The dog ate the IRS's homework.

[ksen]

even assuming there was malfeasance, which there has been zero evidence presented to support that being so, who has been excusing it?

It has already been established and acknowledged there was malfeasance.

It has?

 

[maxparrish]

even assuming there was malfeasance, which there has been zero evidence presented to support that being so, who has been excusing it?

Apparently you, as you did in the subordinate clause prologue to your own question. Scoffing at the existence of malfeasance, when the accused are blaming each other for the malfeasance (Cincinnati workers vs. Washington) of discrimination and harassment answers your own question, no?

D) After dragging and delaying full compliance, claim they will provide ALL emails of seven officials under investigation, and then many months later claim "they are lost", and all "unrecoverable", in the seven individual computer crashes for the time period in question.

"you - give us the emails for these people during this period"
"sure thing, will do"
...
"uh, okay, after going to get them it turns out several of them aren't there, i can't give you what doesn't exist, sorry"
"MALFEASANCE LYING BETRAYER!"

do i need to even explain how stupid this sequences of events is?

No, because I agree that your mangled characterization of the sequence events is stupid but (as you say) "if that's your point it's an odd one because it's not remotely supported or even contextualized by the facts of this situation or by anything resembling reality."

So, to repeat "D) After dragging and delaying full compliance for nearly a year, (they) claim they will provide ALL emails of seven officials under investigation, and, then many months later claim "they are lost", and all "unrecoverable", in the seven individual computer crashes for the time period in question." What part of that sequence of events do you have trouble understanding as consistent with a cover up?

as for you replying to what i said with that list... i honestly have no clue what in the shit you're on about, because nothing in your response has anything to do with what i have been talking about during my entire participation of this thread and what i was talking about in the post that you quoted - which is a discussion on the purely IT related aspects of whether or not it's possible to honestly lose that kind of data, and if possible how common.

Really? Some might think offering support for a statistically very improbable series of computer crashes and failed record keeping might be the sort of thing a defense attorney try to sell to the jury.

 

[dismal]

even assuming there was malfeasance, which there has been zero evidence presented to support that being so, who has been excusing it?

It has already been established and acknowledged there was malfeasance.

It has?

Yeah it was in all the papers.

Lois Lerner admitted it. An Inspector General documented it. The IRS apologized for it. The acting IRS commissioner was asked to resign over it. Obama issued remarks condemning it:

I’ve reviewed the Treasury Department watchdog’s report, and the misconduct that it uncovered is inexcusable. It’s inexcusable, and Americans are right to be angry about it, and I am angry about it. I will not tolerate this kind of behavior in any agency, but especially in the IRS, given the power that it has and the reach that it has into all of our lives.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/barack-obama-irs-statement-transcript-91445.html#ixzz357llXCkr

 

[prideandfall]

Really? Some might think offering support for a statistically very improbable series of computer crashes and failed record keeping might be the sort of thing a defense attorney try to sell to the jury.

well, if anyone has been paying the slightest bit of attention to the tech side of the discussion in this thread, they would know that the sequence of events as described are in fact statistically highly probable and in fact quite common.

when presented with a situation wherein X has occurred, you have two options:
1. understand and acknowledge that X is a highly common phenomenon, and the particulars of it in the scenario in question are completely within normal operating parameters,
2. stick your fingers in your ears and demand that it's an impossible situation that could never happen except by malice or incompetence and act like it proves something

contrary to what your instincts as a highly partisan political individual are surely telling you, pointing out that one side of an argument is stupid is not automatically supporting the other side of the argument.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Really? Some might think offering support for a statistically very improbable series of computer crashes and failed record keeping might be the sort of thing a defense attorney try to sell to the jury.

well, if anyone has been paying the slightest bit of attention to the tech side of the discussion in this thread, they would know that the sequence of events as described are in fact statistically highly probable and in fact quite common.

when presented with a situation wherein X has occurred, you have two options:
1. understand and acknowledge that X is a highly common phenomenon, and the particulars of it in the scenario in question are completely within normal operating parameters,
2. stick your fingers in your ears and demand that it's an impossible situation that could never happen except by malice or incompetence and act like it proves something

contrary to what your instincts as a highly partisan political individual are surely telling you, pointing out that one side of an argument is stupid is not automatically supporting the other side of the argument.

hard drives that crash to a point where no files can be read is very very small. OS crashing to a point where they can't boot is common, but they can still be read by other competent iT folks who can then transfer personal files including pst. It wouldn't be 7 hard drives that crashed to a point where they couldn't be read.

