The dog ate the IRS's homework.

[Loren Pechtel]

I know IT "specialists" here and american public at large are mathematically challenged.
But 7 out of 7 hard drive failure probability is about 1 in 10^14.
that means you would have to wait 100 trillions years (on average) for that to happen.
I assumed 1% per year failure rate for HD and 1 year period within which they "failed"

The problem is "out of 7". There are a lot more than 7 drives.

No...The odds of it being the exact 7 that needed to be found are closer to the the number for Barbos. The chances that 7 drives in all of IRS being down would be higher. What are the chances that your numbers will win powerball is much lower than 7 numbers being drawn.

What makes you think there weren't more drives that were intact? An intact drive isn't newsworthy and wouldn't be reported other than possibly as a total.

 

[Nexus]

What makes you think there weren't more drives that were intact? An intact drive isn't newsworthy and wouldn't be reported other than possibly as a total.

There would need to be significant failure rates of all drives ie 75% before seven specifically requested drives being unavailable is plausible in an investigation.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What makes you think there weren't more drives that were intact? An intact drive isn't newsworthy and wouldn't be reported other than possibly as a total.

There would need to be significant failure rates of all drives ie 75% before seven specifically requested drives being unavailable is plausible in an investigation.

Well ... but BUSH!!!

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

What makes you think there weren't more drives that were intact? An intact drive isn't newsworthy and wouldn't be reported other than possibly as a total.

There would need to be significant failure rates of all drives ie 75% before seven specifically requested drives being unavailable is plausible in an investigation.

Well ... but BUSH!!!

You said it wrong.

"It's Bush's fault and you're a racist."

 

[Horatio Parker]

Or the newest and most likely unfamiliar with how the process worked?

Because that was the most outspoken of the new political groups and they were worried about the tea party.

and by 'worried about the tea party' you mean 'worried about political groups abusing non-profit status for the purposes of lobbying', and you're also of course adding in the fact that out of all the groups that actually got denied their tax exempt status, the ONLY ONE was a progressive group... not a single 'targeted' conservative group was denied.

yep, they musta been awful worried.

And this was about tax exemption! These groups could continue to say, "educate", advertise all they want. Trying to shut down insane political bowel movements by delaying tax exemption status seems like a very poor way of going about it.

These organizations are not required to register as tax exempt in order to do business. It's prudent, because if the IRS decides you are not non profit, you'll be liable for taxes. So foot dragging their applications will have no effect unless they're not what they claim to be.

 

[Nexus]

So foot dragging their applications will have no effect unless they're not what they claim to be.

Unless the IRS is incorrect. We wouldn't need tax courts if it were a given that the IRS is always correct.

 

[barbos]

I know IT "specialists" here and american public at large are mathematically challenged.
But 7 out of 7 hard drive failure probability is about 1 in 10^14.
that means you would have to wait 100 trillions years (on average) for that to happen.
I assumed 1% per year failure rate for HD and 1 year period within which they "failed"

The problem is "out of 7". There are a lot more than 7 drives.

No such problem.
They asked 7 people (not 7 hundreds), and all 7 had crashes.

- - - Updated - - -

I know IT "specialists" here and american public at large are mathematically challenged.
But 7 out of 7 hard drive failure probability is about 1 in 10^14.
that means you would have to wait 100 trillions years (on average) for that to happen.
I assumed 1% per year failure rate for HD and 1 year period within which they "failed"

The problem is "out of 7". There are a lot more than 7 drives.

No...The odds of it being the exact 7 that needed to be found are closer to the the number for Barbos. The chances that 7 drives in all of IRS being down would be higher. What are the chances that your numbers will win powerball is much lower than 7 numbers being drawn.

What makes you think there weren't more drives that were intact? An intact drive isn't newsworthy and wouldn't be reported other than possibly as a total.

If there were, we would have been discussing content of email exchanges.

 

[Horatio Parker]

So foot dragging their applications will have no effect unless they're not what they claim to be.

Unless the IRS is incorrect. We wouldn't need tax courts if it were a given that the IRS is always correct.

Court, shmort. Call the Congresscritters that benefit from all that tax exempt largesse and demand an investigation.

 

[Narapoia]

Am I missing something or is the IRS actually considered part of the POTUS' Administration? Doesn't seem like it would be.

The IRS is under the executive branch. It's parent agency is the Department of the Treasury.

