Were Lois Lerner’s allegedly lost emails actually destroyed? An Ohio-based trade association, the International Association of Information Technology Asset Managers (IAITAM), isn’t so sure, and they don’t find IRS commissioner Koskinen’s explanation of their loss very plausible.

IAITAM administers internationally accepted certifications for information technology professionals. According to the group’s standards, if Lerner’s supposedly malfunctioning hardware was properly destroyed, there would be records of it.

Dr. Barbara Rembiesa, president of IAITAM, questions whether there is documentation of the destruction of the files. Who performed the work, says Rembiesa, is important because not all IT professionals are IAITAM certified.

“The notion that these emails just magically vanished makes no sense whatsoever. That is not how IT asset management at major businesses and government institutions works in this country. When the hard drive in question was destroyed, the IRS should have called in an accredited IT Asset Destruction (ITAD) professional or firm to complete that process, which requires extensive documentation, official signoffs, approvals, and signatures of completion. If this was done, there would be records. If this was not done, this is the smoking gun that proves the drive or drives were destroyed improperly – or not at all.”

In hearings this week before the House of Representatives, Koskinen testified that the IRS tried to reconstruct the information from the hard drives but didn’t outline the details of their destruction.

Many of the missing Lerner emails exist on the hard drives of other IRS employees with whom she corresponded, but the IRS has not outlined a plan to find those to comply with subpoenas from the House of Representatives.

 sebster wrote:
Chilling is more than bit dramatic.

And your claim that there is substantial evidence to suggest is pretty far off the mark. At this stage we have evidence of a scheme that impacted both sides but one more substantially than the other, and insufficient evidence at this point that that unequal impact was unintentional. That's it. That's what we've got.

That doesn't mean the investigation should stop - exactly what happened and why needs to be established. But it does mean that all the claims that this is a 'chilling' targeting of political enemies is highly fanciful and mostly just political pointscoring.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
What other words do you think are appropriate when the agency admits to breaking the law and paying $50K settlement to one group after they deliberately leaked confidential documents including a donor list to their rivals?

What's more is that the IRS admitted that they targeted right leaning groups, that point can no longer be disputed.

 Grey Templar wrote:
They disproportionately targeted conservative groups is the point, not that they exclusively targeted them.

That is what is so wrong here.

 whembly wrote:
We geeks are still yapping about this...

IT Trade Association Questions Whether Lerner's Emails Were Destroyed

Were Lois Lerner’s allegedly lost emails actually destroyed? An Ohio-based trade association, the International Association of Information Technology Asset Managers (IAITAM), isn’t so sure, and they don’t find IRS commissioner Koskinen’s explanation of their loss very plausible.

IAITAM administers internationally accepted certifications for information technology professionals. According to the group’s standards, if Lerner’s supposedly malfunctioning hardware was properly destroyed, there would be records of it.

Dr. Barbara Rembiesa, president of IAITAM, questions whether there is documentation of the destruction of the files. Who performed the work, says Rembiesa, is important because not all IT professionals are IAITAM certified.

“The notion that these emails just magically vanished makes no sense whatsoever. That is not how IT asset management at major businesses and government institutions works in this country. When the hard drive in question was destroyed, the IRS should have called in an accredited IT Asset Destruction (ITAD) professional or firm to complete that process, which requires extensive documentation, official signoffs, approvals, and signatures of completion. If this was done, there would be records. If this was not done, this is the smoking gun that proves the drive or drives were destroyed improperly – or not at all.”

In hearings this week before the House of Representatives, Koskinen testified that the IRS tried to reconstruct the information from the hard drives but didn’t outline the details of their destruction.

Many of the missing Lerner emails exist on the hard drives of other IRS employees with whom she corresponded, but the IRS has not outlined a plan to find those to comply with subpoenas from the House of Representatives.

 whembly wrote:
You're simply advocating what Nixon tried to do.

 sebster wrote:
Did they also target liberal groups? If picking up groups because they have the word 'Tea Party' in their name, investigating them and then forwarding them on for further investigation is targeting, then is it also targeting liberal groups when you pick up groups with 'progressive' in their name, investigate them further, and forward them on for further investigation?

 sebster wrote:
Anyhow, like always this is just so fething stupid. I mean, just read your own fething links. See what the IRS actually fething said - that they wrongly applied too much scrutiny to Tea Party groups, but deny any political motivation? See how that's exactly what I've been saying - that this was certainly bad policy that was mostly felt by one side of politics, but anything more than that has to be proven.

