IRS claims it has LOST two years' worth of emails from former official Lerner

[Spendulus]

I suppose it's possible that she may well be telling the truth about the hard drive crash that lost those old emails - if that's the case, it was certainly bad luck for her.

It's absolutely NOT possible, though. I think the point has been hammered into the ground by plenty enough people, including experts in the field, that emails are NOT stored on the hard drive of PC's or laptops. While they can certainly be stored there by the user in the form of a .pst file, emails are always stored on servers. Those servers are backed up on a very regular basis, especially for a place the size of the IRS. I'm surprised people are still buying into that lie about the emails being lost due to her hard drive crashing.

In order to restore some marginal level of respect and trust for the IRS and that greater US government, Lerner needs to do some jail time.  I can't fathom why the IRS would protect her.  Probably some kind of agency "protect our own" mentality, or alternately, some large number of people could fall like dominoes.

[stevegreer]

^^^ Very true ^^^

[Ron~Popeil]

I suppose it's possible that she may well be telling the truth about the hard drive crash that lost those old emails - if that's the case, it was certainly bad luck for her.

It's absolutely NOT possible, though. I think the point has been hammered into the ground by plenty enough people, including experts in the field, that emails are NOT stored on the hard drive of PC's or laptops. While they can certainly be stored there by the user in the form of a .pst file, emails are always stored on servers. Those servers are backed up on a very regular basis, especially for a place the size of the IRS. I'm surprised people are still buying into that lie about the emails being lost due to her hard drive crashing.

In order to restore some marginal level of respect and trust for the IRS and that greater US government, Lerner needs to do some jail time.  I can't fathom why the IRS would protect her.  Probably some kind of agency "protect our own" mentality, or alternately, some large number of people could fall like dominoes.

That is what leads me to suspect that this goes higher than the agency level. If she were a rogue they would hang her out to dry. If she has damaging information about her superiors she gets protected.

[Spendulus]

I suppose it's possible that she may well be telling the truth about the hard drive crash that lost those old emails - if that's the case, it was certainly bad luck for her.

It's absolutely NOT possible, though. I think the point has been hammered into the ground by plenty enough people, including experts in the field, that emails are NOT stored on the hard drive of PC's or laptops. While they can certainly be stored there by the user in the form of a .pst file, emails are always stored on servers. Those servers are backed up on a very regular basis, especially for a place the size of the IRS. I'm surprised people are still buying into that lie about the emails being lost due to her hard drive crashing.

In order to restore some marginal level of respect and trust for the IRS and that greater US government, Lerner needs to do some jail time.  I can't fathom why the IRS would protect her.  Probably some kind of agency "protect our own" mentality, or alternately, some large number of people could fall like dominoes.

That is what leads me to suspect that this goes higher than the agency level. If she were a rogue they would hang her out to dry. If she has damaging information about her superiors she gets protected.

I want the Republicans to take the Senate.

[Wilikon]

No Wonder the IRS Is ‘Losing’ E-mails: It Was Trying to Throw Innocent Conservatives in Jail



Even a small child can connect these dots.

The IRS is announcing the “loss” of mass numbers of e-mails (do they have any computers that don’t crash?) even as the e-mails that do exist are beginning to show the extent of IRS corruption. Let’s take this exchange (previously uncovered by Judicial Watch) between Lois Lerner, the director of exempt organizations at the IRS, and Nikole Flax, then the IRS commissioner’s chief of staff. (To be clear, these are not “low level” employees.)

First, here’s Lerner on May 8, 2013, literally two days before last year’s fake apology for IRS tea-party targeting:

I got a call today from Richard Pilger Director Elections Crimes Branch at DOJ. I know him from contacts from my days there. He wanted to know who at IRS the DOJ folk s could talk to about [Rhode Island Democrat] Sen. Whitehouse idea at the hearing that DOJ could piece together false statement cases about applicants who “lied” on their 1024s –saying they weren’t planning on doing political activity, and then turning around and making large vis ible political expenditures. DOJ is feeling like it needs to respond, but want to talk to the right folks at IRS to see whether there are impediments from our side and what, if any damage this might do to IRS programs.

