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.

**sebster**

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.

**whembly**

Yeah... it went there.

MORE ON THE IRS’S ILLEGAL DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE

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.

I guess we may find out soon, as True the Vote’s motion is scheduled to be heard on July 11. Here is True the Vote’s brief in support of its motion:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/232193418/06-30-2014-Motion-and-Memorandum-of-Law-in-Support-of-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction

**Dreadclaw69**

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".

Well then yeah, okay.

When I say targeted I mean the conduct that they admitted to;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/irs-admits-targeting-conservatives-for-tax-scrutiny-in-2012-election/2013/05/10/3b6a0ada-b987-11e2-92f3-f291801936b8_story.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/irs-admits-targeting-conservative-groups/story?id=19151646
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/10/irs-apology-conservative-groups-2012-election/2149939/

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."

**sebster**

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."

This is ridiculous.

**dogma**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
The IRS admitted targeting conservative groups. That fight is settled.

Ok, that was settled long ago, the present issue is whether or not the IRS targeting of conservative groups was legitimate.

**Dreadclaw69**

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;

sebster wrote:
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.

**d-usa**

If we are looking at the chart that conservatives are claiming as evidence, then it seems that any targeting would have been justified.

**dogma**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

“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?

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

That finding contradicts claims by congressional Democrats who said liberal groups were targeted too

No, it doesn't. The finding minimally indicates that liberal groups were targeted at a lower rate, which has been an established fact for over a year.

This goes back into my other statement, regarding legitimacy and targeting.

**Seaward**

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.

**whembly**

Woah... this is sorta big...

http://online.wsj.com/articles/emails-point-to-irs-officials-using-instant-messages-1404936144

So... the IRS releases this email on July 3rd, (in an obvious attempt to bury the story):
http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Lerner-email-use-2.pdf

So first she says that we should be careful what we say in emails...

Then asks if the OCS system, the internal IRS instant-message system, if it is also archived, as emails are.

She is told "no."

She responds: "Perfect."

This is big.

Why?

"We need to be cautious about what we say in emails." - Lois Lerner, April 9, 2013

Lois Lerner pleads the Fifth, on May 22, 2013

Issa ain't happy about it:

Darrell Issa ✔ @DarrellIssa
Follow
EMAIL: Lois Lerner intentionally sought to hide #IRS internal communications from Congress: http://1.usa.gov/1pZPxUU #IRStargeting

**Dreadclaw69**

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?

**sebster**

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.

**MrDwhitey**

Holy gak whembly what is up with that tiny window.

**Jihadin**

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?

Collateral

**dogma**

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.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
Woah... this is sorta big...

http://online.wsj.com/articles/emails-point-to-irs-officials-using-instant-messages-1404936144

You really need to stop posting things that are behind paywalls.

whembly wrote:

Then asks if the OCS system, the internal IRS instant-message system, if it is also archived, as emails are.

The purpose of the e-mail was to ask a question about OCS; this is very clear as it is in the subject. Your ordination is wrong.

**whembly**

dogma wrote:
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.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
Woah... this is sorta big...

http://online.wsj.com/articles/emails-point-to-irs-officials-using-instant-messages-1404936144

You really need to stop posting things that are behind paywalls.

Am I breaking any dakka rules? I'm sure other sites will pick up this article...

whembly wrote:

Then asks if the OCS system, the internal IRS instant-message system, if it is also archived, as emails are.

The purpose of the e-mail was to ask a question about OCS; this is very clear as it is in the subject. Your ordination is wrong.

wut?

**Jihadin**

Federal Judge Sullivan ordered IRS to submit a Written Declaration under Oath in under 30 days.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

Am I breaking any dakka rules? I'm sure other sites will pick up this article...

Probably not. WSJ guards its articles aggressively.

But that still doesn't escape my criticism.

whembly wrote:

wut?

Lerner first asked about OCS, the statement about emails came after that.

**whembly**

dogma wrote:

whembly wrote:

wut?

Lerner first asked about OCS, the statement about emails came after that.

Look at the email timestamps dogma.

**Jihadin**

How about posting the email here. I do not feel like putting my pertinent info out there to them

**whembly**

Jihadin wrote:
How about posting the email here. I do not feel like putting my pertinent info out there to them

http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Lerner-email-use-2.pdf

**d-usa**

You should always be cautious about what you say in emails that are public records, what's the "flag" here?

**Jihadin**

Instead of a verbal "warning" she put it out on digital. Also the "warning" was giving at a time that Congress was investigating into IRS I think.

**d-usa**

And how is that anything out of the ordinary?

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.

**Jihadin**

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.

Edit

We can ask Snowden

**Breotan**

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?

**Jihadin**

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.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

Look at the email timestamps dogma.

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.

**whembly**

Wo... this just happened...

Rep. Stockman: We just filed resolution to have Lois Lerner arrested; Updated with full text of resolution

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.

[url=http://stockman.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/stockman-files-motion-ordering-the-arrest-of-lois-lerner …

From Stockman’s http://stockman.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/stockman-files-motion-ordering-the-arrest-of-lois-lerner]press release, linked above:[/url]

“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**

What a joke.

But I'm sure the partisan lackeys will eat it up, as intended.