“Hey, if we do this in IM, can we hide it from Congress?”
“Sure”
“Great!”
[Thursday-afternoon update]
And finally, it’s off to the pokey for Lois:
Resolved, That the Speaker issue his warrant, directed to the Sergeant-at-Arms, or his deputy, commanding him to arrest and take into custody forthwith, wherever to be found, the body of Lois G. Lerner, and bring her to the bar of the House without delay to answer to the charge of contempt of its authority, breach of its privileges, and gross and wanton insult to the integrity of its proceedings, and in the meantime keep the body of Lerner in his custody in the common jail of the District of Columbia, subject to the further order of the House. While in custody, Lerner shall enjoy no special privileges beyond those extended to her fellow inmates, shall not access any computer or telephone, and shall not be visited by anyone other than her counsel, clergy, physician, or family.
Boo hoo. Should have happened months ago.
[Bumped]
[Friday-morning update]
“That was false…that was false…that was false…”
[Bumped]
[Update early afternoon]
A second judge has demanded that the IRS explain the “lost” emails. Maybe the persecuted groups and the judicial branch will get the goods on them.
If that sort of language isn’t a big fucking red flag, nothing is. “Better watch what you say, you don’t want it to be used as evidence against you in an investigation.” I’m sure Jim will pop in here any moment and explain how that shouldn’t be construed as a bad thing.
If you think advising co-workers to not write anything in email that they’d be unhappy seeing aired in a Congressional hearing is a “red flag”, then anything is a red flag.
Way back in the 80s I helped create an email system for people who’d never used email before, and we’d always tell new users to never email anything they’d be mortified to see appear in the newspaper. That common sense advice is even more appropriate for government employees.
You guys keep saying that there’s smoking-gun, iron-clad, open-and-shut-case incriminating evidence of criminal wrongdoing, and then you go bananas for nothingburgers like this one. If this is what you’ve got, you’ve got nothing.
“If you think advising co-workers to not write anything in email that they’d be unhappy seeing aired in a Congressional hearing is a “red flag”, then anything is a red flag.”
That’s your interpretation of the sentence:
“I was cautioning folks about email and how we have had several occasions where Congress has asked for emails and there has been an electronic search for *responsive* emails – so we need to be cautious about what we say in emails”.
1) How do you interpret the word: “responsive”? (the asterisks are mine)
2) Everyone who works for the government is required to take an online email security course where they are told in no uncertain terms that anything they say in emails is the property of the government – there is no expectation of privacy. So they are to be careful what they say. They are required to take that online course every year and the same statement is made every single year.
– Why must the *HEAD* of the agency “caution” people about it?
– Which people did she caution?
– You are declaring you can read Lerner’s mind – you have ZERO REPEAT ZERO idea what was on her mind when she wrote those words. You simply choose to assume the most benign interpretation.
– Justify why the most benign interpretation is the correct one and be sure to include the fact that Lerner took the 5th; that the emails were illegally destroyed; and that Kostkinen has had to backtrack on his sworn testimony.
– Do you assume that IRS emails are not regularly viewed by request? If you make that assumption, please tell us why.
Justify why the most benign interpretation is the correct one
You’ve flipped the burden of proof.
This isn’t a trial.
Yet.
Wait, so now Eric Holder doesn’t have the magic power to stop any and all prosecutions of administration officials and civil servants?
It’s not a “magic” power. It’s just a power. No one is going to indict Lois Lerner (among others) without his approval.
But you think there’s going to be a trial? Are you predicting that he’ll approve such a prosecution, or that it’ll happen after he leaves office?
He’ll never do so, but there’s a slim possibility that he’ll appoint a special prosecutor, and he’ll be long gone before anything ripens from that.
So you think 1) that Holder is totally corrupt and that is the reason nobody from the administration has faced criminal charges (unlike every other administration in modern times), but also 2) that he might appoint a special prosecutor to go after Lerner? 1) and 2) can’t both be true.
He might appoint an Obama donor as a special prosecutor, just to take the heat off long enough for him to vamoose.
“You’ve flipped the burden of proof.”
Uh uh. You made a definitive statment as to the meaning of the emails.
So prove it.
And while you’re at it, since you can read Lerner’s mind, please explain what Lerner meant by the word “Perfect!”.
Such a weasel move….scared to defend your statement, aren’t you?
Well I would be too since it was pure conjecture and you have no proof and the circumstantial evidence is overwhelmingly against you.
Prove it.
“So you think ……”
No no no don’t try to distract us by trying to challenge Rand.
YOU made a definitive statement as tot he meaning of the emails.
Stae yoru proof/reasons for those thoughts or admit you haven’t the slightest idea of what you are talking about.
Is that really what you got out of that? There’s a world of difference between “watch what you say in email, it’s public, you don’t want to get embarrassed” and “watch what you say in email, you don’t want to get in trouble with congress”. Only a partisan hack like you, Jim, could read that exchange and not see a hint of the second interpretation.
What’s so terrible about “watch what you say in email, you don’t want to get in trouble with congress”? It’s possible, even easy, to get in trouble with Congress for actions that aren’t remotely improper or illegal.
“What’s so terrible about “watch what you say in email, you don’t want to get in trouble with congress”? It’s possible, even easy, to get in trouble with Congress for actions that aren’t remotely improper or illegal.”
Prove that was the intent behind those words.
You just (again) made a definitive statement about wha tyou think the emails mean.
Defend it..tells us why you think that.
“What’s so terrible about “watch what you say in email, you don’t want to get in trouble with congress”?”
In the context of an IG investigation, a congressional investigation, and numerous ongoing lawsuits you are asking why telling people not to incriminate themselves in emails and asking if there is a way to conduct business outside of established regulations is terrible?
Just get on with it and say you like what happened because you don’t like the people it happened to and you think they deserve it because you think the stereotypes pushed by Obama and the Democrats about them are true. Just admit you don’t think the victims are human beings and that they have any rights as Americans. Take the mask off…
Prove that was the intent behind those words
Again, you’ve flipped the burden of proof. Lerner doesn’t have to prove anything, it’s her accusers (in this case you) who do. An email that has a plausible benign interpretation proves nothing.
Just admit you don’t think the victims
It hasn’t been proven that Lerner had any victims.
“Again, you’ve flipped the burden of proof. Lerner doesn’t have to prove anything, it’s her accusers (in this case you) who do. An email that has a plausible benign interpretation proves nothing.”
You are so totally wrong – again.
I’m challenging you to defend YOUR WORDS.
Get it?
Defend what YOU SAY.
Defend YOUR interpretation.
You are implying you believe there is nothing terrible in those words…otherwise you wouldn’t bother to ask the question “what’s so terrible?”
Your attempt at lawyerly weaseling wouldn’t trick a 4th grader.
” It hasn’t been proven that Lerner had any victims.”
Then who else at the IRS was victimizing non-Democrats? Your defense, that Lerner did nothing, just means the plot is wider with more people involved. It isn’t a good defense because no one be,levels that the political targeting and persecution did not take place.
You keep denying that anything even took place but then you contradict yourself and say the targeting did take place. Your arguments lack consistency.
She didn’t just tell people not to incriminate themselves in emails but also asked if there was a way to conduct official IRS business without adhering to regulations regarding retention of communications.
Keep in mind this was after two or three years of persecuting political dissidents, half a year after the IG investigation, long after the IRS ordered these activities stopped, and while she was colluding with the DOJ to imprison people based on perceived political affiliation.
That Lerner continued in her role as attack dog against people Obama views as his enemies at the time of this latest email and that the IRS is still using these illegal tactics to take away Americans civil rights shows that this goes beyond Lerner and has approval from the White House.
Keep in mind this was after …
More circular reasoning.
W: Lerner did terrible things!
J: How do you know?
W: She told her staff to be careful in emails and IMs that could be searched by Congress
J: That doesn’t prove anything
W: But keep in mind that Lerner did terrible things!
“Keep in mind this was after …
More circular reasoning.”
I laid out the time line as established by information we know so far. Why isn’t it suspicious that Lerner who was under investigation by the IRS IG and is involved in numerous lawsuits is telling people not to incriminate themselves in emails and if there is a way to communicate that a judge or congress wont be have access to? Especially when she is doing so long after the Obama administration claimed all these illegal actions stopped? We know they had not stopped at the time Lerner sent the email in question. At this point, Lerner was colluding with the DOJ to throw people in prison because of their perceived political affiliation and instructing co-conspirators how to avoid incriminating themselves in emails.