I told him that sounded like we might need several folks from IRS. I am out of town all next week, so wanted to reach out and see who you think would be right for such a meeting and also hand this off to Nan as contact person if things need to happen while I am gone –

Translation: The Obama Justice Department was reaching out to the Obama IRS to see if it could “piece together” prosecutions of nonprofits even before any evidence of wrongdoing emerged.

And how did Nikole Flax respond? By suggesting that even more federal agencies get involved:

I think we should do it – also need to include CI, which we can help coordinate. Also, we need to reach out to FEC. Does it make sense to consider including them in this or keep it separate?

In other words, rather than asking the DOJ whether it possessed any evidence of wrongdoing by American citizens engaged in constitutionally protected activities, two senior officials in the Obama IRS (including one, Lois Lerner, who “joked” about wanting to work for Organizing For Action, also known as BarackObama.com) pushed forward the effort to launch a multi-agency criminal probe, involving even the FEC. Oh, and keep in mind that this e-mail exchange occurred literally years after the IRS claimed it had ended all tea-party targeting.

And in the last few days we learn the IRS has “lost” e-mails from — among others — Lois Lerner and Nikole Flax. What a remarkable coincidence.

The scale of the wrongdoing is staggering. Targeting Americans for criminal investigation without evidence, attempting to enlist multiple federal agencies in the effort, selective audits, selective disclosures of confidential documents, selective questioning and delays of nonprofit applicants — all in the service of suppressing dissent. At the ACLJ, I’m one of the attorneys in our litigation — on behalf of 41 conservative groups in 22 states — against the IRS and key IRS officials.

As of today, we’re putting the DOJ, FEC, and even key Democratic senators on notice: They’re bound by law to preserve any communications with IRS officials that would be discoverable in our lawsuit.

The administration’s misconduct and its cover-up are so brazen, so contemptuous of common sense and the truth, that they will — once and for all — put the media and the Left to the test: When it comes to this administration, does the rule of law matter at all? Does the truth matter at all? Or is it all about ideology now?

I know how they’ll respond, and I fear for the future of our democracy. They fight us today — by virtually any means necessary — so their government of the Left, by the Left, and for the Left shall not perish from the Earth.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/380590/no-wonder-irs-losing-e-mails-it-was-trying-throw-innocent-conservatives-jail-david

[umair127]

I think it is interesting that the emails we do have show that the DOJ was in contact with Lerner trying to figure out a way to criminally prosecute these cases.  Nobody on the left seems to want to speak to that.  And if the White House didn't want to cast further suspicion the president really shouldn't have gotten on tv and declared that there wasn't a smidgen of corruption.

These may have been Bush appointees but that apparently has no bearing on whose water they were carrying.

I am curious...if a group had illegally claimed tex exempt status would not that be a matter for Justice to pursue?

Problem was, that it wasn't illegal.  See here

This was not a lapse in judgment or a series of unfortunate events. This was an organized campaign to use IRS resources — including its ability to launch criminal prosecutions — for political purposes. We know from other Lerner e-mails that have been released that the IRS was, at the suggestion of Rhode Island Democratic senator Sheldon Whitehouse, looking for a way to “piece together” a criminal case against the groups it was targeting. Lerner and lawyers at the Justice Department discussed coordinating with the Federal Election Commission in this crusade. It is worth noting that the “crime” with which Lerner et al. wanted to charge those conservative nonprofits was failing to adequately disclose what political activities they would be engaged in — even though under the law they are explicitly permitted to engage in political activity.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/380717/lois-lerners-vanishing-e-mails-editors
 here:

Issa argues that the email shows that the DOJ was considering prosecuting these groups for actions that are legal for 501(c)(4) nonprofits under federal tax law – “that is, engaging in political speech.”

http://washingtonexaminer.com/issa-seeks-answers-about-dojs-role-in-irs-targeting/article/2547651
and here :

Lerner later acknowledged pursuing prosecutions of these groups would not fit well with the law.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/04/16/breaking-new-emails-show-lois-lerner-contacted-doj-about-prosecuting-tax-exempt-groups-n1825292

Well thanks for the information, I appreciate it.

