According to the IRS, those documents were obtained by going through the computers of other employees. While I suppose it's remotely possible that Lerner printed all her official records and had them scanned into other employees' computers, I'd say it's not bloody likely.No, as has been explained to you countless times, the way to make that apply is for Lerner to have PRINTED emails that qualified as official records. This isn't a hard concept to grasp, and I can only assume your stubborn refusal to do so is just more of your blatant dishonesty.
Want to tell us again how the Obama administration claimed 60% of the groups targeted were not conservative?
The IRS has produced over a million pages of documents, plus 67,000 of Lerner's emails alone. You haven't the faintest, foggiest clue what's in them. They may include every single "official record" Lerner has from 2009-2011. If they don't, that means Lerner didn't follow the IRS policy, not that the IRS was required to backup all email.
Either way, until someone goes through all of those documents, you don't know. This is also not a hard concept to grasp, and I'm not in the least bit worried about looking bright and honest. Compared to you, I'm a sun.
Wrong again. Only 24,000 of the 67,000 Lerner emails came from other employees, and the million+ pages of paper are separate from both. This, of course, doesn't change the fact that you don't have a single clue what is and is not in those documents, the fact you were wrong claiming I was dishonest, and the fact the Biffy was wrong in his proclamations about how the IRS had to back up email.According to the IRS, those documents were obtained by going through the computers of other employees. While I suppose it's remotely possible that Lerner printed all her official records and had them scanned into other employees' computers, I'd say it's not bloody likely.
Yawn. Don't give up your day job (shilling for Darrell Issa).And clearly you are no sun, as stars cannot spin that much without coming apart.
What will it take for you to admit that Issa & friends have been stringing you along by telling you what you want to believe?
Wrong again. Only 24,000 of the 67,000 Lerner emails came from other employees, and the million+ pages of paper are separate from both. This, of course, doesn't change the fact that you don't have a single clue what is and is not in those documents, the fact you were wrong claiming I was dishonest, and the fact the Biffy was wrong in his proclamations about how the IRS had to back up email.
Yawn. Don't give up your day job (shilling for Darrell Issa).
I already have. What will it take for you to admit that Issa is a lying sack of shit, but the IRS was in the wrong here?
They were in the wrong. That is not in contention. How much and why is what the debate is over.
So you are claiming that werepossum doesn't know what is in those documents, but somehow you do? Somehow you are able to make the claim that they weren't official records. What information are you using to do this? Again, who is being dishonest here?
How does posting the manual and quoting it equate to me being wrong about how the IRS had to backup mail? You aren't too bright are you?
Which has exactly what to do with the original issue, the use of bolo lists & improper questionnaires wrt teatard groups?
Or was existing IRS email policy designed around the obfuscation of information that the IRS had no reason to think would ever be important?
The latter is obviously absurd, making the whole line of inquiry pure conspiracy theory.
What relevance does the movement of money have with this investigation? Its outside the scope.The IRS admitted to wrongdoing wrt bolo lists & their questioning of some right wing groups.
After that, it's just Issa running the old shell game, with you being convinced that the pea, the Conspiracy! really is there. Otherwise, you wouldn't even play.
The whole thing is absurd, particularly when Lerner can be compelled to testify. The objective was shifted long ago, from ascertaining the truth about the particular incident to excoriating the IRS in general. It's not even about the bolo lists & the questions any more, but about IRS email policy & conspiracy! around the routine destruction of failed & obsolete hardware.
One of the things carefully avoided in all of this is the way that money moves & gets repeatedly laundered in this confederacy of non-profits. Group A gets $1M, spends $490K on politics, $20M on legit advocacy, gifts $490K to another group B who spends $240K on politics, follows suit with the remainder. They swap money like swapping spit at an orgy, refreshing the tax exempt & anonymous nature of the money every time they do. The portion of the money supposedly spent on advocacy is largely spent on politics in the process.
As we've seen with the the John Doe investigations in Wisconsin, it functionally turns into anonymous campaign contributions with the candidate directing the spending of supposedly independent groups. It also serves the purposes of deception, like the Teatards actually being grassroots rather than a product of astroturfing by very, very big money.
