IRS admits to targeting Conservative groups

#1,451
#1,451
lawgator1 said:
1) That is EXACTLY what you said.

2) Now you are changing your claim to be one based on speculation because "in all likelihood" she knew.

How about let's get some facts before we jump off into "in all likelihood" land?
Click to expand...

Are you Lehner's legal counsel?

The way you are defending her almost seems like you're getting paid to do it.
 
#1,452
#1,452
Grand Vol said:
Gowdy made the reference to spoliation of evidence in reference to the computer files.

LG, care to comment on Gowdy's legal skills yet again?
Click to expand...


I am extremely familiar with claims of spoliation of evidence, in federal court, against governmental agencies. Gowdy ought to know that the standard in federal court for spoliation of evidence is a showing of intentional destruction of evidence, in bad faith. So far, what I've seen on the score are comments and rhetoric, like bham's, that "in all likelihood ..."

I'd like to see some evidence of that, not some speculation of that based on "in all likelihood."
 
#1,454
#1,454
lawgator1 said:
1) That is EXACTLY what you said.

2) Now you are changing your claim to be one based on speculation because "in all likelihood" she knew.

How about let's get some facts before we jump off into "in all likelihood" land?
Click to expand...

Do you mean facts like "here is a letter from the House asking about targeting of conservative groups" "oops, my computer crashed, darn it!"
 
#1,457
#1,457
lawgator1 said:
I am extremely familiar with claims of spoliation of evidence, in federal court, against governmental agencies. Gowdy ought to know that the standard in federal court for spoliation of evidence is a showing of intentional destruction of evidence, in bad faith. So far, what I've seen on the score are comments and rhetoric, like bham's, that "in all likelihood ..."

I'd like to see some evidence of that, not some speculation of that based on "in all likelihood."
Click to expand...

Actually, it covers "negligent" destruction as well.

Thought you would know this as a lawyer.
 
#1,458
#1,458
volinbham said:
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.
Click to expand...

lawgator1 said:
1) That is EXACTLY what you said.

2) Now you are changing your claim to be one based on speculation because "in all likelihood" she knew.

How about let's get some facts before we jump off into "in all likelihood" land?
Click to expand...

Let's review the record shall we? I clearly did not say she trashed her computer. I said she knew about the investigation prior to the crash. This was in response to your claim that she did not.

The mistake I made was the notification went to the IRS but not specifically to her.

You are manufacturing what I am claiming about her actions. Further, your contention that she did not know about the investigation is supposition rather than fact. I still contend that since her boss was notified about an investigation into the division she headed that it is highly likely she knew. IOW, it's hard to argue that she DIDN'T know as you repeatedly have.

If you want to play the game about language precision and what someone did or did not say you need to make sure you have your facts right.
 
#1,459
#1,459
lawgator1 said:
I am extremely familiar with claims of spoliation of evidence, in federal court, against governmental agencies. Gowdy ought to know that the standard in federal court for spoliation of evidence is a showing of intentional destruction of evidence, in bad faith. So far, what I've seen on the score are comments and rhetoric, like bham's, that "in all likelihood ..."

I'd like to see some evidence of that, not some speculation of that based on "in all likelihood."
Click to expand...

But Gowdy's questioning was much broader than this. The acting Commissioner has claimed "no crime was committed". The emails are but one small example of criminal wrongdoing that could have occurred. For example, the releasing of donor lists could qualify as crimes.

Since you are so bent on withholding judgement until all the facts are in you should be trashing the Commissioner for making such a claim when he is unaware of what crimes could be involved and by his own admission he doesn't have all the evidence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,460
#1,460
Grand Vol said:
Actually, it covers "negligent" destruction as well.

Thought you would know this as a lawyer.
Click to expand...

There are multiple types of spoliation of evidence. Most states recognize a negligent spoliation claim, though whether it is a separate tort is going to vary dramatically.

Generally speaking, to actually obtain any sort of sanction in federal court where the action is on a federal claim, you have to prove the loss was in bad faith. If it is a state law claim in federal court, where the rules of decision are state-based, that can change.

The issue is complicated here because these aren't courtroom litigants. One of the remedies is an instruction from the judge that the other side is entitled to an inference that the evidence lost would have been adverse to the spoliating party. But that is an instruction to a jury.

Here, the jury is the public and the GOP is arguing for that inference. As we've discussed, I think it fair to do some investigation on it. I just think that when you jump up and shout that it had to be intentional or in bad faith, but when at the end of the day you might have to admit it was negligent, then the impact of your claim is diluted.
 
#1,461
#1,461
lawgator1 said:
1) That is EXACTLY what you said.

2) Now you are changing your claim to be one based on speculation because "in all likelihood" she knew.

How about let's get some facts before we jump off into "in all likelihood" land?
Click to expand...

