Originally posted by frontal lobe: The (R)'s weren't shot down by "the dog ate my homework", and it isn't amazing.
They are being shot down by the "watchdog media", the self named "fourth arm of government", actually running interference for the democrat administration, since those are "their boys".
Instead of a media barrage of who knew what, when, if there is any coverage, it is republicans are unfairly politicizing this. They are just out to try to partisan attack that. You are saying that is silly to go through those things? How would watergate have been found out if the media didn't doggedly persist in trying to get records? Compare that to, say, the medias coverage of Katrina. It wasn't even a FEMA or Bush responsibility. The media was relentless in making it look like Bush's fault. Was that silly? One can understand the democrats trying to find some way to blame it on the republican administration. Was the media running cover for Bush? Democrats politicizing a disaster. How despicable.
No. They kept it going and going and going, deflecting blame from the New Orleans mayor and the Louisiana governor, and focusing on someone who wasn't responsible.
No. Not shot down by "the dog ate my homework". If they are shot down, they are shot down by the complicit, blatantly biased media.
At least you have enough objectivity to be appalled by the IRS. Awesome. Just not appalled enough to try to have the media stop covering for the administration, and laughing at the plight left to republicans to try in some way to hold people accountable.
You get the government you deserve.
what is there to cover? there is nothing there to cover.
a bunch of silly folk used a template to organize that template turns out to have problems them problems got called out so now the folks who used the template are crying its not a scandal - its a folly they should be crying to the fools who set them up with the flawed template
if there was ANYTHING to these claims & charges, there would be more than a single Hard Drive on the table. There is not. There is nothing.
I want to come back to this conversation at a later date, preferably when there is a Republican in office, and see how the tides change. This is the same old crap as always. The Democrat-controlled administration does something and Republicans are up in arms while the Democrats say "Nothing to see here. They're lying." But it's just the reverse of that when the other party has the majority of the administration. Same old song and dance. I just think it will be interesting to see how many of the people who are saying this is nothing and there is nothing to see will be screaming at the top of there lungs when the letters in front of the names change.
I want to come back to this conversation at a later date, preferably when there is a Republican in office, and see how the tides change....
As much as I hope that the tides DO change, I have a feeling we will be in the same old crap, regardless of what party controls the office. Both parties are hopelessly corrupted.
The Republicans would have a lot more credibility if they didn't cry foul over literally everything.
As much as I hope that the tides DO change, I have a feeling we will be in the same old crap, regardless of what party controls the office. Both parties are hopelessly corrupted.
The Republicans would have a lot more credibility if they didn't cry foul over literally everything.
I would have to say the Democrats probably whine just as much as when the Republicans control things. It's just not reported as such. But when the Republicans whine, it's all over the six o'clock news.
what is there to cover? there is nothing there to cover.
a bunch of silly folk used a template to organize that template turns out to have problems them problems got called out so now the folks who used the template are crying its not a scandal - its a folly they should be crying to the fools who set them up with the flawed template
I don't care whether they are silly folk. If those silly folk are acting within the law of the land, let them have at their silliness. I thought you were supportive of individual freedoms. Or do you only support those you deem "not silly"?
And it wasn't the silly folk template that was the problem. It was the president let it be known that he didn't like that group. And the IRS specifically and preferentially targeted those groups that were deemed silly, and unliked by the administration.
The people that used the template aren't crying about using the template. They are crying because the IRS placed hyper-scrutiny on that group and ONLY that group.
How did you get from an attempt at the IRS to infringe on 1st amendment protected freedom of speech, by abusing their power to scrutinize only one group of people with one political message that Obama wanted squashed, to
It is a bunch of silly crybabies that shouldn't have used a template?
I would really like to know that. Because I had heard nothing about, well, it was their own fault for using such and such template. And only this group was stupid enough to use this template. Wow. You are all concerned about potential abuse of government power via the patriot act, and yet you aren't concerned about real abuse of government power to intimidate from their right to political speech?
The IRS stated they specifically targeted one group based on their politics. That doesn't alarm you? It is just silly people using a template that they were just asking for it?
The Republicans would have a lot more credibility if they didn't cry foul over literally everything.
The Republicans have to cry foul over "literally everything" in order to try to get any attention paid to it.
