IRS tech experts: Lerner’s hard drive only 'scratched,' not destroyed

[Borillar]

Define "scratched".

Of course, even if her HDD is damaged, the data probably got backed up to tape or to disk.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Did you even bother to read my post before you posted this?

You essentially posted the same thing I did.

And, sure..it's possible to recover the data.

Issa should get the drives and send them a facility that does that.

Although, from what I understand? Emails are generally not stored locally.

The IRS still thinks it is 1990, they apparently store all emails locally, with backups at some interval to magnetic tapes, which they, again apparently, only keep for 6 months. Must make conducting criminal investigations into tax fraud really complicated using a system like that.

I guess they think it's 1990 because that's the sort of tech they still have.

Ever been to a government office?

Wonder why they do things so slowly?

That is the tech they have because that is the tech they are buying. They had a contract to store emails on a server and cancelled it not long after the Lerner investigation started. Interesting timing on that, to say the least.

As for the government working slowly, it has nothing to do with tech, that is just the government.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Did you even bother to read my post before you posted this?

You essentially posted the same thing I did.

And, sure..it's possible to recover the data.

Issa should get the drives and send them a facility that does that.

Although, from what I understand? Emails are generally not stored locally.

That is what is confusing to me. E-mails, other than archives, are not usually stored locally. But they were sent to someone. There should be an e-mail trail out there. You don't just write an e-mail and it sits on your computer. She sent it to someone and that someone should have a copy of it. If they don't, then the IRS IT administrator should have a backup. It is just does not add up...

But all this energy and resources spent for nothing. What a waste of time to satisfy the political appetite of a group of loons. Just Incredible!

Well it's pretty transparent.

They aren't looking to get to the "bottom" of anything because they've already gotten there.

The IRS is cash strapped and the "Citizen's United" decision left them with a quandary.

All of a sudden brand newly minted Tea Party PACs were storming the gates to get the coveted 501(c) 4 exemption and the IRS didn't have the tools or resources to see if they qualified. So they used a "brute force" method and began using tags.

It was simple enough.

And if Issa thinks there is something more he can give the people testifying, immunity and wave the privacy law for tax returns.

He hasn't done that.

What he wants is a fishing expedition here.

The other thing is that Issa uncovered that Federal Law prohibited these PACs from getting the exemption.

They got them..and still have them..anyways.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopicm95.pdf

Obeying the law is hard for the IRS?

Whod'a think it.

 

[Care4all]

I don't know if an outside source can retrieve Lerner's emails...because the IRS Criminal Investigative unit that it was sent to by the techs could not retrieve it.....

but my fingers are crossed that we get them...whether from her hard drive disk if it can be found..(.it hasn't been found, has it? I could have missed that?) or maybe the back up tape was not recycled, was not written over?

I will say that the IRS's right hand doesn't seem to have a clue of it's left hand's whereabouts.

 

[Jarhead]

How would you know what was said in that private hearing to know if it was selective or not?

regardless, I heard what he said yesterday as he said it.

He admitted that whereas the IRS tech team advised having an outside team try to recover the data, the IRS opted not to.

I trust that over third party "released" information from a closed hearing

I haven't listened to yesterday's hearing yet, though I will make a visit to c-span to hear it....and when depotoo started this thread, that hearing had not taken place....the info was selectively being released by the Republicans on the committee of Kane's private testimony, that's how the scratched hard drive sound blip came out and all the propaganda surrounding it in the right wing media, to prompt this thread.

Regardless, you said you found some of that selective info that claimed that the IRS admitted to hiring an outside tech team......or at least that is what I though you said...

Did you not say that?



He admitted yesterday that the IRS opted to NOT hire an outside team to try to retrieve the data despite advice to do so by their inside tech team.

 

[Jarhead]

I don't know if an outside source can retrieve Lerner's emails...because the IRS Criminal Investigative unit that it was sent to by the techs could not retrieve it.....

but my fingers are crossed that we get them...whether from her hard drive disk if it can be found..(.it hasn't been found, has it? I could have missed that?) or maybe the back up tape was not recycled, was not written over?