 

[ksen]

even assuming there was malfeasance, which there has been zero evidence presented to support that being so, who has been excusing it?

It has already been established and acknowledged there was malfeasance.

It has?

Yeah it was in all the papers.

I'm not 70 years old so I don't read the papers. If it's not posted on tumblr it didn't happen.

Lois Lerner admitted it. An Inspector General documented it. The IRS apologized for it. The acting IRS commissioner was asked to resign over it. Obama issued remarks condemning it:

I’ve reviewed the Treasury Department watchdog’s report, and the misconduct that it uncovered is inexcusable. It’s inexcusable, and Americans are right to be angry about it, and I am angry about it. I will not tolerate this kind of behavior in any agency, but especially in the IRS, given the power that it has and the reach that it has into all of our lives.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/barack-obama-irs-statement-transcript-91445.html#ixzz357llXCkr

Fair enough.

 

[coloradoatheist]

A full investigation would would look at the ticketing system that the IRS uses to report IT problems and find the the tickets Louis and other users used and find out what techs checked out the hard drives and what they did and then put those techs on the stand and they testify about what they checked and how.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

even assuming there was malfeasance, which there has been zero evidence presented to support that being so, who has been excusing it?

It has already been established and acknowledged there was malfeasance.

The only question is the extent of it and who directed it.

The attempt to fob it off on low level people in Cincinnatti has been exposed as a blatant lie.

In the mind of the Tea Party, that is.

The IRS focused on groups, left and right whose names suggested they might be political. Since most groups were from the right it's no surprise the suspect ones were mostly on the right.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Really? Some might think offering support for a statistically very improbable series of computer crashes and failed record keeping might be the sort of thing a defense attorney try to sell to the jury.

well, if anyone has been paying the slightest bit of attention to the tech side of the discussion in this thread, they would know that the sequence of events as described are in fact statistically highly probable and in fact quite common.

when presented with a situation wherein X has occurred, you have two options:
1. understand and acknowledge that X is a highly common phenomenon, and the particulars of it in the scenario in question are completely within normal operating parameters,
2. stick your fingers in your ears and demand that it's an impossible situation that could never happen except by malice or incompetence and act like it proves something

contrary to what your instincts as a highly partisan political individual are surely telling you, pointing out that one side of an argument is stupid is not automatically supporting the other side of the argument.

hard drives that crash to a point where no files can be read is very very small. OS crashing to a point where they can't boot is common, but they can still be read by other competent iT folks who can then transfer personal files including pst. It wouldn't be 7 hard drives that crashed to a point where they couldn't be read.

Have you never worked in IT? Drives will eventually die. I've got 3 dead ones tossing around here that I intend to someday pull apart. I've sent multiple dead ones back for warranty replacement.

Now, most of those failures aren't head crashes so a data recovery service could get data back off them. While I have never personally had a failure I know to be a head crash I've seen two of them.

 

[barbos]

If she is telling the truth then she is admitting utter incompetence and should be fired
And person who hired her should be fired too.
And no, I did not expect her to backup that crap herself, I expected her to make sure it was backed out by competent people. We know she can't count, now we know she can't really organize an office.

That probably requires spending that's outside her control. (Namely, in the storage capacity of the mail system.)

Give me a fucking break.
Even If what people say about outlook is true (which I doubt) any halfcompetent IT person would tell her "We need to backup all office computers weekly" that would include all email stored locally.
Now about 6 months. I don't believe it's true at all, otherwise FOIA would have been pointless.

The usual policy is that office computers aren't supposed to contain things that matter. And adding storage to the mail server would be a lot cheaper than backing up the office machines.

Anyway, in either case the budget needs to be available.

Usual IT policy is backing up computers, including office ones.
As for the storage, then some people here say it would be pointless because in outlook emails automatically moved to local computer.
Which I too find ridiculous when it comes to government.

 

[barbos]

7 separate episodes of hard drives crashes explanation is insulting to intelligence of american people.
And most data recovery is almost always possible, even during head crashes. But I understand that they can simply says we threw HDs away, that's why recovery is not possible. That's 7 separate episodes which tells me they are lying.

 

[maxparrish]

even assuming there was malfeasance, which there has been zero evidence presented to support that being so, who has been excusing it?

It has already been established and acknowledged there was malfeasance.

The only question is the extent of it and who directed it.

The attempt to fob it off on low level people in Cincinnatti has been exposed as a blatant lie.

In the mind of the Tea Party, that is.