If the media would focus the amount of attention on things happening now at anywhere close to the same level they focused attention when Bush was in office, the Republicans could sit back and let it happen. Instead, the media actually actively tries to cover for the administration. Any media story they actually do on a topic is, "partisan Republicans attacking...".
The democrats don't have to cry foul. The media does it for them automatically.
yes, I do not like profiling. I do understand it. but, I still dont like it. yes, I do NOT like the idea of IRS dogs being sic'd on a group based on politics. Tho, with proper documentation, and everything above board - WTF is the problem?
but, I DO get when a certain group all does the same wrong thing, and gets called on it.
I find both sides of this to be trite & spiteful, with no content whatsoever.
this Hard Drive BS is embarrassing. But the lack of ANYTHING credible to subpoena anything more than this single hard drive should also be pretty embarrassing.
this is noise to make noise, and hoping something shakes loose which the noise makers can sink their teeths into.
yes, I do not like profiling. I do understand it. but, I still dont like it. yes, I do NOT like the idea of IRS dogs being sic'd on a group based on politics. Tho, with proper documentation, and everything above board - WTF is the problem?
Really? You don't see the problem with a powerful agency applying hyperscrutiny, even if you have done nothing wrong? That's the standard?
So I suppose that is how you feel about the Patriot act? Hey, if you have nothing to hide, what is the problem?
How about random police searches. What? If you have nothing to hide, what is the problem? The problem with the IRS is if they are hyper-scrutinizing you, you still have to tie up time and resources to provide what they request.
You have donors who don't want any potential attention drawn to them, and so are intimidated away.
The IRS knew this. The administration didn't like the law that made things legal, and so were going to try to use goverment hyperscrutiny to intimidate donors.
Which was suppression of political speech. I don't find your reaction to this consistent with your reaction to other situations around the same principles.
Originally posted by frontal lobe: Really? You don't see the problem with a powerful agency applying hyperscrutiny, even if you have done nothing wrong? That's the standard?
So I suppose that is how you feel about the Patriot act? Hey, if you have nothing to hide, what is the problem?
How about random police searches. What? If you have nothing to hide, what is the problem? The problem with the IRS is if they are hyper-scrutinizing you, you still have to tie up time and resources to provide what they request.
You have donors who don't want any potential attention drawn to them, and so are intimidated away.
The IRS knew this. The administration didn't like the law that made things legal, and so were going to try to use goverment hyperscrutiny to intimidate donors.
Which was suppression of political speech. I don't find your reaction to this consistent with your reaction to other situations around the same principles.
UM: yes, I do NOT like the idea of IRS dogs being sic'd on a group based on politics. YOU EVEN QUOTED IT.
still cant get past the simple fact of a bunch of people doing the same wrong thing and getting called on it, eh? sorry they made themselves such easy targets. I cant help that.
what is there to cover? there is nothing there to cover.
a bunch of silly folk used a template to organize that template turns out to have problems
"...How has the IRS responded? Lerner, in her public apology, said political bias was not the reason the IRS singled out conservative groups. Instead, she explained, staffers in the agency's Cincinnati office were trying to manage the deluge of applications for tax-exempt status under the 501(c)(4) section of the tax law. Between 2010 and 2012, Lerner said, the number of 501(c)(4) applications leapt from 1,500 to more than 3,400.
But in dealing with all those applications, IRS staffers started looking for groups whose name included certain catchwords prevalent in conservative activism..."
"...According to a leaked timeline (PDF) from a draft report by the Treasury inspector general for tax administration, IRS staffers began flagging applications from groups with politically themed names like "We the People" and "Take Back the Country." Staffers also targeted groups whose names included the words "tea party" and "patriots." Those flagged applications were then sent to specialists for a more rigorous review than is typical.
The IRS gave extra scrutiny to 298 groups applying for tax-exempt status, the Washington Post reported. Seventy-two of those groups had "tea party" in their title, 13 had "patriots," and 11 had "9/12," shorthand for the 9/12 movement started by conservative TV host Glenn Beck.