And then you go and post a link that repeats back to me what I've been saying, as evidence of who knows what.... maybe you just read apology, and assume that means they're guilty of everything anyone has ever accused them of.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
The point they are trying to argue is that it isn't politically motivated and that is what is being investigated.

 sebster wrote:
Anyhow, in case you're actually reading this, at this point what is commonly claimed by Republicans, but absolutely unproven in any way, is the idea that there was some deliberate system in place to target only conservative groups, in order to advantage democrats politically. That's what needs to be established for any of this 'threat to democracy' stuff to be anymore than hot air and political opportunism.

 sebster wrote:
And when stop and search laws affect mostly black people, it might make the policy wrong, but it doesn't automatically make the people who designed the laws racists who designed racist policy purely for racist purposes.

Do you get the distinction?

The IRS under the Obama Administration has spent over $4 billion on contracts labeled under information technology and software despite IRS Commissioner John Koskinen testifying this week that budgetary restraints prevented the agency from spending $10 million to save and store emails.

Koskinen said “declining budget resources” at the IRS caused the agency decided to reject spending the $10 million needed to ensure emails were properly secured.

A review of IRS spending by the Free Beacon shows the agency has spent a massive amount on what it labeled as IT/software and data processing contracts in the past five fiscal years. The official government’s spending website shows the IRS spent $4.4 billion during this time period.

A total of 12,543 contracts were awarded under this product code.

Records show the IRS under President George Bush spent a total of $5.3 billion in eight years for the same contractive services. If the IRS spending trends continue as they have thus far, the IRS under Obama is on track to far exceed what was spent during the Bush presidency.

Koskinen also said “continuing financial constraints have meant that this fiscal year, the IRS is spending minimal amounts supporting its $1 billion IT infrastructure.” Records show the agency has already spent $642 million on IT contracts this fiscal year.

The IRS commissioner said Lois Lerner’s emails could not be retrieved due to a hard drive crash. However, records show his agency has spent tens of millions of dollars in contracts with at least two companies for information retrieval systems and a forensics program touted as securing and maintaining the integrity of data.

The IRS contracted with Unisys Corporation for $11.8 million, which included $4 million for “critical operation and maintenance of the files informational retrieval system” and $4.9 million for what the contract describes as “critical-exercise files information retrieval system (Exfirs) Operations and Maintenance.”

The agency also awarded a total contract worth $5.9 million to Immixtechnology Inc. in 2010 for what was described as an “encase enterprise forensics suite.”

The company website says the “EnCase® platform provides the foundation for government, corporate and law enforcement organizations to conduct thorough and effective computer investigations of any kind, such as intellectual property theft, incident response, compliance auditing and responding to eDiscovery requests—all while maintaining the forensic integrity of the data.”

The Free Beacon found other government agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, have hired Immixtechnology for its expertise.

Records show several IT contracts awarded run in the tens of millions of dollars. They include a $47 million contract for an IBM ESSO order that was signed in December 2013 and a $44 million contract for what was described as “critical functions/IBM software subscription.” Another contract for $27.6 million was awarded for IT/telecom, and still another contract awarded for IT for $58.5 million.

The IRS also contracted with Chicago-based Softchoice Corporation for ADP software; that contract amounted to $108 million. Records show the contract was signed in March of 2010 and completed in December 2012—the time frame during which Lerner’s emails were lost.

Softchoice is a leader in electronic storage. This year the company was named as “Top US Storage Growth Partner of the Year.”

The IRS explains on its website requirements for taxpayers to maintain records, including electronic records—which includes “databases, saved files, email, instant messages, faxes, and voice messages.”

“It’s important to note that the same timeframes that apply for keeping paper records apply to electronic records. Generally, that’s until the statute of limitations for the tax return the records relate to has expired. It’s normally three years from the due date of the return, or the date the return was filed—whichever is later,” the IRS states.

 whembly wrote:
Just so that this doesn't get buried, this chart brings it all into focus:


Anyone still wanna argue that there's no issue here?

