Lois Lerner and IRS Scandal

So ... we all know that the IRS targeted conservative organizations for audit and delayed their ability to organize under non-profit status where they did neither for liberal groups. Originally, it was blamed on a rouge office in Cincinnati, but we now know that's not true. The extent of wrongdoing is now likely to never be known due to the sudden disappearance and recycling of several IRS hard drives that contained information that could shed light on what happened.

Another too-tidy survey on what you think of it and what the ramifications should be! Vote more than once if you like, add/delete suggestions in the thread.

This is grist for the DT site.

Nareed's First Law of Political Ethics states: It's wrong only if the other party does it. (*)

Nareed's second Law of Political Ethics states: It's a mistake only if it loses you or your party votes. (*)

Nareed's Third to Nth Laws of Political Ethics: See the First and Second Laws.


(*) I'm not saying I aprove or find this a principle to follow. It's an explanation of political ethics in simple terms.

Okay--perhaps it should be DT...but it is pretty dead over that way. You get much more input here. Let's put it in a gambling perspective...what are the odds of:

--No prosecutions
--Prosecution of someone at the lower level (local offices)?
--Prosecution of someone at a higher level (IRS HQ)?
--An actual link to someone in the White House and that person being prosecuted?
--A link to the President?
--The news media contesting someone calling it a "made-up scandal"?

I'm just proud we have an attorney general with the integrity to get to the bottom of this and let the chips fall where they may. An unethical AG might let this slide.

Quote: Sabretom2

I'm just proud we have an attorney general with the integrity to get to the bottom of this and let the chips fall where they may. An unethical AG might let this slide.

Yes, it is fantastic...a transparent administration with integrity at the core.

Worse than Watergate?

Lay off the Kool-Aid, people.

Quote: ams288

Worse than Watergate?

Lay off the Kool-Aid, people.

Wow ... I can see where the comparison may make those who favor the liberal agenda uncomfortable, but it could not be more apt, just a different medium and media doggedness this time around. Failure to see that is, to me, incomprehensible and not reflective of reality.

While it is well within the liberal culture to throw (what amounts to) a misleading, unsupported, meaningless meme-xim at something hoping to shame/embarrass the other side away from the topic, I would expect something better than that in this (otherwise) pretty cogent and erudite forum.

What happened at Jonestown has nothing to do with this perfectly appropriate and apt comparison. Those who recognize it are not repeating what some svengali feeds them, although I would argue that those who won't see it are. It's really that plain and that easy.

Quote: ams288

Worse than Watergate?

Lay off the Kool-Aid, people.

How much recorded information about what happened was lost during the Watergate scandal? 18 minutes?

This time we have six people that suddenly have lost emails a couple of years after they were asked to produce them. Amazingly, this loss was never reported when the request were made back then.

Mathematically you can surmise these groups were using statuses they probably had no right to, so what's wrong with auditing groups you suspect are breaking the law?

Quote: onenickelmiracle

Mathematically you can surmise these groups were using statuses they probably had no right to, so what's wrong with auditing groups you suspect are breaking the law?

Auditing law breaking groups was never the question. It was the targeting of conservative groups and subsequent erasing of "18 minutes" of computer data to avoid prosecution. Under this logic, being conservative is tantamount to law-breaking. Is that what you mean?

Quote: MrWarmth

Auditing law breaking groups was never the question. It was the targeting of conservative groups and subsequent erasing of "18 minutes" of computer data to avoid prosecution. Under this logic, being conservative is tantamount to law-breaking. Is that what you mean?

Whats the big deal, I welcome the IRS auditing me. I am honest.
Why dont conservative groups welcome an audit? Are they cheating?
Cmon IRS, audit me. honest people and groups have nothing to fear.
Its a total non issue. People and groups should be targeted.

Quote: terapined

Whats the big deal, I welcome the IRS auditing me. I am honest.
Why dont conservative groups welcome an audit? Are they cheating?
Cmon IRS, audit me. honest people and groups have nothing to fear.
Its a total non issue. People and groups should be targeted.