But IRS officials not only singled out tea party and liberty groups. They also looked for "political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding government, educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, social economic reform/movement," according to the leaked timeline. This included groups that planned to focus on government debt and spending, taxes, or those trying to "make America a better place to live." OK. Please help me to understand your assertion. Because the IRS never said the groups had problems with the template. The IRS said they had a problem with the template--via the sheer volume they were being requested to do.
So how did they address "the problem"? Which wasn't the "silly people's" problem with not using the template correctly, as you asserted. Instead of doing random sampling, they specifically targeted certain groups based on their politics.
And then they harrassed them with unreasonable level of requests.
This was actually admitted to by Lerner.
So now that you know that your entire foundation for why there is no issue is completely wrong, as stated by the IRS itself and not my opinion, did you have any other viewpoint on whether blatant political suppression by a branch of the U.S. government is a problem. Or is it still something to poo poo, because they are silly people?
Ways and Means investigation uncovers push to audit Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) Washington, DC – Today, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI) announced the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) targeting of conservative individuals includes a sitting United States Senator. According to emails reviewed by the Committee under its Section 6103 authority, which allows the Committee to review confidential taxpayer information, Lois Lerner sought to have Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) referred for IRS examination.
“We have seen a lot of unbelievable things in this investigation, but the fact that Lois Lerner attempted to initiate an apparently baseless IRS examination against a sitting Republican United States Senator is shocking,” said Camp. “At every turn, Lerner was using the IRS as a tool for political purposes in defiance of taxpayer rights. We may never know the full extent of the abuse since the IRS conveniently lost two years of Lerner emails, not to mention those of other key figures in this scandal. The fact that DOJ refuses to investigate the IRS’s abuses or appoint a special counsel demonstrates, yet again, this Administration’s unwillingness to uphold the rule of law.”
Background: While the Ways and Means Committee investigation into Lerner’s involvement in the potential Grassley examination is ongoing, documents show that Lerner received an invitation to a speaking event that was intended for Senator Grassley. Instead of forwarding the invitation to Grassley’s office, Lerner immediately suggested to others in her office that the issue should be referred for examination. The Committee was able to investigate this information through its authority under Section 6103 of the tax code. A waiver was signed by Senator Grassley and his wife in order to make this information public.
well, good for her then..... stand up to the man dont take that BS - add your own
If you aren't informed enough to even know that Lois Lerner is a she; then you obviously have your head so far up Barrack Hussein Obama's ass that you shouldn't be allowed to comment on this thread. Get a ****ing clue you damned idiot then come back to defend your black Messiah.
Pyrthian, you'll probably be happy to hear your friends at the EPA have also had a mysterious hard drive crash when questioned about their partisan actions. Seems to be a common trend with any organization associated with your black jesus.
"Chairman Issa, I would like to enter this testimony from subject expert Lawrence O'Donnell into your IRS hearings. Please use your mouse in conjunction with the scrollbar that appears below the video to Fast Forward to 2:45, where relevant testimony begins. The material after 8:20 has no relevance to these hearings. Thank you."
Takeaways.. true, false, or technically true but misleading at the same time?
IRS has coughed up 67,000 Lois Lerner emails, including all of her emails during the months immediately before and during the 2012 national elections that resulted in Obama's reelection as president.
None of the groups that applied for 501(c)(4) tax exempt status applied because it was necessary to apply. The groups could have claimed 501(c)(4) tax exempt status [with their group IRS tax returns?] without the prior applications to the IRS that are at the center of this controversy. [What's this about?]
The only group that applied for this status and experienced a rejection from the IRS was "Emerge America", a group with a clearly left-leaning or liberal agenda.
If the IRS actually enforced the relevant tax code as it was legislated, there would not be 501(c)(4) tax exempt status for any of the groups that are involved in the endeavor of trying to influence potential voters to support specific candidates for office, but claim tax exempt status on the grounds that they are "operated primarily for the promotion of social welfare". The tax code, as it was passed into law, stipulates "operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare".
"Chairman Issa, I would like to enter this testimony from subject expert Lawrence O'Donnell into your IRS hearings. Please use your mouse in conjunction with the scrollbar that appears below the video to Fast Forward to 2:45, where relevant testimony begins. The material after 8:20 has no relevance to these hearings. Thank you."
Takeaways.. true, false, or technically true but misleading at the same time?
