It should be. A pattern of racketeering:
So yet again, the IRS simply creates more questions and at least five more reasons for Judge Sullivan to name a special prosecutor. When did each of the now more than 20 computer crashes occur—by date and time? How could that possibly happen? Why did the IRS prematurely cancel its longstanding contract for backup? Why did it take this long to find out that 5 more had “crashed?” Where is the Blackberry or other device for each of the persons whose computer crashed? What servers are implicated? Whose resignations are forthcoming? Why is Koskinen still there? Who is on Emmet Sullivan’s short list to be the special prosecutor?
Evidence is mounting by the day that Lois Lerner and her co-conspirators abused the power of the sovereign, violated the trust of the people, lied to Congress, destroyed documents and evidence of their wrongdoing, and violated multiple criminal statutes.
At least we have one judge who isn’t buying this.
[Update mid-afternoon]
Some at the IRS was very impressed with Lerner’s strategy:
“This is a brilliant pre-emptive strike by the IRS,” wrote David Holmgren, the deputy inspector general for Inspections and Evaluations. “When we release next week, it will be old news.”
If this is what’s in the emails we can see, imagine what’s in the ones they’re hiding.
The IRS has admitted there is a massive back-up of all federal emails
It’s like a game of telephone. A DOJ lawyer tells Judicial Watch that there’s a possibility of recovering emails from the ends of overwritten backup tapes, and JW tells the world that there’s a secret archive of all federal emails. The DOJ explains that JW misunderstood, but of course JW and the rest of the right wing press ignores that. And now the story has morphed so it’s the IRS that has “admitted” the existence of the mythical secret all-email backup system.
I can’t wait to see how this fairy tale is retold next.
Jim, I watched the last couple of weeks make this argument about Judicial Watch, while at the same time continue to pander the BS story from CREW that the Bush Administration destroyed emails. You seem to lack consistency in your arguments. Is Judicial Watch untrustworthy, while CREW is trustworthy? Is so, can you explain how this is legally the case? Because my understanding is the CREW concerns were considered at the time and found to be weak (mainly because they dealt with private email accounts managed on WH computers, a no no except that now the Obama Administration and Lois Lerner seem to do it all the time), while at the same time, the Judicial Watch issue seems to be currently relative to the IRS issue and not yet challenged significantly to discount.
The JW story — that the DOJ told them there is a secret government-wide backup system that archives all federal emails — is ridiculous on its face, and has been flatly denied by JW’s source. That JW has not retracted its claim tells you all you need to know about their trustworthiness. That the right wing media continues to repeat this claim tells you plenty about theirs.
I have no opinion on CREW’s trustworthiness, I based my claims about Bush administration emails on statements by a Bush spokesperson.
“is ridiculous on its face, and has been flatly denied by JW’s source. ”
Link?
My mistake, it’s been flatly denied by “an administration official with knowledge of Friday’s conversation [with Judicial Watch]”. That might be Fitton’s source, it might be someone else.
“But an administration official with knowledge of Friday’s conversation said Judicial Watch’s statement, which runs counter to months of statements from a variety of administration and IRS higher-ups, was off-base.”
The Hill writes this as someone who was not part of the conversation or who heard it first hand. Yes, it is a contradiction of the IRS claims but the administration has contradicted itself at every stage of the scandal, like the claims that this was just a couple of rogue employees.
We don’t know exactly what was said and we wont unless video or a transcript emerges but they likely don’t exist. What we do know, is that the Obama administration leaked a denial of what JW said. A leak from the Obama administration doesn’t carry much weight. It can’t be checked out by the public and isn’t very credible if the Obama administration can’t say it openly but has to leak the allegation through a nameless third person account.
The administration shouldn’t be making leaks like this in the middle of a trial. They should be making their arguments in court not the media.
And all the computer crashes are fairy tales, too.
You have to admit Jim, it is awfully strange.
I don’t see anything very strange. The House asked for all emails from 82 IRS employees. 5 of them lost emails at some point during the five years in question. That’s consistent with the experience of employees who weren’t targeted.
It’s consistent for somebody who wants to believe, rather than looking at the evidence.
Just click your heels three times, close your eyes and say, “There’s no conspiracy, just right-wing nut jobs.”
“It’s consistent for somebody who wants to believe, rather than looking at the evidence.”
All in a day’s work for a cultist.
“The House asked for all emails from 82 IRS employees. 5 of them lost emails at some point during the five years in question. ”
So 20+ people out of 82 “lost” their emails and other documents? Sounds legit…
No, 6 (including Lerner) out of 82 lost emails, over a five year period. I don’t know where you’re getting the 20+.
” I don’t know where you’re getting the 20+.”
The IRS said they couldn’t find hard drives for up to 20 people. Each week they announce another group of people they can’t find records for but it is unclear whether the latest group is part of the original 20+ or is a new batch because the IRS isn’t giving the courts or congress honest answers. If the IRS is to believed, nearly 25% of people who have been subpoenaed for records have had catastrophic hard drive failures.
In the context of Lerner coaching IRS employees how to avoid producing records for congress and courts, her partisan rhetoric directed toward the victims, the number of IRS employees involved, the efforts of top IRS officials to mislead congress, the courts, and the public prior to the IG report’s release, the involvement of multiple federal government organizations involved in the persecution, the Obama administration’s refusal to stop the persecution, the Obama administration’s refusal to punish anyone involved, and the Obama administration’s dishonesty in the courts, it is readily apparent that the Obama administration intentionally persecuted political dissidents.
