner to Holly Paz and Cindy Thomas in which Lerner notes that TIGTA asked for files directly from the Federal Records Center and warns that this makes sense in “context of a really sensitive investigation alleging political bias by the IRS.” The Federal Records Act (FRA) requires the preservation of official e-mails at the National Archives Federal Record Center. This email from Lerner was dated during the same time period during which the IRS claims her emails were lost and her Blackberry was “wiped clean” and “removed as scrap for disposal …” In violation of Section 3106 of the FRA, the IRS failed to notify the Archives that Lerner’s emails were missing.
The IRS also produced an email exchange in which Lerner takes issue with IRS spokesman Dean Patterson, who had revealed March 8, 2012, Roll Call article the existence of a “companion process” for administering applications for tax-exempt status. After Lerner received an advisory from TIGTA asking to discuss the Roll Call article, the following email exchange occurred:
April 2, 2012: 7:00 PM — Lerner to Patterson:
Importance: High. As you can see below [email from TIGTA Audit Manager Thomas Seidell], we are meeting with TIGTA later this week. They have given us a list of topics they want to discuss. I am not familiar with the Roll Call article he sites –can you shoot us a copy please? Thanks
April 3, 2012: 8:59 AM — IRS Public Affairs Specialist Burke Anthony to Lerner :
Lois, per your request, here is the Roll Call article. I put Dean’s quote in bold; it’s about 17 graphs into the story:
“Dean Patterson, a spokesman for the IRS, denied the existence of a special committee but said the IRS has a “companion process that administers the same provisions of the tax law in the context of new applications for tax-exempt status. The legal issues and the information that will inform our discussions will be similar in both contexts.”
April 3, 2012: 9:26 AM — Lerner to Anthony:
Thanks–sorry, but I really have no clue what he means by a companion process that “administers the same provisions of the tax law in the context of new applications for tax -exempt status. The legal issues and the information that will inform our discussions will be similar in both contexts.” As I will need to talk to TIGTA about this on Thursday, perhaps you can give me a better sense of what he is referring to? I could guess, but don’t want to be guessing in this context.
On October 9, 2013, Judicial Watch filed a FOIA lawsuit against the IRS asking the District Court for the District of Columbia to compel the agency to produce records of all communications relating to the review process for organizations seeking 501(c)(4) non-profit status since January 1, 2010. The lawsuit also asked the court to order the IRS to provide records of communications by former IRS official Lois Lerner concerning the controversial review and approval process. The IRS failed to respond to the four FOIA requests at issues in this lawsuit dating back to May 2013.
The communications sought by Judicial Watch covered portions of the same period for which the IRS on June 13, 2014, notified the Senate Finance Committee that Lerner’s emails had been lost or destroyed but did not notify the Court or Judicial Watch about these missing emails. In response to our request for more information, U.S. District Court Judge Emmett Sullivan held a July 10 hearing and order the IRS to produce sworn declarations about its efforts to find and restore Lerner’s allegedly missing emails.
And then on August 25, Department of Justice attorneys for the IRS conceded to Judicial Watch that Lerner’s “missing emails” (and all government records) had been backed in case of catastrophe but that it would be too “onerous” to search this backup system for Lerner’s emails. The Justice Department has since put out anonymous statements alleging Judicial Watch “misheard” what its lawyers said and that the agency did not disclose “new” information about a back-up system.
It is not in dispute that the existence of any back-up system was withheld from the court despite two orders (order 1, order 2) demanding specifically sworn declarations about where Lerner’s emails may be residing and effort to obtain them. The Obama administration has refused Judicial Watch’s requests to amend the sworn declarations and finally inform Judge Sullivan directly about this back-up system. Administration lawyers have steadfastly refused and subsequently submitted a “status report” to the Court on August 29 that, again, makes no mention of any back-up system.
Judicial Watch lawyers are preparing now to ask the Court for relief in light of the Obama administration’s continuing obstruction and contempt for Judge Sullivan’s orders.
“Again, Judicial Watch has uncovered more shocking emails from the IRS, forced out by a lawsuit and a federal court,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Now we learn the stunning news that Obama’s IRS had a ‘secret research program’ using illicitly-obtained confidential donor lists of conservative and Tea Party organizations that opposed President Obama’s agenda or reelection. With all this IRS abuse, it is no wonder Lois Lerner said that questions by Congress and others were ‘dangerous.’ And it is well past time that President Obama should be held to account about his repeated and recent falsehoods about his IRS scandal. Next up: Judicial Watch will ask Judge Sullivan for help in requiring the Obama IRS to stop its obstruction and disclose the no-longer-missing emails of Lois Lerner and other IRS officials.”
Lois, I wanted to get back with you with respect to your question whether TEGE [Tax Exempt & Government Entities] could return to those organizations from whom donor names were solicited in questionnaires following their submission of applications for recognition of their tax exempt status (under 501(c)(4)), now that TEGE has reviewed those files and determined that such information was not needed across-the-board and not used in making the agency’s determination on exempt status.
And? TEGE only made that determination after reviewing the files. Files that are eventually found irrelevant to a review or audit are requested by the IRS all the time; just ask anyone who has been through an individual audit.
Also, what does this...
...such information was not needed across-the-board and not used in making the agency’s determination on exempt status.
...phrase mean? Was not needed across-the-board in the sense that such information was never needed, or in the sense that not all organizations should have been forced to supply it?
Moreover, the following are necessarily contradictory.
A subsequent IRS email thread on June 27, 2012, revealed that inappropriately obtained donor lists were being used for a “secret research project” and that a top official wanted then-Acting IRS Commissioner Steve Miller to decide how to handle the issue.
The documents produced do not detail the “secret research project” nor disclose how the IRS used the donor names the agency improperly obtained.
So, no information regarding donor lists was revealed, but you're willing to state it was obtained inappropriately? That's journalistic integrity right there.
WASHINGTON – The Internal Revenue Service has lost emails from five more employees who are part of congressional probes into the treatment of conservative groups that applied for tax-exempt status, the tax service disclosed Friday.
The tax agency said in June that it could not locate an untold number of emails to and from Lois Lerner, who headed the IRS division that processes applications for tax-exempt status. The revelation set off a new round of investigations and congressional hearings.
On Friday, the IRS issued a report to Congress saying the agency also lost emails from five other employees related to the probe, including two agents who worked in a Cincinnati office processing applications for tax-exempt status.
The disclosure came on the same day the Senate's subcommittee on investigations released competing reports on how the IRS handled applications from political groups during the 2010 and 2012 elections.
The Democratic report, released by Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, said both liberal and conservative groups were mistreated, revealing no political bias by the IRS. The Republican report, issued by Sen. John McCain of Arizona, said conservative groups were clearly treated worse.
The IRS inspector general set off a firestorm last year with an audit that said IRS agents singled out tea party and other conservative groups for inappropriate scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status.
Lerner's lost emails prompted a new round of scrutiny by Congress, the Justice Department, the inspector general and at least two federal judges.
The IRS blamed computer crashes for all the lost emails. In a statement, the IRS said all the crashes happened well before Congress launched the investigations.
"Throughout this review, the IRS has found no evidence that any IRS personnel deliberately destroyed any evidence," said the IRS statement. "To the contrary, the computer issues identified appear to be the same sorts of issues routinely experienced by employees within the IRS, in other government agencies and in the private sector."
When Congress started investigating the IRS last year, the agency identified 82 employees who might have documents related to the inquiries. The IRS said 18 of those people had computer problems between September 2009 and February 2014. Of those employees, five probably lost emails -- in addition to Lerner -- the agency said Friday.
Lerner, who was placed on leave and has since retired, has emerged as a central figure in congressional investigations. The other five employees appear to be more junior than she.
In addition to the Cincinnati workers, they include a technical adviser to Lerner, a tax law specialist and a group manager in the tax-exempt division.
In general, the IRS said the workers archived emails on their computer hard drives when their email accounts became too full. When those computers crashed, the emails were lost.
"By all accounts, in each instance the user contacted IT staff and attempted to recover his or her data," said the IRS statement.
The IRS has said it stored emails on backup tapes but those tapes were re-used every six months. The inspector general's office is reviewing those tapes to see if any old emails can be retrieved.