IRS has coughed up 67,000 Lois Lerner emails, including all of her emails during the months immediately before and during the 2012 national elections that resulted in Obama's reelection as president.
None of the groups that applied for 501(c)(4) tax exempt status applied because it was necessary to apply. The groups could have claimed 501(c)(4) tax exempt status [with their group IRS tax returns?] without the prior applications to the IRS that are at the center of this controversy. [What's this about?]
The only group that applied for this status and experienced a rejection from the IRS was "Emerge America", a group with a clearly left-leaning or liberal agenda.
If the IRS actually enforced the relevant tax code as it was legislated, there would not be 501(c)(4) tax exempt status for any of the groups that are involved in the endeavor of trying to influence potential voters to support specific candidates for office, but claim tax exempt status on the grounds that they are "operated primarily for the promotion of social welfare". The tax code, as it was passed into law, stipulates "operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare".
Dumping 67,000 records about stuff they DON'T WANT... is simply a talking point so they can say "we've already given you 67,000 records... what more do you want?"
They've given everything EXCEPT... the e-mails they actually want... IE: the ones back and forth between the White House and the DNC.
Second, the Republican / Conservative PACs were HELD UP... and NEVER APPROVED (not rejected). This was intentional for a variety of reasons.
Either you are being intentionally stupid, or you are unbelievably naïve, which is it? They've already admitted to it... were you not aware?
Come on now--let's all calm down. We pretty much ALL hate the IRS--well everyone except the govt employees that work there. Seems like if there is such a thing as a common adversary, it's them and we should be able to diss them without going hostile on each other.
Come on now--let's all calm down. We pretty much ALL hate the IRS--well everyone except the govt employees that work there. Seems like if there is such a thing as a common adversary, it's them and we should be able to diss them without going hostile on each other.
You would think, but the Dems have turtled up and are going to do whatever they can to deflect any critical information. They know they've lied their way into a corner and are lashing out like any scared, cornered animal.
Dumping 67,000 records about stuff they DON'T WANT... is simply a talking point so they can say "we've already given you 67,000 records... what more do you want?"
They've given everything EXCEPT... the e-mails they actually want... IE: the ones back and forth between the White House and the DNC.
Second, the Republican / Conservative PACs were HELD UP... and NEVER APPROVED (not rejected). This was intentional for a variety of reasons.
Either you are being intentionally stupid, or you are unbelievably naïve, which is it? They've already admitted to it... were you not aware?
How would the IRS be able to supply emails that went between White House staff and the DNC..?
Here's the newly departed WH spokesman Jay Carney in his final Q&A session with the WH press corps, when the Lois Lerner emails that went missing topic was raised: https://www.youtube.com/wat...v=v4STGaiGdCw#t=3150
Was that a misdirection? A true but at the same time misleading statement from Mr. Carney? He said that there was a search for all email communications between the IRS Lois Lerner and all members of the EOP (Executive Office of the President) during the period for which the Lois Lerner copies of the emails were destroyed by the IRS hardware failure. And that this search came up empty. Is that statement from el portavoz misleading, because it is overly circumscribed? Should there be a wider search, going beyond the boundary that is drawn by "members of the EOP"..?
I am clued in to the reports that a number of conservative and/or Tea Party oriented groups applied to the IRS for 501(c)(4) tax exempt status during the run-up to the 2012 national elections, and that the process became long and drawn out, with requests for extensive supporting documentation levied upon these groups by the IRS. I know about the list of key words that the IRS used to select specific groups for this additional screening process, and how the list appears to be biased against the conservative and/or Tea Party end of the political spectrum.
I was hoping that someone would decipher or expand upon what Lawrence O'Donnell was getting at when he said that it was not necessary for groups seeking 501(c)(4) status to pursue these applications to the IRS; that the groups could simply declare their 501(c)(4) status. I am guessing that what this means is that the groups were not strictly required to apply to the IRS for this 501 status in advance, but could have simply declared 501 when they filed their group IRS tax returns, and then the IRS would have either accepted their returns, or flagged their returns and imposed an IRS-audit process on them.
I guess (?) there is some advantage for the groups if they complete this prior application or pre-screening process with the IRS?
I may get around to trying to Google my way to a clarification on this, but I was hoping that someone might fill me in on what that particular remark from Mr. O'Donnell is about.