Admitting the Obama administration did something reprehensible doesn’t mean you have to hate Obama and the rest of his policies. Had Obama came out and cleaned house after the scandal broke like he said he was going to, people would have believed it was a bureaucratic snafu. Instead, he came out with the rhetoric of holding people accountable and then his actions were obstruction, deceit, and cover up. His actions did not mirror his rhetoric, like on every other issue important to the country.
“The DOJ explains that JW misunderstood,”
Why does the DOJ and IRS keep misleading congress, the courts , and the American people? They have lied to all three groups of people multiple times. Even, if your claims about the existence of backups are true, the DOJ telling JW that they exist wouldn’t be our of the ordinary. The Obama administration, acting across all government agencies involved, has consistently acted to confuse the situation by providing incorrect and conflicting testimony. It wouldn’t be surprising at all if the DOJ said there were backups when there weren’t or that they claimed there are no backups when there was.
Why does the House GOP and allied media keep misleading the public about this story? The IRS told House investigators that Nicole Flax had suffered a computer crash. The House GOP issued a press release claiming that Flax had lost emails. The IRS was forced to clarify that they didn’t know yet whether Flax had lost emails, and on Friday they reported that in fact she hadn’t.
An IRS data recovery tech reported seeing damage to the platters in Lerner’s hard drive, but no evidence that the drive had been tampered with. The House GOP twisted that testimony to state that someone had scratched the disk, insinuating that it was deliberate damage.
And then the DOJ told Judicial Watch that they were trying to recover emails off the ends of recycled backup tapes (a difficult, long-shot procedure), and JW issued a press release claiming that the federal government has a secret backup system with all federal emails, but hadn’t produced Lerner’s because they were too lazy. Hundreds of right wing news outlets and blogs (including this one) bought the ridiculous story hook, line and sinker.
If you are looking for patterns, there’s a clear pattern of the GOP and its media allies of taking administration statements and distorting them to hype a scandal narrative.
“The IRS told House investigators that Nicole Flax had suffered a computer crash. The House GOP issued a press release claiming that Flax had lost emails. The IRS was forced to clarify that they didn’t know yet whether Flax had lost emails, and on Friday they reported that in fact she hadn’t.”
How didn’t she lose any emails when Obama’s IRS claims all employees use their desktop computers to archive an employees emails? Were Flax’s emails backed up and if so what about the emails from the previous six months? Obama’s IRS claims that only emails from the last six months are retained on backups. Was Flax operating under different retention standards than Lerner and the rest of the IRS?
Why did it take until Friday to make the claim that she hadn’t lost any emails? These investigations have been going on for years, why wouldn’t the IRS have known when it made the claim Flax’s hard drive was destroyed that she didn’t have any missing emails? The slow walking of releasing information to the courts and the deliberate misinformation spread by the DOJ and IRS is evidence of a cover up.
“An IRS data recovery tech reported seeing damage to the platters in Lerner’s hard drive, but no evidence that the drive had been tampered with. ”
No evidence someone had tampered with it? Wow, how many people here can tear apart a computer and rebuild it without any signs that it was ever taken apart? It is like going to a shoe store and seeing endless boxes of shoes and then claiming none of them have been opened because the boxes are closed.
“The House GOP twisted that testimony to state that someone had scratched the disk, insinuating that it was deliberate damage.”
Rather convenient that the HD doesn’t exist anymore. Neither side can prove that the damage was or wasn’t deliberate unless the courts or congress find some communications regarding it. Considering Lerner was coaching IRS employees on how to avoid incriminating themselves, it is unlikely she talked about this in her emails.
“And then the DOJ told Judicial Watch that they were trying to recover emails off the ends of recycled backup tapes (a difficult, long-shot procedure),”
Wouldn’t the back ups contain everything from the last back up? Such as, a backup would have all the emails in the system and hold them for six months. These wouldn’t be emails from the last six months but all of the emails over the last six months and the previous n months back to when a person was hired. The IRS can’t possibly have a back up system that only backs up things over a six month period and deletes everything prior to that backup. It would cause havoc with their litigation, normal operations, and any efforts to reboot the organization in the event of a failure.
How didn’t she lose any emails when Obama’s IRS claims all employees use their desktop computers to archive an employees emails?
Her travel laptop crashed, and apparently it didn’t have any emails that weren’t stored elsewhere. Her office desktop wasn’t affected. This is old news.
Why did it take until Friday to make the claim that she hadn’t lost any emails?
Presumably because they wanted to do due diligence; they’ve been burned by making general statements that later turned out to be untrue.
Wouldn’t the back ups contain everything from the last back up?
A backup contains everything that was on the server when the backup was made. The emails being sought were last on the server in 2009-2011, before Lerner moved them to her desktop. The backup tapes used in 2009-2011 were subsequently recycled. The long shot is that maybe some of the information written to the ends of those tapes in 2009-2011 is still there (i.e. because subsequent uses of the tape did not use the entire tape). But that’s a long shot; statistically most of the information that was backed up in 2009-2011 on parts of the tapes that were subsequently overwritten.
“Her travel laptop crashed, and apparently it didn’t have any emails that weren’t stored elsewhere. ”
What else was on her laptop? You also are trying to claim she only used her laptop on business trips, which is unsubstantiated. She would be in the smallest minority of people who have a laptop for work and only use it on airplanes and hotel rooms. She likely used her lap top every single day. Emails are important to look for but they are on servers. Documents, however, live on hard drives.