There isn’t anything circular about it. Why even bother with this continued attack? Is it because I keep busting your chops on your endlessly conflicting comments and hypocrisy? You need to try harder and don’t get mad at me, get mad at Obama who keeps feeding you lies to defend.
I laid out the time line as established by information we know so far.
No, it’s the time line as you imagine it to be. We don’t know any of those things, which is why Congress is poring over Lerner’s emails, hoping to find evidence for your claims. But so far all they’ve found is stuff like this email exchange, which proves nothing.
“No, it’s the time line as you imagine it to be. We don’t know any of those things, which is why Congress is poring over Lerner’s emails, hoping to find evidence for your claims. But so far all they’ve found is stuff like this email exchange, which proves nothing.”
YOU have difinitively stated the meaning of those emails in yoru “summary”
Now. prove it. Show us yoru reasoning and evidence.
Or shut the hell up.
“We don’t know any of those things”
Uhhh no. The IRS already released emails between Lerner and the DOJ from early 2013. This was over six months since the IRS IG investigation began and years after congress made inquiries. At this time, early 2013, Lerner was involved in several lawsuits and she should not have continued with the illegal targeting that was the subject of the IG report nor should she have been looking for ways to circumvent the regulations requiring the retention of IRS communications.
Highly unethical and illegal, which explains why a law and order Obamacare democrat like yourself is such a big Lerner supporter.
You might want to consult the known timeline, http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=54201
“But so far all they’ve found is stuff like this email exchange, which proves nothing.”
Ok Jim. /rolls eyes
What is your standard of proof? I expect a confession from Obama himself wouldn’t be proof enough for you lol.
A bit long, but it is appropriate. This is from Dick Morris:
With the scandal of the Internal Revenue Service targeting of Tea Party groups now reaching the U.S. District Court, it enters a new era. Before the Congressional Oversight Committee, administration witnesses could resort to delaying tactics of “my dog ate it” excuses in answer to document subpoenas. But no more. While Congress cannot enforce its contempt citations, a District Court judge can. He can demand that techies search for missing emails, subpoena those who received them and force document production on penalty of incarceration with no Justice Department intermediary to shield Obama administration officials.
We are about to be treated to a Nixonesque drama, wherein the court, impelled by lawyers for the Tea Party — the redoubtable Cleta Mitchell — forces the IRS to cough up what it knows.
And, with the Nixon case providing a precedent, impeachment could be in the offing. Ken Starr sought impeachment over what many did not consider to be a high crime or misdemeanor. But nobody can doubt that using the IRS to punish political opponents qualifies.
When I want a reliable guide to future political events, I consult Dick “Here comes the Romney landslide” Morris.
11/5/2012: Dick Morris predicts Romney will win 325 electoral votes
11/6/2012: Romney wins 206 electoral votes
Yah, nice argument. You point out the one time he’s wrong. Sheesh, that’s brilliant! You got me. Oh, I’m going to run away with my tail between my legs.
Actually Jon I wouldn’t trust Morris to predict the present weather where he’s standing.
To me, he’s just a putz. Which doesn’t make him wrong this time, but I wouldn’t bet the farm on his predictions.
I admit he’s been wrong. But he’s also been quite prescient. For example, after Obama’s reelection, he predicted that Obama’s 6th year would be terrible. He based that on previous presidents’ 6th year: Reagan, Clinton and Bush. So, I will give him the benefit of the doubt. Like most prognosticators, you have to take what they say along with other information.
With regards to the Romney victory prediction, he (along with most other people) didn’t take the Millennials into account. He assumed they were the typical youth generation with voter apathy. If he’d been reading Howe and Strauss, he would have realized how wrong he was.
In this case, he’s pointing out that the Tea Party scandal is hitting the district courts, and what we’ve seen in Congress is different from what will take place in the courts. There doesn’t seem to be much predicting here.
But Obama is okay, even though he says, “If you like your health care plan you can keep it.”
Ahh a much better argument.
Yes, much better. Any sweeping, self-serving statements by Obama about how a major policy reform will play out years in the future should be taken with a grain of salt, and carefully examined for (possibly omitted) fine print.
Anything Morris says about political trends should be taken as financially-motivated guesswork.
“self-serving statements by Obama about how a major policy reform will play out years in the future should be taken with a grain of salt,”
Ahh but when called out on this you claimed Obama was telling the truth and Democrats said any criticism was racist. Now that everyone knows it was all lies you try and say, “Of course Obama was lying so what?”
you claimed Obama was telling the truth
I never said that the full claim, with “Period.” appended, was true. Because it wasn’t — you had to assume some fine print (your insurer has to keep offering your plan, without significant changes) for the statement to be true.
“I never said that the full claim, with “Period.” appended, was true. ”
Ok Jim, whatever you need to tell yourself to sleep at night. We could talk about your numerous other lies regarding Obamacare but I don’t want to turn you into a sobbing alcoholic.
Pffft like we should listen to Jim, everyone can keep their insurance and doctor and costs will drop.
I guess I should have read farther or picked another Obama lie.
Did you see that 74% of Republicans are happy with their new Obamacare policies? I don’t think even Obama predicted that.
No, I didn’t see that. I don’t believe it.
See here. But I love that you insist on not believing it, sight unseen. It’s like Karl Rove refusing to believe that Ohio could possibly have voted for Obama.
Why should I believe it even after seeing it?
“But I love that you insist on not believing it, sight unseen. ”
You could have provided the link first rather than bait a trap. Are you ever not dishonest?
Why should I believe it even after seeing it?
When facts contradict prejudices, the facts must go.
You could have provided the link first
There’s this great website called Google…
Looking at the board of directors, I don’t see anyone who wouldn’t benefit from government funded health care.
“You could have provided the link first
There’s this great website called Google…”
You don’t have to be a dbag, it is a choice you make. You laid and baited a trap.
You are trying to take credit for the existence of health insurance. How many of those people liked their old plans better or were satisfied with their prior health insurance? Are these people satisfied with their insurance policy, a product that has existed for many many years, but unhappy with Obamacare?
And what does any of this have to do with Lerner conspiring to circumvent the regulations requiring the retention of official records in order to prevent her and her co-conspirators from self incrimination?
Opinion polls by definition are not facts. Suggesting opinions are facts shows either ignorance of the words, profound stupidity, or a willingness to lie about even the most basic things.
Opinion polls by definition are not facts
Wow. So if a pollster asks you if you how satisfied you are with your Obamacare policy, and you answer, it isn’t a fact that you answered a certain way? And if a pollster asks 1,000 people, it isn’t a fact that they answered a certain way?
We’re through the looking-glass.
You laid and baited a trap.
Asking “Did you see that 74% of Republicans are happy with their new Obamacare policies?” is baiting a trap? Really?
You are trying to take credit for the existence of health insurance.
No, I’m just pointing out that 74% of Republicans surveyed said they were satisfied with the policies they got on the Obamacare exchanges.
And what does any of this have to do with Lerner conspiring to circumvent the regulations requiring the retention of official records in order to prevent her and her co-conspirators from self incrimination?
We got here on a tangent about Dick Morris’ credibility, Obama’s credibility, and whether Obamacare turned out to be as advertised.
But no, so far there’s no evidence of Lerner conspiring to circumvent official records retention regulations for nefarious purposes.
” is baiting a trap? Really”
You brought up a non sequitur in hopes to derail the topic. You were hoping to get a little win on an Obamacare poll because you can’t defend Obama, Lerner, and the IRS. I didn’t step in your trap, just called you out on it.
“We got here on a tangent about Dick Morris’ credibility, Obama’s credibility, and whether Obamacare turned out to be as advertised.”
Which had nothing to do with the poll you eventually linked.
” But no, so far there’s no evidence of Lerner conspiring to circumvent official records retention regulations for nefarious purposes.”
Only because you don’t view persecuting people who are not Democrats as nefarious but something that needs to be done regardless of any laws or ethics that stand in the way.
Jim, it appears you are ignorant of statistics, which is probably why you think it is a fact that 74% of Republicans think a certain way based on a sample set of 1,000 callers. If opinion polls are facts, why are so many often wrong when compared to elections.