Friday's reports by the Senate subcommittee on investigations mark the conclusion of just one investigation. The Justice Department and three other congressional committees are continuing their probes.
Levin is chairman of the investigations subcommittee and McCain is the ranking Republican. Their staffs routinely work together on investigations, and while they don't always agree on the results, it is highly unusual for them to issue such diverging reports.
"The investigation found that the IRS used inappropriate selection criteria, burdensome questions and lengthy delays in processing applications for 501(c)(4) tax exempt status from both conservative and liberal groups," Levin said in a statement.
The Democratic report slams last year's audit by the IRS inspector general. It says the IG report was incomplete because it focused only on the treatment of conservative groups. The IG's report "produced distorted audit results that continue to be misinterpreted," the Democratic report said.
The inspector general's office declined to comment Friday. A spokeswoman said they were reviewing the report.
The Republican report says far more conservative groups were singled out for extra scrutiny. They were also asked more questions and were more likely to have their applications rejected or withdrawn.
"The IRS selected conservative groups out of normal processing, placed them on a separate list, stopped work on their applications completely, forced them to answer intrusive questions about their behavior and demeanor at meetings and delayed their applications for multiple years," the Republican report said. "Our investigation has uncovered no evidence that liberal groups received the same expansive inappropriate treatment that conservative groups received."
The Democratic report said investigators reviewed 800,000 pages of documents and conducted 22 interviews with current and former workers at the IRS and the inspector general's office. The investigators, however, were not allowed to see confidential taxpayer information, so many of the documents were blacked out.
Only two committees in Congress have the authority to see confidential taxpayer information: the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee. Those two committees are continuing their probes.
I keep seeing this:
Republicans:
Democrats:
Frankly... the IRS is trying to run the clock out so that the voters will get board and move on...
The IRS blamed computer crashes for all the lost emails. In a statement, the IRS said all the crashes happened well before Congress launched the investigations.
With five more Computer Crashes, a “pattern of racketeering activity” may be emerging
By Sidney Powell | 09/08/14 11:05am
NATIONAL POLITICS
Will Orange Be the New Black for IRS Chief Lois Lerner?
With five more Computer Crashes, a “pattern of racketeering activity” may be emerging
By Sidney Powell | 09/08/14 11:05am
Lois Lerner (Photo by BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images)
The IRS claims that more computers belonging to Lois Lerner’s colleagues crashed. (Photo by BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images)
Late last Friday afternoon, in a blatant “late news dump” to avoid making headlines about the Internal Revenue’s witch hunt against conservative non-profits, the IRS disclosed to Congress that five more of the IRS computers containing relevant records had mysteriously crashed. Those computers belonged to colleagues of Lois Lerner, whose conduct is at the center of the investigation.
Perhaps there is some strange computer virus that selectively trashes records inconvenient to incumbents, like the “glitch” that erased part of Nixon’s tapes. How else to explain the fact that this is the fourth announcement of an ever-expanding computer calamity connected to Lois Lerner to emerge from the IRS? First it was just Lerner’s computer that was affected, then those of her closest co-conspirators, then “no more than twenty” computers, and now an ever larger batch of burned out workstations.
Even more interesting, the IRS has apparently not yet shared this newest tidbit with Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, the distinguished and courageous jurist presiding over Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. Judge Sullivan has made the most progress so far in uncovering the conspiracy among Lerner and friends to target, harass and illegally obtain information from conservative non-profit organizations to benefit Mr. Obama’s reelection campaign—for which the law firm of Ms. Lerner’s husband, Michael Miles, also hosted a voter registration event.
Tom Fitton, President of Judicial Watch, told the Observer: “The belated admission of more supposed missing IRS evidence shows this Obama administration is absolutely contemptuous of Judge Sullivan. Judicial Watch lawyers are preparing to ask the court this week for relief in light of the Obama administration’s continuing efforts to thwart Judge Sullivan’s orders. In the least, we plan to request discovery to get past this Nixonian obstruction.”
Some of the IRS emails, which miraculously survived long enough to be produced, expose that Ms. Lerner and her comrades also corruptly requested donor information from conservative charities for a “secret research project.” The IRS has also admitted illegally using and disclosing that information.
We broke the news last week that Lerner and the IRS wiped and destroyed her Blackberry and all its content even after the congressional investigation began. The IRS reluctantly disclosed that information only because Judge Emmet G. Sullivan didn’t accept the carefully crafted declarations in the agency’s first response. As we predicted—and thankfully for the American public—he pushed for more information. He required the IRS to submit additional declarations, answering even more specific questions. Had he not done so, we wouldn’t know Lerner and the IRS also destroyed her Blackberry. The IRS did not make any mention of her Blackberry in any of its many prior filings—much less in its initial sworn declarations.
We have no report yet from the Treasury Inspector General, and at the rate the IRS officials keep proving it’s own prior testimony perjurious or wrong, it’s an ever moving target. Indeed, according to the AP, “J. Russell George, the Treasury inspector general for tax administration, said his investigation is ongoing, with facts ‘still coming to light.’”
While the agency continues to blame “computer crashes” for the now more than 20 people whose emails are “missing,” no IRS official has yet to identify when or how each computer crashed—much less why. We know Lois Lerner’s hard drive, which was “scratched” only a matter of days after receiving a letter from Congress requesting her emails. The IRS then destroyed it. The IRS followed a year later with the destruction of her unimpaired Blackberry containing emails for the same period. As we reported first, it made no effort whatsoever to obtain information from the Blackberry—despite being well into the Congressional inquiry. That is obstruction of justice and destruction of evidence—worse than the conduct for which Leslie Caldwell, now head of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, destroyed Arthur Andersen LLP and its 85,000 jobs.
Any number of federal criminal statutes might apply to these facts, including Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1343—Wire Fraud; Section 1503—Influencing officer generally; 1505—Obstruction of proceedings before department, agencies and committees; and Section 1519—Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations. Sections 1343 and 1503 are also predicate offenses for the federal Racketeering Statute, Section 1961, which provides that a “pattern of racketeering activity” can be proved by committing two predicate acts. These statutes are punishable by terms of imprisonment varying from five to twenty years.
While Lois Lerner and her husband vacationed in Nantucket, Judge Sullivan gave Magistrate Judge Facciola until September 20 to “assist the parties” in finding the emails from other sources. The IRS has admitted there is a massive back-up of all federal emails, but prefers to continue to obstruct justice rather than go to the trouble of finding the emails. I wouldn’t want to be the Department of Justice lawyer making that argument to Judge Emmet Sullivan.
When Judicial Watch asks for more discovery, Judge Sullivan could order the IRS to go to the back-up data immediately. He could also have a third party retrieve the information from the servers. The IRS has no credibility.
So yet again, the IRS simply creates more questions and at least five more reasons for Judge Sullivan to name a special prosecutor. When did each of the now more than 20 computer crashes occur—by date and time? How could that possibly happen? Why did the IRS prematurely cancel its longstanding contract for backup? Why did it take this long to find out that 5 more had “crashed?” Where is the Blackberry or other device for each of the persons whose computer crashed? What servers are implicated? Whose resignations are forthcoming? Why is Koskinen still there? Who is on Emmet Sullivan’s short list to be the special prosecutor?
Evidence is mounting by the day that Lois Lerner and her co-conspirators abused the power of the sovereign, violated the trust of the people, lied to Congress, destroyed documents and evidence of their wrongdoing, and violated multiple criminal statutes.
With the revelations of this last week, Lois Lerner and the IRS might as well be sitting on a ticking bomb . . . and it’s about to explode.
A lead House Republican is accusing the Justice Department Office of Public Affairs of improperly trying to coordinate with House Democrats on the release of subpoenaed documents in the IRS investigation.
Justice Department Director of Public Affairs Brian Fallon called the House Oversight Committee Friday evening and mistakenly spoke to Republican staff thinking he was speaking to Democrats, according to a spokesman for Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.).
In that call, Fallon said his agency was about to turn over some IRS documents. He stated that he was not being allowed to release the material directly to the media, but that he wanted to get it into the hands of certain reporters “before the [Republican] Majority” had the chance to share it. That’s according to a letter Issa sent yesterday to Attorney General Eric Holder.