“and apparently it didn’t have any emails that weren’t stored elsewhere.”
Ya, on the email server not on her desktop computer. No one uses their desktop like an email server, which is why this claim from the IRS is so stupid.
“Presumably because they wanted to do due diligence;”
Hahahaha. That takes the cake! Just like the top IRS officials plotting how to leak the IG report and what to say to deny its conclusions was due diligence. rofl
It’s like a game of telephone.
Except that illegal activity is being covered up. That makes it more like destruction of evidence which is a felony.
I can’t wait to see how this fairy tale is retold next.
There you go, bragging about how your team is going to get away with it again.
At least we have one judge who isn’t buying this.
Hmmm. Pretty scary that so much is riding on the diligence and integrity of a single man. What are the chances that Judge Sullivan is removed from presiding over the case or meet some other unfortunate accident if he doesn’t being to play ball?
Let’s as Andrew Breitbart. Or Michael Hastings.
Don’t worry as soon as the NSA is done looking at this judges life,
the judge will have a change of heart, nothing to see here move along…
Why did the IRS prematurely cancel its longstanding contract for backup?
Sonasoft never had a contract to backup IRS employee email. The cancelled contract is completely irrelevant to the investigation, but it lives on as a zombie meme in the scandal coverup narrative.
Why did the IRS wipe Lerner’s blackberry in the middle of several investigations and lawsuits? Why did Lerner use non-IRS email to conduct official business? Why did Lerner instruct IRS employees on how to avoid official communications being collected by congress or other investigators?
Just a few bad apples in the IRS, oh, and the DOJ and FEC, maybe the white house too but all of those emails were destroyed. Just a few bad apples in at least four government agencies working together but that doesn’t mean there was a conspiracy! There was nothing political despite the information gather by the IRS being sent to Democrat activist groups. And Lerner’s email address seems to be like a bad computer VD that kills anything it touches.
Why did the IRS wipe Lerner’s blackberry in the middle of several investigations and lawsuits?
The Hill: “IRS officials have said in filings they do not believe Lerner’s BlackBerry was checked for data, because any emails should have also been stored in her Microsoft Outlook files.”
Then why didn’t they pull her emails from outlook before? In one case they claim the emails are on outlook, which operates off a server, and then in another case they claim that the emails are stored outside of outlook on personal hard drives.
When Lerner turned on her new computer after the “crash”, she would found all of her emails still on outlook, like you claim with the blackberry, but Obama’s IRS claims that she is missing emails.
Emails are just part of it. There could have been documents on the phone. Smart phones do more than let you send and receive email after all. Phones are virtual brief cases. Destroying the blackberry was like destroying a briefcase filled with documents.
Then why didn’t they pull her emails from outlook before?
They’ve handed over tens of thousands of Lerner’s emails from Outlook — when you see a news article about a new Lerner email that’s leaked from the investigation (see Rand’s update, above), that’s where they came from.
In one case they claim the emails are on outlook, which operates off a server, and then in another case they claim that the emails are stored outside of outlook on personal hard drives.
Both are true. Emails originated on the server, but to keep under the storage quota IRS employees routinely moved messages to personal hard drives.
When Lerner turned on her new computer after the “crash”, she would found all of her emails still on outlook, like you claim with the blackberry, but Obama’s IRS claims that she is missing emails.
She found the emails that had been left on the server. She didn’t see the emails that she’d moved to her (now broken) hard disk. Those were stored exclusively on her hard disk, due to space limitations on the server [which I’ll grant is a stupid way to run things, but it isn’t evidence of a crime or coverup].
“They’ve handed over tens of thousands of Lerner’s emails from Outlook”
This argument would gain you nothing in a court of law, so it shouldn’t surprise anyone that it fails credibility here and with Congress. Every person under investigation would love to control exactly what information investigators received. Specifically, the few emails obtained showed Lerner was exactly trying to control the information coming out. This is why destruction of evidence is an obstruction of justice. Lerner should be facing a DoJ prosecution, where she, not Jim, can explain herself to the court. But as Rand has noted, the Administration is playing out the clock. That’s not something an honest Administration would do.
“They’ve handed over tens of thousands of Lerner’s emails from Outlook”
You keep saying that as if it’s meaningful. It isn’t.
“They’ve handed over tens of thousands of Lerner’s emails from Outlook”
Right, but Obama’s IRS also claims there are missing emails. Emails between Lerner and people outside of the IRS. These emails would have been available off of outlook when Lerner got her new computer. Her outlook would have sync’d up. This is what the IRS claims happened with Flax after her hard drive mysteriously crashed.
Why is it that Lerner and people she had contact with all had hard drive failures, they all operate under different retention policies, and outlook only recovers emails for some employees and not others?
Each time the IRS claims an employee had a hard drive crash and is missing data, they concoct some new story which contradicts their previous claims for when another IRS employee had a hard drive crash and cant produce data.
” Emails originated on the server, but to keep under the storage quota IRS employees routinely moved messages to personal hard drives.”
For this to be true, IRS employees would have to manually back up their emails every six months. I imagine that outlook has a setting to do it automatically but you are claiming the employee does it. Where are all the IRS employee accounts of how big a pain in the butt it is to manually back up their emails to their hard drive every six months. Why would they have to do this? Because Obama’s IRS claims they destroy the backups for the entire IRS every six months.