It appears you are ignorant of statistics, which is probably why you think it is a fact that 74% of Republicans think a certain way based on a sample set of 1,000 callers
Statistics are exactly why opinion polls of random samples can tell you how the overall population would answer the same questions, give or take a margin of error.
If opinion polls are facts, why are so many often wrong when compared to elections.
If you averaged the final 2012 presidential polls on election day, you would very precisely predict the results. The people who were way off (like Dick Morris) were the people who didn’t believe the polls.
This might be something like GWB’s Killian documents. Between Lerner’s initial message and her follow up to the reply, both her auto-signature and the message fonts are different, which I think would be an unlikely configuration of her e-mail client.
“Between Lerner’s initial message and her follow up to the reply, both her auto-signature and the message fonts are different, which I think would be an unlikely configuration of her e-mail client.”
Actually, no, they’re not really that different.
Her signature looks different because the lower signature is at the end of the page, so her title is cut off by the page break (thus the “1” centered at the bottom of the page). Outlook is notorious for turning one-page e-mails into two page e-mails with a single-line second page (Word knows better). Also, there *is* a setting within Outlook to use different signatures for original e-mails and replies (I have mine set up with a signature on original e-mails, and no signature on replies, so that I can choose a signature if I wish to).
The font is the exact same in both of Lois’ e-mails, but the color is different. Outlook is set up to do this by default. Original e-mails are sent with black color by default, replies are sent with medium blue.
Also, the document was uploaded by the House Oversight Committee, on their website. By saying that this is on par with the Killian documents is to imply that the Committee created a fraudulent document during the investigation of another government entity.
Is that really what you’re saying? That Issa and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform forged these documents to make Lois Lerner look bad?
I’ve already debunked the claim that they were faked based on my own cursory knowledge of Outlook, but the full implication of your accusation is pretty far-reaching, regardless of how poorly-informed it was.
You raise excellent points, and I am wiser for it. I don’t think I would have made the leap from my words “might” and “unlikely” to your words “claim” and “accusation”
More accurate summary:
L: Are OCS conversations searchable like emails?
H: Not automatically, but any party to an OCS conversation could save it as email, in which case it’d turn up in an email search, so I’d recommend treating OCS the same as email. Make sense?
L: Perfect
Your “summary” leaves out pertinent statements. Therefore while accurate, it is incomplete.
Naturally you chose to leave out the damning statements.
This is what you did:
The conversation:
Person 1: I shot him
Person 2: Is he dead?
Person 1: Yes
And your summary is:
Person 2: Is he dead?
Person 1: Yes
My company’s IM system, part of Microsofts suite, runs through Exchange and maintains IMs exactly like emails. But then I work for a reputable company, not one that tries to find ways to skirt the law. In other words, I don’t work for the IRS.
Jim’s arguments suggest to me; we need to privatize or at least minimize the IRS, so it is more accountable to the law and the people of the United States.
The IRS just needs more money, your work probably spends ten billion dollars on outlook.
More more accurate summary.
LL: Is there a way we can collude on our persecution of non-Democrats without keeping a record that can be used against us in court or Congressional investigation?
H: Yes, we can use IMs. it only if all parties know not to retain the IM’s.
LL: Perfect. I already have lots of experience doing this with emails. Lol the IG and congress already requested all of my official communications and they didn’t find anything. /evilcackle
LL: But I’ll leave this email for them to find, just for kicks /evilcackle
Judging by how Democrats like to kick dirt in people’s faces while they are down, it wouldn’t surprise me. Just like the endless claims that if something illegal happened there would be emails to prove it /giggle.
”
More accurate summary:
L: Are OCS conversations searchable like emails?
H: Not automatically, but any party to an OCS conversation could save it as email, in which case it’d turn up in an email search, so I’d recommend treating OCS the same as email. Make sense?
L: Perfect
”
Here you are declaring that YOUR summary is more accurate. No if’s and’s but’s or possiblies.
So now justify that statement. Why is it more accurate? How is it more accurate?
How do you know what was in Lerner’s head?
What was meant by her use of the word “responsive”?
What did she mean when she said “Perfect!”?
You must know since you declare your version more accurate.
How do you square that with Lerner’s taking the 5th (so as to NOT INCRIMINATE HERSELF in case you forgot what that’s about); with the IRS illegally destroying email evidence; Kostkinen backtracking on his testimony; the highly unlikely event of 6 other disk crashes occuring on the the computers of people under investigation, all covering the exact same time period.
You didn’t qualify your statement.
You didn’t suggest that it’s a possible alternative.
Justify your declaration.
Gregg, have you ever watched the show The Good Wife? Occasionally the show’s lawyer characters appear before a judge (played by Ana Gasteyer) who insists that lawyers in her court frame every assertion — i.e. virtually everything they say — with the words “in my opinion”. She gets very cross when they forget. I think she’d appreciate your argument.
If it makes you feel better, assume that any assertion I write is followed by an implied “in my opinion.”
What did she mean when she said “Perfect!”?
The last words of the email she was responding to were “Make sense?”. So by “Perfect!” she meant “That makes perfect sense!”. In my opinion.
Are you seriously using a fictional TV show to justify what Obama’s IRS did?
No, just attempting to communicate an idea. Obviously I failed.
“Gregg, have you ever watched the show The Good Wife?”
No and that has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that you refuse to defend a position you took. I ignore your attempted distraction.
Throughout this thread you’ve engaged in lawyerly slimy evasions and wordplay. You refuse to defend the insinuations you’ve made. You prefer to play children’s games such as: “what the meaning of is, is”. You imply saintly behavior on Lerner’s part via leaving out crucial statements which is the actions of a pathetic 4th grade runt.
You do not defend your position because you cannot.
First off, she said “Perfect”, not “Perfect!”. To me, that is a subtle but important difference, based on the way I, personally, use exclamation points in my emails. “Perfect!” implies an almost giddy satisfaction, whereas “Perfect” is a bland and dry response without much emotion behind it.
Second, in my own reading, her “Perfect” was a response to the question “Does that make sense?”, and nothing else, and, to me, reads as short for “Yes, it makes perfect sense,” not as satisfaction with any behavioral implications of the answer.
The questions that Lois Lerner raises in the first part of the back-and-forth are the troubling part, to me; I don’t understand all of the consternation and focus on the “Perfect” part of the whole exchange.
IMHO, of course.
You have to remember that this is a criminal enterprise like the Mob. When you read the email, Lerner makes it clear that she knows emails are searched for specific terms in order to comply with records requests. So what we need to know is what code words the Obama administration used to refer to this program and the people involved.
As it happens, I met this afternoon with attorneys who are defending an Internet company from a patent troll. They are looking to invalidate the patent in question by demonstrating prior art, specifically features of the email system I helped write in the late 80s and 90s. I’ve told them about the relevant features, and they’re going to write it up as a declaration for me to sign. One lawyer mentioned the possibility of emailing me a draft to look over, in case I wanted to suggest changes, but another lawyer reminded him that such a draft would be discoverable, and that when I’m ultimately deposed by opposing counsel I’d be asked lots of questions about any changes between the draft and the signed declaration. So we’ll discuss the declaration on Skype instead, and avoid that hassle.
These lawyers basically replayed Lerner’s email conversation, as I’m sure lawyers do all over the country every day. Sinister stuff!
The IRS is supposed to be accountable and their communications are supposed to be retained in case of litigation or investigation. The IRS is not supposed to be conducting official business off the record and avoiding a hassle isn’t justification for breaking the law.
Jim,
Are you now saying Lois Lerner, a Fed Gov Civil Service employee, has an understandable reason for keeping some of her official work discussions from being recorded and archived per Fed Gov records retention policy?
Thanks,
BlueMoon
Gee Jim, you’re telling us that you are being sued for taking someone’s intellectual property via color of law, you defamed the person as a troll, and you and your lawyers are hiding discoverable information? Do tell us more about your claimed innocence and what your lawyers suggested you do to hide evidence. I think you are right that this will be an interesting comparison to what the IRS is doing.