What relevance does the movement of money have with this investigation? Its outside the scope.
I would completely support correcting the way 501c are monitored and how they are allowed to spend money and maintain their tax exempt status provided those restrictions are applied to all qualifying organizations regardless of message or affiliation .
It always amuses how you all try to frame this as a partisan issue when our chief complaint is that the groups affiliated with the Tea party were handled differently than other groups.
Newsflash: I can say that handling is wrong, and not support Koch's agenda at the same time.
That's not how the law is supposed to work. If you can't see that discrimination is not the solution than you are the problem. Again, I have no issue with tighter regulation. It needs to be applied indiscriminately.The reason, right or wrong, that Teahad groups were handled differently is that big money right wing donors handle the whole 501(c)4 scenario differently & have for decades. It's how they hide their efforts & influence under a thin veneer of "giving" to faux public advocacy groups, avoid tax liabilities at the same time. It's utterly dishonest, and it's what this flap is designed to protect.
Are you functionally illiterate or just dishonest? I never suggested I know what's in those documents. I pointed out that you guys don't, which means all your caterwauling about how the IRS certainly broke federal law is just a lot of hot air.So you are claiming that werepossum doesn't know what is in those documents, but somehow you do? Somehow you are able to make the claim that they weren't official records. What information are you using to do this? Again, who is being dishonest here?
How does posting the manual and quoting it equate to me being wrong about how the IRS had to backup mail? You aren't too bright are you?
No, it admitted to using an inappropriate tool to quickly identify political groups. Targeting political groups was not only proper, it was their responsibility. Using partisan keywords to identify such groups was improper, however.The IRS has admitted to inappropriate targeting of groups. Strike 1.
So you keep parroting, even though you clearly don't understand the law. The IRS had a policy that met the law. The question is how well Lerner followed that policy. You don't know that answer, no matter how many times you insinuate otherwise.In looking into the original issue, its been discovered that the IRS has been breaking the law regarding federal records. Strike 2.
Because reasonable people don't understand that drives sometimes crash? A reasonable person who looks at the data will learn that the annual drive failure rate at the IRS was around 3-5%, a completely normal number (and maybe even a bit better than average for older systems).The IRS comes up with story after story of crashed hard drives that to any reasonable person is very questionable.
You've started with your conclusions first, then perverted "facts" to fit. It's no wonder they lead you to the conclusion you started with.The IRS has displayed wrongdoing on two occasions and you would have us believe that on this third, they are to be trusted. That doesn't sound like conspiracy. A conspiracy usually requires little to no evidence, when in fact we have plenty showing wrongdoing on the part of the IRS. Actually, it sounds like those who would have anyone believe the stories the IRS has been telling are the real conspiracy theorists here.
Are you functionally illiterate or just dishonest? I never suggested I know what's in those documents. I pointed out that you guys don't, which means all your caterwauling about how the IRS certainly broke federal law is just a lot of hot air.
Federal agencies are required to preserve "official records". It is up to each agency to define their own process for doing so, and to then follow that process. The FACT that you cannot accept is that in 2011, when Lerner's drive crashed, the IRS policy was for employees to print all email that qualified as official documents. That renders your assertions completely moot.
Other than your nonsense about Lerner not knowing to print email -- clearly untrue -- nothing you just said contradicts anything I said. It also has nothing to do with your earlier claim, also untrue, that the IRS had to backup all email to comply with the law.First Lerner didn't print any emails because she didn't know she had to. Then her lawyer said that she printed some emails. When questioned about that, her lawyer couldn't confirm that she printed out every "official record". The director of the IRS even said that it was up to the individual to print emails that were records but that he wasn't sure if she had and not sure if any records had been lost. So we still don't have a straight answer to that now do we? And given the IRS's track record to date on this issue, I'm not sure we'll ever get one or if that will even be the truth. But its safe to say that we don't have confirmation that every official record was retained according to the law.
You have zero idea how many emails are still missing. You also do not know how many were official records Lerner hadn't already printed. Those are the facts. And you're being dishonest by continuing to make assertions contrary to such facts.We have many, many missing emails, that is in the thousands. To say that none of those were official records after seeing statements made by Lerner, her lawyer, and the director Koskinen, is completely unbelievable at best and deliberately dishonest at worst. Again, its clear to any rational person that the IRS broke the law.