Emails between Lerner and people outside of the IRS. These emails would have been available off of outlook when Lerner got her new computer.
No, they’d been removed from the Exchange server long before, to make space. The only copy at the IRS was on Lerner’s broken personal hard drive.
This is what the IRS claims happened with Flax after her hard drive mysteriously crashed.
No, Flax lost the hard drive of a travel laptop. Apparently she hadn’t used that laptop as the only storage location for any of her emails. Presumably Flax, like other IRS employees, has emails that are only stored on her desktop, but her desktop didn’t have a hard disk failure.
For this to be true, IRS employees would have to manually back up their emails every six months.
No, it’s worse than that, from an IT practices point of view, anyway. From what the IRS has said, emails moved off the Exchange server onto personal hard drives were never backed up again, because there was no system for backing up personal hard drives (!). Given that all IRS employees had to move emails onto personal machines to stay under server quota limits, and the fact that the IRS has experienced thousands of personal hard drive failures, they’ve lost a lot of email. Lerner’s experience, and that of the other five (out of 82) employees being investigated, was (and AFAICT still is) routine at the IRS.
Because Obama’s IRS claims they destroy the backups for the entire IRS every six months.
Recycling backups wasn’t a new Obama IRS policy — in fact I think they started keeping backups twice as long as had been the case under Bush. But those backups were only for the emails that were still on the Exchange server — emails that had been moved off the server weren’t backed up at all.
“No, they’d been removed from the Exchange server long before, to make space.”
Lets see the accounts of IRS employees having to manually back up their emails to their hard drives every six months.
“No, Flax lost the hard drive of a travel laptop. Apparently she hadn’t used that laptop as the only storage location for any of her emails. ”
Considering the laptop would have been used when going to any meeting outside of her office, there are more important things missing, like documents, than emails.
“Given that all IRS employees had to move emails onto personal machines to stay under server quota limits, ”
And yet there isn’t another IRS employee that has talked about this retarded policy. If this really was the case, there would be comments from IRS workers all over the internet on employment websites.
“Lerner’s experience, and that of the other five (out of 82) employees being investigated,”
Obama’s IRS claims 20+ people are missing hard drives.
I don’t know why people keep engaging Jim at this point. If Lois Lerner came out and said she deliberately destroyed the emails to prevent Congress from reading them, I have no doubt Jim would find a way to spin that.
Jim, put on the dunce cap and go sit in the corner.
This is an outrage. Childish excuses will not wash.
The fact that grown men and woman in congress can’t deal with this means put a fork in America. It’s done.
Who you gonna believe? Jim or your lyin’ eyes? If the DOJ says that everyone with a whit of common sense is misunderstanding, well that really must be true no? Yes 5 more of the very people whose emails we need to investigate were “lost”. Surely you see that’s not so veryhard to believe…..
Right?
I hope whoever keeps faxing Jim he latest talking points is at least reimbursing him for paper.
My mistake, it’s been flatly denied by “an administration official with knowledge of Friday’s conversation [with Judicial Watch]“. That might be Fitton’s source, it might be someone else.
Ah, yes. The one who calls us conspiracy mongers takes an unnamed administration official as fact.
Funny, that.
Yes, Jim lacks consistency on many issues. By the way, some emails not lost from Lois Lerner show how she conspired with coworkers to downplay the “politically motivated” aspects of the Treasury IG report. Then again, she started downplaying the aspects when she learned of the IG Report in 2013, but she learned of the harassment 2 years earlier in June 2011 and failed to tell Congress in November 2012 that the targeting hard occurred. How she is not in jail after prosecution by the DoJ is beyond me to explain.
It’s actually very simple to explain. Two words. Eric. Holder.
The emails talked about yesterday were revealing about the amount of effort that went into planning the press conference leak by the heads of the IRS. The IRS wasn’t acting above board on that and it is an indication that they haven’t been the entire time.
By the way, some emails not lost from Lois Lerner show how she conspired with coworkers to downplay the “politically motivated” aspects of the Treasury IG report.
There’s no evidence that targeting was politically motivated, so of course she and her colleagues would argue against that conclusion.
“There’s no evidence that targeting was politically motivated, …”
Other than the admission by the IRS that the Tea Party was targeted and the data which shows that they were targeted by a large large margin over other non-conservative groups; and after multiple statements by the IRS and the government were back tracked by them and changed and admitted that they were wrong (not a smidgen….rogue couple of people in Cincinatti…)….no……
no political motivation at all.
Also the Treasury IG report, which certainly lacked the bias of the IRS. The only people claiming no evidence is the IRS and Obama Administration apologist.
Other than the admission by the IRS that the Tea Party was targeted
Saying that IRS officials did X does not tell you why they did X. The IRS admitted that Tea Party groups were improperly targeted, but they did not admit that it happened for political reasons. Indeed, one of the officials responsible is a Republican who testified that there was nothing political about it.
they did not admit that it happened for political reasons.
Given Lerner’s history, why should we think otherwise?
“The IRS admitted that Tea Party groups were improperly targeted, but they did not admit that it happened for political reasons.”
Oh and please give us a plausible reason why the Tea party groups were improperly targeted to such a hugely lopsided ratio that is not political?
Luck of the draw?
Given Lerner’s history, why should we think otherwise?
