IRS: So… Our Computer Crashed And Erased All Of Lois Lerner’s Emails

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

Besides... if I was a tax lawyer, I'd be filing a motion to dismissing all impending audits based on the public acknowledgement by the IRS that it was incapable of maintaining complete and accurate records and that, as a result, it is impossible for me and my client to know if the IRS had disclosed all relevant information to us. Spoliation is a hell of a thing.

I'm fairly certain that would never stand up in court, given that any tax lawyer worth his salt would be well aware of what was and was not considered a record by the IRS at the given time. And therefore what is, and is not likely to be backed up.

But otherwise: how can you claim spoliation when the evidence was created a minimum of 2 years prior to the investigation?

Frazzled wrote:

You've not dealt with tax issues have you...

Only the times I've done my own taxes, checked my parents taxes, and those of the NPOs I consult for.

**whembly**

Now we're getting closer...

Exclusive: Former IRS Information Tech Worker Doubts Agency’s Claim to have ‘Lost’ Lerner’s Emails

Hardly anyone accepts the IRS’ claim to have lost two years of Lois Lerner’s emails. Those most familiar with government record retention requirements, and the technology used, probably are the most skeptical.

The supposedly lost emails cover January 2009 to April 2011, the period when Lerner is suspected of targeting conservative groups with heightened and invasive scrutiny. Those emails also pertain to communications Lerner may have had with agencies other than the Internal Revenue Service. That’s key, because many suspect that the Obama White House knew about, and may have coordinated, the targeting. Democrats in Congress including Rep. Elijah Cummings are also under suspicion because they publicly called for the IRS to investigate conservative and Tea Party groups before the IRS did so. Email evidence linking Cummings to Lerner and a plan to have the FBI investigate True the Vote, the Texas-based election integrity group that was targeted by the IRS along with several other executive branch law enforcement agencies, surfaced in April 2014.

A former IRS IT specialist is casting serious doubt on the IRS’ claim to have lost the Lerner emails.

This person worked at the IRS facility in New Carrollton, Maryland.

He worked on the agency’s Prime Systems Integration Services contract, or “Prime,” a contract inked between the IRS and Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) in 1998 to modernize the IRS’ digital record-keeping system. CSC is the primary contractor, but other well-known companies including IBM, BearingPoint, Northrup Grumman, Unisys and Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC) are secondary players on the same contract.

The former IRS IT contractor finds it difficult to believe that the IRS could really have lost two years’ worth of Lois Lerner’s emails.

First, he points to the United States Code for government record retention. That code, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 33, governs what a government record is and requires that agencies must notify the Archivist of any records that are destroyed and the reasons for destroying them. The code was put into place after Iran-Contra to keep government workers and contractors from deleting records.

Section § 3309 states that records “pertaining to claims and demands by or against the Government of the United States or to accounts in which the Government of the United States is concerned, either as debtor or creditor, may not be disposed of by the head of an agency under authorization granted under this chapter, until the claims, demands, and accounts have been settled and adjusted in the General Accounting Office, except upon the written approval of the Comptroller General of the United States.”

“These environments were required by federal regulations to be redundant and recoverable,” the former IRS IT worker says. “The recoverability requirements were put into place for exactly the reasons we see today.” Disposal of records outside the statutory standards requires permission in writing.

He says that the IRS uses Microsoft Outlook/Exchange systems, which are backed up using Symantec NetBackup.

He also says that “the IRS is the cash cow of the federal government. When they ask for funding for anything it was granted without discussion.”

In the case of the prime contract and record retention, “The IRS IT projects were fully funded and never lacked for resources. To state ‘Backup tapes were reused after some short period’ is a complete joke. The IRS had thousands and thousands of tapes and ‘Virtual Tape Libraries’ (VTL or non-tape backups based on hard drive storage technologies). There was never a reason to reuse tapes.”

Indeed, the U.S. government has been getting out of the tape backup regime for years. The former IRS IT worker points to this ExaGrid document from 2011. In the document, ExaGrid discusses its work with the federal government to eliminate tape backups in favor of faster and more secure record retention systems.

ExaGrid specializes in disk-based records retention systems.

The former IRS IT worker adds that in his time on the prime contract, “I have worked for many federal agencies and the IRS had some of the best people.”

“This reason is why I scoff at the story being put out. Those folks would not have had such a short retention period for email unless they had it in writing from the highest levels. It would have made the local IT water cooler gossip if the IRS had screwed up and lost tons of email by accident.”

Yet the IRS claims that it lost the emails a year ago, and is only now telling congressional investigators.