Wow, reading comprehension is running short here. I’m not being sued, I’m testifying to some facts that will hopefully establish that there was prior art prior to a patent being granted back in 1996 (since the work I did was earlier than that). The plaintiff in the suit is a “non-practicing entity”, i.e. a company that buys up patents and uses them to sue people, but doesn’t actually invent or make or sell anything. The layman’s term for such a company is “patent troll”. No one is hiding discoverable information, we’re avoiding the unnecessary creation of discoverable information.
” , we’re avoiding the unnecessary creation of discoverable information.”
The IRS isn’t allowed to do this. Not only is it against the law but also shady and unethical. So what was Lerner trying to hide and why did it need to stay hidden? Why was she trying to hide communications about persecuting dissidents?
Keep in mind that when the email in question was sent, the IG report had already been finished and the Obama administration claimed the illegal activity was just low level workers and had already been stopped but at the time, Lerner was colluding with the DOJ to imprison people who were not Democrats for not being Democrats.
You defend Lerner and Obama’s IRS doing this and then you claim there is no proof, without a hint of irony.
Lerner was colluding with the DOJ to imprison people who were not Democrats for not being Democrats
You do have a vivid imagination.
“You do have a vivid imagination.”
That was pretty much what her email to the DOJ said. I am not why Lerner was conducting herself this way after all of the illegal targeting was supposed to have ended. We could look at her communications at the time but this latest email shows she was looking for ways to prevent her communications from being retained as the law requires.
Are the lawyers your lawyers or those of the defendant? Are you an expert or witness being asked to provide deposition by the defendants lawyers? If so, do you believe attorney client protection exists between you and the defendants lawyers? Do you think your comments here are not discoverable?
My reading comprehension may be poor here, but either these are your lawyers, in which case you have attorney client privilege that gives immunity to your communications being discoverable. Or these are not your lawyers, in which case no immunity exists and your comments are discoverable and can be challenged in cross examination.
Calling slang terms “layman” doesn’t protect you from committing libel if you indeed smeared the plantiff. It just means you think layman is some special classification when it is not.
I’m thinking you are as arrogantly stupid and dishonest as Lois Lerner, but then we’ve noted your lies in the past so this isn’t really news.
doesn’t protect you from committing libel
I am protected by the fact that I didn’t identify the plaintiff (in fact, I don’t recall the company’s name). Do explain how my comment could possibly have harmed this anonymous company.
Wodun says: “You have to remember that this [The IRS] is a criminal enterprise like the Mob. ”
Well, no.
In the Mob, there are serious consequences for violating long-established “best practices”, or generally making a mistake. And by “serious” I mean “fatal” and “held up to all others as an object lesson in what NOT to do.” (‘You want money, I get it, but you DON’T want to end up like Angelo Bruno with an ass-full of it…’)
In the IRS, like the EPA, Dept of Education, Veterans Administration, etc, the consequences minor. And by “minor I mean “a lateral transfer among slots, agencies, or departments, or early retirement with full pension” and “swept under the rug such that even aggressive journalists are going, ‘Wait! Jamie Gorelick, is who, again, exactly?’ “
Lerner has lost her job and incurred what have to be tens of thousands of dollars of legal fees, and based on what we know so far she may not have done anything wrong. Those aren’t Mob-style consequences, but they’re not minor.
Lerner didn’t “lose her job.” She retired, with full pension. You’ve been told this before, but you apparently have a convenient amnesia on such things.
However, Congress did issue an order to the Sergeant-at-Arms this afternoon to arrest her for contempt. So there is that, finally.
I tried googling for that story and it’s not clear to me that the resolution in question has any legal teeth. It appears that the House has yet to approve the resolution in question.
It hasn’t passed, but I don’t think they’d have introduced it if they don’t have the votes, and if it passes, it has legal teeth. The House does have the power to arrest for contempt. It’s been rarely used, but it exists.
Rand said “I don’t think they’d have introduced it if they don’t have the votes”
I’m getting the impression there is no “they” here, just one congressman who is described as a “firebrand”, when he isn’t being described as a “gadfly” or even “troll”.
For example:
http://www.businessinsider.com/congressman-wants-ex-irs-official-lois-lerner-arrested-2014-7
I’m curious to see how this plays out, but it sounds to me like this is an attention-seeking congressman who just got what he was looking for. It’ll help him fundraise with his base. If that’s correct, then there no need to actually have the votes to get the resolution passed.
Correction: Stockman is not running for reelection.
I don’t think much will come of this bill.
Partisanship aside, this resolution is (was) a fun aspect of the story. Thanks for blogging it Rand.
Too many congressman like Stockman or Dennis Kucinich would be bad for the USA but each party should have one or two to keep people thinking outside the box.
As of 8pm Eastern time, I don’t see any evidence that the House voted on Stockman’s resolution to arrest Lerner, nor do I see any evidence that the House ordered any such action. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I think you’re jumping the gun here.
Stockman introduced the bill. It obviously will not be voted on immediately.
I doubt it will be voted on. The GOP leadership wants to keep the IRS story alive to boost turnout in November, but actually putting Lerner in jail would shift the focus onto her accusers, and what they can actually prove (which is very little). The whole thing could easily blow up in their faces, and Boehner isn’t the type to take that sort of risk.
“incurred what have to be tens of thousands of dollars of legal fees”
Funny, when Tea Party groups had to hire lawyers, accountants, and other professionals to comply with Lerner’s demands you said it was no big deal. Let’s see the evidence she paid a lawyer anything.
“and based on what we know so far she may not have done anything wrong.”
Say what now? The IG report already determined that the IRS was abusing non-Democrat Americans. Everything that has come to light since then about destroyed emails, colluding with other government agencies to imprison political dissidents, circumvention of record retention policies, and the ongoing persecution of non-Democrats all points to deliberate illegal activities that have the blessing of the White House.
I knew you would get back to the core argument that you think the Tea Party, pro-life, groups related to Israel, the individuals that make up these groups, the donors, and the businesses affiliated with these people all deserved what happened to them because they are not Democrats.
The IG report already determined that the IRS was abusing non-Democrat Americans.
The report did not determine that it was done for political reasons, and not that Lerner was responsible.
all points to deliberate illegal activities
In your fevered imagination. There isn’t evidence to prove any of those charges to someone who didn’t already want them to be true.
” The report did not determine that it was done for political reasons,”
It did determine that only groups affiliated with one party were persecuted while groups affiliated with the other party got preferential treatment. That looks like the persecution was done for political reasons to everyone but you. Have you even read any of Lerner’s words on the subject? She is clearly motivated by politics.
” There isn’t evidence to prove any of those charges to someone who didn’t already want them to be true”
The victims are evidence and they are working their way through court. The IRS already settled with one group after releasing their confidential information to Democrat activist groups so it could be used is political campaigns.
And don’t overlook the destruction of evidence, which is an admission of guilt.
That looks like the persecution was done for political reasons to everyone but you.
It didn’t look that way to the Republican IRS employee who actually was part of picking the key words in question, which is one reason why the IG did not conclude there was a political motive. It’s possible to make a mistake that has political effects for apolitical reasons.
Have you even read any of Lerner’s words on the subject? She is clearly motivated by politics.
All the emails show is that she was motivated by a desire to keep groups from abusing the 501c4 designation as a run around campaign finance laws. That’s a totally appropriate motivation for someone in her position.
And don’t overlook the destruction of evidence, which is an admission of guilt.
There’s no proof that anyone intentionally destroyed evidence. There’s no proof that the hard drive crash was intentional, and no proof that anyone overwrote backup tapes believing that they contained evidence.
Stop confusing the word “proof” with evidence. It’s a straw man to say there is no “proof,” meant to make your case sound a lot stronger than it is. It doesn’t fool anyone.
Stop confusing the word “proof” with evidence.
The conventional wisdom around here is that Lerner, and possibly others, are guilty of criminal acts. If that is ever to be established in court, it is going to require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. While you go on measuring Lerner for an orange jumpsuit, I think it’s worth pointing out how very, very far you are from meeting that standard.
Yes, and we are entitled to our opinions that Lerner and others are guilty of criminal acts, and that they should stop withholding evidence, and go to court, where we can ascertain their guilt or innocence. But such “proof” is not necessary for an indictment. All we need is evidence, and we have it in abundance.
that they should stop withholding evidence
Who is withholding evidence?
and go to court
Who has resisted a court summons?