Because there’s no evidence that Lerner was involved in the decision to use the “Tea Party” keyword, and there is evidence that she tried to shut it down once she learned about it.
Oh and please give us a plausible reason why the Tea party groups were improperly targeted to such a hugely lopsided ratio that is not political?
Ratios only get you so far. Something like 90% of the traffic stops in Ferguson, MI are of blacks, who only make up 65% of the population. Do you think that lopsided ratio by itself proves that the traffic stops are an attempt to punish black residents for being black? Or is it possible that there are other plausible reasons?
The Republican IRS employee involved in the targeting testified to investigators that they used keywords to speed up the identification of applications that required closer examination, not because there was any desire to penalize right wing groups. No one has found evidence to contradict his testimony.
“Ratios only get you so far.”
With an organization like the IRS with the huge amount of Federal Power assigned to them and with the incredible trust we MUST have in them to voluntarily obey and pay our taxes, i’d say ratios tell all.
“No one has found evidence to contradict his testimony.”
Again (and for the zillionth time) “no evidence” is meaningless when the evidence has been admittedly lied about, walked back several times, and stonewalled.
That’s liek saying the murderer hasn’t given evidence which would convict him so therefore we shouldn’t investigate.
“not because there was any desire to penalize right wing groups. ”
Ahh but non-Democrat groups were penalized. They were identified based on political affiliation, subjected to questioning designed as opposition research for Democrats, had that information passed on to Democrat activist groups, held in limbo which prevented them from organizing like Democrat groups, and even after the IG investigation and all of these illegal activities claimed to have ended, were under threat of being sent to prison based on viewpoint discrimination.
The response from Democrats has been to blame the victims and smear them with accusations of being criminals.
Obama even called them foreign actors in his SOTU, alleging that all opposition to him is based on other countries trying to overthrow the government. That crap is right out of Venezuela and the USSR.
“Because there’s no evidence that Lerner was involved in the decision to use the “Tea Party” keyword, and there is evidence that she tried to shut it down once she learned about it.”
What evidence? You have conclusive evidence that Lerner tried to shutdown the effort when she learned about it in 2011 and didn’t tell Congess in 2012. It apparently wasn’t her 2012 management plan. So what evidence do you have to back up your assertion of evidence existing, Jim?
There’s no evidence that targeting was politically motivated, so of course she and her colleagues would argue against that conclusion.
The targeting is itself such evidence.
Of course it isn’t. Say, for example, that a white cop shoots a black teenager. Is that fact, in and of itself, evidence that the cop shot the teenager because he was black?
I’m guessing you would have no trouble thinking of other reasons why a white cop might shoot a black teenager. Now try to apply your imagination to thinking of other reasons why an IRS office might process applications in a way that disadvantages Tea Party groups. It isn’t that hard.
Let’s say a white cop shot a black teenager. And then when questioned about the incident, the police officer took the 5th. And then all of the police officer’s arrest records disappeared. And so when the police IA department gets involved, well gee looky here, half a dozen of that cop’s fellow officers have also shot black teens, and now none of those incident reports are available to internal affairs. Yeah, turns out every officer that internal affairs investigates after that lost all their records too.
No, not suspicious at all.
“Of course it isn’t. Say, for example, that a white cop shoots a black teenager.”
Apply the Democrat’s standards for determining when actions are institutional racism to what the Obama administration did to non-Democrat groups and you have policies which disproportionately effected non-Democrat groups. Add into that that the policies were intentionally created to do this. Also consider that, no TP or other groups targeted by Obama’s DOJ using viewpoint discrimination broke any laws despite people like you constantly accusing them of doing so.
Using Democrat standards, there is unmistakable evidence that intentional systematic institutional persecution of political dissidents took place.
Of course it isn’t. Say, for example, that a white cop shoots a black teenager. Is that fact, in and of itself, evidence that the cop shot the teenager because he was black?
A better analogy would be a white cop who locks up a bunch of black teenagers without charging them for anything, but doesn’t do so for white teenagers. Defenders of the cop when confronted with this obvious act of discrimination assert that the cop does arrest and lock up white teenagers on occasion, ignoring that the black teenagers never are charged or released, while the white teenagers always reach one or the other outcomes in a timely manner.
“Ah, yes. The one who calls us conspiracy mongers takes an unnamed administration official as fact.
Funny, that.
Not the first time he’s done that either.
The one who calls us conspiracy mongers takes an unnamed administration official as fact.
Recall that this particular conspiracy theory — that the federal government has a system that has backed up all federal emails — is based on the second-hand word of an unnamed administration official. You can take the subsequent denial one of two ways:
1) At face value. Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch misunderstood what he was told, and the administration doesn’t want to leave that misunderstanding floating, so it sent a spokesperson out to shoot it down.
2) As part of a coverup. Under this interpretation there really is a secret backup system, and some loose-lipped DOJ lawyer let the cat out of the bag. That has mind-boggling implications, for this investigation and others, and raises all sorts of questions that any decent investigative journalist or House investigator should be able to get answered: how long has this system been in operation? what department runs it? how is it paid for? where is it located? how are all federal emails routed so that they can be archived? In response, the administration sent out a spokesperson to deny the whole thing, as if you could shut down such a big story with one anonymous denial.
So pick the interpretation that strikes you as more plausible. I’m willing to bet my Rotary Rocket ball cap that no such backup system exists.