That is some funny stuff right there...you should do comedy!!

Quote: MrWarmth

The extent of wrongdoing is now likely to never be known due to the sudden disappearance and recycling of several IRS hard drives that contained information that could shed light on what happened.
.

I read the IRS recycling was a process in place years ago that wrote over backup info every 6 months, unless it was something directly connected to a record. That's not sudden. And these are emails from several years ago.

Naturally, they are more interested in emails of back and forth conversation about process than what they already know about the actual records. But that is also the most likely already gone.

Yup, you can make nefarious explanations, if you wish.

Missing particular email is not in itself evidence of wrongdoing, at least as I understand it, so far. You have to tie it to some proof of intention. Or sabotage. Something...

Quote: MrWarmth

Auditing law breaking groups was never the question. It was the targeting of conservative groups and subsequent erasing of "18 minutes" of computer data to avoid prosecution. Under this logic, being conservative is tantamount to law-breaking. Is that what you mean?

My impression was they really weren't actually nonprofits as claimed and were just participating in what they despised. You have no logic I can see, so can't agree on any logic you propose just because I can't be bothered to waste my time.

Quote: rxwine

I read the IRS recycling was a process in place years ago that wrote over backup info every 6 months, unless it was something directly connected to a record. That's not sudden. And these are emails from several years ago.

Naturally, they are more interested in emails of back and forth conversation about process than what they already know about the actual records. But that is also the most likely already gone.

Yup, you can make nefarious explanations, if you wish.

Missing particular email is not in itself evidence of wrongdoing, at least as I understand it, so far. You have to tie it to some proof of intention. Or sabotage. Something...

Fair enough. Arrest the IRS commissioner for lying to congress when he promised to deliver the e-mail.

In the corporate world, you are advised to keep all emails that you expect could have legal consequences in the future. But given the size and tediousness of all emails, it's not a surprise that the data gets backed up to tape and the tape gets written over, though it becomes a FoxNews talking point when it's a Dem gaffe.

-----

I like DT because it is a place to discuss topics where we could have an intelligent debate without getting too political. I signed out of a couple of threads because it was getting to the same level of bicker back and forth that wasn't going to resolve itself.

Quote: terapined

Cmon IRS, audit me. honest people and groups have nothing to fear.

That's not the point. The point is the intrusion, invasion of privacy, inconvenience, expense and labor invovled in any audit. Ordinary, legitimate audits are bad enough. When done frivoluously to silence or intimidate or merely even delay action by any group of citizens, it is an unconscionable abuse of power.

Quote: terapined

Whats the big deal, I welcome the IRS auditing me. I am honest.
Why dont conservative groups welcome an audit? Are they cheating?
Cmon IRS, audit me. honest people and groups have nothing to fear.
Its a total non issue. People and groups should be targeted.

Nah. Your hard drive is obviously still working. That's no fun.

Quote: MrWarmth

So ... we all know that the IRS targeted conservative organizations for audit and delayed their ability to organize under non-profit status where they did neither for liberal groups. Originally, it was blamed on a rouge office in Cincinnati, but we now know that's not true. The extent of wrongdoing is now likely to never be known due to the sudden disappearance and recycling of several IRS hard drives that contained information that could shed light on what happened.

Another too-tidy survey on what you think of it and what the ramifications should be! Vote more than once if you like, add/delete suggestions in the thread.

I reject your opening premise on this. So none of your choices are useful to me.

Nov. 2008: Barack Obama is elected President. Backlash is immediate, with Koch Bros. etc. financing Tea Party movement through "grassroots" organizing. The average participant thinks that, magically, there was a whole infrastructure and network just WAITING for Timmy and Tammy Teabagger to light the match of Patriotism and Taking Back My Country. That rallies magically organized themselves in halls and stadiums that were somehow free to them but anybody else would have to rent them. er...no.

Jan 2010: Supreme Court releases Citizens. United ruling, broadening definition of entity allowed to make political contributions (among other things) and enhancing ability of 501 c 3 organizations to mask contributors and amounts and make political contributions to "causes" while operating under charitable tax rules.