Interesting. I just read up on a few other IRS scandals and a number of them appear to have involved the contemporary administration quite directly. In the absence of evidence linking the Obama administration to the activities of IRS personnel it does seem a bit irresponsible for representatives to be introducing bogus legislation like that discussed earlier, offering citizens the opportunity to use the administrations excuses. If the GOP controlled the Whitehouse I doubt republican representatives would be conflating the two agencies in the same way.

But yeah, I have to say that the coincidence of the missing drives does stretch credulity a bit - would be very interesting to see what was on them. The fact that no conservative orgs were denied Tax exempt status would hint that there was no real drive from higher to persecute these organisations. I would like to think that Obama&co are smart enough to realise the damage the teabaggers are doing to the GOP and just let them run with it. Given some of the stupid shit the administration has done in the last 6 years though I'm not so sure anymore.

 

[dismal]

Am I missing something or is the IRS actually considered part of the POTUS' Administration? Doesn't seem like it would be.

The IRS is under the executive branch. It's parent agency is the Department of the Treasury.

Interesting. I just read up on a few other IRS scandals and a number of them appear to have involved the contemporary administration quite directly. In the absence of evidence linking the Obama administration to the activities of IRS personnel it does seem a bit irresponsible for representatives to be introducing bogus legislation like that discussed earlier, offering citizens the opportunity to use the administrations excuses. If the GOP controlled the Whitehouse I doubt republican representatives would be conflating the two agencies in the same way.

But yeah, I have to say that the coincidence of the missing drives does stretch credulity a bit - would be very interesting to see what was on them. The fact that no conservative orgs were denied Tax exempt status would hint that there was no real drive from higher to persecute these organisations. I would like to think that Obama&co are smart enough to realise the damage the teabaggers are doing to the GOP and just let them run with it. Given some of the stupid shit the administration has done in the last 6 years though I'm not so sure anymore.

I think you are leaping ahead if you are assuming Obama had much to do with this.

All we see at this point is outright lies and suggestions of a cover-up.

This is why you gather the evidence and see where it actually leads. Assuming it has not been "accidentally" destroyed.

Also you seem to be unaware of what it is the IRS actually did, which is inappropriately select and question conservative groups. It seems quite absurd to argue "ZMFOG but it didn't mattter111!!!!!11" because a) it's not true and b) it does not excuse the behavior in the slightest. The IRS should not be targeting anyone for special treatment based on politics and should not be harassing people with inappropriate questions period.

 

[maxparrish]

Or the newest and most likely unfamiliar with how the process worked?

Because that was the most outspoken of the new political groups and they were worried about the tea party.

and by 'worried about the tea party' you mean 'worried about political groups abusing non-profit status for the purposes of lobbying', and you're also of course adding in the fact that out of all the groups that actually got denied their tax exempt status, the ONLY ONE was a progressive group... not a single 'targeted' conservative group was denied.

yep, they musta been awful worried.

And this was about tax exemption! These groups could continue to say, "educate", advertise all they want. Trying to shut down insane political bowel movements by delaying tax exemption status seems like a very poor way of going about it.

These organizations are not required to register as tax exempt in order to do business. It's prudent, because if the IRS decides you are not non profit, you'll be liable for taxes. So foot dragging their applications will have no effect unless they're not what they claim to be.

Therefore, your logic is suggesting that it is prudent to register as tax exempt to do business because if the IRS decides you are a non-profit you will be liable for taxes...except that you don't need to be if you are what you claim to be because the IRS never would decide your tax exempt status incorrectly and you won't ever be liable for taxes.

Perhaps you are an IRS employee?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Therefore, your logic is suggesting that it is prudent to register as tax exempt to do business because if the IRS decides you are a non-profit you will be liable for taxes...except that you don't need to be if you are what you claim to be because the IRS never would decide your tax exempt status incorrectly and you won't ever be liable for taxes.

Perhaps you are an IRS employee?

If they dispute your tax exempt status, just tell them that you sent them an email about it seven months ago.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What makes you think there weren't more drives that were intact? An intact drive isn't newsworthy and wouldn't be reported other than possibly as a total.

There would need to be significant failure rates of all drives ie 75% before seven specifically requested drives being unavailable is plausible in an investigation.

But how many others were requested and delivered?

And there might be some dirty pool going on here: What if they deliberately requested the drives they knew to be unavailable? (If they had that information I would think such an action would be likely--these things are about trying to bring down Obama, not about the truth. The Republicans have been doing this since the Clinton era.)