The IRS focused on groups, left and right whose names suggested they might be political. Since most groups were from the right it's no surprise the suspect ones were mostly on the right.

I am pretty sure you wish that were so but that dog stopped hunting long ago.

" Inspector General J. Russell George's office released a letter to Levin about the scrutiny of groups with "progressive" in their names.[109][110][111][7] Contradicting earlier claims of George's office, the letter acknowledged that he knew that the word "progressive" had appeared in IRS screening documents.[111][7] However, he said that the "Progressives" criteria was on a part of the "Be On the Look Out" (BOLO) spreadsheet labeled "Historical", and, unlike other BOLO entries, did not say how to refer flagged cases. While he had many sources confirming the use of "Tea Party" and related criteria described in the report, including employee interviews and e-mails, he found no indication in any of those other materials that "Progressives" was a term used to refer cases for scrutiny for political campaign intervention.[109] The letter further stated that out of the 20 groups applying for tax-exempt status whose names contained "progress" or "progressive", 6 had been chosen for more scrutiny as compared to all of the 292 groups applying for tax-exempt status whose names contained "tea party", "patriot", or "9/12".[7][8][9]" Wikipedia

So 30 percent of the "progressive" were chosen for more scrutiny compared to 100 percent of those who used "patriot", "tea party", or "9/11" - IE: disparate treatment.

 

[prideandfall]

Usual IT policy is backing up computers, including office ones.

no it isn't, and you clearly have no working knowledge of how IT functions in current large scale enterprise environments - please, for the sake of your own dignity, stop talking like you do.

As for the storage, then some people here say it would be pointless because in outlook emails automatically moved to local computer.
Which I too find ridiculous when it comes to government.

again, you clearly don't have the slightest clue as to the actual working mechanics of these IT related concepts, you really need to stop talking about this.

there are no less than three IT professionals in this thread who combined have about 60 years of experience in the field, telling you that the sequences of events as provided by the IRS is both entirely plausible and extremely common.
so, that ship has pretty much sailed.

 

[prideandfall]

7 separate episodes of hard drives crashes explanation is insulting to intelligence of american people.

i would actually agree with that, but that's because the intelligence of the american people is only slightly higher than your average garden vegetable and they'll feel insulted by just about anything.
i think that you have been watching way, way too much NCIS and have a very poor grasp of how drives and data recovery actually works.

And most data recovery is almost always possible, even during head crashes.

no, it isn't - it's called encryption software, look it up.

But I understand that they can simply says we threw HDs away, that's why recovery is not possible. That's 7 separate episodes which tells me they are lying.

that they are lying in no way can be assumed from the details of the 7 episodes, because the 7 episodes are completely plausible on their own.

 

[coloradoatheist]

no it isn't, and you clearly have no working knowledge of how IT functions in current large scale enterprise environments - please, for the sake of your own dignity, stop talking like you do.

As for the storage, then some people here say it would be pointless because in outlook emails automatically moved to local computer.
Which I too find ridiculous when it comes to government.

again, you clearly don't have the slightest clue as to the actual working mechanics of these IT related concepts, you really need to stop talking about this.

there are no less than three IT professionals in this thread who combined have about 60 years of experience in the field, telling you that the sequences of events as provided by the IRS is both entirely plausible and extremely common.
so, that ship has pretty much sailed.

i do work in IT and it's very improbable that all 7 hard drives crashed in a manner that an IT tech could not recover the pst file to move them to a new hard drive. Most of the system crashes aren't of the form, everything is gone, but more of the my computer blue screens as it boots up or my computer keeps locking up and I need to wipe and reload

 

[Loren Pechtel]

7 separate episodes of hard drives crashes explanation is insulting to intelligence of american people.
And most data recovery is almost always possible, even during head crashes. But I understand that they can simply says we threw HDs away, that's why recovery is not possible. That's 7 separate episodes which tells me they are lying.

It's a large organization. 7 dead drives are no surprise--not having lost drives would be the surprise. Data recovery is expensive, if they didn't consider the lost stuff all that important they wouldn't have sent them off to data recovery even if it wasn't a head crash.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

even assuming there was malfeasance, which there has been zero evidence presented to support that being so, who has been excusing it?

It has already been established and acknowledged there was malfeasance.

The only question is the extent of it and who directed it.

The attempt to fob it off on low level people in Cincinnatti has been exposed as a blatant lie.

In the mind of the Tea Party, that is.

The IRS focused on groups, left and right whose names suggested they might be political. Since most groups were from the right it's no surprise the suspect ones were mostly on the right.