**Dreadclaw69**

So now those who have in depth knowledge of the IRS's system are doubting the IRS's claims. Interesting

**Ouze**

whembly wrote:
He also says that “the IRS is the cash cow of the federal government. When they ask for funding for anything it was granted without discussion.”

That statement in and of itself is makes the rest of the claims in the article questionable. The IRS budget has been cut for years and they have rarely gotten the amount they've asked for. Perhaps it was true in 1998.

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
whembly wrote:
He also says that “the IRS is the cash cow of the federal government. When they ask for funding for anything it was granted without discussion.”

That statement in and of itself is makes the rest of the claims in the article questionable. The IRS budget has been cut for years and they have rarely gotten the amount they've asked for. Perhaps it was true in 1998.

I didn't read that as the IRS' own budget, but as the Federal Government's enforcement arm to ensure that the tax revenues are flowing into the Treasury.

In other words, I'd doubt they'd be using free/sharewares to do their jobs... but, using industry standard platforms.

**Ouze**

He also appears to confuse routine emails with government records, the latter of which have a clear legal definition.

I think we should investigate what happened, but Anonymous Blogger Guy isn't exactly the smoking gun here. Or, as Abraham Lincoln once famously said, "Don't Believe Everything You Read on Facebook:.

**Avatar 720**

Ouze wrote:
Or, as Abraham Lincoln once famously said, "Don't Believe Everything You Read on Facebook:.

Oh come on, Lincoln wasn't even alive when the internet was invented.

I'm so sick of people wrongly attributing quotes like this, it doesn't take much effort to Google who actually said it - in this case, that person was Teddy Roosevelt; everybody should know this by now.

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
He also appears to confuse routine emails with government records, the latter of which have a clear legal definition.

I think we should investigate what happened, but Anonymous Blogger Guy isn't exactly the smoking gun here. Or, as Abraham Lincoln once famously said, "Don't Believe Everything You Read on Facebook:.

Right... so you're buying the whole logic that her only archive location is on her pc?

Did you know that MS Exchange by default, automatically archives each inbound/outbound transmission? That's the whole fething point of MS' DAG architecture.

**Ouze**

whembly wrote:
Right... so you're buying the whole logic that her only archive location is on her pc?

I think it should be investigated, but I know that it's possible that a good percentage of her email was stored on a local PST, yes.

whembly wrote:

Did you know that MS Exchange by default, automatically archives each inbound/outbound transmission? That's the whole fething point of MS' DAG architecture.

I know a great deal about Exchange and various versions of MS Server, and specifically that different versions of Exchange can be configured in a nearly infinite number of ways, depending on how much space the organization wants to dedicate to network storage among countless other variables.

One of the things I know is that Database Avalailability Groups is that they were not implemented until Exchange 2010, so the chances that this technology was protecting Ms. Lerner's email in 2009 and previous is... dubious.

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
whembly wrote:
Right... so you're buying the whole logic that her only archive location is on her pc?

I think it should be investigated, but I know that it's possible that a good percentage of her email was stored on a local PST, yes.

whembly wrote:

Did you know that MS Exchange by default, automatically archives each inbound/outbound transmission? That's the whole fething point of MS' DAG architecture.

I know a great deal about Exchange and various versions of MS Server, and specifically that different versions of Exchange can be configured in a nearly infinite number of ways, depending on how much space the organization wants to dedicate to network storage among countless other variables.

Then we'd need the IRS Exchange Admin to go on record on what's their configuration and retention policy.

For example, I believe they've backed up all their data since they went live with Exchange. Starting with offsite tape backups, to an offsite data repository.

If that is true, then every mail that passed through those exchange servers are recoverable.

**Ouze**

whembly wrote:
Then we'd need the IRS Exchange Admin to go on record on what's their configuration and retention policy.

Yes, I'd like this question to be asked as well, ideally before an investigative subcommittee of some kind.

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:

One of the things I know is that Database Avalailability Groups is that they were not implemented until Exchange 2010, so the chances that this technology was protecting Ms. Lerner's email in 2009 and previous is... dubious.

As to DAG... 2010 was released in early '09 I believe.... so yeah, that'd put them most likely at that time at Exchange 2007. At that release, they still had numerous technologies to protect against this.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:
whembly wrote:
Then we'd need the IRS Exchange Admin to go on record on what's their configuration and retention policy.

Yes, I'd like this question to be asked as well, ideally before an investigative subcommittee of some kind.

Absolutely.

