IRS admits to targeting Conservative groups

[lawgator1]

to add, part of the problem is that it is quite apparent that the reason you believe the absence of the emails is meaningful, is that you want to believe that to be the case.

 

[utvolpj]

Or you understand how backups work and the rules around them. You continue to ignore that part

 

[hog88]

It is correct to say that they should have the emails. It is correct to say that it looks bad when they don't.

It is incorrect to say that the fact that the emails are missing automatically leads to the conclusion that they showed anything remarkable, or that their loss is anything other than innocent.

It is correct that now a special prosecutor needs to be appointed to find out for sure.

 

[lawgator1]

It is correct that now a special prosecutor needs to be appointed to find out for sure.

LOL, a special prosecutor. The standard is a lot higher. But of course you will join the Fox echo chamber and demand one, and when one is not forthcoming, you will stomp your feet some more.

I'm already bored with it.

Yawn.

 

[Orange_Crush]

LOL, a special prosecutor. The standard is a lot higher. But of course you will join the Fox echo chamber and demand one, and when one is not forthcoming, you will stomp your feet some more.

I'm already bored with it.

Yawn.

I see you're trying out for the part of Obama's public relations director.

 

[hog88]

LOL, a special prosecutor. The standard is a lot higher. But of course you will join the Fox echo chamber and demand one, and when one is not forthcoming, you will stomp your feet some more.

I'm already bored with it.

Yawn.

Nope. I'm confident nothing will come out of any of these scandals. The Dems have a code of silence that rivals the mob and the Republicans are to weak kneed to do anything about it.

 

[Orange_Crush]

It's interesting that LG's attitude is consistently lacking in outrage and consistently smirky that nothing sticks. Is it because he's a lawyer? Or because he's a Democrat?

 

[Grand Vol]

It is correct to say that they should have the emails. It is correct to say that it looks bad when they don't.

It is incorrect to say that the fact that the emails are missing automatically leads to the conclusion that they showed anything remarkable, or that their loss is anything other than innocent.

LG, you're a lawyer. And by definition, you aren't allowed to believe in anything that coincidental. And I keep asking the question that you keep avoiding of what you would do in the same situation if you were prosecuting a case and suddenly potentially relevant evidence ends up "missing" and the other attorney knowingly sat it that information for several months.

 

[MG1968]

LG, you're a lawyer. And by definition, you aren't allowed to believe in anything that coincidental. And I keep asking the question that you keep avoiding of what you would do in the same situation if you were prosecuting a case and suddenly potentially relevant evidence ends up "missing" and the other attorney knowingly sat it that information for several months.

It makes you wonder what his reaction was when the Rose Law Firm records, previously thought gone forever, suddenly turned up on a coffee table in the White House.

 

[lawgator1]

I don't know how else I can say this. I am not forgiving the loss of the emails. I am not overlooking anything. I am simply distinguishing between the loss of the emails and the enormous leap of logic you make that it was purposeful.

For one thing, the agency has provided evidence that the that the computer crash happened in 2011, well before anyone even knew this was a controversy. How do you answer that point if your insinuation is that they were disposed of on purpose? I've asked that question here several times and no one ever answers it, except to reiterate that the email server should still have them.

But the email server was a third party contractor who says they dispose of emails on like a 6 month rotating basis. Is that a good thing? No. A violation of internal rules about record keeping? I don't know.

But it takes a lot of supposition and speculation on your part to conclude that Lois Lerner or someone else in 2011, before anyone had a clue this was an issue, intentionally trashed her computer, that they had before then hired a third party contractor for the entire agency to handle emails knowing they wouldn't keep them, and then had some group of people in the FBI do a fake effort at trying to get them back from her hard drive.

This is constantly the problem with these GOP gotchas! Once the smoke of the rhetoric clears, and the cries of "scandal!" calm down to let's actually look at this, you start to run into facts that just don;t jibe with the cocktail you are trying to serve up here.

 

[ajvol01]

LG, why do you insist on calling "legal requirements" by the AKA "internal rules"?

Not cool

 

[Grand Vol]

I don't know how else I can say this. I am not forgiving the loss of the emails. I am not overlooking anything. I am simply distinguishing between the loss of the emails and the enormous leap of logic you make that it was purposeful.

And we've been given a really good reason by this (and past) administrations to take them at their word at anything?

Really?

You are overlooking it because it happens to be your party. Now we have a 50/50 chance the emails in question can or would implicate a larger scheme. I'd say that's decent enough odds.

For one thing, the agency has provided evidence that the that the computer crash happened in 2011, well before anyone even knew this was a controversy. How do you answer that point if your insinuation is that they were disposed of on purpose? I've asked that question here several times and no one ever answers it, except to reiterate that the email server should still have them.