Thousands of new 501 c 3 organizations spring up in the immediate wake of this ruling, filed for by politically oriented groups. Not all conservative, but the vast majority are, both because of the backlash, and because of the backstage manipulation of their group. They are instructed to file by local Tea Party organizers, who are coordinating these filings through their national network.

The IRS, while doing their due diligence on these filings, sees a lot of errors and misconceptions about what such an organization is allowed to do. For example, 501 c 3's are not allowed to spend any money advocating for a particular candidate, including contributions, fundraising, advertising, and other restrictions, and maintain their 501 c 3 status. Most of them don't understand that part and are in violation of the statute through the 2010 election and beyond. The IRS disqualifies all groups abusing their status for whatever reason and of whatever stripe, but the sheer number of neophyte conservative groups makes them a clear majority in the time frame being examined.

I'm sure there was a profiling factor introduced at some point, where the large percentage of new groups of political intent that were operating in violation caused a concentration on all post-Citizens United filings. It only makes sense that, if you see a pattern of violators, you look at similar situations. This one just happens to be political. 20 years ago, there was a big argument about what a church could do or not do and retain their tax-exempt status. All churches got looked at. Same kind of problem.

HOWEVER, instead of taking responsibility for not following the laws and statutes for operating as 501 c 3's, which precede these groups by decades, and learning to exist within the framework of qualification, the groups and the conservative media scream "PREJUDICE!!" against the IRS and create a distracting, mudslinging scandal. Any subsequent media examination has been of the IRS procedures, not of the illegal "charities". Good work, there, spinners.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Nov. 2008: Barack Obama is elected President. Backlash is immediate, with Koch Bros. etc. financing Tea Party movement through "grassroots" organizing.

That is grossly inaccurate. The Tea Party started after a rant by Rick Santelli on CNBC from the floor of the futures exchange in Chicago. That was on Feb. 19, 2009, and the Koch brothers had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Quote: SanchoPanza

That is grossly inaccurate. The Tea Party started after a rant by Rick Santelli on CNBC from the floor of the futures exchange in Chicago. That was on Feb. 19, 2009, and the Koch brothers had absolutely nothing to do with it.

I'm not suggesting the Tea Party was formed the day after the election, just that there was a vocal backlash starting then that people were poised to organize and empower. In the period between the election and the Jan 2010 SCOTUS ruling, it came into its own. If the founding moment was as you cite, (3months post-election, 1month post-inauguration) so be it. It's still in that time frame.

Quote: beachbumbabs

The IRS, while doing their due diligence on these filings, sees a lot of errors and misconceptions about what such an organization is allowed to do. For example, 501 c 3's are not allowed to spend any money advocating for a particular candidate, including contributions, fundraising, advertising, and other restrictions, and maintain their 501 c 3 status. Most of them don't understand that part and are in violation of the statute through the 2010 election and beyond. The IRS disqualifies all groups abusing their status for whatever reason and of whatever stripe, but the sheer number of neophyte conservative groups makes them a clear majority in the time frame being examined.

Interesting "narrative" there. Not one that happens to be shared by the Inspector General, of the United States Department of the Treasury, Tax Administration (IRS), which is where this matter first arose and was brought to public attention.

Quote: J. Russell George, United States Inspector General, Dept of the Treasurey, Tax Administration

The IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status...

...based upon their names or policy positions instead of indications of campaign intervention.

[Highlight added.]

He went on to discuss fun & games such as illegally seeking to identify supporters of such organizations that were in political disfavor. The IRS senior management's response incorporated in the IG report largely agreed with his findings, and essentially promised a series of steps to make sure these transgressions of authority wouldn't happen again, as did the "I'm angry" public statement of the President of the United States at the time. Further:

Quote: The Hill (6/27/13)

Liberal groups seeking tax-exempt status faced less IRS scrutiny than Tea Party groups, according to the Treasury Department’s inspector general...

“Our audit did not find evidence that the IRS used the ‘progressives’ identifier as selection criteria for potential political cases...