However, for the most part I think it may be a subjective analysis of what is for 501 c4's legal and what is prohibited. As I recall, to qualify, a majority of the efforts of such organizations must be non-political, and groups like Karl Rove's might make such an argument but it would frankly just be a lie.
As I recall Rove's group did seek, and may have obtained, this tax exempt status. But to argue that Crossroads America is not a purely political organization is laughable.
Therefore, it is not unreasonable to consider legal action against those who knowingly submitted fraudulent information to receive a tax exempt status.
We have to be careful not to ignore political motives in both the charges against the IRS and those making the charges.
So when you argue that their activities were clearly legal, I am not so easily convinced that that claim is factually true, and that is where Republican politics come into play.
I want the facts and I would not trust Darrell Issa to seek the facts, nor is the National review slanting toward objectivity.

[sana8410]

"Lerner later acknowledged pursuing prosecutions of these groups would not fit well with the law."

[umair127]

"Lerner later acknowledged pursuing prosecutions of these groups would not fit well with the law."

Your point?
If Lerner raised the issue with DOJ, as she should have, and later found the law permitted perimeters she thought to be beyond the law, then her conclusion would be as you provided.
So what?

[Spendulus]

....
So when you argue that their activities were clearly legal, I am not so easily convinced that that claim is factually true, and that is where Republican politics come into play.
I want the facts and I would not trust Darrell Issa to seek the facts, nor is the National review slanting toward objectivity.

Your choice is Issa or Holder.  

I know where I'm headed on that one.

As for your two paragraph essay on "seeking the facts", context is omitted.  Context is selective enforcement of IRS audit and prosecution thereof.   Oddly enough, your posts on this thread also show repeated selective enforcement of law, selective omission of facts and arguments, and micro examination of fairness in one context, while ignoring the greater picture.

You seem to illustrate the very mindset that is being criticized by Issa's group, frankly.

[sana8410]

"Lerner later acknowledged pursuing prosecutions of these groups would not fit well with the law."

Your point?
If Lerner raised the issue with DOJ, as she should have, and later found the law permitted perimeters she thought to be beyond the law, then her conclusion would be as you provided.
So what?

No, she didn't raise the issue with the DOJ.  She was contacted by the DOJ after a dem (Whitehouse) asked if they could prosecute conservative groups.  You really should at least have a grasp on the basic facts.

   LERNER: I got a call today from Richard Pilger Director Elections Crimes Branch at DOJ … He wanted to know who at IRS the DOJ folk s [sic] could talk to about Sen. Whitehouse idea at the hearing that DOJ could piece together false statement cases about applicants who “lied” on their 1024s –saying they weren’t planning on doing political activity, and then turning around and making large visible political expenditures. DOJ is feeling like it needs to respond, but want to talk to the right folks at IRS to see whether there are impediments from our side and what, if any damage this might do to IRS programs. I told him that sounded like we might need several folks from IRS…

    FLAX: I think we should do it – also need to include CI [Criminal Investigation Division], which we can help coordinate. Also, we need to reach out to FEC. Does it make sense to consider including them in this or keep it separate?
Lerner referred to Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), who was pushing for prosecutions of tax-exempt groups found to have misrepresented their political activities.  Judicial Watch quotes a March 2013 email from Lerner to IRS staff, describing hearings to be held by Whitehouse in April:
As I mentioned yesterday — there are several groups of folks from the FEC world that are pushing tax fraud prosecution for c4s who report they are not conducting political activity when they are (or these folks think they are).One is my ex-boss Larry Noble (former General Counsel at the FEC), who is now president of Americans for Campaign Reform. This is their latest push to shut these down. One IRS prosecution would make an impact and they wouldn’t feel so comfortable doing the stuff.

So, don’t be fooled about how this is being articulated – it is ALL about 501(c)(4) orgs and political activity.
But then a few minutes later, Lerner sent out a follow-up email in which she said prosecution was “not realistic under current law.”  Lerner added, “Everyone is looking for a magic bullet or scapegoat – there isn’t one. The law in this area is just hard.”

http://www.humanevents.com/2014/04/16/irs-documents-show-lois-lerner-wanted-to-sic-the-justice-department-on-targeted-conservative-groups/

[umair127]

"Lerner later acknowledged pursuing prosecutions of these groups would not fit well with the law."