Actually it's been brought up several times that the IRS stated months ago (five IIRC) that they would give up everything they had. Months ago they were promised when they knew years ago they weren't available? Please tell me why you can't see us coming to logical conclusions as to why.

But the email server was a third party contractor who says they dispose of emails on like a 6 month rotating basis. Is that a good thing? No. A violation of internal rules about record keeping? I don't know.

Yes, it is a violation of federal law. I posted the links some time back.

But it takes a lot of supposition and speculation on your part to conclude that Lois Lerner or someone else in 2011, before anyone had a clue this was an issue, intentionally trashed her computer, that they had before then hired a third party contractor for the entire agency to handle emails knowing they wouldn't keep them, and then had some group of people in the FBI do a fake effort at trying to get them back from her hard drive.

If you have a .pst file (which I'd probably bet you do) and your computer crashed, I'd think you'd want every effort made to recover the data you lost. And like I told you before, other than putting that computer under a huge magnet or burning it with fire, those files just don't "disappear." I understand that and I'm a computer retard. Why can't you?

This is constantly the problem with these GOP gotchas! Once the smoke of the rhetoric clears, and the cries of "scandal!" calm down to let's actually look at this, you start to run into facts that just don;t jibe with the cocktail you are trying to serve up here.

And I stand by the comments I've made all along. If Bush 43 did this as well as the other scandals you claim as "phony" they House would have already passed impeachment articles and the Senate would have gone through the trial.

Would you please look at this objectively and how a prosecutor might for a change?

 

[volinbham]

in 2011, before anyone had a clue this was an issue[/B], intentionally trashed her computer, that they had before then hired a third party contractor for the entire agency to handle emails knowing they wouldn't keep them, and then had some group of people in the FBI do a fake effort at trying to get them back from her hard drive.

Actually, she was sent a Congressional inquiry prior to the crash about the targeting of conservative groups. She denied it was occurring until later when she planted the question in that ABA conference to leak it.

IOW - she knew that Congress was looking into her actions with regard to this PRIOR to her computer drive going south.

 

[volinbham]

Funny how LG is way the benefit of the doubt side here about the emails (no evidence of wrong doing) but in the "prepper" thread when no evidence of the weapons cache is found he immediately assumes the guy dug up and moved the evidence. Gotta love a double standard.

 

[volinbham]

Just one more of those coincidences.

IRS Fired Email-Archiving Firm After Lerner Crash | The Daily Caller

 

[lawgator1]

Actually, she was sent a Congressional inquiry prior to the crash about the targeting of conservative groups. She denied it was occurring until later when she planted the question in that ABA conference to leak it.

IOW - she knew that Congress was looking into her actions with regard to this PRIOR to her computer drive going south.

What inquiry, specifically, was sent to her and proof it was before computer crashed?

 

[lawgator1]

Just one more of those coincidences.

IRS Fired Email-Archiving Firm After Lerner Crash | The Daily Caller

"Fired"

Jesus. Their contract ended. This is the kind of crap mischaracterization that ruins the right's already ruined credibility.

 

[BeecherVol]

Funny how LG is way the benefit of the doubt side here about the emails (no evidence of wrong doing) but in the "prepper" thread when no evidence of the weapons cache is found he immediately assumes the guy dug up and moved the evidence. Gotta love a double standard.

Right, wrong or sideways its all about the politics.

 

[volinbham]

What inquiry, specifically, was sent to her and proof it was before computer crashed?

Dave Camp the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee send a letter to the IRS asking specifically about targeting of conservative groups seeking 501c4 status.

His communication was June 3, 2011. Here computer crashed on June 13 2011.

 

[Grand Vol]

Dave Camp the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee send a letter to the IRS asking specifically about targeting of conservative groups seeking 501c4 status.

His communication was June 3, 2011. Here computer crashed on June 13 2011.

Link?

Not that I don't trust you, just for further reading.

 

[lawgator1]

Actually, she was sent a Congressional inquiry prior to the crash

IOW - she knew that Congress was looking into her actions with regard to this PRIOR to her computer drive going south.

Dave Camp the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee send a letter to the IRS asking specifically about targeting of conservative groups seeking 501c4 status.

 

[Grand Vol]

LG, will you ever admit that something shady just might, maybe, possibly be going on?

 

[BeecherVol]

Dave Camp the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee send a letter to the IRS asking specifically about targeting of conservative groups seeking 501c4 status.

His communication was June 3, 2011. Here computer crashed on June 13 2011.

Futile, he can't see past D.

 

[AirVol]

LG, will you ever admit that something shady just might, maybe, possibly be going on?

He only believes what Obozo tells him.

 

[Vols520]

Funny how LG is way the benefit of the doubt side here about the emails (no evidence of wrong doing) but in the "prepper" thread when no evidence of the weapons cache is found he immediately assumes the guy dug up and moved the evidence. Gotta love a double standard.

He only trusts the government