The inspector general stressed that 100 percent of the groups with “Tea Party,” “patriots” and “9/12” in their name were flagged...

Uhh, not such good work, there.

I'm old enough to have actively opposed the election of Mr. R.M. Nixon and crotchety enough that I watched the Watergate Hearings as they occurred. Abuse of law enforcement authority through the IRS to go after a political "enemies list" was very prominent in the Watergate investigation, subsequent hearings, and House of Representatives passage of articles of impeachment of the President of the United States. The website of the National Archives lists 39 boxes of indexed information specifically about IRS abuse in what is known as "Watergate" and the related investigation of former President Nixon.

Something which is not lost upon the Washington Post, which with the recent additional information began demanding immediate appointment of a special prosecutor, stating that in their opinion this is something "Democrats should want" ...to save their collective political assets, if nothing else.

Imbecile named me makes accidental double post again....

The extent of Watergate carnage (this is just the top, there were more)

Quote:

1.John N. Mitchell, Attorney General of the United States, convicted of perjury. Served 19 months of a one- to four-year sentence.[62]
2.Richard Kleindienst, Attorney General, convicted of "refusing to answer questions" given one month in jail.[63]
3.Jeb Stuart Magruder, Head of Committee to Re-elect the President, pleaded guilty to 1 count of conspiracy, August 1973[64]
4.Frederick C. LaRue, Advisor to John Mitchell, convicted of obstruction of justice.[64]
5.H. R. Haldeman, Chief of Staff for Nixon, convicted of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury. Served 18 months in prison.[65]
6.John Ehrlichman, Counsel to Nixon, convicted of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury. Served 18 months in prison. [66]
7.Egil Krogh, aide to John Ehrlichman, sentenced to six months.[64]
8.John W. Dean III, counsel to Nixon, convicted of obstruction of justice, later reduced to felony offenses and sentenced to time already served, which totaled 4 months. [64]
9.Dwight L. Chapin, deputy assistant to Nixon, convicted of perjury.[64]
10.Herbert W. Kalmbach, personal attorney to Nixon, convicted of illegal campaigning.[64]
11.Charles W. Colson, special counsel to Nixon, convicted of obstruction of justice. Served 7 months in Federal Maxwell Prison. [63]
12.Herbert L. Porter, aide to the Committee to Re-elect the President. Convicted of perjury.[64]

Oh, and Nixon, who resigned and was pardoned.

Extent of Watergate "carnage" prior to appointment of independent special counsel with full authority to investigate, subpoena, and bring indictments of members of the Executive branch: Nadazilcho. "Nothing here. Nothing but a third rate burglary and some political cranks out to get us, nothing to see, move along."

Quote: DrawingDead

Interesting "narrative" there. Not one that happens to be shared by the Inspector General, of the United States Department of the Treasury, Tax Administration (IRS), which is where this matter first arose and was brought to public attention.

Quote: J. Russell George, United States Inspector General, Dept of the Treasurey, Tax Administration

The IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status...

...based upon their names or policy positions instead of indications of campaign intervention.

[Highlight added.]

He went on to discuss fun & games such as illegally seeking to identify supporters of such organizations that were in political disfavor. The IRS senior management's response incorporated in the IG report largely agreed with his findings, and essentially promised a series of steps to make sure these transgressions of authority wouldn't happen again, as did the "I'm angry" public statement of the President of the United States at the time. Further:

Quote: The Hill (6/27/13)

Liberal groups seeking tax-exempt status faced less IRS scrutiny than Tea Party groups, according to the Treasury Department’s inspector general...

“Our audit did not find evidence that the IRS used the ‘progressives’ identifier as selection criteria for potential political cases...

The inspector general stressed that 100 percent of the groups with “Tea Party,” “patriots” and “9/12” in their name were flagged...

Uhh, not such good work, there.