Your point?
If Lerner raised the issue with DOJ, as she should have, and later found the law permitted perimeters she thought to be beyond the law, then her conclusion would be as you provided.
So what?

No, she didn't raise the issue with the DOJ.  She was contacted by the DOJ after a dem (Whitehouse) asked if they could prosecute conservative groups.  You really should at least have a grasp on the basic facts.

   LERNER: I got a call today from Richard Pilger Director Elections Crimes Branch at DOJ … He wanted to know who at IRS the DOJ folk s [sic] could talk to about Sen. Whitehouse idea at the hearing that DOJ could piece together false statement cases about applicants who “lied” on their 1024s –saying they weren’t planning on doing political activity, and then turning around and making large visible political expenditures. DOJ is feeling like it needs to respond, but want to talk to the right folks at IRS to see whether there are impediments from our side and what, if any damage this might do to IRS programs. I told him that sounded like we might need several folks from IRS…

    FLAX: I think we should do it – also need to include CI [Criminal Investigation Division], which we can help coordinate. Also, we need to reach out to FEC. Does it make sense to consider including them in this or keep it separate?
Lerner referred to Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), who was pushing for prosecutions of tax-exempt groups found to have misrepresented their political activities.  Judicial Watch quotes a March 2013 email from Lerner to IRS staff, describing hearings to be held by Whitehouse in April:
As I mentioned yesterday — there are several groups of folks from the FEC world that are pushing tax fraud prosecution for c4s who report they are not conducting political activity when they are (or these folks think they are).One is my ex-boss Larry Noble (former General Counsel at the FEC), who is now president of Americans for Campaign Reform. This is their latest push to shut these down. One IRS prosecution would make an impact and they wouldn’t feel so comfortable doing the stuff.

So, don’t be fooled about how this is being articulated – it is ALL about 501(c)(4) orgs and political activity.
But then a few minutes later, Lerner sent out a follow-up email in which she said prosecution was “not realistic under current law.”  Lerner added, “Everyone is looking for a magic bullet or scapegoat – there isn’t one. The law in this area is just hard.”

http://www.humanevents.com/2014/04/16/irs-documents-show-lois-lerner-wanted-to-sic-the-justice-department-on-targeted-conservative-groups/

Well thanks again, but I am not sure what you find wrong with these exchanges.

In my opinion many of these claims for exemptions were based upon totally false representations and the Senator was correct is seeking to stop their acceptance in violation of the law.

Learned appears here to argue that the law does not cover the prosecution that Whitehouse would find responsible. Hers would of course not be a legal opinion.

Your problem here is that none of this is unreasonable given the volume of submissions and the laughable claims of social benefits by the organizations. All of these exchanges are reasonabkle actions to stop false tax exemption status.

I am interested in the facts here.

[sana8410]

Learned appears here to argue that the law does not cover the prosecution that Whitehouse would find responsible. Hers would of course not be a legal opinion.

Right, which is why they illegally sent the huge database of confidential taxpayer information to the DOJ.  There was no witchhunt, eh?

http://online.wsj.com/articles/fbi-returns-taxpayer-information-it-got-from-irs-1402504785

[umair127]

Learned appears here to argue that the law does not cover the prosecution that Whitehouse would find responsible. Hers would of course not be a legal opinion.

Right, which is why they illegally sent the huge database of confidential taxpayer information to the DOJ.  There was no witchhunt, eh?

http://online.wsj.com/articles/fbi-returns-taxpayer-information-it-got-from-irs-1402504785

I cannot imagine how the DOJ could produce a legal opinion without the information submitted from the IRS, can you?

[sana8410]

Learned appears here to argue that the law does not cover the prosecution that Whitehouse would find responsible. Hers would of course not be a legal opinion.

Right, which is why they illegally sent the huge database of confidential taxpayer information to the DOJ.  There was no witchhunt, eh?

http://online.wsj.com/articles/fbi-returns-taxpayer-information-it-got-from-irs-1402504785

I cannot imagine how the DOJ could produce a legal opinion without the information submitted from the IRS, can you?