Otherwise, I would have to take time off from my day job of posting about global warming and foreign policy related issues. Or add this to my agenda and work overtime.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-26-2014).]
The IRS stated they specifically targeted one group based on their politics. That doesn't alarm you? It is just silly people using a template that they were just asking for it?
I agree, they publicly admitted to wrong doing, ( and independently verified by another agency... ) so i dont see the problem with wanting to investigate the issue further. Isn't that what we do here in America, when laws are broken we assume innocence, investigate all facts and then bring the responsible parties to justice? Or did i miss something and we no longer have to follow the law?
Then on top of that, they are required by law to retain all records, but didnt. Be it a 'oversight' or 'systemic' issue, more laws were broken and the root cause needs to be found and corrected.
Even if there is no 'new' evidence pointing at even worse violations ( see first point, of admitted wrong doing ) this is still an issue.
How would the IRS be able to supply emails that went between White House staff and the DNC..?
The same way that i would be required to produce emails ( or other data ) on demand from a congressional or court investigation. We restore them from ( legally required ) permanent backups, then we manually sort thru them for the requested mails, and depending on the audience clearly redact private data such as HIPAA info. ( yes, its time consuming and a PITA, but its not 'hard' and its part of daily life )
In the government that process happens EVERY DAY, both internally ( FOIA, suits, etc ) and externally ( audits of non-government entities ).. Its nothing new.
[This message has been edited by Nurb432 (edited 06-26-2014).]
Originally posted by Nurb432: The same way that i would be required to produce emails . . .
OK. That is taking the phrase from 82-T/A "between the White House and the DNC" and extending it with "IRS". Unless the IRS was in that loop, they wouldn't have any of those emails.
I kind of thought that was what "82" meant to say, or how he expected it to be read. But I really wasn't certain about that. It's a complicated discussion that's going on here.
OK. That is taking the phrase from 82-T/A "between the White House and the DNC" and extending it with "IRS". Unless the IRS was in that loop, they wouldn't have any of those emails.
I kind of thought that was what "82" meant to say, or how he expected it to be read. But I really wasn't certain about that. It's a complicated discussion that's going on here.
Tho i hate to see 'yet another agency' at the federal level, perhaps there needs to be a single agency responsible for maintaining *all* this data.. and not rely on the rest of the agencies to do it, both for fraud protection and for centralizing the costs/reporting. ( perhaps there is one already.. i donno, the feds are SOOOO bloated ... )
[This message has been edited by Nurb432 (edited 06-26-2014).]
I agree, they publicly admitted to wrong doing, ( and independently verified by another agency... ) so i dont see the problem with wanting to investigate the issue further. Isn't that what we do here in America, when laws are broken we assume innocence, investigate all facts and then bring the responsible parties to justice? Or did i miss something and we no longer have to follow the law?
Then on top of that, they are required by law to retain all records, but didnt. Be it a 'oversight' or 'systemic' issue, more laws were broken and the root cause needs to be found and corrected.
Even if there is no 'new' evidence pointing at even worse violations ( see first point, of admitted wrong doing ) this is still an issue.
"...i dont see the problem with wanting to investigate the issue further..."
I don't see it, either. You don't see it. Liberal media sees it. Democrats see it.
"Oh, well we DID look into it."
That's hilarious. Yeah. You went and "looked into it". And Lerner said, "oh, yeah, some low level staffers unilaterally decided to do this. It was wrong. My apologies." And so to the media and democrats, that was it. It was "looked into". She said she was sorry. Just some low level staffers. Nothing more to see here.
And then WORSE. And if you keep asking questions beyond that, it is partisan attack politics and our media coverage is going to be about making republicans look bad, going on witch hunts, this is the most partisan time in history. The usual lines. "...do we no longer have to follow the law..." Well, no. Not if you don't want to enforce it. Immigration laws? The president is sworn to execute the laws of the land and defend the constitution. Execute immigration laws? He has his people to intentionally direct NOT to enforce them. And sues states that try to do so.
Democrat congress unilaterally passes health care law. Now it is Obama's job to execute it. Not unilaterally fundamentally change the law over 20 times within the first year. Those changes should have been made by congress, who makes law.