I'm old enough to have actively opposed the election of Mr. R.M. Nixon and crotchety enough that I watched the Watergate Hearings as they occurred. Abuse of law enforcement authority through the IRS to go after a political "enemies list" was very prominent in the Watergate investigation, subsequent hearings, and House of Representatives passage of articles of impeachment of the President of the United States. The website of the National Archives lists 39 boxes of indexed information specifically about IRS abuse in what is known as "Watergate" and the related investigation of former President Nixon.

Something which is not lost upon the Washington Post, which with the recent additional information began demanding immediate appointment of a special prosecutor, stating that in their opinion this is something "Democrats should want" ...to save their collective political assets, if nothing else.

I don't think you and I are disagreeing on this. I'm looking at how the IRS got themselves into seeing a pattern to chase, with a lot of filings from people who had those titles in common but didn't understand the law underlying charitable organizations and misused their designation. If that's impropriety on the part of the IRS ("profiling"), like it is for law enforcement to profile, there's no arguing that and it's correct to hold them accountable. But concentrating on the process is a distraction from the initial law-breaking by misusing the designation to avoid taxation. The groups were NOT targeted because they were conservatives, or in opposition to the Administration; it only looks like that in hindsight, and with the correct spin applied.

Quote: beachbumbabs

The groups were NOT targeted because they were conservatives, or in opposition to the Administration; it only looks like that in hindsight, and with the correct spin applied.

I do follow your reasoning, and do not doubt that something like that could very well be the case somewhere sometime about something. And having once been a mid-level bureaucrat (long ago) and being on the Board of a public agency, I generally tend to apply a version of the physics principle of Occam's Razor, usually preferring a default explanation of simple garden variety bumbling incompetence and institutionalized lazy clock-watching managerial blindness in most circumstances in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

But, I don't know what might lead you to make that statement contradicting the findings of the Inspector General of the agency, which specifically state the opposite, as documented in his report? There was NOT a relative absence of similarly situated political activist lefty groups, except in the targeting, which he found not at all proportionate to the applicant pool and any legitimate potential tax-code enforcement issues, by design. The IG found exactly the opposite of what you just stated, as he, his report, the supporting documentation, and his sworn testimony clearly and specifically said. I gather you must believe there is something amiss with the agency's IG and his staff, but do not see what it might be. Report looks solid as it ever gets to me.

Quote: I.F. Stone, In a Time of Torment, 1961-1967 (1967)

All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out.

A couple of math questions/anomalies for WoV'ers:

I early June, 2011, Lois Lerner's computer crashed and the hard drive disappeared. In late June, 2011, the Inspector General for Tax Administration reports that Tea Party groups were inordinately targeted by Lerner and her cohorts. What are the odds that Lerner had no idea that the Inspector General was going to publish such information? In reverse, what are the odds that she knew that the heat was gonna come down?

In the same time frame 7 more computer crashes happened, and the hard drives disappeared, to her co-workers, who were heavily involved in the Tea Party targeting. What are the odds of all these computer crashes, hard drives disappearing, in the same time frame, to such a small group of people?

These are my math questions for today, folks. Does anybody have any answers?

Mickey I have assigned my top investigator to this case. ROSE MARY WOODS

Quote: mickeycrimm

A couple of math questions/anomalies for WoV'ers:

I early June, 2011, Lois Lerner's computer crashed and the hard drive disappeared. In late June, 2011, the Inspector General for Tax Administration reports that Tea Party groups were inordinately targeted by Lerner and her cohorts. What are the odds that Lerner had no idea that the Inspector General was going to publish such information? In reverse, what are the odds that she knew that the heat was gonna come down?

In the same time frame 7 more computer crashes happened, and the hard drives disappeared, to her co-workers, who were heavily involved in the Tea Party targeting. What are the odds of all these computer crashes, hard drives disappearing, in the same time frame, to such a small group of people?

These are my math questions for today, folks. Does anybody have any answers?

About the same as the chances of AoS having lost 30 hands in a row.