They were searching for something, anything, with which to punish these conservative groups at the request of a dem senator.  The IRS obliged, going so far as sending confidential information illegally.

[umair127]

Learned appears here to argue that the law does not cover the prosecution that Whitehouse would find responsible. Hers would of course not be a legal opinion.

Right, which is why they illegally sent the huge database of confidential taxpayer information to the DOJ.  There was no witchhunt, eh?

http://online.wsj.com/articles/fbi-returns-taxpayer-information-it-got-from-irs-1402504785

I cannot imagine how the DOJ could produce a legal opinion without the information submitted from the IRS, can you?

They were searching for something, anything, with which to punish these conservative groups at the request of a dem senator.  The IRS obliged, going so far as sending confidential information illegally.

No, a US senator queried the IRS to identify if some applications were making false claims, and following that, would those false claims be legally actionable. The DOJ could not make that assessment without seeing the submissions.

This is how in the US we seek out fraud and act to end it. Not different than identifying suppliers for Medicare that lie and cheat the system. Those are also referred to the DOJ.

What you are attempting to claim as a conspiracy is an investigation of fraud.

Now, having said that I still support a special prosecutor to be certain no violations of law occurred.

[zolace]

The IRS is one of the most hated federal bureaucracies in existence.  That they're all obama supporters and misused the agencies power to fuck with the tea party movement is beyond reasonable doubt but it is also not the point.  If the IRS had done the same shit for Bush or anyone else, my reaction would be the same and so would, I suggest, the reactions of many if not most of the tea party movement.
If the IRS gets away with destroying evidence and lying to congress then other bureaucracies will follow suit.

[Wilikon]

Learned appears here to argue that the law does not cover the prosecution that Whitehouse would find responsible. Hers would of course not be a legal opinion.

Right, which is why they illegally sent the huge database of confidential taxpayer information to the DOJ.  There was no witchhunt, eh?

http://online.wsj.com/articles/fbi-returns-taxpayer-information-it-got-from-irs-1402504785

I cannot imagine how the DOJ could produce a legal opinion without the information submitted from the IRS, can you?

fishing expedition:
An open-ended inquiry or investigation, often undertaken on the pretext of a minor or unrelated matter, whose real purpose is to uncover embarrassing or damaging information, as about a political opponent: "[enabled] prosecutors to expand what started out as an investigation of ... [a] land deal into a fishing expedition for intimate details of his daily-and nightly-life" (Margaret Carlson).

http://www.answers.com/topic/fishing-expedition

[Spendulus]

Learned appears here to argue that the law does not cover the prosecution that Whitehouse would find responsible. Hers would of course not be a legal opinion.

Right, which is why they illegally sent the huge database of confidential taxpayer information to the DOJ.  There was no witchhunt, eh?

http://online.wsj.com/articles/fbi-returns-taxpayer-information-it-got-from-irs-1402504785

I cannot imagine how the DOJ could produce a legal opinion without the information submitted from the IRS, can you?

Actually, Yes.   The IRS is an administrative agency, and is allowed to make its own rule interpretation decisions.  These are published as letters in many cases.  The IRS also can prosecute cases criminally.  They do not need to ask for approval from DOJ.

Go read some IRS tax fraud cases.  This is all pretty simple.

[noviapriani]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeffrey-meyer/2014/06/25/chuck-todd-irs-scandal-are-there-any-actual-real-victims#ixzz35fFjXGon
so the IRS lost so much important data in a computer crash - saying hey, we have no back up system... the EPA is now saying that they had a computer crash, and any moment we will learn that they had no backup system... and this administration that just put all your confidential information in the hands of the government that can't product emails and computers are crashing every day with no back up...
stupid fucking idiots....

[Spendulus]

The IRS is one of the most hated federal bureaucracies in existence.  That they're all obama supporters and misused the agencies power to fuck with the tea party movement is beyond reasonable doubt but it is also not the point.  If the IRS had done the same shit for Bush or anyone else, my reaction would be the same and so would, I suggest, the reactions of many if not most of the tea party movement.

The IRS and the Tea Party should be absolute enemies.

TEA = "Taxed enough already."

If the IRS gets away with destroying evidence and lying to congress then other bureaucracies will follow suit.

Or already have.