“The [Justice Department's Fallon] then asked the [Republican] Committee employee if the Committee would agree to release the material to selected reporters and thereby allow the [Justice] Department to comment publicly on it.”–Issa to Holder
As the telephone conversation continued, Issa’s staff says Fallon realized he was speaking to committee Republicans instead of Democrats and “walked back” the conversation.
Issa called the incident a “deliberate attempt to influence the course of a congressional investigation.”
A staffer for the lead Democrat on the Oversight Committee, Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland) responded by saying,
“If Chairman Issa’s account is accurate, this sounds like a dumb request from a Justice Department press staffer that Democrats never received. If Democrats believe disclosing documents will better inform the public, they will make those decisions on the merits, and there is no restriction on them doing so, just as there is no restriction on the Chairman doing so.”
The Justice Department’s Fallon today issued a statement saying, “There is nothing inappropriate about department staff having conversations with both the [Republican] majority and [Democratic] minority staff as they prepare responses to formal inquiries. That includes conversations between the spokespeople for the [Justice] Department and the [Oversight ] committee.”
The Justice Department is simultaneously investigating the IRS while defending the IRS in private litigation. Republicans have raised questions about alleged conflicts of interest in the Justice Department’s roles. They have asked to interview former Justice Department attorney Andrew Strelka who worked for IRS manager Lois Lerner during the time period in which she and her office are accused of improperly targeting conservatives. The Justice Department has balked saying that Strelka has nothing relevant to offer. Holder has also said his agency is conducting a fair and independent investigation of the IRS.
A spokesman for Oversight Democrats today said that Issa is the one who controls information, “routinely excluding Democratic staff from calls and meetings with federal officials… and routinely leaking documents – or portions of them – out of context and without any committee vote or debate.”
When asked what was in the documents the Justice Department turned over to Congress Friday night after the phone call, an Oversight spokesman would only say they were relevant to the investigation but wouldn’t comment further.
Man... it's a fine line they're pushing here.
This is actually direct evidence of collusion between members of Congress and the Executive branch. I would have to think this may even represent an ethics violation.
Call the republicans and tell them to appoint one instead of playing political football with it.
It's interesting how many of us dirty liberals have been saying that for quite a while: if they were interested in the truth they would have had a special prosecutor a long time ago. But this is not about the truth, it's about holding hearings for sound bites and clips to show for campaign commercials.
d-usa wrote: Call the republicans and tell them to appoint one instead of playing political football with it.
They can't... they either need AG Holder to appoint one, or both the House & Senate agree to appoint one.
It's interesting how many of us dirty liberals have been saying that for quite a while: if they were interested in the truth they would have had a special prosecutor a long time ago. But this is not about the truth, it's about holding hearings for sound bites and clips to show for campaign commercials.
Que?
Explain how the Republicans can convince Holder or Reid to agree on a special prosecutor?
When is the last time you've actually contributed to this thread?
What you do is to ignore the actual point being made, tug on the loose strands of argument, and hope for a side circus to distract from the actual issue.
When the Admin changes over to either Democrats or Republicans. If they kick off a actual investigation into these matters to find out where the failure points are at. How would everyone react then....
What you do is to ignore the actual point being made, tug on the loose strands of argument, and hope for a side circus to distract from the actual issue.
Says the guy that attempts to make points by way way of Orkmoticons. Most of the time I don't know what point you are attempting to make, aside from "Obama = bad".
Says the guy that attempts to make points by way way of Orkmoticons. Most of the time I don't know what point you are attempting to make, aside from "Obama = bad".
Wo wo wo there. You diss the greatness that is orkmoticons at your peril.
Instead of seeking justice, the administration conspires to conceal the truth.
In a letter written to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder by House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA), Issa reveals there was an attempt to coordinate media spin regarding the IRS investigation between the DOJ and the staff of the Committee’s Ranking Democrat, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD). How did Issa find out? A DOJ official in the Office of Public Affairs who thought he was calling Cummings' office, mistakenly phoned Issa’s office instead.
“I write with serious concerns stemming from a telephone call my staff received late on Friday afternoon from the Justice Department’s Office of Public Affairs (OPA) about the Committee’s ongoing investigation into the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of conservative tax-exempt applicants,” Issa states.
A senior OPA official – under the apparent mistaken belief he had called the staff of Ranking Member Elijah E. Cummings – asked if the Committee would release Committee documents to the media so that the Department could publicly comment on the material. I am extremely troubled by this attempt to improperly coordinate the release of Committee documents with the Minority staff. This effort to preemptively release incomplete and selectively chosen information undermines the Department’s claims that it is responding in good faith.
The senior OPA official to whom Issa refers is Brian Fallon, a former senior aide to Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY). Although his name was not mentioned in the letter, he confirmed that he made the call, which took place last Friday at 5:01 p.m. EST. As Issa indicates, he believes Fallon thought he was talking to members of Rep. Elijah Cummings staff.
(Fallon) then asked the Committee employee if the Committee would agree to release the material to selected reporters and thereby allow the Department an opportunity to publicly comment on it.
The subject of the conversation was attorney Andrew Strelka, who is defending IRS commissioner John Koskinen in litigation initiated by the pro-Israel group Z Street. Prior to his job in the DOJ’s civil trial section, Strelka worked for Lois Lerner in the IRS’s Tax Exempt Organizations Division – where Z Street’s alleged mistreatment occurred. Documents indicate Strelka was kept in the loop about the IRS’s targeting practices.
The Committee wants to talk to Strelka about this apparent conflict of interest, but the DOJ has refused the request, prompting a Sept. 3 letter to Holder from Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) accusing the DOJ of “conspiring with Mr. Strelka to prevent the American people from learning the truth.”
Issa spokesman Frederick Hill, who took Fallon’s call on a speaker phone in the presence of two other senior Committee employees, told him that Oversight Committee staffers would have to first examine the material – which is when Fallon apparently realized he was calling the office he was intending to undermine. After “abruptly” placing the call on hold for three minutes, an “audibly shaken” Fallon stated there would be a “change in plans,” with no effort to release the material early. Instead, the Department would “defer to the Chairman.”
Fallon then made an effort to cover his tracks, insisting that the reason for the call was to improve relations between the DOJ and Committee Republicans, who should “help one another.” When Fallon was subsequently asked if the material he had offered earlier would still be delivered Friday evening, he “attempted to walk back his earlier statement.”
Issa wasn’t buying any of it, noting that while communications are sometimes “erroneously shared,” he remains “disturbed to receive confirmation through this incident of apparently long-standing collaboration between the Obama Administration and Ranking Member Cummings' staff to obfuscate and prejudice the Committee’s work through under-the-table communication.” Issa further insists that Fallon’s contention about improving relations with the Committee is “inconsistent” with the comments he made prior to putting the call on hold, and that it “strains credulity” to believe the DOJ would “seek to begin to improve relations via a telephone call between two individuals who had never spoken to each other before 5:01 p.m. on a Friday afternoon…”
In closing, Issa requested “a detailed explanation for each of the Department’s ex parte communications with the Minority Members or staff about Committee strategies for blocking and undermining oversight,” as well as “information about the number of times the Department has communicated with Minority staff to the exclusion of Majority staff.” Issa wants a DOJ response, “no later than Monday September 15, 2014.”
Those familiar with the stonewalling of the Holder-led DOJ know that such a request will likely be ignored. That reality was driven home once again on Tuesday when Inspector General (IG) Michael Horowitz testified before the House Committee on the Judiciary. "The FBI and some other department components … have refused our requests for various types of documents. As a result, a number of our reviews have been significantly impeded,“ he revealed.
And while Horowitz said he appreciated the efforts of Holder and Deputy Attorney General James Cole to intervene on behalf of the IG, such intervention is "inconsistent” with the “clear mandate” of the law and “compromises our independence.” Horowitz further noted that absent a resolution of the issue, “our struggles to access information relevant to our reviews in a timely manner continue to cause delays to our work and consume resources.”
That same day, Fallon dismissed Issa’s allegations in an interview with The Hill, claiming there was “nothing out of the ordinary” about his conversation with GOP Oversight Committee members. “There is nothing inappropriate about department staff having conversations with both the majority and minority staff as it prepares responses to formal inquiries,” Fallon said. “That includes conversations between the spokespeople for the department and the committee.”
