now there are new issues regarding the saving of IM's, as required by law.

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:No cover-up? Read this, especially Lerner's message.

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/07/09/l ... st-emails/

She wanted to know when messages were being recorded. It's something I would want to know, as I would change my way of communication. I might, for instance, discuss challenges I had working with a colleague if I knew I was being recorded, but if I wasn't being recorded, I might just call the guy a $#*khead.

That's an answer only an attorney could love.

“I was cautioning folks about email and how we have had several occasions where Congress has asked for emails and there has been an electronic search for responsive emails—so we need to be cautious about what we say in emails,” Ms. Lerner wrote

If you're doing nothing illegal, why would you care about Congress seeing what you're doing? This isn't a "privacy" issue, it's one of oversight.

“Someone asked if [instant messaging] conversations were also searchable—I don’t know, but told them I would get back to them. Do you know?”

“[Instant] messages are not set to automatically save as the standard; however the functionality exists within the software,” the technician wrote back. “My general recommendation is to treat the conversation as if it could/is being saved somewhere, as it is possible for either party of the conversation to retain the information and have it turn up as part of an electronic search.”

“Perfect,” Ms. Lerner replied.

Translation: "It's good to know those messages are not saved unless we want them to be."

Anyone who can look at all the "coincidences," Lerner taking the Fifth, the lies during the investigation (it began with a few rogues in Cincinnati), and the details of the released emails, and conclude nothing criminal happened is a hopeless Democratic partisan.

I want the truth, whatever it is.

You seem to be fixated on the hope that guilt will not be proven. That's sad.

Doctor Fate wrote:You seem to be fixated on the hope that guilt will not be proven. That's sad.

That's not at all true. I would love to see complete transparency on this issue, and still hope to see it still. My only point is that the email exchange you posted is not by any stretch, a smoking gun. Could have (easily) been a reasonable reason for it (see my previous post about the %#*khead.)

Yeah, George is the centrist independent guy (I think ) And has shown outrage on this issue. I am the unreasonable liberal.

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:You seem to be fixated on the hope that guilt will not be proven. That's sad.

That's not at all true. I would love to see complete transparency on this issue, and still hope to see it still. My only point is that the email exchange you posted is not by any stretch, a smoking gun. Could have (easily) been a reasonable reason for it (see my previous post about the %#*khead.)

In isolation, I might be able to agree. But, it's not in isolation.

I'm not trying to link this to the White House. If it goes there, it goes there. But surely, you don't believe there is nothing here, do you?

Doctor Fate wrote:

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:You seem to be fixated on the hope that guilt will not be proven. That's sad.

That's not at all true. I would love to see complete transparency on this issue, and still hope to see it still. My only point is that the email exchange you posted is not by any stretch, a smoking gun. Could have (easily) been a reasonable reason for it (see my previous post about the %#*khead.)

In isolation, I might be able to agree. But, it's not in isolation.

I'm not trying to link this to the White House. If it goes there, it goes there. But surely, you don't believe there is nothing here, do you?

I honestly think there may be nothing to this particular email. If you want to know if you're being recorded, you ask the question. Nothing wrong with that (again, see my post about the #$*khead). Otherwise you're suggesting that there may be a political conspiracy, which I doubt happened. Real conspiracies are very rare, and to have a political conspiracy among civil servants is nearly impossible. Civil servants come from all walks of life and by their very nature, are not risk takers, or people of action. It's hard to see a bunch of IRS lifer's become political operatives.

I can see someone, like Lerner, giving instructions to staff, who followed instructions and those instructions may have had nefarious intentions, but what I really expect is that the issue is investigated and the truth comes out. I expect we share this last expectation.

geojanes wrote:Civil servants come from all walks of life and by their very nature, are not risk takers, or people of action. It's hard to see a bunch of IRS lifer's become political operatives.

Sad.

I know something about civil servants. Many respond to what they perceive will curry favor with those above them. There's a term for it, which I'm sure you've heard so I'll spare you.

Is it possible that civil servants might conspire against those they "serve?"

Um, based on what I've seen and based on past convictions . . . I'm going to go with "yes."

Now, I don't know that happened in this case--not yet. However, there is enough smoke here to warrant a full arson investigation.

Part of the reason we don't know yet has been obstruction. The IRS officials have either lied or misled Congress, thus impeding the investigation. For example, they told them they would get Lerner's emails and then, months later, informed them they had been destroyed. Now, that's possible (I view it as unlikely, but possible), but it didn't take months to find out.