Relapse wrote:

Just to play DA and underscore Dogma's question here, are there organizations that are not mentioned that would fall under the various Dakka poster's definition of progressive that were audited but are not included, also?

...
The IRS’s job is to collect taxes, and historically it’s been pretty darn good at that. But over the years, Congress has tasked the Service with many things that really have nothing to do with collecting revenue. ... So let’s have the IRS administer the healthcare system. Anybody want to hazard a guess about how that’ll go? ...

And that brings us back to section 501(c)(4), through which the IRS has been charged with regulating a part of the political fundraising process. This involves making precise calculations of the amount of political activity engaged in by social welfare organizations seeking tax-exempt status. How is the IRS supposed to determine that? And now added to this paradigm, apparently, is the political pressure being put on the IRS. So if a Democrat is in the White House, all conservative organizations are bad. And when a Republican is in the White House, I’m betting the heat will be on the IRS to determine that all liberal organizations are bad. Is that how this works?

I don’t know if the IRS has been politicized. Until recently that possibility would have been unthinkable. But the potential of the 501(c)(4) rules to be a setup for the politicization of the IRS is enormous. You simply can’t have the tax collector refereeing the people who provide it with its budget. It’s understandable – although, I think, shortsighted – that the Republicans want to starve the beast for its lack of transparency in the investigation of how it handled social welfare organizations. But the beast (and I don’t believe the IRS is a beast) is in real trouble now.

Section 501(c)(4) should be repealed immediately, and the IRS should be tasked with doing its job: collecting taxes. What are the odds that politicians will do that? Nil, because they’re the only ones benefiting from this mess.

But we are where we are, and I am truly worried. If this agency has been politically corrupted, it will not be able to function. And that leaves us with a question. Who's going to collect the revenue?
...

 whembly wrote:

Good question... lemme see if I can find more info.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Good question... lemme see if I can find more info.

Where did you pull the image from?

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Good question... lemme see if I can find more info.

Where did you pull the image from?

NPR.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/07/30/207080580/report-irs-scrutiny-worse-for-conservatives

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Good question... lemme see if I can find more info.

Where did you pull the image from?

NPR.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/07/30/207080580/report-irs-scrutiny-worse-for-conservatives

Wait, your quoting NPR? I thought they were the liberal media.

 whembly wrote:
NPR.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/07/30/207080580/report-irs-scrutiny-worse-for-conservatives

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:
NPR.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/07/30/207080580/report-irs-scrutiny-worse-for-conservatives

Interesting, because when I back-tracked the image the url was: http://rothcpa.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/targetingstats.jpg.

A Bit About The Methodology

The majority staff dug into the applications of both conservative groups and progressive groups given extra scrutiny by the IRS, but for the purposes of the analysis looked only at groups with names that included terms the IRS used for flagging. The terms included "conservative," "Tea Party," "patriot 9/12" and "progressive."

The committee opted not to make any judgments about the political leanings of other groups given extra scrutiny by the IRS, sticking only with those listed on IRS "Be on the Lookout" watch lists.

The analysis is the closest so far to an objective numerical accounting of how the groups were treated by the IRS. Still, the top Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee insists the study is flawed.

"The Republican analysis makes no mention of the time period of applications reviewed, no mention of whether they were the same applications reviewed by TIGTA [Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration] in connection with the audit, and no mention of the fact that there are terms that reflect liberal organizations other than 'progressive.' What's more, it doesn't disclose the overall number of conservative groups — compared with liberal groups — who applied for tax-exempt status. This is a recurring problem in this investigation — the release of incomplete information. Indeed, that is exactly what led to fundamental flaws in the TIGTA report," Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., said in a statement.

For Camp, the committee's chairman, these numbers validate ongoing Republican concerns that conservative groups were singled out.

"Conservative groups were treated differently and were given more questions," he said in an interview with NPR. "[They] were denied their ability to get approved and had their applications delayed. That means that they were targeted."

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
This round about again? I never said that liberal groups were not caught up in this. What I said was that the overwhelming majority of those targeted and had further action (in violation of IRS policy and procedure) were conservative groups.