An Oversight Democratic staffer dodged a question about whether Cummings had ever had a conversation with the DOJ as described by Issa, insisting that the Representative and his staff "make their own independent decisions about when to release information to the public and do not improperly coordinate with any executive branch agency.“
That last bit is, quite simply, a lie. Last April emails released by the Oversight Committee revealed that Cummings and his staff communicated with the "executive branch agency” known as the IRS multiple times in 2012 and 2013, with regard to the conservative group True the Vote. The Committee documented communications between Cummings' staffers and Lois Lerner – communications Cummings denied during a Subcommittee hearing the previous February. That would be the same Elijah Cummings who, despite being caught in a blatant lie, has labeled the ongoing investigation of the IRS as a “witch hunt,” and a waste of time and money.
On the same Friday Fallon made his call, the IRS revealed that emails from five other IRS workers involved in the investigation had also been lost. One of those workers was a senior aide to Lerner, and like the loss of her emails, the IRS blamed it on computer problems, further insisting there was no indication that any evidence had been deliberately destroyed. “To the contrary, the computer issues identified appear to be the same sorts of issues routinely experienced by employees within the IRS, in other government agencies and in the private sector,” the IRS said. “In addition, each of the five hard drive issues resulting in a probable loss of emails substantially predates the onset of the investigations in 2013.”
Thus the scandal with “not even a smidgeon of corruption" according to President Obama, takes another curious turn. Today the Democratically-controlled Senate is expected to release a report authored by Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), Chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. It will reportedly claim the 2013 report by J. Russell George, Treasury IG for Tax Administration concluding that conservative groups were targeted for additional scrutiny, is "unfair.” It will further allege the scandal amounts to nothing more than “mismanagement” by the IRS.
It’s going to be an uphill climb for Democrats. In a Fox poll taken in June, a whopping 76 percent of Americans, including 90 percent of Republicans, 74 percent of independents and 63 percent of Democrats said they believed that Lois Lerner’s emails were “deliberately destroyed” by the IRS. The gaffe committed by Fallon would be amusing were it not for the reality that it is yet another indication of the endemic corruption that infests the Obama administration, their Democrat colleagues and a willfully somnambulant mainstream media. All of them seemingly prefer to run interference for one of the most powerful agencies in government, than allow the truth, no matter how inconvenient, to come out.
Issa wrote:
This effort to preemptively release incomplete and selectively chosen information undermines the Department’s claims that it is responding in good faith.
I'm at a loss here, because Darrel Issa is essentially claiming that the Executive is acting in bad faith when it specifically asks Congress what documents it will release in order to avoid commenting on documents that are not released.
An Oversight Democratic staffer dodged a question about whether Cummings had ever had a conversation with the DOJ as described by Issa, insisting that the Representative and his staff "make their own independent decisions about when to release information to the public and do not improperly coordinate with any executive branch agency.“
That last bit is, quite simply, a lie. Last April emails released by the Oversight Committee revealed that Cummings and his staff communicated with the "executive branch agency” known as the IRS multiple times in 2012 and 2013, with regard to the conservative group True the Vote.
That's presumptuous in the extreme.
Mere communication does not entail the absence of independence where decisions are concerned.
It is now well known that the IRS targeted tea party organizations. What is less well known, but perhaps even more scandalous, is that the IRS also targeted those who would educate their fellow citizens about the United States Constitution.
According to the inspector general’s report (pp. 30 & 38), this particular IRS targeting commenced on Jan. 25, 2012 — the beginning of the election year for President Obama’s second campaign. On that date: “the BOLO [‘be on the lookout’] criteria were again updated.” The revised criteria included “political action type organizations involved in … educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.”
Grass-roots organizations around the country, such as the Linchpins of Liberty (Tennessee), the Spirit of Freedom Institute (Wyoming), and the Constitutional Organization of Liberty (Pennsylvania), allege that they were singled out for special scrutiny at least in part for their work in constitutional education. There may have been many more.
The tea party is viewed with general suspicion in some quarters, and it is not difficult, alas, to imagine the mindset of the officials who decided to target tea party organizations for special scrutiny. But federal officers swear an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” It is chilling to think that these same officials who are suspicious of the tea party are equally suspicious of the Constitution itself.
What is most corrosive about this IRS tripwire is that it is triggered by a particular point of view; it is not, as First Amendment scholars say, viewpoint-neutral. It does not include obfuscating or denigrating the Constitution; only those “involved in … educating on the Constitution” are captured by this criterion. This viewpoint targeting potentially skews every national debate about politics or government. And the skew is not strictly liberal; indeed, it should trouble liberals as much as conservatives. The ultimate checks on executive power are to be found in the United States Constitution. Insidiously, then, suppressing those “involved in … educating on the Constitution” actually skews national debate in favor of unchecked executive power.
For example, this IRS tripwire would not be triggered by arguing that the NSA should collect the phone records of every American citizen. But it would be triggered by teaching that the Fourth Amendment forbids “unreasonable searches and seizures.” This tripwire would not be triggered by arguing that the president should unilaterally suspend politically inconvenient provisions of federal law, like ObamaCare. But it would be triggered by teaching that, under Article II, section 3, the president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” This tripwire would not be triggered by arguing that the president should appoint NLRB members unilaterally. But it would be triggered by teaching that, under Article II, section 2, such appointments require “the Advice and Consent of the Senate.” This tripwire would not be triggered by arguing that the president should target and kill U.S. citizens abroad. But it would be triggered by teaching that, per the Fifth Amendment, no person shall “be deprived of life … without due process of law.” This tripwire would not be triggered by arguing that the president should declare war unilaterally. But it would be triggered by teaching that, under Article I, section 8, “Congress shall have Power … To declare War.” In short, the IRS was “on the lookout,” not for those who preach unlimited executive power, but for those who would teach about constitutional constraints.
Even more to the point, perhaps, this IRS tripwire would not be triggered by arguing that the IRS should discriminate against the tea party. But it would be triggered by teaching that such discrimination constitutes unfaithful execution of the tax laws. And thus, alas, there is a perverse logic to targeting constitutional educators alongside tea party organizations. Political discrimination in the administration of the tax laws is not merely “outrageous,” as Obama has said; it is an assault on our constitutional structure itself. For an official who has chosen to go down this road and target the tea party, there is an Orwellian logic to targeting constitutional educators as well. After all, they are the ones who might shed light on this very point.
This is a new low for American government — targeting those who would teach others about its founding document. Forty years ago, President Richard Nixon went to great lengths to try to conceal the facts of his constitutional violations, but it never occurred to him to conceal the meaning of the Constitution itself, by targeting its teachers. Politicians have always been tempted to try to censor their political adversaries; but none has been so bold as to try to suppress constitutional education directly. Presidents have always sought to push against the constitutional limits of their power; but never have they targeted those who merely teach about such limits. In short, never before has the federal government singled out for special scrutiny those who would teach their fellow citizens about our magnificent Constitution. This is the new innovation of Obama’s IRS.
“We the People” do not yet know who first decided to target “political action type organizations involved in … educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.” But there is at least one person who does know. Ironically, though, Lois Lerner, former director of the Exempt Organizations Division of the IRS, is making full use of her own constitutional education: “I have been advised by my counsel to assert my constitutional right not to testify …. One of the basic functions of the Fifth Amendment is to protect innocent individuals, and that is the protection I’m invoking today.”
Five years ago, Obama, our constitutional law professor-in-chief, presented his first, ringing Constitution Day proclamation: “To succeed, the democracy established in our Constitution requires the active participation of its citizenry. Each of us has a responsibility to learn about our Constitution and teach younger generations about its contents and history.” Quite so. Perhaps this year, Obama could explain why his IRS would target those who answered this call.
Jesus dogma, if that's your problem, then nothing in print/newscast/online will ever satisfy you.
No, they won't, at least not in isolation. The news has gotten to point where one needs to read several reports if one wants the mere fact of the matter. This, of course, goes back to your choice to highlight journalistic comments rather than reported ones.