Furthermore, if there is nothing to hide, the IRS should open its network to bonded experts. They can be monitored to prevent shenanigans, but one thing should be clear: the American people have an ABSOLUTE right to know whether or not their "servants" have been honest to their "masters."

It's "we the People," not the Federal government, who are in charge. They work for us and they need to be utterly transparent in this matter to restore confidence. If there's been any wrongdoing, it should be laid out plainly. If not, great. But, obstruction, delay, and obfuscation are the tactics of a criminal organization, not the government "of, by, and for the People."

Doctor Fate wrote:Um, based on what I've seen and based on past convictions . . . I'm going to go with "yes."

For the sake of clarity, no--none of the convictions were mine. I've never been charged or implicated or involved in a criminal matter. I do know of them though.

Doctor Fate wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Um, based on what I've seen and based on past convictions . . . I'm going to go with "yes."

For the sake of clarity, no--none of the convictions were mine. I've never been charged or implicated or involved in a criminal matter. I do know of them though.

Thanks for the clarification, but I had no doubt that it wasn't from personal, first person experience.

So is this the right result?

The Internal Revenue Service has decided to award most nonprofit groups tax exemption status without being screened, Time reported Sunday.
IRS Commissioner John Koskinen told Time that about 80 percent of charitable groups seeking tax exemption will go through a simplified application process. Groups that report total assets lower than $250,000 and an income of less than $50,000 can pay a $400 fee and fill out a three-page form to automatically be eligible to receive tax-deductible donations.
Prior to the change, the application process involved a 26-page form, and required groups to provide supporting documentation and outline their intended activities to be considered for tax-exempt status.
The new process, which Koskinen said will result in “efficiencies [that] will translate into a faster and better review,” is expected to significantly reduce the screening process designed to prevent fraudulent activity on the part of political group

s.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/1 ... 82995.html

Interesting developments:

1. The "oops, my hard drive was destroyed" is gaining in popularity among government officials under investigation.

The Federal Election Commission recycled the computer hard drive of April Sands — a former co-worker of Lois Lerner’s — hindering an investigation into Sands’ partisan political activities, according to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Sands resigned from the Federal Election Commission in April after she admitted to violating the Hatch Act, which bars executive branch employees from engaging in partisan political activities on federal time and at federal facilities.

The twist is that Sands also worked under Lois Lerner when the ex-IRS agent — who is currently embroiled in a scandal over the targeting of conservative political groups — worked at the FEC’s enforcement division.

In a letter to FEC chairman Lee Goodman, committee chairman Darrell Issa and committee member Jim Jordan laid out Sands’ partisan activities and asked for records pertaining to the recycling of her hard drive and of the agency’s records retention policies.

Sands took part in a heavily partisan online webcam discussion from FEC offices and also operated a Twitter account with the handle @ReignOfApril which were sent during Sands’ normal working hours.

2. Violating the Hatch Act seems to be quite the popular activity these days:

Former Obama administration Labor Secretary Hilda Solis illegally solicited funds for Obama’s re-election campaign.

Solis pressured a Labor Department employee who worked under her to contribute to an Obama campaign fundraiser that she was headlining at the La Fonda Supper Club in Los Angeles, according to bombshell new audio released by House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa Wednesday. Solis was prohibited from fundraising by the federal Hatch Act, which pertains to all Cabinet members.

“Hi—this is Hilda Solis calling, um, just calling you off-the-record here—Wanted to ask you if you could, um, help us get folks organized to come to a fundraiser that we’re doing for Organizing for America for Obama campaign on Friday at La Fonda at 6 p.m.,” Solis said in a voicemail recording.

“Steven Smith, an attorney, and his staff are helping us [inaudible]. There are a lot of folks that we know that are coming but wanted to ask you if you might help contribute or get other folks to help out,” Solis said. “I would encourage you to call this number, [inaudible]–that’s his assistant– at [phone number] and you can call [the attorney] yourself who’s a good friend, an attorney, good friend of mine, at [phone number]. And it’s for a Friday event at La Fonda [inaudible] we’re just trying to raise money to show that we have support here in [inaudible].”

So, Lerner's subordinate at the FEC, Sands, (allegedly) violated the Hatch Act and then her computer was recycled. An Obama cabinet member, Solis, violated the Hatch Act as well (allegedly).

Now, does this prove anything about Lerner? No. But, it's "interesting" how "coincidental" this all is.