“So pick the interpretation that strikes you as more plausible. ”
Ahhh but that’s not what you said earlier in other threads. You were nailed that time too. What you said was Fitton was wrong and you supplied a quote to prove it.
And the quote was from an unnamed fed source.
You did NOT say, back then, that it’s one unnamed source vs another.
And here it is, August 26, 2014 6:44am:
“……and it’s a second-hand report from an unnamed source, relayed by Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton, someone with an interest in pushing a cover-up narrative. *Another unnamed administration official is describing the report as a simple misunderstanding* on Fitton’s part, telling Fox News “There was no new back-up system described last week to Judicial Watch. Government lawyers who spoke to Judicial Watch simply referred to the same email retention policy that Commissioner (John) Koskinen had described in his Congressional testimony.
………………………….
In summary: without more information to corroborate Fitton’s claim, this sounds like another case of an interested party hyping a non-revelation as something of great political significance (like the time David Camp got worked up over the fact that Lerner’s hard disk was “scratched”).
”
In other words, you used an unnamed source to refute an unnamed source and concluded that your unnamed source was correct.
You do this all the time. You are nailed every time.
And every time you do this your credibility is halved.
You did NOT say, back then, that it’s one unnamed source vs another.
Yes, I did — and you just quoted me, and put asterisks around the sentence where I did so!
what sentence above says:
My (jim’s) unnamed source is just as unreliable as your unamed source.
“Yes, I did — and you just quoted me, and put asterisks around the sentence where I did so!”
No what you said was:
“In summary: without more information to corroborate Fitton’s claim, this sounds like another case of an interested party hyping a non-revelation as something of great political significance”
Youa re saying because your unnamed source has spoken, you consieder Fitton’s report to be wrong.
Show me where, in the above, you claimed that Fitton has every chance to be right as your unnamed source.
that Fitton has every chance to be right as your unnamed source
He doesn’t, because what he’s claiming is ridiculous.
“He doesn’t, because what he’s claiming is ridiculous.”
You see? You did it again. You claimed Fitton is wrong because he used and unnamed source, and as proof you supplied a statement from an unnamed source to back you up.
Are you really this disengaged with logic?
“He doesn’t, because what he’s claiming is ridiculous.”
Ya, totally ridiculous that A) the DOJ misspoke B) the DOJ intentionally mislead JW C) flat out lied.
There are zero examples of the Obama administration, the IRS, and the DOJ ever doing things like this on this and other issues. The Obama administration is the pinnacle of honest and ethical behavior. It is ridiculous to think the Obama administration would do what they have done a million times before.
I never said a backup system existed. I only pointed out that you claim conspiracy when you use information from anonymous sources. I don’t need a dissertation to obfuscate the obvious.
“2) As part of a coverup. Under this interpretation there really is a secret backup system, and some loose-lipped DOJ lawyer let the cat out of the bag. ”
3) The DOJ did claim a backup existed when it didn’t.
Why don’t you allow for the possibility that the DOJ lied? It is not like the Obama administration doesn’t have a record of lying, especially about this scandal.
3) The DOJ did claim a backup existed when it didn’t.
What’s their motive — to make themselves look like liars for previously claiming to not have backups, or to make themselves look like liars (or worse) when the backup fails to materialize? To help Judicial Watch fundraising? To rile up the judge in the JW lawsuit so he orders more discovery?
The DOJ has absolutely no reason to make up such a backup system. Judicial Watch has tons of motive to misinterpret the DOJ as saying that such a system exists.
what sentence above says:
My (jim’s) unnamed source is just as unreliable as your unamed source.
“What’s their motive — to make themselves look like liars for previously claiming to not have backups, ”
To confuse the situation and attack the credibility of JW. Tell one thing to JW and then claim in the press they never said it, then people like you run out to the internet to defend Obama by saying JW lied.
The scandal broke by unethically planting a question at a press conference. The DOJ was colluding with Democrat politicians on how to selectively leak information and how to use it politically, The IRS was working with Democrat activist groups to attack their political opponents and to support political allies. But they wouldn’t release misinformation in order to discredit JW? That would be the least skeezy thing the Obama administration has done.
Tell one thing to JW and then claim in the press they never said it, then people like you run out to the internet to defend Obama by saying JW lied.
If that’s true JW can come out and name the DOJ lawyer who lied to them. Instead, JW is standing by its bogus story.
“JW is standing by its bogus story.”
JW publicly says X happened during a meeting. DOJ leaks a third hand account to the media saying X didn’t happen.
Maybe JW misunderstood what the DOJ official said. Maybe the DOJ official unintentionally misspoke or maybe they intentionally did. It is not like the DOJ hasn’t been working with the media and congressional Democrats to attack their victims.
At this point, it is very important to be careful of any claims made by the Obama administration. They always contradict themselves and deny past statements.
Recall that this particular conspiracy theory — that the federal government has a system that has backed up all federal emails — is based on the second-hand word of an unnamed administration official.
So “the federal government has a system that backed up all federal emails” is now a “conspiracy theory”? You just can’t stop digging that hole.
The Feds would have to have a special email system unlike any other in the country for there not to be backups of everything, and backups of backups, and yearly backups. That’s the way it works all over the world, and has for decades. That’s why Outlook works the way it does – to make it easy for companies to comply with federal record-keeping laws. Why would the Feds not have a backup system like everyone else? Claiming that they don’t have backups is the actual tinfoil-hat position.
If this is what’s in the emails we can see, imagine what’s in the ones they’re hiding.