I will say that the IRS's right hand doesn't seem to have a clue of it's left hand's whereabouts.

Yet you trust the criminal investigation unit, the IG and the acting director.....and congress is the one you criticize.

 

[Care4all]

And on another note...

Why in the world should any money contributed to a political party or political posturing or political anything, be tax deductible?

IT SHOULD NOT BE tax deductible to support a political party, period.

AND DONORS to political parties or campaigns should NOT be kept in Darkness...we have a right to know who is trying to influence, the election....

IF DONORS are in darkness, then we don't know if it is Russia, of China, of Saudi Arabia or Kenyan citizens that are influencing our elections if this continues to be held in the Dark.....

 

[Care4all]

regardless, I heard what he said yesterday as he said it.

He admitted that whereas the IRS tech team advised having an outside team try to recover the data, the IRS opted not to.

I trust that over third party "released" information from a closed hearing

I haven't listened to yesterday's hearing yet, though I will make a visit to c-span to hear it....and when depotoo started this thread, that hearing had not taken place....the info was selectively being released by the Republicans on the committee of Kane's private testimony, that's how the scratched hard drive sound blip came out and all the propaganda surrounding it in the right wing media, to prompt this thread.

Regardless, you said you found some of that selective info that claimed that the IRS admitted to hiring an outside tech team......or at least that is what I though you said...

Did you not say that?



He admitted yesterday that the IRS opted to NOT hire an outside team to try to retrieve the data despite advice to do so by their inside tech team.

no, i said that guy being interviewed, said that as a last resort, the irs COULD send it to an outside source for one final try...sounded like he was saying that in the present term...like if they had the hard drive they could try that as a final try...... he didn't know if anything could be retrieved or if it couldn't....from an outside specialized source.

 

[depotoo]

no, I don't think so...this was a hearing that was held in PRIVATE and the ways and means committee selectively released some of the testimony...

This thread started BEFORE yesterday's hearing....

How would you know what was said in that private hearing to know if it was selective or not?

google is your friend!



New Testimony: IRS May Still Have Missing Lois Lerner E-mails Backed Up | Committee on Oversight & Government Reform

plus the day before yesterday, I stumbled upon a press release from the staff of the Democratic committee members....discussing it...
BUT FOR THE LIFE OF ME....i have spent the last few hours trying to find it again, so far, no luck

So you believe an article over what the ways and means committee released, the ones that actually conducted the interview? Now I understand why so much of your info is erroneous, as I have stated before.

 

[depotoo]

And on another note...

Why in the world should any money contributed to a political party or political posturing or political anything, be tax deductible?

IT SHOULD NOT BE tax deductible to support a political party, period.

AND DONORS to political parties or campaigns should NOT be kept in Darkness...we have a right to know who is trying to influence, the election....

IF DONORS are in darkness, then we don't know if it is Russia, of China, of Saudi Arabia or Kenyan citizens that are influencing our elections if this continues to be held in the Dark.....

Now we get down to the brass tacks. You are now sounding like Lerner. Funny how you never raised a stink when Obama's pacs were so entangled and they didn't even try to hide it. Yet they were 501c4's. Nor have you ever voiced your displeasure with any other left pac, that have actually entwined themselves deeply into the realm of where theh shouldn't. These app's were for most groups that hadn't even started up yet, but they were given the third degree! Guilty before even operating! And told to submit info they, by law are not required to do.

How do you feel about money from unions? Bet you don't have a problem with that. What about electioneering on govt. Time? Haven't seen you raise a stink on that one either.

 

[JoeB131]

So which is it, Joe? Were they all approved or were they all denied?

Works on the assumption I care.

I don't.

You don't care about facts. Yeah, we get that. That's what makes you one of the worst posters on this site.

Well, you haven't presented any facts. You've presented a lot of accusations, but no real facts.