But such “proof” is not necessary for an indictment. All we need is evidence, and we have it in abundance.
All you need for an indictment is evidence, and you have lots of evidence, and yet there’s no indictment. Why is that?
Who is withholding evidence?
Lois Lerner, and the IRS.
Who has resisted a court summons?
Straw man. Who has said there was a court summons? One goes to court when one has been indicted.
All you need for an indictment is evidence, and you have lots of evidence, and yet there’s no indictment. Why is that?
We’ve been over this. Because Eric Holder is the Attorney General. He’s not going to indict any more than John Mitchell was.
Lois Lerner, and the IRS
Lerner is under no obligation to furnish evidence against herself. What evidence has the IRS withheld?
Two years worth of emails.
Two years worth of emails.
The IRS can’t withhold what it doesn’t have.
We don’t know that it doesn’t have it.
We don’t know that it doesn’t have it.
Therefore you don’t know that they’re withholding evidence.
No, but we have excellent reason to suspect it. As two judges have agreed in the last two days.
Lerner is under no obligation to furnish evidence against herself.
That’s not exactly true (what? Jim lies some more? yes… yes he does) She is obligated to retain evidence even if could be used against her, and she can go to jail for merely destroying that data. We only recently learned that such evidence was destroyed. It took nearly a year for the IRS to disclose that, and several months to tell Congress after they knew for sure it happened. So it is understandable that some time will be needed to investigate whether or not the evidence was deliberately destroyed or accidentally. We certainly have no reason to believe the accident story at face value, because the IRS hasn’t been exactly forth coming with evidence they are obligated to provide, said they would provide, and made little effort to preserve despite laws to do so. The evidence the IRS has provided to support the accident is flimsy at best and has yet to stand up to any cross examination. Calls by Democrats to stop the investigation based on the flimsy evidence is just showboating and is rightfully ignored by the majority of people.
Oh yeah, on that majority, 63% of Democrats think Lerner’s emails were deliberately destroyed. That’s for those who think polls are facts.
That would leave a mark on anyone except Jim.
“The IRS can’t withhold what it doesn’t have.”
Bullshit. The IRS has every damn email ever written to or from an IRS account, as does every single federal agency. They are not “missing” a single email. They are lying to Congress and even average people know enough about computers to know that the IRS is lying.
And you personally are lying.
When the wolf devours you, nobody will answer your cry for help.
The IRS has every damn email ever written to or from an IRS account, as does every single federal agency.
Why do you think that’s true? Have you worked in federal IT? Has anyone in a position to know ever testified that the government has such a system? Or do you believe it because it strikes you as the way things ought to be?
Why should I believe you over the sworn testimony of the IRS director, and various IRS internal publications that state that their system does not retain every email?
“Why should I believe you over the sworn testimony of the IRS ”
The IRS has been caught lying to congress and the American public a number of times on the issue. The IRS has no credibility. Why do you think the words of political appointees, who have been caught lying, carry any weight about their own actions?
“Lerner has lost her job and incurred what have to be tens of thousands of dollars of legal fees,”
!) Lerner retired with full pay. That’s hardly a punishment.
2) Her legal fees are about to skyrocket.
3) The rights of US citizens were – by the IRS own admission – violated. Lerner should have been fired without pension just for that alone.
– Of course you don’t see it that way…..Conservative US citizen’s rights are meaningless and worthless to you.
4) Lerner violated the Federal Record’s Act. She should go to jail for that.
The rights of US citizens were – by the IRS own admission – violated. Lerner should have been fired without pension just for that alone.
There’s no proof it was done maliciously, and no proof that Lerner was responsible.
Lerner violated the Federal Record’s Act
Find an example of someone who’s been criminally prosecuted for violating the Federal Records Act, and prove that what Lerner did was as bad or worse. Otherwise you’re just singling her out for political gain.
You keep using the word “proof.” Proof is not necessary. There is sufficient evidence that there is to look for more.
You keep using the word “proof.”
When the topic is putting people in jail, it’s the relevant word.
People go to jail all the time without “proof,” while awaiting trial.
” Find an example of someone who’s been criminally prosecuted for violating the Federal Records Act, and prove that what Lerner did was as bad or worse.”
The violation of the records act is in the context of a greater crime. It shows she is willfully circumventing the law in order to cover up illegal activities. It is an admission of guilt.
” There’s no proof it was done maliciously, and no proof that Lerner was responsible.”
Malice is shown through her actions and her words regarding non-Democrats. When you want to throw people in jail with the expressed intent to intimidate their fellows from participating in our Democracy and from exercising their rights as Americans, it is malice.
Lerner is certainly responsible for her own actions even if she was ordered to do this by a higher authority. You are nuts if you think there is no evidence against Lerner. Either you are straight up lying, trolling, or in denial.
“There’s no proof it was done maliciously, and no proof that Lerner was responsible.”
In all of your watching of the Goodwife, did you ever hear them utter the phrase “equal justice before the law”?
The act was against the law. I suppose there are some arcane reasons why democrats might violate the rights of republicans using a government agency that aren’t malicious….insanity I suppose. But the weight of circumstantial evidence makes those odds very small.
“Find an example of someone who’s been criminally prosecuted for violating the Federal Records Act, and prove that what Lerner did was as bad or worse. Otherwise you’re just singling her out for political gain.”
I needn’t find someone who was criminally prosecuted for murder to know that criminally prosecuting another person for murder is reasonable. Remember prosecuting is not the same thing as finding guilt. According to your silliness, the first pesron to commit murder under the creation of a new nation and a new set of laws cannot be criminally prosecuted.
Yours was an idiotic statement.
Sheesh with all this playing lawyer you do and watching the Goodwife, you’d think you’d know that by now.
The violation of the records act is in the context of a greater crime.
If you can prove the “greater crime”, then do it, don’t use the records act as a substitute. A prosecution on the records act should stand on its own merits.
Malice is shown through her actions and her words regarding non-Democrats.
Her words and actions were regarding people she thought were breaking the law. It isn’t malice for a regulator to want to enforce regulations zealously.
Sheesh with all this playing lawyer you do
You’re right, I’m not a lawyer (thank goodness), much less a federal prosecutor, and I’m guessing you aren’t either. That’s why I’m skeptical of either of our interpretations of the law, and why seeing a prior example would be helpful. I’m certainly not going to take the word of random non-lawyer blog commenters that a totally novel prosecution under the records act is a sure thing. Show me a precedent, and your claim will be much more credible.
People go to jail all the time without “proof,” while awaiting trial.
I’m guessing that Lerner, like most white collar defendants, would make bail.
There is no bail. All she has to do is end her contempt of Congress. Judith Miller sat in jail for weeks without bail because she didn’t want to talk. Lerner can do the same thing.
There is no bail.
So now we aren’t talking about “awaiting trial”, we’re talking about the contempt charges. If the House wants Lerner to talk, give her immunity. Putting someone in jail until they agree to give self-incriminating testimony would look terrible, and Boehner knows that.
“If you can prove the “greater crime”, then do it,”
The IRS already admitted to what too place. The subsequent investigation shows that things went far beyond what the IG report uncovered.
“A prosecution on the records act should stand on its own merits.”
No, it should be in the context of the crimes the destruction of evidence covers up for.
“Her words and actions were regarding people she thought were breaking the law.”
Lol no. You keep blaming the victims by calling them law breakers. Where is the evidence? There is none.
“It isn’t malice for a regulator to want to enforce regulations zealously.”
You admit she was zealous but remember that the actions were intentionally partisan. There is a certain religiosity about Democrat’s image of the god among us Obama though. It becomes very easy for religious extremists to justify their actions against non-believers.
Yes, on Planet Jim, it’s the conservative groups who are criminals, and Lois Lerner was just nobly trying to see that justice was served.
A prosecution on the records act should stand on its own merits.
Fine then, let’s have a special prosecutor to investigate it. Several newspapers are calling Holder to appoint a special prosecutor, let’s get started.
remember that the actions were intentionally partisan
You assume they were, but you have to actually prove it.
Yes, on Planet Jim, it’s the conservative groups who are criminals, and Lois Lerner was just nobly trying to see that justice was served.