If you're going to make such a comparison just remember that Stop & Search in NYC was rejected by a Federal Judge as unconstitutional

 whembly wrote:
Anyone still wanna argue that there's no issue here?

 sebster wrote:
Which is as meaningless as claiming that a disproportionate number of prisoners are black proves racism... You first have to establish that there were as many progressive groups as liberal groups, that those liberal groups were as likely to fail to meet the 501 criterias, and from there you can start to build a case that the over-representation has happened.

None of that has happened. All we have is accusations that have assumed it. It's Benghazi all over again.

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 — a finding that seems to confirm a political bias was at play.
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.
SEE ALSO: Crisis at IRS tied to lack of funding, National Taxpayer Advocate says
“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.

 sebster wrote:
Sure, and that's a key part of why I picked it. I mean, if you'd actually read anything I'd posted here you'd have learned I think the IRS policy was very poor law... I'm a little sympathetic because they got dumped with a very subjective piece of law to try and administer, but the way they tried to approach it was hopeless.

So damn straight the IRS process should get thrown out and the people who attempted it be rightly called idiots, but that doesn't make them partisan hacks. Just as stop & search was rightly rejected by a court of law and rightly criticized by all and sundry for its uneven racial impact... but that doesn't mean it would make any fething sense on any level to conclude the people who designed and passed the law were racists who intentionally designed an unconstitutional law just to spite black people.

 sebster wrote:
And that's the point. The IRS had a really bad policy, but the jumps in logic from the Republicans to conclude that it must have been part of an organised, deliberate process of victimisation is incredible. You actually have to fething prove that stuff.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Yup. All accusations. No findings that the IRS targeted conservative groups;

As I have said before and will say again- there cannot be any doubt that the IRS targeted conservative groups.

The only real question, and the one currently being investigated is whether it was being done out of political bias.

So to substantiate your point that the IRS did not target conservative groups, you selected a police practice that was struck down for disproportionately targeting minorities....

 sebster wrote:
Just please read the text of your own links, fething please.

"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 — a finding that seems to confirm a political bias was at play."

That's what the IG has confirmed, no more and no less. A recognition that one side was more heavily impacted than the other. We can look for motivation in that finding, but it would be our interpretation, and certainly not a finding that the IG has found.

 sebster wrote:
No, there is no doubt that the brunt of the policy was felt by conservative groups. Exactly what caused that is still completely and utterly undetermined.

 sebster wrote:
That is a very important question, and one I hope is settled clearly one way or the other.

 sebster wrote:
A point which appears to have gone completely over your head. But hey, I'm nothing but a sport so let's try again - would it be sensible to state that stop and search was designed in order to target minorities and teach them a lesson out of spite? Or was the policy designed for other reasons, but ended up having an unacceptably heavy impact on one group?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Yup. All accusations. No findings that the IRS targeted conservative groups;
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/27/irs-auditor-reaffirms-conservatives-not-liberals-w/?page=all

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 — a finding that seems to confirm a political bias was at play.
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.

As I have said before and will say again- there cannot be any doubt that the IRS targeted conservative groups. Especially when the IRS admitted to it. The only real question, and the one currently being investigated is whether it was being done out of political bias.

 streamdragon wrote:
I love the implication that any group with "Patriot" in its name absolutely 100% MUST be a conservative group. There can be no liberal groups with the word "Patriot" in their name.

I also wonder if there were any other "democratic" or "liberal" keywords looked at. I mean, we looked at "tea party" (who I would argue deserve extra scrutiny given their entire "taxes are illegal" nonsense), "patriot" () and "9/12" for "Conservative" groups. Did we only look for "progressive" groups? What about "green", "energy", or whatever-the-crap buzzwords tend to be in progressive names. (I honestly have no clue.) This isn't meant as a slam on the IG report, I'm just curious how deep and wide the net was actually cast for comparitive purposes.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Yup. All accusations. No findings that the IRS targeted conservative groups;

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

In the overwhelming majority of cases "patriot" corresponds with a right leaning group, the same way that "progressive" corresponds with a left leaning group.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Seeing as the IRS would have had an out and avoided a lot of the unpleasant focus it has received since this news broke I'd imagine that had there been targeting of liberal groups they would have been tripping over themselves to inform the investigation and the public.