Why would the IRS need to have any special scrutiny on organizations who's purpose is to teach others about the Constitution?
Because NPOs which emphasize education regarding the Constitution tend to be conservative, and there were a large number of new conservative NPOs formed in that time period; many of which may not have been above board regarding their classification.
Jesus dogma, if that's your problem, then nothing in print/newscast/online will ever satisfy you.
No, they won't, at least not in isolation. The news has gotten to point where one needs to read several reports if one wants the mere fact of the matter. This, of course, goes back to your choice to highlight journalistic comments rather than reported ones.
Why would the IRS need to have any special scrutiny on organizations who's purpose is to teach others about the Constitution?
Because NPOs which emphasize education regarding the Constitution tend to be conservative, and there were a large number of new conservative NPOs formed in that time period; many of which may not have been above board regarding their classification.
Think about what I've highlighted... and for once, acknowledge that targeting occurred out of malice.
I think the point may be that even though you might be right about a general topic, it is very apparent that you are more driven by emotion than by facts. This could be evidenced by your tendency not to highlight why something is wrong, but why it feels wrong.
d-usa wrote: I think the point may be that even though you might be right about a general topic, it is very apparent that you are more driven by emotion than by facts. This could be evidenced by your tendency not to highlight why something is wrong, but why it feels wrong.
That would be my guess.
Okay... I'd argue that we all suffer from that on things we're passionate about.
But jeez louise man. I barely wrote anything in that post... only highlighted something that I though pertinent. I even linked the fething sourced report... which is more than what some OT denizen practice.
But jeez louise man. I barely wrote anything in that post... only highlighted something that I though pertinent. I even linked the fething sourced report... which is more than what some OT denizen practice.
You also specifically asked for a reason that the IRS might scrutinize a particular sort of organization and then, when provided with an honest response, chose to highlight the word "conservative" absent any context. If your intention was to demonstrate that I believe conservative organizations were targeted by the IRS, then good for you. However, we moved past such a dispute many pages ago and, as I have said before, the matter now regards legitimacy*.
EDIT: #2... here's some updates since this thread was bumped.
Judicial Watch has filed a Motion for Limited Discovery as per the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service.
Which is a big dealio as it puts the IRS and other administration officials under oath about the IRS’s missing email cover-up. Hopefully, this will provide clarity over the disaster recovery system that the IRS (and other agencies) is using.
Judicial Watch has filed a Motion for Limited Discovery as per the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service.
Which is a big dealio as it puts the IRS and other administration officials under oath about the IRS’s missing email cover-up. Hopefully, this will provide clarity over the disaster recovery system that the IRS (and other agencies) is using.
I like how you're presuming this to be a cover-up.
Anyway, FOIA can be used as a discovery tool, but there is no precedent (that I am aware of) for using a motion for discovery as a means to circumvent the limitations of FOIA. As such, placing certain people under oath (most of whom have likely provided sworn testimony already), accomplishes nothing. Grandstanding.
Also: I could be mean and discredit Judicial Watch, but I won't do that.
Plaintiff Selim Zherka filed this … action claiming that employees of the Internal Revenue Service hindered his application for tax exempt status and initiated an investigation against him as part of a broader effort to penalize members of the Tea Party for their political activities….
Beginning in 2009, plaintiff published newspaper articles and held rallies criticizing government officials for political corruption and “confiscatory tax policies.” Plaintiff organized and supported the creation of the Tea Party, a political party that received extensive publicity in the news media. At some point, plaintiff sought tax-exempt status for an organization he and others used primarily for educational purposes. However, plaintiff claims that defendant Lois Lerner …, an IRS employee, subjected his application to an inordinately high level of scrutiny, forcing him to abandon his efforts to obtain tax-exempt status. [The case against Lois Lerner was dismissed because “Plaintiff has not satisfied its burden of showing that [he] served defendant Lerner with a copy of the summons and complaint.” — EV]
Plaintiff alleges that in 2011, agent Ryan of the Federal Bureau of Investigation … and agent Ashcroft … of the IRS began an investigation into his commercial real estate dealings. Plaintiff claims these defendants issued over 75 subpoenas to his business associates, threatening them with criminal prosecution should they withhold information incriminating plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that as a result, many of these business associates terminated their relationship with him out of a fear of “running asunder of federal agencies.” He asserts that defendants’ conduct was part of a broader government strategy to penalize Tea Party members for their political speech.
Plaintiff claims to have lost business as a result of the ongoing investigation. Moreover, he claims that defendants’ actions have chilled his political activities, damaged his reputation, and caused emotional injuries….
Plaintiff alleges First Amendment retaliation …. To state a claim for First Amendment retaliation, a plaintiff must show: (1) that the speech or conduct at issue was protected, (2) that the defendant took adverse action against the plaintiff, and (3) that there was a causal connection between the protected speech and the adverse action.” …
[P]laintiff alleges that defendants intentionally targeted him for investigation because of his active membership in a new political party. The First Amended Complaint indicates that defendants initiated their broad investigation solely against plaintiff because of his political efforts, and did not pursue similar investigations against apolitical businesses and taxpayers. Plaintiff’s activities centered on advocating for a reduction in local, state, and federal tax levies. Plaintiff claims that as a result of his political activities, defendants issued over 75 subpoenas to his business associates, and contacted dozens of them individually in a search for incriminating information. Defendants’ alleged conduct appears to have significantly damaged plaintiff’s business prospects and “curtailed his public advocacy.”
Plaintiff has made a plausible showing on his First Amendment and equal protection claims. His speech, which is directed at reforming government spending, is clearly protected. He has alleged facts showing that defendants targeted him for a wide-ranging investigation because of this speech, and that he was treated differently than other taxpayers and businessmen who did not espouse anti-taxation beliefs. Thus, plaintiff has pleaded sufficient facts to state a plausible claim for relief on his First Amendment [claim] ….
Plaintiff [also] alleges that defendants’ conduct is so shocking as to amount to a violation of his substantive due process rights…. Only “the most egregious official conduct” meets this threshold.
The question of whether conduct is shocking in a constitutional sense is highly context specific. ...
Here, plaintiff alleges that he has been subjected to more than two years of investigation by defendants. He claims that defendants have threatened his business associates with criminal prosecution in order to secure their cooperation in the investigation. Moreover, he claims that defendants have inquired into his political activities and political affiliations, demonstrating a motivation to retaliate against him for his political speech. Plaintiff claims that defendants’ conduct has severely damaged his reputation and harmed his business relationships.
These allegations are disturbing and sufficiently shocking to allow plaintiff’s claim to go forward. While defendants did not subject plaintiff to forced-stomach pumping or other physical deprivations, they have allegedly investigated him for nearly two years based solely on his political message. Defendants’ alleged conduct appears to have jeopardized many if not most of plaintiff’s business relationships, causing him dramatic and permanent harm. Given plaintiff’s low burden at this stage in the litigation, he has alleged facts egregious enough to shock the conscience in a constitutional sense….
If you can't debate without changing the words coming from another, then you are debating very poorly indeed. You're also being rude. --Janthkin
No, I pretty much expect if they take Congress they will clam up super fast so they can go about their own political shenanigans without drawing attention to themselves.
No, I pretty much expect if they take Congress they will clam up super fast so they can go about their own political shenanigans without drawing attention to themselves.
It's actually a very accurate timeline of the events that are currently under investigation, rather than [redacted] nothing as you would like to claim.
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." - Aldous Huxle
Hah, well apparently what was supposed to be a tongue-in-cheek poke at another Whembly bump of this thread went over like a bag of rocks. Apologies to any who felt insulted.
And it is frelling nothing. I think we can all accept that it is frelling nothing. It is nothing but political posturing to get points before midterm elections in a week. Between all the various existing investigations, I would think anyone able to think objectively about this would realize there is nothing that a Republican controlled Congress would magically summon up, that current investigations have not (short of abducting Lorner off the street for 'enhanced interrogations' or something equally mustache twirling).
If the Republicans control Congress at the end of next week, this will quickly be forgotten as they set about doing what politicians do. Boondoggling money for their counties, pretending to fight for things their constituents want while actually lining their pockets with that Special Interest Group money, forcing legislation with no chance of becoming law to the floor, and all the usual stuff.