I’m open to the possibility that Lerner was abusing her office, I just haven’t seen the evidence. She was supposed to enforce 501c4 regulations. Almost all of the groups pushing the envelope on those regulations in recent years were coming from the right. Her actions, as documented to date, can be explained and justified without any reference to partisanship.
She was supposed to enforce 501c4 regulations. Almost all of the groups pushing the envelope on those regulations in recent years were coming from the right.
Jim, I suppose you have “proof” for that statement rather than biased innuendo?
“U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan gave the tax agency 30 days to file a declaration by an “appropriate official” to address the computer issues with ex-official Lois Lerner.
The decision came Thursday as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, which along with GOP lawmakers on Capitol Hill has questioned how the IRS lost the emails and, in some cases, had no apparent way to retrieve them. ”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/10/federal-judge-orders-irs-to-explain-lost-lerner-emails-under-oath/
A prediction:
The response will not be made before August 1, probably closer to the deadline.
The respondent will most likely be a mid level official not in a position to get real answers.
The response will not be believable to those of us who understand the technical side of the issue.
Hmmm, an interesting dilemma for the IRS. Give again the ol’ ‘dog ate my homework’ excuse and hope the judge buys it or actually send a lower level person qualified to actually answer the questions and hope he or she sticks to the written script in front of the judge.
Interesting tweet from Stockman. Nevertheless, he still deserves our contempt for being an SLS shill.
These are the thinnest arguments I’ve ever seen Jim make. If LL is actually held in contempt, may it be long enough for some real disinfectant of this corrupt bureaucracy to take place (well beyond just Obama.) It’s about time the stupid party took affective action against the evil party.
“These are the thinnest arguments I’ve ever seen Jim make.”
And that’s saying something. In terms of thin arguments, Baghdad Jim is now about a millimeter away from full Gerrib-hood.
Jim tell us:
1) Do you think all investigations into the targeting of republican organizations that the IRS has admitted to ought to be stopped? Are you of the opinion that nothing more of any value can be discovered by further investigations of this issue?
2) Do you think it’s impossible for Lerner to be guilty of promoting that targeting and/or knowing about it and not stopping it?
3) Do you think it’s possible that the emails from 7 disks were not lost via disk crashes?
4) The IRS has admitted wrongdoing in the above targeting. Are you satisfied that all the people responsible for this wrongdoing have been identified and properly dealt with?
Do you think all investigations into the targeting of republican organizations that the IRS has admitted to ought to be stopped?
I think that the House GOP’s investigations are likely to continue to shed more heat than light, and that the country would be better off if they were ended, or redirected to focus on the underlying questions: what rules should 501c4s have to live by, and how can the IRS fairly and efficiently enforce those rules? But I think the investigations are of political value to the GOP, and it’s up to the GOP leadership to decide how long to let them run, so I think it’s very unlikely that they will be stopped or turned in a more productive direction.
Do you think it’s impossible for Lerner to be guilty of promoting that targeting and/or knowing about it and not stopping it?
No, that is possible, just less and less likely as time goes by and persuasive evidence fails to appear.
Do you think it’s possible that the emails from 7 disks were not lost via disk crashes?
I’m not sure what you’re asking here. A lot of Lerner’s emails that were “lost” in her crash were later recovered from the accounts of the people she was emailing to/from. The IRS hasn’t said whether any emails were lost in the other six crashes.
The IRS has admitted wrongdoing in the above targeting. Are you satisfied that all the people responsible for this wrongdoing have been identified and properly dealt with?
Yes. But the underlying cause of the targeting — the fact that the IRS was handling a large volume of 501c4 applications from politically active groups, and didn’t have clear criteria or efficient procedures for processing them — remains.
“what rules should 501c4s have to live by”
The first amendment to the constitution is so clear there is no way you can misunderstand it. In fact, I think you do understand it. You just don’t like that people are allowed to say WHATEVER THE FUCK THEY WANT and Congress shall make no law to abridge that right. GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD.
There is no Constitutional right to special tax status. The IRS hasn’t interfered with anyone’s First Amendment rights, it’s just tried to enforce the tax code.
“There is no Constitutional right to special tax status. ”
There is a Constitutional right to be treated equally under the law.
“it’s just tried to enforce the tax code.”
Nope. The actions of the IRS had nothing to do with the tax code. You keep trying to say the victims were lawbreakers and wreckers.
“or redirected to focus on the underlying questions: what rules should 501c4s have to live by, and how can the IRS fairly and efficiently enforce those rules?”
The underlying issue is the use of government agencies to persecute political dissidents. This wasn’t a problem of there not being enough regulations regarding IRS employee conduct or a lack of regulations that prevent Republican aligned groups from operating the same way Democrat groups do.
“A lot of Lerner’s emails that were “lost” in her crash were later recovered from the accounts of the people she was emailing to/from. ”
Except for the ones that went outside the IRS and we know Lerner has a significant amount of official communications with people outside the IRS.
“he IRS hasn’t said whether any emails were lost in the other six crashes.”
Yes, you want us to believe that each employee has different record retention policies.
“the fact that the IRS was handling a large volume of 501c4 applications from politically active groups”
That doesn’t excuse what the IRS did to all these groups, donors, individuals, and companies. You don’t get to go all Stalin on someone just because people want to participate in our Democracy the same way Democrats do.
“and didn’t have clear criteria or efficient procedures for processing them”
No, the criteria was very clear. The IRS has well established regulations regarding these groups. Democrat groups haven’t had any problems organizing this way. The IRS even held special training sessions for Democrat groups. The “criteria” that was a problem for Obama’s IRS was the political affiliation of the groups.
The IRS has well established regulations regarding these groups
Really? Then it should be easy for you to tell me whether Crossroads GPS and Priorities USA meet the criteria for 501c4 status, and how you can tell.
“Really? ”
Yes, the system has been in place for some time now. Democrat groups don’t seem to have any problems with it and there wasn’t any questions about the rules until the Obama administration was looking for ways to crack down on the ability for its political opponents to freely associate and exercise their first amendment rights.
“Then it should be easy for you to tell me whether Crossroads GPS and Priorities USA meet the criteria for 501c4 status”
The play by the same rules as OFA, Media Matters, and a host of other Democrat groups. The problem here is that you think rules only apply to non-Democrats and that there is nothing wrong with unequal enforcement of the law.
You don’t like the regulations? OK change them in congress or use another dictate and apply them to Democrats as well as Republicans but don’t think that it excuses in anyway how Tea Party and other non-Democrat groups and individuals were treated by the Obama administration.
Don’t tell me Lerner was just doing her job going after groups that had not run afoul of any regulations when she rubber stamps groups like OFA.
Q: Do you think all investigations into the targeting of republican organizations that the IRS has admitted to ought to be stopped?
Jim’s answer: I think that the House GOP’s investigations are likely to continue to shed more heat than light, and that the country would be better off if they were ended, or redirected to focus on the underlying questions: what rules should 501c4s have to live by, and how can the IRS fairly and efficiently enforce those rules? But I think the investigations are of political value to the GOP, and it’s up to the GOP leadership to decide how long to let them run, so I think it’s very unlikely that they will be stopped or turned in a more productive direction.
Yes or no Jim – You did not answer the question. I’ll ask it again: do you think that all investigations into the targeting of republican organizations that the IRS has admitted to ought to be stopped?
Q: Do you think it’s impossible for Lerner to be guilty of promoting that targeting and/or knowing about it and not stopping it?
Jim’s Response: No, that is possible, just less and less likely as time goes by and persuasive evidence fails to appear.
So in your opinion, the situation doesn’t look worse for Lerner? In your opinion, nothing has come to light that would suggest that Lerner could be guilty?
What is the impact of Lerner’s taking the 5th when asked questions about this matter? Keep inmind, Lawyer Jim, that the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, you can’t be compelled to testify against yourself or incriminate yourself. Obviously the testimony that counts is of the matter at hand.
So what is the impact, of Lerner taking the 5th on this matter have, on your opinion, ?
Q: Do you think it’s possible that the emails from 7 disks were not lost via disk crashes?
Jims answer: I’m not sure what you’re asking here. A lot of Lerner’s emails that were “lost” in her crash were later recovered from the accounts of the people she was emailing to/from. The IRS hasn’t said whether any emails were lost in the other six crashes.
I’ll clarify:
1) Are you persuaded that all 7 crashes – every one covering the time period under investigation – actually occured?