I mean, really? I'm being dishonest by pointing this out?
Other than your nonsense about Lerner not knowing to print email -- clearly untrue -- nothing you just said contradicts anything I said.
Taylor said Lerner did not print out official records she may have sent over email because she didn’t know she had to.
You have zero idea how many emails are still missing. You also do not know how many were official records Lerner hadn't already printed. Those are the facts. And you're being dishonest by continuing to make assertions contrary to such facts.
So once again, you are free to speculate, you are free to assume, you are free to hold emotional beliefs about all of these things. When you assert them as facts you're being dishonest.
The proglodytes prefer government that operates in this fashion - they "know" conservatives are evil, so any lawbreaking in oppressing conservatives is by definition good. Therefore anything that must be said to defend the IRS WILL be said, no matter how ludicrous, for they wish to preserve as much of this institutional bias as possible.Clearly untrue? I'd like to know how you know that other than complete dishonesty on your part.
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/lois-lerner-irs-scandal-108399_Page2.html
There are many stories out there stating the same thing. This was the original explanation by Lerner and her attorney, but it was changed. Probably because of how stupid it was.
You are right, I have no idea exactly how many are missing. But given how many we have which tells us frequency of email use and then the length of time of the missing emails, its a good guess that thousands are unaccounted for. They have ~67,000 emails and have been able to recover ~24,000 emails from other email accounts. The IRS could keep ~1800 emails before they had to be deleted or moved to a hard drive. So again, its a good guess that we are dealing with thousands but even if its was hundreds, that's significant.
You are also right, I have no idea how many were official records. But again, its safe for any rational person to assume, there was at least one. Its also safe to conclude that Federal law has been broken due to the missing emails. Its up to the IRS to prove they didn't destroy any official records. To date, that haven't been able to prove that.
That's not how the law is supposed to work. If you can't see that discrimination is not the solution than you are the problem. Again, I have no issue with tighter regulation. It needs to be applied indiscriminately.
The proglodytes prefer government that operates in this fashion - they "know" conservatives are evil, so any lawbreaking in oppressing conservatives is by definition good. Therefore anything that must be said to defend the IRS WILL be said, no matter how ludicrous, for they wish to preserve as much of this institutional bias as possible.
Had Nixon been a progressive Democrat, we'd have had school children taught to sing songs about him.
We absolutely know that conspiracy to oppress conservatives actually existed in a systemic fashion within the IRS, it's just that the proggies are insisting it happened by accident.You assume, of course, that conspiracy to oppress conservatives actually exists in a systemic fashion within the IRS.
"Prove there is no conspiracy" by coming up with every last bit of detail we demand is like "prove there aren't any WMD's in Iraq".
If your records don't show that, it's time for an invasion.
We absolutely know that conspiracy to oppress conservatives actually existed in a systemic fashion within the IRS, it's just that the proggies are insisting it happened by accident.
In between insisting that this is a good thing because you know that all conservative groups are automatically guilty. Might want to pick a lane since weaving back and forth just makes you look silly. Um, sillier.
I can't speak for others. I can say I would have no issue if the 501c4 rules were revised.Which would leave conservatives in the position of being oppressed, obviously, simply because of they way they use the cover of 501(c)4 status to anonymize funding.
There is no parallel set of organizations on the other side, certainly not to equal the byzantine constructions of the far right.
If the IRS were out to persecute the Right, they'd change the rules around that tax exempt status to put the money launderers out of business, which is entirely within their power.
Just limit 501(c)4 groups to issue advocacy. The whining would be epic.
The reason, right or wrong, that Teahad groups were handled differently is that big money right wing donors handle the whole 501(c)4 scenario differently & have for decades. It's how they hide their efforts & influence under a thin veneer of "giving" to faux public advocacy groups, avoid tax liabilities at the same time. It's utterly dishonest, and it's what this flap is designed to protect.
If that were remotely true the solution is for the IRS to audit those groups, not improperly delay new groups that haven't started any operations.
Fern
Well, they've already started operations if they're applying for 501(c)4 status. That's obvious.
-snip-