We have some facts. We speculate based on those facts. In all likelihood, this is a cover-up. Don't like it? Jump back into one of the gun threads, or anti-GOP threads where you love speculation and judging motives-- you know, where it's obviously accepted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,462
#1,462
lawgator1 said:
There are multiple types of spoliation of evidence. Most states recognize a negligent spoliation claim, though whether it is a separate tort is going to vary dramatically.

Generally speaking, to actually obtain any sort of sanction in federal court where the action is on a federal claim, you have to prove the loss was in bad faith. If it is a state law claim in federal court, where the rules of decision are state-based, that can change.

The issue is complicated here because these aren't courtroom litigants. One of the remedies is an instruction from the judge that the other side is entitled to an inference that the evidence lost would have been adverse to the spoliating party. But that is an instruction to a jury.

Here, the jury is the public and the GOP is arguing for that inference. As we've discussed, I think it fair to do some investigation on it. I just think that when you jump up and shout that it had to be intentional or in bad faith, but when at the end of the day you might have to admit it was negligent, then the impact of your claim is diluted.
Click to expand...

So who should be doing the investigation? Let the IRS self investigate, DOJ or do you now understand the need for a special prosecutor?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,463
#1,463
lawgator1 said:
There are multiple types of spoliation of evidence. Most states recognize a negligent spoliation claim, though whether it is a separate tort is going to vary dramatically.

Generally speaking, to actually obtain any sort of sanction in federal court where the action is on a federal claim, you have to prove the loss was in bad faith. If it is a state law claim in federal court, where the rules of decision are state-based, that can change.

The issue is complicated here because these aren't courtroom litigants. One of the remedies is an instruction from the judge that the other side is entitled to an inference that the evidence lost would have been adverse to the spoliating party. But that is an instruction to a jury.

Here, the jury is the public and the GOP is arguing for that inference. As we've discussed, I think it fair to do some investigation on it. I just think that when you jump up and shout that it had to be intentional or in bad faith, but when at the end of the day you might have to admit it was negligent, then the impact of your claim is diluted.
Click to expand...

Big legal words here, but I'll address the bolded part.

So you are saying the timing is just so coincidental that it doesn't give the perception, whether it was negligent or criminal, of wrongdoing?

You're a lawyer, so I know for certain you know perception is reality. And when you don't have evidence in hand that was "lost" and circumstantial facts and timing surround the manner in which it was "lost," it's far easier to lead your jury to believe something sinister was going on behind the scenes.

Don't even try to act indignant, because I'd be willing to bet you've used that tactic before yourself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,464
#1,464
volinbham said:
The mistake I made was the notification went to the IRS but not specifically to her.
Click to expand...


That's all I was pointing out.

The implications that have been made by the GOP and Fox is that

1) the request went to the IRS commissioner,

2) that Lerner was told of it,

3) that Lerner then went and intentionally crashed her computer in some manner that hid the fact that she did that,

4) that the FBI people who worked on the computer were also in on the conspiracy so as not to find either emails or evidence that she intentionally nuked it,

and 5) that whoever else was in on the larger conspiracy of sending her or getting emails from her as part of the larger conspiracy with the White House to target conservatives have all managed to stay hidden and undiscovered this entire time.

I agree it should be looked into, but certainly you can see why I might be a bit skeptical of all of that.
 
#1,465
#1,465
Grand Vol said:
Big legal words here, but I'll address the bolded part.

So you are saying the timing is just so coincidental that it doesn't give the perception, whether it was negligent or criminal, of wrongdoing?

You're a lawyer, so I know for certain you know perception is reality. And when you don't have evidence in hand that was "lost" and circumstantial facts and timing surround the manner in which it was "lost," it's far easier to lead your jury to believe something sinister was going on behind the scenes.

Don't even try to act indignant, because I'd be willing to bet you've used that tactic before yourself.
Click to expand...


No, I have not had to make that claim.

I have already said it looks bad. The question is, what does it mean?

You really, really, REALLY want it to mean that the emails proved something. What?

And to be right, you would need some indication that a bunch of people, dozens if not hundreds, are all in on some complex tapestry of conspiracy upon conspiracy, and its all just awfully farfetched.
 
#1,466
#1,466
lawgator1 said:
And to be right, you would need some indication that a bunch of people, dozens if not hundreds, are all in on some complex tapestry of conspiracy upon conspiracy, and its all just awfully farfetched.
Click to expand...

I think we have already proven that the case of targeting wasn't limited to just one person at the IRS.

Was there an arbitrary number we should slap on this to make it sound better or worse?

ETA: Just because you've never made that claim doesn't mean it's not up your lawyer's sleeve as a card to play if needed. I notice you made that distinction.
 
#1,467
#1,467
lawgator1 said:
That's all I was pointing out.