2) Do you think it’s possible that those disk crashes did not occur?
Q: The IRS has admitted wrongdoing in the above targeting. Are you satisfied that all the people responsible for this wrongdoing have been identified and properly dealt with?
Jim’s Answer: Yes.
Ok so you have clearly stated that you believe all people who have committed wrong-doing in this matter have been identified and properly dealt with.
Do you think Lerner is responsible for this wrongdoing? If so, for what is she responsible?
I’ll ask it again: do you think that all investigations into the targeting of republican organizations that the IRS has admitted to ought to be stopped?
Yes, I think Boehner should stop the House’s investigations into the IRS.
In your opinion, nothing has come to light that would suggest that Lerner could be guilty?
She doesn’t look any more guilty to me today than she did a year ago.
What is the impact of Lerner’s taking the 5th when asked questions about this matter?
I don’t think it says anything about her guilt or innocence. Obviously, as long as she takes the 5th we won’t hear her testimony about the controversy, and so we’re missing that information.
Are you persuaded that all 7 crashes – every one covering the time period under investigation – actually occurred?
Yes, I am persuaded, I have no reason to think the IRS is lying about them.
Do you think it’s possible that those disk crashes did not occur?
Yes, that’s possible, but strikes me as very unlikely (to invent the crashes would require a conspiracy of a number of people, and I don’t see how the people in question would have the shared motive to take the risk of coming up with a false story like that).
Do you think Lerner is responsible for this wrongdoing?
No, from what I’ve read she tried to shut it down as soon as she learned of it.
“Yes, I am persuaded, I have no reason to think the IRS is lying about them.”
Lol, that’s funny.
“to invent the crashes would require a conspiracy of a number of people, and I don’t see how the people in question would have the shared motive to take the risk of coming up with a false story like that)”
Hahaha You mean like people from more than one government agency targeting and persecuting political dissidents? lol.
“No, from what I’ve read she tried to shut it down as soon as she learned of it.”
What makes you think that? Lerner was plotting as late as 2013 to throw people in jail and it was a long time after she learned of the scandal.
I tend to regard large scale conspiracy as an explanation of last resort. But looking at the known facts, nothing less can account for them.
Lerner was plotting as late as 2013 to throw people in jail
Which is your way of saying that she was trying to enforce the law that her department is charged with executing. If you think it was a crime for her to urge prosecution of groups violating 501c4 regulations, then go ahead and charge her with that — you’d be laughed out of court.
“Which is your way of saying that she was trying to enforce the law ”
She wasn’t trying to enforce the law. She was trying to prevent non-Democrats from enjoying the same rights and privileges that Democrats enjoy. She continued to persecute these groups despite them not breaking any laws, after an IG investigation into the illegal actions she was continuing, after you and Obama claimed these activities stopped, and during numerous ongoing lawsuits.
Let’s see the Democrat groups Lerner went after if she was really just enforcing laws. Instead she gave preferential treatment to groups like OFA, where she expressed a desire for employment. A non-partisan public servant doing her duty is not what Lerner is.
Q: “Yes, I am persuaded, I have no reason to think the IRS is lying about them.”
Q: Do you think it’s possible that those disk crashes did not occur?
“Yes, that’s possible, but strikes me as very unlikely”
If it’s possible then how can you be persuaded that the IRS is not lying about them?
” (to invent the crashes would require a conspiracy of a number of people, and I don’t see how the people in question would have the shared motive to take the risk of coming up with a false story like that).”
Given that all 7 people are undergoing scrutiny in the same scandal, there’s plenty of motive.
You are just ignoring facts.
If it’s possible then how can you be persuaded that the IRS is not lying about them?
Being persuaded doesn’t mean absolutely ruling out any and all other possibilities. 100% certainty is an expensive luxury.
Given that all 7 people
You’re not talking about just 7 people, you’re also talking about all the various IT people they interacted with, over a few years. I don’t see why those IT people would have a motive to lie. There’s no reason why a tech in the IRS forensic data recovery lab would have any particular loyalty to Lois Lerner et al.
It sounds like a judge is going to order sworn testimony from various people at the IRS about Lerner’s hard disk crash. Maybe they’ll depose the IT people. To turn things around, and ask you a question: if the IT people swear under oath that Lerner’s hard disk crashed, will you believe them?
There’s no reason why a tech in the IRS forensic data recovery lab would have any particular loyalty to Lois Lerner et al.
Since we haven’t heard from any such people, there’s no reason to think they were actually involved. But you don’t even think we should try to talk to them.
There’s no proof it was done maliciously, and no proof that Lerner was responsible.
At least you’re now admitting something was done. That’s a step forward.
I’ve “admitted” all along that the keyword targeting was wrong.
You didn’t call it targeting at the beginning.
What comment are you referring to?
Oh wait, targeting is now keyword targeting.
Jim, these are your words from above:
“If you think advising co-workers to not write anything in email that they’d be unhappy seeing aired in a Congressional hearing is a “red flag”, then anything is a red flag.”
Do you think it’s impossible that:
there were IRS email records discussing actions by the IRS regarding the admitted targeting of republican organizations, and
that Lerner had these emails in mind (among others possibly) when she wrote that?
there were IRS email records discussing actions by the IRS regarding the admitted targeting of republican organizations, and
That’s not only possible, I believe some emails about the targeting have been released.
that Lerner had these emails in mind (among others possibly) when she wrote that?
Anything’s possible, but if those emails were incriminating in some way, reminding people to not put sensitive information in emails with those incriminating emails in mind (i.e. after those emails already existed) seems like closing the barn door after the horses have fled.
Yeah. Those people would have to make their emails “disappear”. Remind you of anyone?
“Anything’s possible, but if those emails were incriminating in some way, reminding people to not put sensitive information in emails with those incriminating emails in mind (i.e. after those emails already existed) seems like closing the barn door after the horses have fled.”
It may have been too late but that does not mean it isn’t obstruction of justice. The invetigation was not over and the request for emails was lodged but not fully complied with.
If “Anything is possible” as you say, then it’s possible that Lerner promoted the targeting activity, knew about it, tried to cover it up.
Are you 100% convinced that that is not true?
Actually we already know you are not as you saide, above, that it’s possibel but less and less likely.
Since it’s possible, even though YOU say it’s less and less likely, why would you want the investigatiojn to end?
Since it’s possible, even though YOU say it’s less and less likely, why would you want the investigatiojn to end?
Because the mere possibility of wrongdoing is insufficient justification to continue an investigation. All sorts of things are possible, if we investigated them all for as long as they remained possible we’d be doing nothing else.
“the mere possibility of wrongdoing is insufficient justification to continue an investigation.”
Are you serious? When the wrong doing is plotting to throw people in jail because they are not Democrats and abusing their civil rights along the way?
How can you complain about Gitmo when Obama does crap like this to his fellow Americans.
“Because the mere possibility of wrongdoing is insufficient justification to continue an investigation. ”
I see so if you have a body riddled with bullets, it’s not worth investigating because of the “mere possibility” of wrongdoing.
Jim wrongdoing has been admitted to. Or has your amnesia been kicking in again?
The question is:
Who was involved?
Some of us do not think the entire slate of perpetrators has been identified. And the behavior of the people in that organization since things began strengthens that.
Also you did not answer all the questions…like this one:
f “Anything is possible” as you say, then it’s possible that Lerner promoted the targeting activity, knew about it, tried to cover it up.
Are you 100% convinced that that is not true?
Because the mere possibility of wrongdoing is insufficient justification to continue an investigation.
It’s the reason to start an investigation. It’s been about a month since the IRS finally admitted (after sitting on the information for 3 months), so there really hasn’t been much time spent on this investigation.
As for the targeting of TEA party groups, Jim already said that keyword targeting was wrong, so it is not merely possible that wrongdoing occurred, he’s already admitted wrongdoing did occur. And it really doesn’t matter what Jim the Liar thinks, because Lerner herself claimed wrongdoing occurred and so did the IRS IG. So since we are passed the mere possibility of wrongdoing and certain of wrongdoing, there’s plenty of reason to investigate the wrongdoing.
How can you complain about Gitmo when Obama does crap like this to his fellow Americans.
I don’t think Obama’s done the crap in question. There’s no persuasive evidence that he has, just politically motivated speculation.