Reminder: there’s still no proof that any emails have been hidden.
The Democratic-controlled Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations released the documents Friday along with a report finding that mismanagement, and not political bias, was responsible for the targeting.
That’s consistent with everything we know.
“I’m afraid that I have little confidence that most folks making the stink care about what is true,” Lerner wrote in reply. “They’ve already decided they know without regard to the facts.”
Yeah, that sounds true too.
” “I’m afraid that I have little confidence that most folks making the stink care about what is true,” Lerner wrote in reply. “They’ve already decided they know without regard to the facts.”
Yeah, that sounds true too.”
Except no one – NO ONE – is saying that. What is being waid is that the stonewalling, backtracking/changing positoons, outright lying, and taking the 5th all prevents us from knowing the truth.
And we want to know the truth because it’s important.
Except no one – NO ONE – is saying that.
Of course they are. Rand has decided that he knows the IRS hid emails; he isn’t waiting for actual proof. Tom Fitton has decided that the federal government has a secret backup of all emails; he doesn’t care whether that’s true.
Rand has decided that he knows the IRS hid emails
It’s not just me. It’s certainly the way to bet.
Of course they hid emails. Emails existed. Now we don’t have them. This is not a random loss.
…or as parents everywhere often have to ask their children… did they walk off by themselves?
“Of course they are. Rand has decided that he knows the IRS hid emails; he isn’t waiting for actual proof. T”
Emails? They were destroying hard drives. Those hard drives had documents on them. I want to see Lerner’s Excel history.
““I’m afraid that I have little confidence that most folks making the stink care about what is true,” Lerner wrote in reply. “They’ve already decided they know without regard to the facts.”
Yeah, that sounds true too.”
Ya, we should listen to Lerner, the person who was plotting with the heads of the IRS on how to counter the claims in the IG report rather than accept responsibility for their actions. Lerner was trying to get people thrown in jail because of their perceived political affiliation and she was using the IRS to collect information to be used by Democrat activist groups to attack the political opposition during an election, let’s have her lecture people about honesty.
the person who was plotting with the heads of the IRS on how to counter the claims in the IG report rather than accept responsibility for their actions.
They did accept responsibility. If you read the USA Today story about the emails you see that they were all about how to publicly apologize for what had happened. And you twist this into “plotting”!
They did accept responsibility.
They pretended to take responsibility. No one has been terminated and lost their government pension for violating the people’s trust. No one has gone to jail. No one has been held responsible. Martha Stewart was held responsible.
Instead, the DoJ and the IRS are doing damage control. The question is why? There is no question that the two are conspiring, because that is obvious.
A public apology does not mean accepting responsibility. It’s damage control.
If you were in charge of an organization that had screwed up, wouldn’t you do damage control? Damage control is not a crime.
Coverup of a crime, however, IS a crime.
“Damage control is not a crime.”
It is when the organization in question rewards people who broke the law, continue on with the illegal activity in question, lies to the courts, lies to congress, lies to the public, and is actively engaged in a cover up to prevent the organization, its staff, and its political leaders from being held accountable.
“They did accept responsibility. If you read the USA Today story about the emails you see that they were all about how to publicly apologize”
Zero talk in the emails about ending the Obama administrations persecution of political dissidents but there was talk on how to avoid records requests and how to coordinate efforts for ongoing persecution.
Planting questions in news conferences and lying about what the IRS did his hardly ethical behavior or an apology.
“Reminder: there’s still no proof that any emails have been hidden.”
Reminder: your side stonewalls the proof. Has multiply lied about the proof. Takes the 5th against the proof.
“Prove” or “proof” are meaningless words in the context of this discussion. That is a word for mathematics. There is only evidence.
But that’s how demagogues like Jim operate. If there is not “proof,” then total innocence.
“But that’s how demagogues like Jim operate. If there is not “proof,” then total innocence.”
And you will be denied access to the evidence.
To be fair, the phrase is “innocent until proven guilty”. Obviously, the word “proof” means something different in a Mathematical context than it does in a Judicial context.
“I’m afraid that I have little confidence that most folks making the stink care about what is true,” Lerner wrote in reply. “They’ve already decided they know without regard to the facts.”
Yeah, that sounds true too.
Turn the attack around, make the party investigated a victim. Typical left strategy.
Gosh, Lerner is just being pushed around by those nasty, partisan republicans.
Gosh, Lerner is just being pushed around by those nasty, partisan republicans.
Either Lerner is guilty of a crime or she isn’t. There isn’t evidence to date to convict her of anything, so it’s quite possible that she isn’t guilty of anything. In that case she is a victim — can you imagine being treated the way she’s been treated, if you hadn’t done anything wrong?
When everything we say is countered by you, then it is you who are the nasty partisan. You have NOT ONCE admitted that it is possible that there was foul play. That to me means you are nothing but a shill for Soros et. al.
My gosh, remember how you dems got your skivvies in a bundle over Plame? That was such a non-issue, but your screams and howls nearly brought down the house. Now you say, it’s all a mistake, at best.
That was such a non-issue,
Lying to FBI investigators and a grand jury is a non-issue?
“Lying to FBI investigators and a grand jury is a non-issue?”
Who lied? Scooter was convicted of perjury only after a Democrat journolist changed his own story. It was also immaterial to the allegation that Plame’s identity was leaked to ruin her career at the CIA for speaking out against Bush. Turns out, that allegation was totally false.