The implications that have been made by the GOP and Fox is that

1) the request went to the IRS commissioner,

2) that Lerner was told of it,

3) that Lerner then went and intentionally crashed her computer in some manner that hid the fact that she did that,

4) that the FBI people who worked on the computer were also in on the conspiracy so as not to find either emails or evidence that she intentionally nuked it,

and 5) that whoever else was in on the larger conspiracy of sending her or getting emails from her as part of the larger conspiracy with the White House to target conservatives have all managed to stay hidden and undiscovered this entire time.

I agree it should be looked into, but certainly you can see why I might be a bit skeptical of all of that.
Click to expand...

1 is true; 2 is highly likely; 3 I have no idea; 4 I've seen no evidence that the FBI worked on the computer - the Commissioner last night went over what was done to try to recover the data and the FBI was not part of the process; do you have information otherwise?

5 someone at the WH being involved does not rely on #3.

At a minimum we know of a crazy high number of visits between IRS officials and the WH; a concerted message delivered with great frequency that conservative groups were violating IRS rules of being tax exempt; IRS feeding information to DOJ to investigate conservative groups; repeated and multiple calls (public and directly to IRS) to investigate conservative groups from multiple (at least 10 Democratic lawmakers) with all this occurring leading into pivotal elections where conservative groups had clear momentum.

That ought to be sufficient to merit a deep dive into this by an independent group. Instead we have partisan committees and a DOJ investigator who is a campaign contributor to Obama and is not from the area of DOJ that would typically investigate tax related situations. Oh yeah, the investigator leaked to the WSJ that no charges would be brought even though the investigation is still under way.

Add to that the current IRS Commissioner has claimed no crimes have occurred even though he is unaware of the range of crimes that could be under review and by his own admission it will be "years" before he can gather all the evidence.

I think it's clear to see why a truly independent investigation of this situation is merited.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#1,470
#1,470
volinbham said:
Another oddity WRT the emails - IRS told the White House about the missing emails 6 weeks before they told Congress. I wonder why?
Click to expand...

Gives them time to prepare their lies, anyone who thinks this administration and it's subordinates are on the up and up is a damn fool.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,473
#1,473
Grand Vol said:
Technically 65,915,796 of them.
Click to expand...

O'Reilly had Jesse Watters to go out on the street last week to ask people about our leaders in Washington & they didn't even know who VP Joe Biden was & when shown a picture they still didn't know. F***king hilarious & sad at the same time.
 
#1,474
#1,474
lawgator1 said:
That's all I was pointing out.

The implications that have been made by the GOP and Fox is that

1) the request went to the IRS commissioner,

2) that Lerner was told of it,

3) that Lerner then went and intentionally crashed her computer in some manner that hid the fact that she did that,

4) that the FBI people who worked on the computer were also in on the conspiracy so as not to find either emails or evidence that she intentionally nuked it,

and 5) that whoever else was in on the larger conspiracy of sending her or getting emails from her as part of the larger conspiracy with the White House to target conservatives have all managed to stay hidden and undiscovered this entire time.

I agree it should be looked into, but certainly you can see why I might be a bit skeptical of all of that.
Click to expand...

#4 Did the "FBI people" work on her computer? I think the IRS Information Technology Division were the only ones that tried and then the hard drive was destroyed after they failed any recovery. I don't believe that this computer issue was ever examined by the FBI? Please provide a link that indicates the FBI were involved in this.

Also taped back ups were recycled every 6 months so when Congressional committees began requesting emails from the agency, its records only went back to late 2012.

Emails considered an "official record" of the IRS couldn't be deleted and, in fact, needed to also have a hard copy filed. Those emails that constitute an official record are ones that are loosely defined under IRS policy as ones that were "[c]reated or received in the transaction of agency business," "appropriate for preservation as evidence of the government's function or activities," or "valuable because of the information they contain". The letter sent to the senators suggests that it was up to the user to determine what emails met those standards. It's not clear if Lerner had any hard copies of important emails.

Here’s how the IRS lost emails from key witness Lois Lerner - The Washington Post

So what we have is a letter requesting information from the IRS regarding IRS conduct towards certain groups from the Chair of the House Ways and Means, dated June 3, 2011. On June 13, 2011 Lois Lerner's computer crashes. IRS Tech is unable to recover content from hard drive. Hard drive is recycled. Taped back up is recycled. Two months later, Sonasoft, (IRS e-mail archiving contractor) 6 year relationship with the IRS is cancelled. Lois Lerner evidently did not make any hard copies of these emails.

This certainly does not pass the smell test.
 
#1,475
#1,475
W.TN.Orange Blood said:
O'Reilly had Jesse Watters to go out on the street last week to ask people about our leaders in Washington & they didn't even know who VP Joe Biden was & when shown a picture they still didn't know. F***king hilarious & sad at the same time.
Click to expand...

Watters World is one of the better segments on the Factor.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement










Back
Top