 

[Horatio Parker]

Or the newest and most likely unfamiliar with how the process worked?

Because that was the most outspoken of the new political groups and they were worried about the tea party.

and by 'worried about the tea party' you mean 'worried about political groups abusing non-profit status for the purposes of lobbying', and you're also of course adding in the fact that out of all the groups that actually got denied their tax exempt status, the ONLY ONE was a progressive group... not a single 'targeted' conservative group was denied.

yep, they musta been awful worried.

And this was about tax exemption! These groups could continue to say, "educate", advertise all they want. Trying to shut down insane political bowel movements by delaying tax exemption status seems like a very poor way of going about it.

These organizations are not required to register as tax exempt in order to do business. It's prudent, because if the IRS decides you are not non profit, you'll be liable for taxes. So foot dragging their applications will have no effect unless they're not what they claim to be.

Therefore, your logic is suggesting that it is prudent to register as tax exempt to do business because if the IRS decides you are a non-profit you will be liable for taxes...except that you don't need to be if you are what you claim to be because the IRS never would decide your tax exempt status incorrectly and you won't ever be liable for taxes.

Perhaps you are an IRS employee?

The point is that, unlike charities which are required to register as tax exempt, 501c4s are not.

Charitable donations are tax deductible, donations to 501c4s are not.

This is stuff I learned reading the coverage of this so called scandal.

One of the issues in this story is whether or not these new groups are truly social welfare groups. Seems to me that a group acting as a political organization would want their tax exempt status before doing business.

One of the payoffs in this exercise seems to be protecting 501c4s that have perjured their applications.

 

[maxparrish]

I like that idea. "I sent you an email, don't you have it?"...

 

[dismal]

What makes you think there weren't more drives that were intact? An intact drive isn't newsworthy and wouldn't be reported other than possibly as a total.

There would need to be significant failure rates of all drives ie 75% before seven specifically requested drives being unavailable is plausible in an investigation.

But how many others were requested and delivered?

And there might be some dirty pool going on here: What if they deliberately requested the drives they knew to be unavailable? (If they had that information I would think such an action would be likely--these things are about trying to bring down Obama, not about the truth. The Republicans have been doing this since the Clinton era.)

How would "they" know which drives had failed?

It was not even revealed until recently that Lois Lerner's email was not available. Indeed one of the bizarre elements of the disclosure is that it took so long for them to own up to it, and flat out lied that all her e-mails would be forthcoming.

You are straining awfully hard. I hope you are getting some sort of check for it.

Also, here's one I haven't heard come up yet that maybe the apologists can get a head start on: why weren't Lois Lerner's (and the other 6's) e-mails restored from back up immediately following the crash?

 

[coloradoatheist]

What makes you think there weren't more drives that were intact? An intact drive isn't newsworthy and wouldn't be reported other than possibly as a total.

There would need to be significant failure rates of all drives ie 75% before seven specifically requested drives being unavailable is plausible in an investigation.

But how many others were requested and delivered?

And there might be some dirty pool going on here: What if they deliberately requested the drives they knew to be unavailable? (If they had that information I would think such an action would be likely--these things are about trying to bring down Obama, not about the truth. The Republicans have been doing this since the Clinton era.)

How would "they" know which drives had failed?

It was not even revealed until recently that Lois Lerner's email was not available. Indeed one of the bizarre elements of the disclosure is that it took so long for them to own up to it, and flat out lied that all her e-mails would be forthcoming.

You are straining awfully hard. I hope you are getting some sort of check for it.

Also, here's one I haven't heard come up yet that maybe the apologists can get a head start on: why weren't Lois Lerner's (and the other 6's) e-mails restored from back up immediately following the crash?

most places she would have to put in the ticket to get her email restored, so she probably just started over with no emails. Though most people don't like not having their past emails.

 

[Narapoia]

Am I missing something or is the IRS actually considered part of the POTUS' Administration? Doesn't seem like it would be.

The IRS is under the executive branch. It's parent agency is the Department of the Treasury.

Interesting. I just read up on a few other IRS scandals and a number of them appear to have involved the contemporary administration quite directly. In the absence of evidence linking the Obama administration to the activities of IRS personnel it does seem a bit irresponsible for representatives to be introducing bogus legislation like that discussed earlier, offering citizens the opportunity to use the administrations excuses. If the GOP controlled the Whitehouse I doubt republican representatives would be conflating the two agencies in the same way.