Quote: mickeycrimm

A couple of math questions/anomalies for WoV'ers:

I early June, 2011, Lois Lerner's computer crashed and the hard drive disappeared. In late June, 2011, the Inspector General for Tax Administration reports that Tea Party groups were inordinately targeted by Lerner and her cohorts. What are the odds that Lerner had no idea that the Inspector General was going to publish such information? In reverse, what are the odds that she knew that the heat was gonna come down?

In the same time frame 7 more computer crashes happened, and the hard drives disappeared, to her co-workers, who were heavily involved in the Tea Party targeting. What are the odds of all these computer crashes, hard drives disappearing, in the same time frame, to such a small group of people?

These are my math questions for today, folks. Does anybody have any answers?

Don't you need more information? What caused the crash? The odds that the 7 people I routinely contact are going to be sent the same malware is greater than any random 7 people.

Quote: rxwine

Don't you need more information? What caused the crash? The odds that the 7 people I routinely contact are going to be sent the same malware is greater than any random 7 people.

I'm sure the Democrats will bring this up at the next Congressional Hearing. How does malware make a hard drive disappear?

Quote: mickeycrimm

I'm sure the Democrats will bring this up at the next Congressional Hearing. How does malware make a hard drive disappear?

I thought "crash" indicated unrecoverable data?

As for the drive being physically removed?

The dog ate it?

I don't know. But what I'm saying is, I don't know what the exact details were. Without knowing that, you still have unknown variables.

Quote: mickeycrimm

How does malware make a hard drive disappear?

With Hewlett Packard computers, anythinig like that can make the whole machine go poof.

What's the matter? Hasn't anyone seen a political coverup before?

Here's how it works:

1) Regardless of what happened, a majority, or at any rate a vocal minority, in the party of the perpetrator will defend what happened and any efforts to cover it up.

2) Regardless of what happened, a majority, or at any rate a vocal minority, in the other party will cry foul and demand a pound of flesh.

3) When roles are reversed the reactions will be 100% identical.

Quote: rxwine

I thought "crash" indicated unrecoverable data?

As for the drive being physically removed?

The dog ate it?

I don't know. But what I'm saying is, I don't know what the exact details were. Without knowing that, you still have unknown variables.

There may well be a lot of variables.

The thing that makes me wonder is that her emails disappeared years ago--and they are suddenly telling us about it now. Did it take this long to figure it out?

Save all of your stuff to a hard drive. No paper copies. Have the hard drive go bad. Have an IRS audit. see if they accept this "the dog ate my homework" excuse...

Quote: RonC

The thing that makes me wonder is that her emails disappeared years ago--and they are suddenly telling us about it now. Did it take this long to figure it out? Save all of your stuff to a hard drive. No paper copies. Have the hard drive go bad. Have an IRS audit. see if they accept this "the dog ate my homework" excuse...

The tougher question is if we accept that she notified IT right away about the crash why in the world did they not safeguard the servers involved to protect the lost material instead of supposedly letting it be erased on the typical six-month cycle?

Quote: SanchoPanza

The tougher question is if we accept that she notified IT right away about the crash why in the world did they not safeguard the servers involved to protect the lost material instead of supposedly letting it be erased on the typical six-month cycle?

I will concede that all of this might not be as big of a deal as Watergate. The issue is that the President, the Attorney General, and others are not truly allowing a proper investigation. They simply call everything a "phony scandal" without every really answering the questions. The appointment of a Special Prosecutor would allow for such an investigation. Until then, we'll just have the Republicans trying to investigate and the Democrats stonewalling.

We don't really know how big of a deal it all is....

That is exactly what the Democrats want...they could give a damn about the truth...yet they'll want to demand the truth from the next Republican President...

Quote: terapined

Whats the big deal, I welcome the IRS auditing me. I am honest.
Why dont conservative groups welcome an audit? Are they cheating?
Cmon IRS, audit me. honest people and groups have nothing to fear.
Its a total non issue. People and groups should be targeted.

It's too bad Lois Lerner doesn't share this attitude: maybe instead of pleading the 5th, she could have answered questions to shed some more light on the situation.

