motyak wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:

 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!

 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.

 streamdragon wrote:

 motyak wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:

 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!

 d-usa wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:

 motyak wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:

 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!

 d-usa wrote:
If you could show me a single place where I defended the IRS then it would be a question worth answering.

 whembly wrote:

Dogma was the only one brave enough to answer my question.

 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.

 whembly wrote:

...which, by the way, those emails were found and released...

 dogma wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

...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.

 whembly wrote:

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".

 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?

 Ouze wrote:

 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.

 Seaward wrote:
Subpoenas are the most common cause of hard drive failure.

 kronk wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Subpoenas are the most common cause of hard drive failure.

Followed closely by "I want a divorce", no?

 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.

 whembly wrote:

Evidently, they found the hard drive and that it was "scratched".

Jesus wept.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

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.

 dogma wrote:
No you aren't, you specifically stated that the drive was found; on the basis of a poorly written article.

 whembly wrote:

The House investigators said it was only “scratched,” not irreparably damaged.

 dogma wrote:
Why won't you admit that you proceeded on the basis of a poorly written article?

 whembly wrote:

The House investigators said it was only “scratched,” not irreparably damaged.

And how was that conclusion derived?

 whembly wrote:

Good question... investigation is still ongoing.

...
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.
...

 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.