But yeah, I have to say that the coincidence of the missing drives does stretch credulity a bit - would be very interesting to see what was on them. The fact that no conservative orgs were denied Tax exempt status would hint that there was no real drive from higher to persecute these organisations. I would like to think that Obama&co are smart enough to realise the damage the teabaggers are doing to the GOP and just let them run with it. Given some of the stupid shit the administration has done in the last 6 years though I'm not so sure anymore.

I think you are leaping ahead if you are assuming Obama had much to do with this.

All we see at this point is outright lies and suggestions of a cover-up.

Yes - that was my point. The link originally provided by Jason refers to the "lies of the Obama administration" - have the lies come from the administration itself or IRS staff?

This is why you gather the evidence and see where it actually leads. Assuming it has not been "accidentally" destroyed.

Yes

Also you seem to be unaware of what it is the IRS actually did, which is inappropriately select and question conservative groups. It seems quite absurd to argue "ZMFOG but it didn't mattter111!!!!!11" because a) it's not true and b) it does not excuse the behavior in the slightest. The IRS should not be targeting anyone for special treatment based on politics and should not be harassing people with inappropriate questions period.

I am not unaware. My point was that if the administration was leading a crusade against conservative groups this seems a singularly ineffective and cack-handed way of doing so. Makes me think it was a stupid idea hatched by a group of individuals without real power in the IRS. I did not excuse the behaviour, at all, and frankly I don't really see how that could be construed from what I wrote.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What makes you think there weren't more drives that were intact? An intact drive isn't newsworthy and wouldn't be reported other than possibly as a total.

There would need to be significant failure rates of all drives ie 75% before seven specifically requested drives being unavailable is plausible in an investigation.

But how many others were requested and delivered?

And there might be some dirty pool going on here: What if they deliberately requested the drives they knew to be unavailable? (If they had that information I would think such an action would be likely--these things are about trying to bring down Obama, not about the truth. The Republicans have been doing this since the Clinton era.)

How would "they" know which drives had failed?

It was not even revealed until recently that Lois Lerner's email was not available. Indeed one of the bizarre elements of the disclosure is that it took so long for them to own up to it, and flat out lied that all her e-mails would be forthcoming.

You are straining awfully hard. I hope you are getting some sort of check for it.

Also, here's one I haven't heard come up yet that maybe the apologists can get a head start on: why weren't Lois Lerner's (and the other 6's) e-mails restored from back up immediately following the crash?

I'm thinking of someone in the IRSs IT department that tipped off the mudslingers about whose drives had died.

- - - Updated - - -

most places she would have to put in the ticket to get her email restored, so she probably just started over with no emails. Though most people don't like not having their past emails.

She wouldn't have lost *ALL* her e-mail--the 500mb still on the server would be fine. All she would have lost would be the archives.

 

[dismal]

Yes - that was my point. The link originally provided by Jason refers to the "lies of the Obama administration" - have the lies come from the administration itself or IRS staff?

The IRS is broadly part of "the Obama Administration". The question would be did it reach "the White House".

There is evidence that there were frequent contacts (30 visits, IIRC) between one of the people (Nikole Flax) whose emails were destroyed in one of the seven "accidental" hard drive crashes and the White House.

- - - Updated - - -

What makes you think there weren't more drives that were intact? An intact drive isn't newsworthy and wouldn't be reported other than possibly as a total.

There would need to be significant failure rates of all drives ie 75% before seven specifically requested drives being unavailable is plausible in an investigation.

But how many others were requested and delivered?

And there might be some dirty pool going on here: What if they deliberately requested the drives they knew to be unavailable? (If they had that information I would think such an action would be likely--these things are about trying to bring down Obama, not about the truth. The Republicans have been doing this since the Clinton era.)

How would "they" know which drives had failed?

It was not even revealed until recently that Lois Lerner's email was not available. Indeed one of the bizarre elements of the disclosure is that it took so long for them to own up to it, and flat out lied that all her e-mails would be forthcoming.

You are straining awfully hard. I hope you are getting some sort of check for it.

Also, here's one I haven't heard come up yet that maybe the apologists can get a head start on: why weren't Lois Lerner's (and the other 6's) e-mails restored from back up immediately following the crash?

most places she would have to put in the ticket to get her email restored, so she probably just started over with no emails. Though most people don't like not having their past emails.

She was a senior IRS official with a legal obligation to preserve her e-mails.