 

[JoeB131]

I don't know if an outside source can retrieve Lerner's emails...because the IRS Criminal Investigative unit that it was sent to by the techs could not retrieve it.....

but my fingers are crossed that we get them...whether from her hard drive disk if it can be found..(.it hasn't been found, has it? I could have missed that?) or maybe the back up tape was not recycled, was not written over?

I will say that the IRS's right hand doesn't seem to have a clue of it's left hand's whereabouts.

Or it probably didn't think it was going to be an issue.

Given the size of the IRS, could you imagine it's data requirements?

 

[Ernie S.]

Joe!
Can you imagine a governmental agency following the law? (Under this administration, yes. I know, it IS difficult.)
Look! 99% of the records an agency is required to keep will never be subject to subpoena, but we have every right to expect that it is there when requested

 

[The Rabbi]

Works on the assumption I care.

I don't.

You don't care about facts. Yeah, we get that. That's what makes you one of the worst posters on this site.

Well, you haven't presented any facts. You've presented a lot of accusations, but no real facts.

Please try to keep up. I know with your ADHD it's tough but dont rely on me to explain this thread.
The question was whether the groups were approved or denied.

 

[JoeB131]

Joe!
Can you imagine a governmental agency following the law? (Under this administration, yes. I know, it IS difficult.)
Look! 99% of the records an agency is required to keep will never be subject to subpoena, but we have every right to expect that it is there when requested

Within reason, yes.

Hey you know what, every year we have an audit at work and every year there is that ONE DOCUMENT we can't find.

No one gets prosecuted, no one gets fired, we get a ding on the report and that's usually the end of the matter.

You see, all this bickering about e-mails is a smoke screen. You guys want Lerner's testimony so bad, give her immunity.

You run the risk she'll pull an Ollie North and fall on her sword.

 

[JoeB131]

You don't care about facts. Yeah, we get that. That's what makes you one of the worst posters on this site.

Well, you haven't presented any facts. You've presented a lot of accusations, but no real facts.

Please try to keep up. I know with your ADHD it's tough but dont rely on me to explain this thread.
The question was whether the groups were approved or denied.

Guy, I honestly don't care. That wasn't the question, anyway. The question was the IRS being unfair by actually looking at the people trying to defraud the government like they were actually trying to defraud the government.

I call that doing a fine job.

 

[westwall]

The desperation, at this point, is pretty pathetic. Come on cons you can do better

Yes, you're going to be desperate as hell if the Repubs ever get their hands on that thing. There's going to be a whole lot of corrupt assholes going to the grey bar Hilton...

 

[JoeB131]

The desperation, at this point, is pretty pathetic. Come on cons you can do better

Yes, you're going to be desperate as hell if the Repubs ever get their hands on that thing. There's going to be a whole lot of corrupt assholes going to the grey bar Hilton...

What do you base that on? I mean other than wishful thinking?

 

[depotoo]

Well, you haven't presented any facts. You've presented a lot of accusations, but no real facts.

Please try to keep up. I know with your ADHD it's tough but dont rely on me to explain this thread.
The question was whether the groups were approved or denied.

Guy, I honestly don't care. That wasn't the question, anyway. The question was the IRS being unfair by actually looking at the people trying to defraud the government like they were actually trying to defraud the government.

I call that doing a fine job.

Care to show me the conviction % for that fraud from these applicants?
Back it up with court cases.

 

[The Rabbi]

Well, you haven't presented any facts. You've presented a lot of accusations, but no real facts.

Please try to keep up. I know with your ADHD it's tough but dont rely on me to explain this thread.
The question was whether the groups were approved or denied.

Guy, I honestly don't care. That wasn't the question, anyway. The question was the IRS being unfair by actually looking at the people trying to defraud the government like they were actually trying to defraud the government.

I call that doing a fine job.

No, you had it at "honestly I dont care." That might be the first truthful thing you've posted here in years.

Yeah, you dont care. So it's no use pointing out no one was trying to defraud anyone. What was happening was the IRS suppressing political speech ahead of an election.