The moment that the GOP takes over the senate is the moment that the vast majority of republicans become RINOs as they make a hard turn to the center-right.
With a majority in both chambers they cannot blame anything on democrats, they will be the sole party responsible to keep everything moving, and they will have to be on their best behavior to not become "is that the party you want screwing up the White House" and hurt their 2016 candidate.
d-usa wrote: The moment that the GOP takes over the senate is the moment that the vast majority of republicans become RINOs as they make a hard turn to the center-right.
With a majority in both chambers they cannot blame anything on democrats, they will be the sole party responsible to keep everything moving, and they will have to be on their best behavior to not become "is that the party you want screwing up the White House" and hurt their 2016 candidate.
Well... at least they can pass a fething budget.
But, you're right that (R) will gravitate to the center once the elections is over. Mostly...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
streamdragon wrote: Hah, well apparently what was supposed to be a tongue-in-cheek poke at another Whembly bump of this thread went over like a bag of rocks. Apologies to any who felt insulted.
streamdragon wrote: And it is frelling nothing. I think we can all accept that it is frelling nothing. It is nothing but political posturing to get points before midterm elections in a week. Between all the various existing investigations, I would think anyone able to think objectively about this would realize there is nothing that a Republican controlled Congress would magically summon up, that current investigations have not (short of abducting Lorner off the street for 'enhanced interrogations' or something equally mustache twirling)
As I have said to others before; if you believe that targeting groups based on their politics is nothing, that deliberately mis-applying the rules the government agency must adhere to is nothing, that lying about the extent of the targeting is nothing, that misleading Congress is nothing, that being held in contempt of Congress is nothing, that the government agency refuses to provide evidence and hides behind the flimsiest of excuses is nothing then there is little point in continuing a discussion with someone who simply does not have an interest in the facts of the matter.
streamdragon wrote: And it is frelling nothing. I think we can all accept that it is frelling nothing. It is nothing but political posturing to get points before midterm elections in a week. Between all the various existing investigations, I would think anyone able to think objectively about this would realize there is nothing that a Republican controlled Congress would magically summon up, that current investigations have not (short of abducting Lorner off the street for 'enhanced interrogations' or something equally mustache twirling)
As I have said to others before; if you believe that targeting groups based on their politics is nothing, that deliberately mis-applying the rules the government agency must adhere to is nothing, that lying about the extent of the targeting is nothing, that misleading Congress is nothing, that being held in contempt of Congress is nothing, that the government agency refuses to provide evidence and hides behind the flimsiest of excuses is nothing then there is little point in continuing a discussion with someone who simply does not have an interest in the facts of the matter.
I think you're conflating two issues here.
I am not saying that what the IRS is accused of having done is nothing. That's not what my post is about.
I am saying that the Republicans blustering of "When we control Congress we will get to the bottom of this! fnar fnar fnar fnar" is blustering with no merit, factual basis, or even basis in reality (short of the afore mentioned mustache twirling activities).
streamdragon wrote: And it is frelling nothing. I think we can all accept that it is frelling nothing. It is nothing but political posturing to get points before midterm elections in a week. Between all the various existing investigations, I would think anyone able to think objectively about this would realize there is nothing that a Republican controlled Congress would magically summon up, that current investigations have not (short of abducting Lorner off the street for 'enhanced interrogations' or something equally mustache twirling)
As I have said to others before; if you believe that targeting groups based on their politics is nothing, that deliberately mis-applying the rules the government agency must adhere to is nothing, that lying about the extent of the targeting is nothing, that misleading Congress is nothing, that being held in contempt of Congress is nothing, that the government agency refuses to provide evidence and hides behind the flimsiest of excuses is nothing then there is little point in continuing a discussion with someone who simply does not have an interest in the facts of the matter.
I think you're conflating two issues here.
I am not saying that what the IRS is accused of having done is nothing. That's not what my post is about.
I am saying that the Republicans blustering of "When we control Congress we will get to the bottom of this! fnar fnar fnar fnar" is blustering with no merit, factual basis, or even basis in reality (short of the afore mentioned mustache twirling activities).
If I mis-interpreted your posts then I apologize. When you said it was "frelling nothing" I took it to mean that the accusations against the IRS were without merit.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:If I mis-interpreted your posts then I apologize. When you said it was "frelling nothing" I took it to mean that the accusations against the IRS were without merit.
All good! All good. I was admittedly not very clear with my snark.
streamdragon wrote: All good! All good. I was admittedly not very clear with my snark.
Glad we understand each other's position better, For the record no matter the result of this election I would like to see this investigation completed and any wrong doings punished to the full extent of the law. No citizen or group should fear being punished because of legitimate political opinions.
According to this... the IRS lawyers said that IRS officials did not search for Lerner’s emails.
Here are the reasons given:
Why the IRS didn’t search computer servers: “the servers would not result in the recovery of any information.”
Why the IRS didn’t look at backup tapes: “no reason to believe that the tapes are a potential source of recovering” the missing emails.
The IRS did not ”submit declarations about any of the foregoing items because it had no reason to believe that they were sources from which to recover information lost as a result of Lerner’s hard drive failure,” the agency admitted.
Why the IRS didn’t search computer servers: “the servers would not result in the recovery of any information.”
If you read on, Klima goes on to note that the IRS was unaware of the existence of the relevant drives, and when they became aware of them they were asked by TIGTA not to discuss their contents while TIGTA conducts its investigation. An argument which the IRS has made before.
Why the IRS didn’t look at backup tapes: “no reason to believe that the tapes are a potential source of recovering” the missing emails.
Because any tape containing information regarding Lerner's pre-crash emails would have been destroyed years prior to the FOIA request, as they are overwritten or destroyed every 6 months. Again, and argument which has been made before.
Perhaps you focus less on buzz quotes, and more on the overall content of a given document.
Well, if you repeat it long enough, people will believe it, so expect to see that a few more times.
You don't have to have something be true for it to stick, you just have to have the endurance to keep repeating it until you outlast the people willing to make the effort to call you on it.
whembly wrote: Okay... so if a Republican Presidency does this to liberal/leftist groups. (after Clinton's Presidency of course)
Ya'll wouldn't care?
Gotcha.
Please cite where I said anything of the sort.
Then why so defensive over IRS' actions?
Snark answer: at least flavor your words before you shove them in my mouth.
:shakes snark seasonings:
It’s always good to go back and remember how this started. Lerner planted a question at the end of an unrelated teleconference. A “woopsie” to deflect from the IG report that was about to be released. Lerner spoke of a few low-level rogue agents working out of Ohio. Now after several iterations of “the truth,” Lerner pleading the 5th, destruction of evidence (or lack of integrity to protect the evidence), and stonewalling we are no closer to the truth than we were when Lerner was blaming eight workers out of Ohio.
The emails themselves are probably not especially damning, but they support the central narrative surrounding the IRS scandal... namely, that political considerations came into play in the application of tax law. Moreover, the amount of contortion spent on Lerner’s missing emails that may contain information critical to the investigation... is shocking.
EDIT: @dogma: did you miss this piece:
The IRS admitted to Judge Sullivan that the agency failed to “submit declarations about any of the foregoing items because it had no reason to believe that they were sources from which to recover information lost as a result of Lerner’s hard drive failure.” [Emphasis added] Department of Justice attorneys for the IRS had previously told Judicial Watch that Lois Lerner’s emails, indeed all government computer records, are backed up by the federal government in case of a government-wide catastrophe. The Obama administration attorneys said that this back-up system would be too onerous to search. In the October federal court filing, the IRS does not deny that the government-wide back-up system exists, and acknowledges to the court that 760 other email “servers” have been discovered but had not been searched.
Up to 30,000 missing emails sent by former Internal Revenue Service official Lois Lerner have been recovered by the IRS inspector general, five months after they were deemed lost forever.
The U.S. Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) informed congressional staffers from several committees on Friday that the emails were found among hundreds of “disaster recovery tapes” that were used to back up the IRS email system.
“They just said it took them several weeks and some forensic effort to get these emails off these tapes,” a congressional aide told the Washington Examiner.