Where is his party, and the media, holding him accountable for that? No. They cover for him and if you keep asking or investigating, it is partisan politics.
Democrat congress unilaterally passes health care law. Now it is Obama's job to execute it. Not unilaterally fundamentally change the law over 20 times within the first year. Those changes should have been made by congress, who makes law.
I guess frontal lobe didn't make this plain. Obama changes the law on a whim, and you think that isn't a big deal? You think there isn't anything there, masospaghetti ?
What constitutes reasonable and proper Congressional action to you?
[This message has been edited by heybjorn (edited 06-26-2014).]
This is what is called "crying wolf". They make big deals out of things that aren't big deals, and then nobody believes them anymore.
They disagree with things JUST BECAUSE Obama believes it. It gets old, and it ruins any credibility they had.
Yeah, I know what "crying wolf" is. It is crying about every little thing, whether it matters or not.
With the IRS situation. The IRS was caught red handed in specifically targeting and abusing one political viewpoint. So the government is using an agency to try to suppress an entire political viewpoint. And that is not a big deal to you? Because you can bet your sweet self that if it was liberals that were the political viewpoint specifically targeted, this would be AN OUTRAGE. And it would be an outrage to you, too. And you would be demanding answers. And you would want non-stop questioning by the media until it was proven it didn't trace all the way to the White House.
But when it is the other political side to you? Oh. Whiners. Crying wolf. Benghazi. A U.S. AMBASSADOR WAS ATTACKED AND KILLED. And the administration was notified when it was going and they actively told the military not to respond. yeah, well. Whiner. Crying wolf.
YOUR lady said, "What difference does it make now?" Well. There you go. Any questioning after that is crying wolf.
Have you forgotten the standard established by the media for the 8 years prior to Obama? They were vicious, dogged, and persistent. Even on things that Bush had no responsibility over.
OK. That is taking the phrase from 82-T/A "between the White House and the DNC" and extending it with "IRS". Unless the IRS was in that loop, they wouldn't have any of those emails.
I kind of thought that was what "82" meant to say, or how he expected it to be read. But I really wasn't certain about that. It's a complicated discussion that's going on here.
I read it to mean "between Lerner and the White House and Lerner and the DNC".....
What if an anonymous person offered 500 Bitcoin to the person or team of hackers that could "find" the "lost" emails? Send them to Sean Hannity at Fox news and when they air, the 500 bitcoin will be delivered to the wallet. Wanna see the IRS do a backflip?
I saw an article this morning where someone was at the very least talking about posting a million dollar bounty for the lost emails. Maybe that will bring some of these emails out into the open.
This whole thing with the IRS goes much further than just intimidation. It shows how the politicization of the IRS and other government entities. Not only did the IRS prevent these pro liberty, pro constitution, TEA party groups from getting their tax exempt status, they went much further. They demanded these groups deliver a list of all donors and then harassed these donors. So if you were a donor or a potential donor would you then donate to a group that would potentially put a bulls eye on your by the IRS. And they even involved other agencies of the government like the EPA in this harassment. This is criminal on many fronts. First that information should not have been asked for. Secondly it should not have been used to harass donors. This data should not have been given to other agencies either. There are laws against all of that. And so far where do we stand? No one sent to jail and Lois Lerner still holding to the Fifth.
If you want the power of the IRS to descend on your left wing side just stand idly by. I wouldn't put it past a Republican administration in the future to turn the tables if this is not dealt with and the perpetrators go to jail.
This stinks to the high heavens and the rot needs to be dug out and dealt with. Anything less and the cancer will grow and destroy this country.
How would the IRS be able to supply emails that went between White House staff and the DNC..?
Here's the newly departed WH spokesman Jay Carney in his final Q&A session with the WH press corps, when the Lois Lerner emails that went missing topic was raised: https://www.youtube.com/wat...v=v4STGaiGdCw#t=3150
Was that a misdirection?
Yes, Lois Lerner visited the White House 322 separate times... do you HONESTLY believe that not a single e-mail back and forth between Lois Lerner and the White House took place? Do you think she telepathically knew to show up those 322 times? Again, you are being UNBELIEVABLY naïve... I mean, you are literally like a MONTH behind in your arguments. 80% of the US population believes the hard drive crashes are fake, and we know it to be technically impossible because in an enterprise environment like that, they always store the e-mails on the exchange server, not in some local PST.