**Ouze**

whembly wrote:
Ouze wrote:

One of the things I know is that Database Avalailability Groups is that they were not implemented until Exchange 2010, so the chances that this technology was protecting Ms. Lerner's email in 2009 and previous is... dubious.

As to DAG... 2010 was released in early '09 I believe.... so yeah, that'd put them most likely at that time at Exchange 2007. At that release, they still had numerous technologies to protect against this.

Exchange 2010 was released November 2009 so I think it's probably a safe bet they were on 2007 - I cannot imagine a major company or organization deploying an RTM. However, now we're moving the goalposts from "Well, they had DAG" to "well, they had something else"... and we're still speculating.

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
whembly wrote:
Ouze wrote:

One of the things I know is that Database Avalailability Groups is that they were not implemented until Exchange 2010, so the chances that this technology was protecting Ms. Lerner's email in 2009 and previous is... dubious.

As to DAG... 2010 was released in early '09 I believe.... so yeah, that'd put them most likely at that time at Exchange 2007. At that release, they still had numerous technologies to protect against this.

Exchange 2010 was released November 2009 so I think it's probably a safe bet they were on 2007 - I cannot imagine a major company or organization deploying an RTM. However, now we're moving the goalposts from "Well, they had DAG" to "well, they had something else"... and we're still speculating.

Hence we need that official IT email policy.

**Dreadclaw69**

Ouze wrote:
whembly wrote:
Then we'd need the IRS Exchange Admin to go on record on what's their configuration and retention policy.

Yes, I'd like this question to be asked as well, ideally before an investigative subcommittee of some kind.

Hopefully (s)he will say something more useful than "I plead the Fifth"

**Ouze**

That's ideal, because at that point she can be compelled to testify by offering her conditional immunity. If there was a conspiracy - which I think is unlikely, but it needs to be investigated - that's where you want to be.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

I didn't read that as the IRS' own budget, but as the Federal Government's enforcement arm to ensure that the tax revenues are flowing into the Treasury.

He also says that “the IRS is the cash cow of the federal government. When they ask for funding for anything it was granted without discussion.”

In the case of the prime contract and record retention, “The IRS IT projects were fully funded and never lacked for resources. o state ‘Backup tapes were reused after some short period’ is a complete joke. The IRS had thousands and thousands of tapes and ‘Virtual Tape Libraries’ (VTL or non-tape backups based on hard drive storage technologies). There was never a reason to reuse tapes.”

He, whoever he is, is pretty clearly talking about IRS organizational funding. There is no other valid interpretation, at least beyond the blogger being a poor author.

whembly wrote:

Right... so you're buying the whole logic that her only archive location is on her pc?

No one has bought into that "logic".

The only "logic" that has been bought into is the notion that the inability to produce certain emails is clear evidence of malice.

**d-usa**

whembly wrote:

Besides... Under multiple records retention regulations, and primarily the Federal Records Act , the IRS is required to preserve those emails or otherwise contemporaneously transmit records for preservation (ie, print outs).

Except nothing in that act says "you have to preserve emails or otherwise contemporaneously transmit records for preservation".

It states:

Recordkeeping requirements should be outlined in procedural manuals and other issuances that specify which records need to be included in agency files or other recordkeeping systems.

So looks like each agency has some discretion and decides which records fall under the act. And unless we have an official IRS guideline saying "all emails are records to be forever preserved" it really is just a bunch of speculation with no grounds in reality and is nothing concrete enough to even push for warrants, let alone charges.

**Co'tor Shas**

But speculation with no grounds in reality what politicians do best!

**sebster**

whembly wrote:
Seb... think of the absolute lamest, dumbest excuse one could use in your industry, where everyone in your field would immediately raise the red flag.

This is it here.

Did you read what I posted?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
But conveniently over the time period in question of the subpoenas? Pardon me if I'm skeptical.

For instance... my email archive (I work in the IT healthcare industry) is just over 14GB, encompassing 14 years worth on a network resource. (huh... a gig a year... that's interesting.) That's an ass-ton of emails. We are prohibited by policy from storing our archives on our workstations because of the nature of patient confidentiality and audits.

Besides... Under multiple records retention regulations, and primarily the Federal Records Act , the IRS is required to preserve those emails or otherwise contemporaneously transmit records for preservation (ie, print outs).

As I already explained, email record keeping varies wildly from organisation to organisation. "We have all our emails stored therefore they must as well and this is a coverup" is nonsense.

As I already explained, I have had almost this exact situation in both of my last work places, where parliamentary questions could not be answered because whole email chains had been lost. As such it is completely unremarkable that emails requested under subpoena would no longer exist.