The IRS, in a statement provided to the Examiner, said the agency and IRS Commissioner John Koskinen is fully cooperating with the investigation.
"As Commissioner Koskinen has stated, the IRS welcomes TIGTA’s independent review and expert forensic analysis." The IRS statement said. "Commissioner Koskinen has said for some time he would be pleased if additional Lois Lerner emails from this time frame could be found."
Committees in the House and Senate are seeking the emails, which they believe could show Lerner was working in concert with Obama administration officials to target conservative and Tea Party groups seeking tax-exempt status before the 2012 presidential election.
The missing emails extend from 2009 to 2011, a period when Lerner headed the IRS’s exempt-organizations division. The emails were lost when Lerner’s computer crashed, IRS officials said earlier this year.
In June Koskinen told Congress the emails were probably lost for good because the disaster recovery tape holds onto the data for only six months. He said even if the IRS had sought the emails within the six-month period, it would have been a complicated and difficult process to produce them from the tapes.
The IRS also lost the emails of several other employees who worked under Lerner during that period.
Lerner, who retired from the IRS, has refused to be questioned by Congress.
She provided a statement at a March hearing, but then clammed up, following the advice of her lawyer to avoid self-incrimination.
The House, led by Republicans, voted in May to hold Lerner in contempt of Congress.
Congressional aides said officials from the inspector general’s office said it could take weeks to get the recovered emails off the tape before sending them to lawmakers in Capitol Hill.
In all, investigators from the inspector general’s office combed through 744 disaster recovery tapes. They are not finished looking.
There are 250 million emails ion the tapes that will be reviewed. Officials said it is likely they will find missing emails from other IRS officials who worked under Lerner and who said they suffered computer crashes.
Investigators said the emails could include some overlapping information because it is not clear how many of them are duplicates or were already produced by Lerner to the congressional committees.
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee he chairs will be one of the committees that will examine the emails.
“Though it is unclear whether TIGTA has found all of the missing Lois Lerner e-mails, there may be significant information in this discovery,” Issa told the Examiner. “The Oversight Committee will be looking for information about her mindset and who she was communicating with outside the IRS during a critical period of time when the IRS was targeting conservative groups. This discovery also underscores the lack of cooperation Congress has received from the IRS. The agency first failed to disclose the loss to Congress and then tried to declare Lerner’s e-mails gone and lost forever. Once again it appears the IRS hasn’t been straight with Congress and the American people.”
The IRS admitted to Judge Sullivan that the agency failed to “submit declarations about any of the foregoing items because it had no reason to believe that they were sources from which to recover information lost as a result of Lerner’s hard drive failure.” [Emphasis added] Department of Justice attorneys for the IRS had previously told Judicial Watch that Lois Lerner’s emails, indeed all government computer records, are backed up by the federal government in case of a government-wide catastrophe. The Obama administration attorneys said that this back-up system would be too onerous to search. In the October federal court filing, the IRS does not deny that the government-wide back-up system exists, and acknowledges to the court that 760 other email “servers” have been discovered but had not been searched.
No, but that isn't from the document I quoted. It is from a Judicial Watch opinion piece associated with the document I quoted.
Issa wrote:Though it is unclear whether TIGTA has found all of the missing Lois Lerner e-mails, there may be significant information in this discovery...
I think it is important that we cling to these already done sideshows, continue to waste time and energy hammering away at them, and ignore what is currently happening legislatively. It is what our betters want, and we can't disappoint them.
Relapse wrote: I won't be holding my breath that they find anything.
Yep...
They've had enough time to scrub any incriminating emails.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: I think it is important that we cling to these already done sideshows, continue to waste time and energy hammering away at them, and ignore what is currently happening legislatively. It is what our betters want, and we can't disappoint them.
Many Americans seem to think it already exists, at least when it is convenient for them.
whembly wrote: Issa done has chairman Dogma. They've term limited that position.
That's nice, but Issa is chairman of the United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform for the 113th session of the US Congress. You know, that session of the US Congress which is ongoing.
Not that it matters as my joke pertained to his past behavior regarding the IRS investigation.
In a shocking revelation, the Treasury Inspector General has identified some 2,500 documents that “potentially” show taxpayer information held by the Internal Revenue Service being shared with President Obama’s White House.
The discovery was revealed to the group Cause of Action, which has sued for access to any of the documents. It charges that the IRS and White House have harassed taxpayers.
In an email from the Justice Department’s tax office, an official revealed the high number of documents, suggesting that the White House was hip deep in probes of taxpayers, likely including conservatives and Tea Party groups associated with the IRS scandal.
In requesting a delay in the delivery date of the documents, Justice told Cause of Action, “The agency [Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration] has located 2,500 potentially responsive documents and anticipates being able to finish processing 2,000 of these pages by the December 1 date. It needs the additional two weeks to deal with the last 500 pages to determine if they are responsive and make any necessary withholdings.”
Cause of Action, which calls itself “Advocates for Government Accountability,” wasn’t surprised by the number of documents. It had filed suit to win access to them and a federal judge shot down Treasury’s earlier bid to hide the documents.
“This disclosure, coming only after Cause of Action sued TIGTA over its refusal to acknowledge whether such investigations took place, and after the court ordered TIGTA to reveal whether or not documents existed, signals that the White House may have made significant efforts to obtain taxpayers’ personal information,” it said in a statement to Secrets.
The disclosure follows the agency’s recovery of 30,000 “lost” emails from former IRS executive Lois Lerner, the central figure in the IRS-Tea Party scandal.
Cause of Action said the latest finding renews their “concerns about the decaying professionalism of, and apparent slip into partisanship by, IRS's senior leadership.”
Below is the full email from Treasury:
My client wants to know if you would consent to a motion pushing back (in part) TIGTA’s response date by two weeks to December 15, 2014. The agency has located 2,500 potentially responsive documents and anticipates being able to finish processing 2,000 of these pages by the December 1 date. It needs the additional two weeks to deal with the last 500 pages to determine if they are responsive and make any necessary withholdings. We would therefore like to ask the court to permit the agency to issue a response (including production) on December 1 as to any documents it has completed processing by that date, and do the same as to the remaining documents by December 15. I note that the court’s remand was for a “determin[ation],” which the D.C. Circuit has recently explained can precede actual production by “days or a few weeks,” but we would prefer to simply agree on a date for turning over any of the remaining 500 documents that may be responsive.
I must ask, is targeting them strictly illegal? I'm a bit unsure about that. Wrong yes, but not everything that is wrong is illegal.
Personal opinion here, so feel free to ignore, but I actually think they should have put extra scrutiny on conservative and reactionary groups, but they should have for liberal and progressive groups as well. They are obviously just political. I personally am less concerned with a focus on pro-R groups than ignoring pro-D groups.
Wall Street Journal: ‘Lost’ IRS Emails Found: An Investigator Locates What the Tax Agency Claimed Had Vanished:
The Democrats’ midterm shellacking was in part a referendum on competence, which leads, naturally, to the all but unreported news that the IRS never “lost” emails after all. IRS Commissioner John Koskinen is pulling off the impossible task of destroying what little credibility that bureaucracy has left.
Treasury Department Inspector General Russell George recently informed Congress that his forensic investigation has turned up as many as 30,000 emails from the account of former IRS Exempt Organizations Director Lois Lerner—emails the IRS has insisted were destroyed. The emails cover the crucial period from January 2009 through June 2011 when the IRS was ramping up its targeting of conservative nonprofits.
Mr. Koskinen—hired nearly a year ago to clean up the IRS—has been at the center of that delay. In June the IRS buried in a letter to the Senate Finance Committee the bombshell news that nearly two years of Lerner emails were missing because her hard drive had crashed. This malfunction conveniently happened about 10 days after Congress alerted the IRS that it was looking into claims the agency was harassing conservative groups.
It later emerged that Mr. Koskinen had known about these missing emails in April—but hadn’t told Congress. He informed Congress only after a court case revealed the Lerner email record was incomplete.
Mr. Koskinen claimed in June that his agency had done everything humanly possible to recover the pesky documents. ... We can only imagine Mr. Koskinen’s shock in September when the Treasury IG said it had found 760 tapes that might hold Lerner emails. Or his further surprise when it took only a few weeks to identify and extract the specific Lerner documents—out of 250 million backup emails.