I can't believe I'm even wasting my time hashing this out with you... are you seriously, I mean SERIOUSLY this oblivious???
<shocked>
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
OK. That is taking the phrase from 82-T/A "between the White House and the DNC" and extending it with "IRS". Unless the IRS was in that loop, they wouldn't have any of those emails.
I kind of thought that was what "82" meant to say, or how he expected it to be read. But I really wasn't certain about that. It's a complicated discussion that's going on here.
IRS to White House and back. IRS to DNC and back.
quote
Originally posted by Nurb432:
Tho i hate to see 'yet another agency' at the federal level, perhaps there needs to be a single agency responsible for maintaining *all* this data.. and not rely on the rest of the agencies to do it, both for fraud protection and for centralizing the costs/reporting. ( perhaps there is one already.. i donno, the feds are SOOOO bloated ... )
There is, it's called DISA for DoD. Second, they produce things called IAVAs and STIGs which all DoD and Federal Agencies must comply with. Normal companies also use these STIGs to harden their network.
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 06-26-2014).]
when you come out of no where, and start moving about large sums of $$$, you WILL be investigated
yes, profiling is wrong. sorry Tea-Tards have been profiled.
I dont doubt one bit there is/was an agenda. just like profiling illegals, just like profiling blacks. sucks when it comes your way, eh? This is BS all around. Tea-Tards all doing the same shifty money BS, and get the IRS eye pointed their way. maybe it wasnt all of them. maybe it was. all latinos are not illegals. yet enough are to get an agenda against them. keep your idiots in line, Tea-Tards. do as you say.
yes, the IRS sucks. profiling is wrong. but I cant help but be amused.
when you come out of no where, and start moving about large sums of $$$, you WILL be investigated
yes, profiling is wrong. sorry Tea-Tards have been profiled.
I dont doubt one bit there is/was an agenda. just like profiling illegals, just like profiling blacks. sucks when it comes your way, eh? This is BS all around. Tea-Tards all doing the same shifty money BS, and get the IRS eye pointed their way. maybe it wasnt all of them. maybe it was. all latinos are not illegals. yet enough are to get an agenda against them. keep your idiots in line, Tea-Tards. do as you say.
yes, the IRS sucks. profiling is wrong. but I cant help but be amused.
I have no problem with profiling when it's from a non-government organization. When it's from the IRS... that's a different story. This is the same thing Nixon tried to do, and he was forced to resign or be impeached to court for it.
Being hypocritical here, but I do also support profiling when it's for safety reasons (IE: people who fit the profile of a terrorist on a plane).
Everyone who was subpenaed from the person who had the hard drive failure to the IT tech (top to bottom) that is supposed to have a copy of these emails needs to be jailed immediately on charges of Treason against the US.
The law states that these emails are to be kept, and they weren't.
The treason charge comes from attacks against Americans. We already know it happened, we just need the emails to know who to charge. No emails= charge everyone that had access. Problem solved. And I believe auditing any groups based on political beliefs is an attack, and should be a treasonous offense.
Think it's too much? They are the IRS, **** the IRS.
Or we can sit back and whine some more about how much this country sucks, and nobody does anything about it.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Yes, Lois Lerner visited the White House 322 separate times... do you HONESTLY believe that not a single e-mail back and forth between Lois Lerner and the White House took place? Do you think she telepathically knew to show up those 322 times? Again, you are being UNBELIEVABLY naïve... I mean, you are literally like a MONTH behind in your arguments. 80% of the US population believes the hard drive crashes are fake, and we know it to be technically impossible because in an enterprise environment like that, they always store the e-mails on the exchange server, not in some local PST.
No, Lois Lerner did not visit the White House 322 separate times. I know about that number (322) :
quote
Just in case you’re “not good with math,” as senior IRS official Lois Lerner confessed recently, that’s 322 separate visits to the White House by top IRS officials [not just Lois Lerner] during much of the time conservative groups were being targeted for extra scrutiny.