Not that I'm following this too closely, but:
1. When you have the LA Times calling for an independent investigator, that speaks volumes.
2. When the the IRS actually paid out a 50k in damages based on releasing a conservative group's tax return information to an opposition group, that also is a bit scary.
3. If the local copy of emails was destroyed, the email archive solution would have them, as is required by law. If they don't, how about some accountability as that's a major screw-up.

Anyway...

Quote: TheBigPaybak

It's too bad Lois Lerner doesn't share this attitude: maybe instead of pleading the 5th, she could have answered questions to shed some more light on the situation.

Not that I'm following this too closely, but:
1. When you have the LA Times calling for an independent investigator, that speaks volumes.
2. When the the IRS actually paid out a 50k in damages based on releasing a conservative group's tax return information to an opposition group, that also is a bit scary.
3. If the local copy of emails was destroyed, the email archive solution would have them, as is required by law. If they don't, how about some accountability as that's a major screw-up.

Anyway...

Now they are saying that "budget cuts" kept them from complying with the rules governing saving documents.

It is time for the Independent Prosecutor.

Quote: RonC

I will concede that all of this might not be as big of a deal as Watergate.

Oh, violations of several laws are involved, not the least of which is the failure to back up emails, the failure to notify required agencies like the National Archive and the use of the Fifth Amendment followed by the unconstitutional refusal to answer questions, among other problems. Nixon's use of the IRS to go after opponents was one of Hillary Clinton's charges of impeachment. No. 2, I believe.

Quote: RonC

Now they are saying that "budget cuts" kept them from complying with the rules governing saving documents.

$1.8 billion dollars for IT, and they couldn't afford redundancies and backups estimated at $50 million to $60 million? Give us a break. Especially after watching the spending of $600+ million for a Web site that remains not fully functional.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

About the same as the chances of AoS having lost 30 hands in a row.

I just caught a piece on The Five on Fox News where they quoted some professor somewhere as saying the odds of the 8 computers of IRS officials, all under investigation, to have crashed in a six week period is 3.1 million to 1. I didn't catch the professors name but The Five reruns at night. Maybe I'll catch it then. Now there is scuttlebutt that Lerner was notified days before the crash that she was going to be requested to produce her emails.

I've been wondering when someone was going to put the odds up on the crashes.

Quote: mickeycrimm

I just caught a piece on The Five on Fox News where they quoted some professor somewhere as saying the odds of the 8 computers of IRS officials, all under investigation, to have crashed in a six week period is 3.1 million to 1. I didn't catch the professors name but The Five reruns at night. Maybe I'll catch it then. Now there is scuttlebutt that Lerner was notified days before the crash that she was going to be requested to produce her emails.

I've been wondering when someone was going to put the odds up on the crashes.

If you try to calculate computer crashes in a large organization like the dropping of bingo balls, you can make false assumptions.

Were repair techs divided up into divisions? Was one division more on top of things than others.

Were they well staffed or understaffed? Who was working? Who was on vacation. Who was experienced and who was new? What's the breakdown?

Was it just these 6 computers he was calculating for. What total percentage crashed during this period?

Quote: SanchoPanza

Oh, violations of several laws are involved, not the least of which is the failure to back up emails, the failure to notify required agencies like the National Archive and the use of the Fifth Amendment followed by the unconstitutional refusal to answer questions, among other problems. Nixon's use of the IRS to go after opponents was one of Hillary Clinton's charges of impeachment. No. 2, I believe.
$1.8 billion dollars for IT, and they couldn't afford redundancies and backups estimated at $50 million to $60 million? Give us a break. Especially after watching the spending of $600+ million for a Web site that remains not fully functional.

Article 2 wasn't the use of the IRS but simply an "endeavor" to use the IRS.

They pay $100 million a year in bonuses.

Quote: rxwine

If you try to calculate computer crashes in a large organization like the dropping of bingo balls, you can make false assumptions.

Were repair techs divided up into divisions? Was one division more on top of things than others.

Were they well staffed or understaffed? Who was working? Who was on vacation. Who was experienced and who was new? What's the breakdown?