I am pretty sure you wish that were so but that dog stopped hunting long ago.

" Inspector General J. Russell George's office released a letter to Levin about the scrutiny of groups with "progressive" in their names.[109][110][111][7] Contradicting earlier claims of George's office, the letter acknowledged that he knew that the word "progressive" had appeared in IRS screening documents.[111][7] However, he said that the "Progressives" criteria was on a part of the "Be On the Look Out" (BOLO) spreadsheet labeled "Historical", and, unlike other BOLO entries, did not say how to refer flagged cases. While he had many sources confirming the use of "Tea Party" and related criteria described in the report, including employee interviews and e-mails, he found no indication in any of those other materials that "Progressives" was a term used to refer cases for scrutiny for political campaign intervention.[109] The letter further stated that out of the 20 groups applying for tax-exempt status whose names contained "progress" or "progressive", 6 had been chosen for more scrutiny as compared to all of the 292 groups applying for tax-exempt status whose names contained "tea party", "patriot", or "9/12".[7][8][9]" Wikipedia

So 30 percent of the "progressive" were chosen for more scrutiny compared to 100 percent of those who used "patriot", "tea party", or "9/11" - IE: disparate treatment.

And why should "progress" even be a meaningful search term? I would expect a lot of red herrings.

The terms on the right are actual names and therefore much more likely to be on target.


How about the names of the groups???

 

[Horatio Parker]

even assuming there was malfeasance, which there has been zero evidence presented to support that being so, who has been excusing it?

It has already been established and acknowledged there was malfeasance.

The only question is the extent of it and who directed it.

The attempt to fob it off on low level people in Cincinnatti has been exposed as a blatant lie.

In the mind of the Tea Party, that is.

The IRS focused on groups, left and right whose names suggested they might be political. Since most groups were from the right it's no surprise the suspect ones were mostly on the right.

I am pretty sure you wish that were so but that dog stopped hunting long ago.

" Inspector General J. Russell George's office released a letter to Levin about the scrutiny of groups with "progressive" in their names.[109][110][111][7] Contradicting earlier claims of George's office, the letter acknowledged that he knew that the word "progressive" had appeared in IRS screening documents.[111][7] However, he said that the "Progressives" criteria was on a part of the "Be On the Look Out" (BOLO) spreadsheet labeled "Historical", and, unlike other BOLO entries, did not say how to refer flagged cases. While he had many sources confirming the use of "Tea Party" and related criteria described in the report, including employee interviews and e-mails, he found no indication in any of those other materials that "Progressives" was a term used to refer cases for scrutiny for political campaign intervention.[109] The letter further stated that out of the 20 groups applying for tax-exempt status whose names contained "progress" or "progressive", 6 had been chosen for more scrutiny as compared to all of the 292 groups applying for tax-exempt status whose names contained "tea party", "patriot", or "9/12".[7][8][9]" Wikipedia

So 30 percent of the "progressive" were chosen for more scrutiny compared to 100 percent of those who used "patriot", "tea party", or "9/11" - IE: disparate treatment.

How many conservative organizations were denied non-profit status?

 

[coloradoatheist]

7 separate episodes of hard drives crashes explanation is insulting to intelligence of american people.
And most data recovery is almost always possible, even during head crashes. But I understand that they can simply says we threw HDs away, that's why recovery is not possible. That's 7 separate episodes which tells me they are lying.

It's a large organization. 7 dead drives are no surprise--not having lost drives would be the surprise. Data recovery is expensive, if they didn't consider the lost stuff all that important they wouldn't have sent them off to data recovery even if it wasn't a head crash.

i agree with you that if the drive was truly lost they wouldn't send it in for recovery. But it was the 7 people who had emails regarding this issue and the odds of it being the 7 people who had emails regarding the subject who lost their hard drives beyond repair is very very improbable. But as I said, an organization this large would have an internal ticket system with all the records of the PCs being brought into replace with tech notes in the ticket.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

i do work in IT and it's very improbable that all 7 hard drives crashed in a manner that an IT tech could not recover the pst file to move them to a new hard drive. Most of the system crashes aren't of the form, everything is gone, but more of the my computer blue screens as it boots up or my computer keeps locking up and I need to wipe and reload

Those aren't even drive crashes. If you can nuke and pave there was no drive crash. And in such cases you can almost always simply mount the drive as an external and pull the data off. I've done it many times.

The only time it was any problem was when something did a major munch of the partition table on a drive that was part of a RAID array. Most software wouldn't find anything or would even crash. R-Studio's tools did a 100% recovery, though.