And we can only imagine Mr. Koskinen’s apology for his agency’s email failure—since he hasn’t given one. In response to the emails’ miraculous reappearance, the IRS explained: “The IRS welcomes TIGTA’s independent review and expert forensic analysis. Commissioner Koskinen has said for some time he would be pleased if additional Lois Lerner emails from this time frame could be found.”
This is an extraordinary statement, in that it suggests the only way an agency can be held accountable for producing subpoenaed documents is if an outsider tosses the joint. Either the IRS didn’t bother to investigate these tapes or, more alarming, it did and chose not to produce the results.
The IG is turning over the emails to the IRS, which is supposed to redact sensitive tax information before sending them to Congress. Mr. Koskinen needs to end the IRS stonewalling and turn the records over with dispatch without covering up incriminating evidence.
An IRS watchdog is acknowledging that thousands of documents related to requests between the White House and the tax agency for unauthorized tax information exist --- but says it must withhold them all due to privacy concerns.
The revelation by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) came as part of a lawsuit filed by non-profit group Cause of Action, which began investigating whether the IRS was improperly sharing taxpayer information with the White House in 2012.
Cause of Action originally filed a Freedom of Information Act request asking the IRS to turn over any documents, if they existed, related to correspondence between the IRS and the White House about requests for tax returns for individuals or businesses.
When the IRS said it was unable to do so because of constraints in the Internal Revenue Code, the group filed the lawsuit. A judge ruled that the IRS must turn over any relevant documents to Cause of Action by Dec. 1 to comply with the FOIA request.
On Tuesday, an attorney with TIGTA wrote a letter to Cause of Action, and acknowledged that the watchdog had located “2,509 pages of documents potentially responsive to your request.” Of those, TIGTA confirmed that 2,043 were in fact responsive to the request.
However, TIGTA said it could not release the documents to the group, citing the tax code.
“These pages consist of return information protected by 26 U.S.C. § 6103 and may not be disclosed absent an express statutory exception,” the letter said. “Because no such exception exists here, we are withholding those.”
Dan Epstein, a spokesman for Cause of Action, told FoxNews.com he believes that the IRS “essentially ignored the order of the court” with this declaration and that the group is considering the best path forward to force the IRS to disclose the documents.
However, Epstein said that the group feels that TIGTA’s acknowledgment of the documents is “absolutely” a victory in their investigation. He said the sheer number of relevant documents indicates that wrongdoing occurred on the part of both the IRS and the White House.
“That indicates scandal,” he said.
When asked about the case Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said he wasn’t familiar with it but that the administration “very closely” adheres to rules that ensure the IRS operates without political interference.
“I can tell you that, as a rule, that the Obama administration has been very rigorous in following all of the rules and regulations that govern proper communication between Treasury officials and White House officials and the Internal Revenue Service,” Earnest said.
Epstein said it is clear that’s not true.
“We know for a fact that the IRS broke the law,” he said.
Epstein said he hopes that TIGTA’s revelation will spur Congress and the Department of Justice to investigate the issue, and possibly get access to the documents themselves.
“If there is any evidence that the White House requested (unauthorized taxpayer information), then people in the White House are going to be implicated,” he said.
dogma wrote: "Wo" what? That a scandal exists? I'm pretty sure that goes without saying.
But this...
Fox wrote:He said the sheer number of relevant documents indicates that wrongdoing occurred on the part of both the IRS and the White House.
...is just lazy.
Here's the dealio...
1. Each request must contain the signature of the President, period. 2. The tax returns requested can only go to the President and those he designated to receive them in the signed request. If anyone else had access to the returns or if those designated to receive the information passed it along to anyone not named in the request, that is a violation of the law.
So what we should do is freaking FOIA the bloody requests. We aren’t asking to see the returns. We just want to see what names were “designated” by the President for White House review and more importantly, along with the reason that the White House gave.
While there is no law governing what is a legitimate reason, it will be interesting to see if the law was followed. The way I read it, the President must sign the request personally. The returns can then go to a designee, but the request itself must be signed by Obama.
We just want to see what names were “designated” by the President for White House review and more importantly, along with the reason that the White House gave.
The list of words and terms was produced long ago, at this point it is just a witch hunt.
We just want to see what names were “designated” by the President for White House review and more importantly, along with the reason that the White House gave.
The list of words and terms was produced long ago, at this point it is just a witch hunt.
I'd have to ask... but, what justifiable reason why the White House would request access to citizen's tax records?
I haven't found a good reason yet... other than it's political.
At this point, it's a fething legitimate witch hunt.
...
Judicial Watch today released internal Department of Justice (DOJ) documents revealing that former IRS official Lois Lerner had been in contact with DOJ officials about the possible criminal prosecution of tax-exempt entities two full years before what the IRS conceded was its “absolutely inappropriate” 2012 targeting of the organizations. According to the newly obtained documents, Lerner met with top Obama DOJ Election Crimes Branch officials as early as October 2010. ...
“These new documents dramatically show how the Justice Department is up to its neck in the IRS scandal and can’t be trusted to investigate crimes associated with the IRS abuses that targeted Obama’s critics. And it is of particular concern that the DOJ’s Public Integrity Section, which would ordinarily investigate the IRS abuses, is now implicated in the IRS crimes. No wonder the Department of Justice under Eric Holder has done no serious investigation of the Obama IRS scandal,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “It is shameful how Establishment Washington has let slide by Obama’s abuse of the IRS and the Justice Department. Only as a result of Judicial Watch’s independent investigations did the American people learn about the IRS-DOJ prosecution discussions of Obama’s political enemies and how the IRS sent, in violation of law, confidential taxpayer information to the FBI and DOJ in 2010. Richard Nixon was impeached for less.”
...
The agency pleads that it can’t share the documents that it may have shared illegally because that would be illegal.
The White House and IRS are entangled in a sticky court case with major political ramifications. It concerns allegations that the IRS illegally shared private taxpayer information with the White House related to conservative individuals or organizations. The Treasury Department said this month that although it has found a cache of documents that may be pertinent, it is not allowed by law to release them. The question now is who can find out whether the Obama White House has in effect weaponized the IRS, turning it into an agency that targets Americans out of favor with the administration.
Most likely, for reasons outlined below, Congress will have to be the one to find out. While we are far from knowing if any violations of the law have occurred, this is a serious issue. Misuse of the IRS was an article in Richard Nixon ’s impeachment—and he was only accused of trying to politicize the tax agency. ...
Treasury has clammed up again, trying to keep its contacts with the White House secret and reiterating that it is exempt from disclosure. The administration has offered a bizarre rationale: It would be illegal to turn over documents the IRS shared illegally since it is illegal for the IRS to share the files with anyone, including the court.
There still is a wide gap between our knowing that there is a cache of “responsive documents” and anyone establishing a direct connection between White House political operatives and the IRS. However revealing the documents may be, they would need to be followed up by interviews and depositions, which may lead to more documents. Only a thorough investigation can accomplish that.
A politicized Justice Department cannot be trusted to conduct an impartial investigation or to appoint a reliable outside prosecutor. This means that any serious inquiry is up to Congress.
Republican leaders are understandably cautious about this approach. When they take control of Congress in January, their overriding goal is to establish a track record for governing, not a pattern of investigating the Obama administration’s past transgressions. But this case should be an exception. Any White House interference with the IRS is a fundamental assault on the rule of law and the disinterested application of the tax code. If allowed to stand, it will serve as a pernicious precedent for future administrations.
Congress should proceed carefully but steadily. ... If the documents show repeated, politicized contacts between the IRS and the White House—and only then—the House and Senate should vote to establish a joint congressional committee to investigate. ... The heavy lifting, particularly taking depositions under oath, should be done behind closed doors, beginning with lower-level people who might have seen unauthorized documents or their political uses. Give them transactional immunity and make clear they face serious legal peril if they fail to testify fully and truthfully. Then follow the chain of testimony up the organizational chain. A well-conducted investigation would either clear the White House’s senior political aides or implicate them in serious wrongdoing.
The search for the truth here ought to be a bipartisan issue. It may yet become one as Democrats back away from the Obama White House.