As I said, this isn't my "day job". That would be posting about global warming and foreign policy issues. But based on the limited exposure that I have given myself to this story, it seems to me that there probably was one legitimate reason that would have contributed to this extensive amount of communications that connects top IRS officials with White House staff. That would be awareness on the part of both the White House and the IRS about the increasing amounts of money that was flowing from an increasing number of donors to an increasing number of groups with concrete political objectives that were seeking 501(c)(4) tax exempt status on the grounds that they were operating primarily (but not exclusively) for the purpose of "promoting social welfare".
I strongly suspect that the IRS wanted to apply a regulatory braking force to curb or decelerate the expansion of all of this (money, donors, groups). And not only for political reasons related to the national elections of 2012. Also, for straightforward concerns that the IRS coffers were being depleted by these 501(c)(4) tax exemptions that were shielding sizable amounts of money from federal taxation.
I certainly think that the IRS crossed a line (and crossed it in the wrong direction) when they engaged in this policy of selective scrutiny (profiling) based on key words that clearly tipped the balance against conservative and Tea Party oriented groups, vs liberal or progressive-leaning groups that would obviously have been interested in having Obama reelected, and/or aligned with other interests of a Democratic Party political milleu.
But at this point, there's barely a wisp of smoke--much less an entire smoking gun--to connect that IRS profiling to any explicit, top-down directive from the Obama administration itself, or any strong push that would have emanated from the Democratic National Committee.
As far as the technical issues attending the missing emails, I have this :
Is there documentation of this alleged computer crash?
Yes. On June 13, 2011, reference first turns up in internal IRS emails that Lerner's hard drive had crashed. In a series of emails afterward, Lerner attempted to get technical help restoring her data — but on August 5, 2011, she was informed that it was unrecoverable.
While this occurred two years before the IRS scandal actually broke, some observers have been suspicious of this timing — because only a short time earlier, on June 3, 2011, House Ways and Means Committee Chair Dave Camp sent a letter to the IRS requesting various documents, including from Lerner's division. The letter mainly focused on whether the IRS was improperly enforcing a "gift tax" on certain donors, but it alluded to broader questions about whether the IRS was acting with improper political bias.
An email chain that the IRS provided to Congress shows Lerner trying to recover her data, and following up several times, saying there were some "irreplaceable" documents there that she needed:
Lerner email to IRS official, 7/19/11: "I'm taking advantage of your offer to try and recapture my lost personal files. My computer skills are pretty basic, so nothing fancy — but there were some documents in the files that are irreplaceable. Whatever you can do to help, is greatly appreciated."
Email from Customer Service Support, 7/20/11: "I checked with the technician and he still has your drive. He wanted to exhaust all avenues to recover the data before sending it to the 'hard drive cemetery.' Unfortunately, after receiving assistance from several highly skilled technicians including HP experts, he still cannot recover the data."
Follow-up email from Customer Service Support, 8/05/11: "Unfortunately the news is not good. The sectors on the hard drive were bad which made your data unrecoverable. I am very sorry. Everyone involved tried their best."
A computer crash wouldn't usually wipe out email — except that the IRS had a policy that only 500 megabytes of data could be stored on the email server at any one time — and that, if this limit was hit, older emails would have to be moved to the employee's computer.
Didn't the IRS back up its email?
It did — but only for six months. After that, the backup tapes were taped over "for cost-efficiency," the agency wrote. (They've since changed their policy.) As mentioned, Lerner's computer crashed nearly two years before the scandal broke, so those backups would have been long gone by then. IRS employees are also supposed to keep hard copies of some important emails, but, as Philip Bump of the Washington Post explains here, the policy is vague and it's not clear whether Lerner saved any.
A computer crash wouldn't usually wipe out email — except that the IRS had a policy that only 500 megabytes of data could be stored on the email server at any one time — and that, if this limit was hit, older emails would have to be moved to the employee's computer.
Didn't the IRS back up its email?
It did — but only for six months. After that, the backup tapes were taped over "for cost-efficiency," the agency wrote. (They've since changed their policy.) As mentioned, Lerner's computer crashed nearly two years before the scandal broke, so those backups would have been long gone by then. IRS employees are also supposed to keep hard copies of some important emails, but, as Philip Bump of the Washington Post explains here, the policy is vague and it's not clear whether Lerner saved any.
Heck, if they think we'll believe the dog ate their homework, they may just try that one. 