And, as I already explained, this doesn't mean there is nothing dodgy going on, as lost computer records are second only to 'I can't recall' in the arsenal of the coverup.

But it does mean that, as some of you are trying, it also isn't evidence of anything. Seeing missing emails as evidence of a coverup is just imagination and wishful thinking.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
Besides... if I was a tax lawyer, I'd be filing a motion to dismissing all impending audits based on the public acknowledgement by the IRS that it was incapable of maintaining complete and accurate records and that, as a result, it is impossible for me and my client to know if the IRS had disclosed all relevant information to us. Spoliation is a hell of a thing.

A judge would shout floodgates at you, probably throw his gavel in your general direction, and then strut out of court like he owned the damn place. Probably because he does own the damn place.

Then you'd bill your client for legal costs far in excess of the likely cost of their audit, and the whole system would roll on.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So now those who have in depth knowledge of the IRS's system are doubting the IRS's claims. Interesting

No, some guy who says he used to work for the IRS doubts the claim. Which on the scale of evidence is slightly below the opinion of the guy who lives over the road who listens to talk radio all day long.

So, to make this absolutely fething clear - there is no evidence of anything here. There's a story from the IRS that has a fair chance of being total bs - at which point any investigation interested in learning what actually happened needs to go an investigate and build a substantive case that the emails were destroyed, or otherwise prove their suspicions about the IRS.

But if this just a smoke blowing exercise, trying to excite the conservative base with vague rumours of evil liberal wrong doing when everyone knows there was little to nothing at the core of this, well then you're going to get claims and reports trying to make a conspiracy out of nothing more than the fact that the emails aren't stored.

We're seeing the latter. Which is convincing more everyday that this is all just bs.

**whembly**

We shall see. At this point, all these conjectures is moot until we understand how all of this is architectured.

FWIW, I just found out that I can retrieve an email, if I desired, that I deleted from my inbox back in 2002. The only thing required from me is a timeframe, and money as its stored offsite by 3rd party vendor. I find that interesting because I'm not sure if we're doing this out the goodness of our hearts or if it's mandated by the Fed/States. Missouri actually has a "Sunshine Law", but I don't have all the details yet.

**sebster**

whembly wrote:
We shall see. At this point, all these conjectures is moot until we understand how all of this is architectured.

Yep. There may be something at the core of this, but it's really important to actually have some evidence of that before speculating.

FWIW, I just found out that I can retrieve an email, if I desired, that I deleted from my inbox back in 2002. The only thing required from me is a timeframe, and money as its stored offsite by 3rd party vendor. I find that interesting because I'm not sure if we're doing this out the goodness of our hearts or if it's mandated by the Fed/States. Missouri actually has a "Sunshine Law", but I don't have all the details yet.

Interesting. We've got requirements to keep records that are important, and obviously importance is a stupidly vague concept, pretty much left up to individuals to figure out for themselves, to the extent they can be bothered with the unwieldy records system.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

FWIW, I just found out that I can retrieve an email, if I desired, that I deleted from my inbox back in 2002. The only thing required from me is a timeframe, and money as its stored offsite by 3rd party vendor.

Are you suggesting that the IRS should store emails (records or not), which would necessarily include things like SSNs and tax deductions, on the servers of a third-party vendor?

**Dreadclaw69**

sebster wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So now those who have in depth knowledge of the IRS's system are doubting the IRS's claims. Interesting

No, some guy who says he used to work for the IRS doubts the claim. Which on the scale of evidence is slightly below the opinion of the guy who lives over the road who listens to talk radio all day long.

So, to make this absolutely fething clear - there is no evidence of anything here. There's a story from the IRS that has a fair chance of being total bs - at which point any investigation interested in learning what actually happened needs to go an investigate and build a substantive case that the emails were destroyed, or otherwise prove their suspicions about the IRS.

But if this just a smoke blowing exercise, trying to excite the conservative base with vague rumours of evil liberal wrong doing when everyone knows there was little to nothing at the core of this, well then you're going to get claims and reports trying to make a conspiracy out of nothing more than the fact that the emails aren't stored.

We're seeing the latter. Which is convincing more everyday that this is all just bs.

Perhaps saying that he had "in depth knowledge" was overstating the relevance of his statement. That being said, on face value the IRS's statement about losing emails seems somewhat flimsy and almost too convenient. Yes, it could all just be a series of legitimate and unfortunate events that caused the IRS to lose emails from people involved in this affair over the time that it was occurring, but when the IRS has already been caught lying about their actions before Lerner went public there is a certain credibility gap that needs addressed.