Was it just these 6 computers he was calculating for. What total percentage crashed during this period?

Repair tech? For a hard drive?

It's a hard drive. It works until it stops working. Then you get a new one.

Quote: rxwine

If you try to calculate computer crashes in a large organization like the dropping of bingo balls, you can make false assumptions.

Were repair techs divided up into divisions? Was one division more on top of things than others.

Were they well staffed or understaffed? Who was working? Who was on vacation. Who was experienced and who was new? What's the breakdown?

Was it just these 6 computers he was calculating for. What total percentage crashed during this period?

Again, a silly deflection from the real story. You are better than that.

The chances are slim of that many hard drive failures at one time. That one tech could cause so much mayhem is possible, but improbable. That really doesn't matter. They are stonewalling and telling lies to cover their tracks. It is almost always the cover up, not the initial act. If the emails weren't there and never to be found, it would be a much more plausible story if it came out when they were originally asked for them as in saying something like:

"We do not intend to respond to the request for these emails under the claim of ________________________. Let the record show, however, that if we are forced to turn these over there will will be a significant gap from ______________ to ______________ due to known hard drive failure on ____________________'s computer."

Honesty. It may not work every time but it works a lot more often than lying.

Quote: rxwine

If you try to calculate computer crashes in a large organization like the dropping of bingo balls, you can make false assumptions.

Were repair techs divided up into divisions? Was one division more on top of things than others.

Were they well staffed or understaffed? Who was working? Who was on vacation. Who was experienced and who was new? What's the breakdown?

Was it just these 6 computers he was calculating for. What total percentage crashed during this period?

These are questions I would like to know....and many more about this scandal. Why did the IRS cancel it's long term contract with email storage provider, Sonasoft just weeks after the computer crashes. What a coincidence....just like all the other coincidences I'm supposed to believe. On how how many internet forums do you think people are asking questions about this scandal....thousands? You know why? Because we can't get anything out of the mainstream media. They are totally ignoring the story. I can either watch Fox News or dig around on the internet.

I think this coverup goes to the top of the IRS and all the way to the White House. If I'm wrong in the end then I'll wear that mud on my face. But I've been damn good at smelling out a rat all my life. And I smell ratshit right now.

Don't get the idea I'm some right wing kook. I'm in the middle in this country. I'm an independent who thinks the best ideas of both parties should be used....but I don't trust either outfit. I like tough journalists who ask tough questions of either party. If a journalist can't do that then he/she is not a journalist....rather they are a punk.

I'm always voting for the lesser of two evils every election. These IRS buffoons who started out trying trying to boost the left are now throwing the Democrats under the bus leading into this falls elections to save their own hides.

Quote: RonC

Again, a silly deflection from the real story. You are better than that.

No, you're just wrong.

Really, so you don't care if someone was performing routine maintenance, perhaps not performing critical updates.

And you don't think it should matter in overall stats of crashes.

Okay, fine.

That speaks for itself.

Quote: mickeycrimm

These are questions I would like to know....and many more about this scandal. Why did the IRS cancel it's long term contract with email storage provider, Sonasoft just weeks after the computer crashes. What a coincidence....just like all the other coincidences I'm supposed to believe. On how how many internet forums do you think people are asking questions about this scandal....thousands? You know why? Because we can't get anything out of the mainstream media. They are totally ignoring the story. I can either watch Fox News or dig around on the internet.

I think this coverup goes to the top of the IRS and all the way to the White House. If I'm wrong in the end then I'll wear that mud on my face. But I've been damn good at smelling out a rat all my life. And I smell ratshit right now.

Don't get the idea I'm some right wing kook. I'm in the middle in this country. I'm an independent who thinks the best ideas of both parties should be used....but I don't trust either outfit. I like tough journalists who ask tough questions of either party. If a journalist can't do that then he/she is not a journalist....rather they are a punk.

I'm always voting for the lesser of two evils every election. These IRS buffoons who started out trying trying to boost the left are now throwing the Democrats under the bus leading into this falls elections to save their own hides.

Fair enough.