I didn’t see this outrage from you when Biden outed Seal Team 6 and you don’t give a flying f about the IRS and the Obama administration actually doing to IGs, journalists, and critics what Democrats accused the GOP of doing.
Lying to FBI investigators and a grand jury is a non-issue?
So says the guy claiming the woman held in contempt of Congress did nothing wrong. The thing about Plame was that the FBI and Grand Jury never held accountable the person who actually leaked Plame’s identity. I’d be happy to hold Lerner accountable for her mismanagement, her contempt of Congress, and her destruction of evidence. If only the DoJ would act on the deferral rather than calling Congress members to collude in the cover up.
So, if the Plame issue was so important, why won’t you admit there might be foul play on the IRS issue?
Why Jim, why?
Is it because you’re a partisan hack?
Is it because your gravy train of freebies might end?
Lerner’s been poorly treated? BS. She retired with a fat pension that taxpayers get to cover. And how did she earn it? According to her and the IRS:
1) she mismanaged her employees to the point they were able to abuse their authority and perhaps commit crimes (that the IRS commissioner isn’t investigating at all, because he would first have to become familiar with the laws to know if they were broken)
2). She failed to properly maintain records as required by federal law and while conducting investigations that her office referred to the DoJ.
For being that much a cockup, she could get anywhere from $50,000 to $102,000 a year for the rest of her life. But Jim’s right, I couldn’t imagine being treated that way. If I performed like her, I would have been fired for cause and stripped of benefits whether or not I was found in contempt of Congress.
And Lerner was found in Contempt of Congress and that matter was referred to the DoJ, who has decided to ignore the charge. It’s like a prosecutor deciding to ignore an obstruction of justice charge handed down by a judge. Again, I can’t imagine being so lucky and getting such favorable treatment.
“here isn’t evidence to date to convict her of anything, ”
Because the Obama administration is destroying evidence and engaging in a cover up. Even the DOJ and congressional Democrats are colluding.
“if you hadn’t done anything wrong?”
The IRS and Obama already admitted that there was wrongdoing. They only deny it now when it comes time to hold people accountable and stop the continuing persecution of non-Democrats.
A member of the Obama Administration “racketeering”? O horrors–say it isn’t so!
“All right, I will! There is no racketeering in Dear Leader’s administration! Never happened, never will! The only ‘racketeering’ is the racket made by the forces of Emmanuel Goldstein, trying to distract the serfs from letting Dear Leader do what is best for them–whether they want it or not!”–Baghdad Jim
So, Jim.
Would you say the Breitbart audit is a coincidence?
That’s the way to bet. The IRS audits over a million returns every year. Just by random chance some of those people are going to be high-profile conservatives. The only way you wouldn’t see things like this would be for the IRS to never audit high-profile conservatives or conservative organizations, and that’d be ridiculous.
How much does Media Matters pay you?
Do you understand probabilities, at all? Do you think this group of space geeks is innumerate?
A statistical analysis could be performed by an impartial investigator to determine if conservative groups and individuals were disproportionately targeted by the IRS and other government agencies. But we all know the Obama administration doesn’t investigate itself and actively attacks government workers who are investigators or whistle blowers.
We couldn’t trust the Obama administration to investigate itself anyway. Just look at how the impartial DOJ was colluding with congressional Democrats to leak documents and coordinate political attacks. But there isn’t any evidence of politics playing a role in the scandal says Jiim…
“Just by random chance some of those people are going to be high-profile conservatives.”
Donors to targeted groups were subjected to audits at a higher percentage than the general public.
What percentage of donors to targeted groups were subjected to audits? And how do you know, since 501c4 groups don’t have to disclose their donors?
“And how do you know, since 501c4 groups don’t have to disclose their donors?”
Then why did the IRS ask for donor lists?
501c4 groups don’t have to disclose their donors?
Funny, then how did the IRS manage to leak National Organization for Marriage donor’s list?
Oh, that’s right, the IRS, which Jim claims did nothing wrong, was asking for conservative organizations to disclose their donors, and those lists just happened to get leaked to progressive organizations afterwards.
501c4s do not have to disclose donors publicly. They do have to report them to the IRS. See #9.
So again: What percentage of donors to targeted groups were subjected to audits? And how do you know, since 501c4 groups don’t have to disclose their donors to the public?
Disclosing donor lists to the IRS is public. Don’t tell me it isn’t, because the IRS, who JiM claims did nothing wrong, paid $50,000 for disclosing 501c donor information to another private organization. That’s a public record now.
Further, the donors themselves know who they donate and can correlate that they are receiving more audits for some reason. Back in 2011, Jim’s game of “all shucks it just bad luck” worked, because the donors weren’t talking to each other. Now the donors have come out and identified themselves and complained, we know who they are. They made themselves part of the public record when they made their complaints to Congress.
Jim, your rationalization of IRS abuse only works when the victims are afraid to identify themselves. They are not afraid, and you look Roger Goodell hoping the wife sticks to her story. Yeah, he is doing damage control too.
how do you know
This is how.
“He doesn’t, because what he’s claiming is ridiculous.”
Rocks don’t fall from the sky because there are no rocks in the sky.
Jim, I really want to play poker against you, and your thorough understanding of probabilities.
Don’t you love it when they seem to be running the table all night, then give you all their money in the last hand. Stand up and storm out telling everyone what a lousy player you are?