Jim wrongdoing has been admitted to
Yes, and investigated, and found to not have been politically motivated.
Some of us do not think the entire slate of perpetrators has been identified.
You can always say there’s more to be learned, but that’s a justification for never-ending investigation.
it’s possible that Lerner promoted the targeting activity, knew about it, tried to cover it up.
Are you 100% convinced that that is not true?
No, not 100%, because it could be true. I don’t think it’s true, because it isn’t consistent with the fact that Lerner told the people doing the targeting to cut it out. Put it this way: I think it’s more likely that Darrel Issa committed insurance fraud than that Lois Lerner promoted the keyword targeting.
It’s the reason to start an investigation.
The keyword targeting was investigated by the IRS IG starting over two years ago, and by multiple House committees for the last year. None has found proof that it was done for political gain.
“I don’t think Obama’s done the crap in question. There’s no persuasive evidence that he has”
His administration has and it continued long after Obama claimed it ended, which means it is continuing with his blessing.
“it isn’t consistent with the fact that Lerner told the people doing the targeting to cut it out. ”
Why was Lerner plotting to make examples of people and thrown them in jail in 2013 if she told people to stop targeting?
“but if those emails were incriminating in some way, reminding people to not put sensitive information in emails with those incriminating emails in mind (i.e. after those emails already existed) seems like closing the barn door after the horses have fled.”
Lol, Lerner was referring to ongoing persecution of political dissidents not past actions. She was speaking in the present tense about how to conduct current business without having a record of her and the co-conspirators communications.
I support the IRS’s legitimate authority to go after hate groups like the Tea Party. Hate speech should be stopped and censorship is a legitimate function of the government.
He’s bad enough. We don’t need to put words in his mouth. Besides, they won’t fit past his toes.
IRS officials at first denied that any targeting had taken place
No, it was Lois Lerner who announced that the keyword targeting had taken place, in response to a planted question.
Dave Camp, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, wrote to the IRS requesting all information—including emails and other communication—related to the alleged targeting of conservative groups
No, he wrote about the applicability of the gift tax to 501c4 donations.
“keyword targeting had taken place,”
The key words were all political, chosen specifically to pick groups with specific perceived political affiliations. Even the progressive groups that were the subject of bolo lists were picked because of political affiliation. You contend that the progressive groups received the same treatment as Tea Party, pro-life, and groups related to Israel, not even you deny that progressive is a political term, but we disagree as to how progressive groups were treated and the motivations for targeting non-Democrat groups.
It is undeniable that the IRS treated groups differently based on their perceived political affiliations and that the IRS, the Obama administration. the Democrats, and the President of the Free World Barack Obama have all lied continuously about what took place.
Keyword targeting is useful for keeping out all those eeevil racist groups. Like the Teabaggers.
People like Jim love to think that because the IRS case wasn’t wrapped up in a week with Lerner frogmarching to jail, there is no scandal.
He’s even said that as time goes by, he thinks it’s less and less likely that people like Lerner are guilty of crimes, ignoring the ever growing pile of revelations.
Perhaps Lawyer Jim is too young to remember watergage, bit the break-in was in June, ’72 and Nixon resigned in August ’74.
We are only at the start of the investigations and revelations. There’s plenty of reason to investigate this issue – more and more reason every day.
I don’t have personal memories of Watergate, but Wikipedia tells the tale. The burglary was June 17, 1972. Within two days it was known that one of the burglars was a GOP security aide. By August 1 a $25,000 check given to the Nixon campaign was found in the account of one of the burglars. By October 10 the FBI had figured out that the burglary was part of “a massive campaign of political spying and sabotage” organized by the Nixon campaign.
For comparison, the IRS IG investigation started in early 2012, and the House IRS investigations started over a year ago.
The [point, dear Jim,is that even with such overt evidence (a flubbed breakin with a GOP man in the crew), it still took 2 years to unravel things to the point where Nixon was forced to resign.
“By October 10 the FBI ”
Where is the FBI now? No executive controlled government organizations are investigating what happened. Most of the information we know has come from FOIA requests and lawsuits in the courts. Even when the IRS admits giving confidential taxpayer information to Democrat activist groups, Obama’s DOJ does nothing.
“For comparison, the IRS IG investigation started in early 2012,”
And in 2013, the IRS and Lerner were still persecuting political dissidents. How can we expect the DOJ to step in when they were colluding with Lerner to imprison people a year after all this stuff was supposed to have stopped?
watergage = Watergate
Well well well, so we know for a fact that Lerner was aware of IM’s.
“I was cautioning folks about email and how we have had several occasions where Congress has asked for emails and there has been an electronic search for responsive emails — so we need to be cautious about what we say in emails,” Lerner wrote.
She then asked Hooke whether the chat system conversations were also searchable.
Hooke responded that the messages “are not set to automatically save” but anyone could “copy and save the contents” to an email or file.
She recommended that the agency treat these conversations “as if it could/is being saved [somewhere], as it is possible for either party of the conversation to retain the information and have it turn up as part of the electronic search.”
Lerner replied: “Perfect.”
Ah.
Well it seems that Hooke and Lerner were ignorant of (or ignoring) their own agency requirements:
Following is from http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/initiatives/im-faq.html
————————————————————————————————————————-
Does IM content qualify as a Federal Record?
The statutory definition of records (44 U.S.C. 3301) includes all machine readable materials made or received by an agency of the United States Government under Federal law or in connection with the transaction of public business. Agencies that allow IM traffic on their networks must recognize that such content may be a Federal record under that definition and must manage the records accordingly. The ephemeral nature of IM heightens the need for users to be aware that they may be creating records using this application, and to properly manage and preserve record content. Agency records management staff determine the record status of the IM content based on the overall records management policies and practices of their agency.
How do I manage my IM content?
Agencies developing a comprehensive policy need to ensure that IM content is managed consistently across the agency in its component offices. An effective policy addresses the authorized use of the IM technology and provides guidelines for the management of the records generated during an IM session. This is especially important because IM content may be subject to various types of access requests, including under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) or as part of a discovery process in a litigation context.
IM content that is a record must be managed as such. Here are two ways:
Provide policies that inform users what steps to undertake to manage the content;
or,
Configure the IM client or server to capture IM without user intervention.
IM content that is a Federal record must be managed in conjunction with related records.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
So since IM’s having to do with IRS business are Federal Records, they, too, must be stored just like emails.
If they were, the IRS should produce them immediately. That should take about a day.
If they weren’t, then Lerner and the IRS once again failed to abide by the Federal Records Act.
And in this case it’s important for the investigation to find out who didn’t follow those rules and prosecute them to the fullest extent.
So since IM’s having to do with IRS business are Federal Records, they, too, must be stored just like emails.
It all depends on the contents; some IMs are Federal Records, some aren’t.
Again, just out of curiosity, has anyone ever been prosecuted for violating the Federal Records Act? If so, what exactly did they do?
Keep polishing that turd. You’re bound to turn it into a pearl.
“It all depends on the contents; some IMs are Federal Records, some aren’t.”
The huge majority of IM’s and emails had better be about IRS business or there is another violation in the use of those media. Again everyone who works for the government is told this on a yearly basis when they atake the required course.
Any and every IM and email that has to do with IRs business has to be saved either on disk, tape or paper. Before they erased/reused the backup tapes BY LAW they are required to transfer the contents to paper.
They didn’t. They broke the law.
No excuses; no exceptions.
In two years it’s reasonable to expect 10’s of thousands of Federal Records transmitted using those media.
“Again, just out of curiosity, has anyone ever been prosecuted for violating the Federal Records Act?”
Go look it up yourself. And while you do, remind yourself of what an “Act” is, and also remind yourself that all governments – but THIS one in particular – enforce only the laws they choose to enforce.
You have no argument, there, in case you were trying to insinuate one.
“It all depends on the contents; some IMs are Federal Records, some aren’t.”
Lerner’s emails certainly makes it apparent that she was looking to conduct IRS business but off the record.
Any inter-agency communication about ongoing IRS activities or cooperative efforts with other agencies are all official business and required to be retained as such.
Do you really expect us to believe that Lerner wanted to use the IM system to exchange cat gifs but didn’t want these gifs preserved for posterity?
Gregg,
You do excellent work here. Thanks.