And this is not just conservative v liberal. Had it been liberal groups being targeted I would be equally outraged. Anyone who values liberty should be gravely concerned over these accusations that anyone could be investigated apparently on the basis of exercising their right to freedom of speech.

**Co'tor Shas**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
sebster wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So now those who have in depth knowledge of the IRS's system are doubting the IRS's claims. Interesting

No, some guy who says he used to work for the IRS doubts the claim. Which on the scale of evidence is slightly below the opinion of the guy who lives over the road who listens to talk radio all day long.

So, to make this absolutely fething clear - there is no evidence of anything here. There's a story from the IRS that has a fair chance of being total bs - at which point any investigation interested in learning what actually happened needs to go an investigate and build a substantive case that the emails were destroyed, or otherwise prove their suspicions about the IRS.

But if this just a smoke blowing exercise, trying to excite the conservative base with vague rumours of evil liberal wrong doing when everyone knows there was little to nothing at the core of this, well then you're going to get claims and reports trying to make a conspiracy out of nothing more than the fact that the emails aren't stored.

We're seeing the latter. Which is convincing more everyday that this is all just bs.

Perhaps saying that he had "in depth knowledge" was overstating the relevance of his statement. That being said, on face value the IRS's statement about losing emails seems somewhat flimsy and almost too convenient. Yes, it could all just be a series of legitimate and unfortunate events that caused the IRS to lose emails from people involved in this affair over the time that it was occurring, but when the IRS has already been caught lying about their actions before Lerner went public there is a certain credibility gap that needs addressed.

And this is not just conservative v liberal. Had it been liberal groups being targeted I would be equally outraged. Anyone who values liberty should be gravely concerned over these accusations that anyone could be investigated apparently on the basis of exercising their right to freedom of speech.

They were, wern't they?

On a side note, they actully should be targeting conservitive/liberal groups, who are trying to get a tax-exempt status when they are obviously political. Otherwise no, but when they are trying to get tax-exempt status for being non-political and are obviosly political, then yes.

**Frazzled**

I agree with that actually, if both sides are equally vetted as viciously.

But I'm one of those who think all these enetities (PACs, these guys, unions) should be taxed.

**Dreadclaw69**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
They were, wern't they?

On a side note, they actully should be targeting conservitive/liberal groups, who are trying to get a tax-exempt status when they are obviously political. Otherwise no, but when they are trying to get tax-exempt status for being non-political and are obviosly political, then yes.

Then both should be vetted equally. Instead we have what appears to have been a process weighted heavily against one side, and the accusations that confidential documents were released to political opponents.

**whembly**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

FWIW, I just found out that I can retrieve an email, if I desired, that I deleted from my inbox back in 2002. The only thing required from me is a timeframe, and money as its stored offsite by 3rd party vendor.

Are you suggesting that the IRS should store emails (records or not), which would necessarily include things like SSNs and tax deductions, on the servers of a third-party vendor?

Yep. I can't imagine that they don't.

**Kanluwen**

whembly wrote:
dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

FWIW, I just found out that I can retrieve an email, if I desired, that I deleted from my inbox back in 2002. The only thing required from me is a timeframe, and money as its stored offsite by 3rd party vendor.

Are you suggesting that the IRS should store emails (records or not), which would necessarily include things like SSNs and tax deductions, on the servers of a third-party vendor?

Yep. I can't imagine that they don't.

Considering the storm headed AT&T's way for customer data including SSNs being accessed without authorization (and subsequently being sold) by employees of third-party vendors...I'm gonna go with "NOPE!".

**whembly**

Kanluwen wrote:
whembly wrote:
dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

FWIW, I just found out that I can retrieve an email, if I desired, that I deleted from my inbox back in 2002. The only thing required from me is a timeframe, and money as its stored offsite by 3rd party vendor.

Are you suggesting that the IRS should store emails (records or not), which would necessarily include things like SSNs and tax deductions, on the servers of a third-party vendor?

Yep. I can't imagine that they don't.

Considering the storm headed AT&T's way for customer data including SSNs being accessed without authorization (and subsequently being sold) by employees of third-party vendors...I'm gonna go with "NOPE!".

http://www.exagrid.com/files/ExaGrid-Federal_Government_Solution_Brief.pdf

That's what they're using apparently. Not sure if it's inhouse or offsite.

Kan, it's not uncommon for 3rd party vendors to house archived data.