Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 3  Next >

QUESTION FOR T2- DO YOU REALLY THINK THE IRS' BEHAVIOR

Avatar

Posted: 06/24/2014 9:18 AM

QUESTION FOR T2- DO YOU REALLY THINK THE IRS' BEHAVIOR 


PASSES THE SNIFF TEST?
"...I thought something is brewing inside the head of this Coach. He sees something in me, some kind of raw talent that he can mold. But that's when I felt the handcuffs go on."

Jack Handy
Reply | Quote

Posted: 06/24/2014 11:37 AM

Re: QUESTION FOR T2- THE IRS' BEHAVIOR & CLIVEN BUNDY 



The only thing wrong with the IRS is that they haven't yet been handed grenade-launchers

and high grade body-armor to collect the tribute.  But its coming, just you wait.

Also, just read a review of "A Government of Wolves" by John Whitehead, The Rutherford

Institute.  The review recites recent SCOTUS decisions facilitating the police state: "Police officers can use lethal force in car chases without fear of lawsuits", Plumhoff v. Rickard, 2014; Police officers can stop cars based only on "anonymous' tips, Navarette v. California, 2014; Secret Service agents are not accountable for their actions, as long as they're done in the name of security, Wood v. Moss, 2014; Citizens only have a right to remain silent if they assert it, Salinas v. Texas, 2013; Police have free reign to use drug-sniffing dogs as "search warrants on leashes", justifying any and all police searches of vehicles stopped on the roadside, Florida v. Harris, 2013; "Police can forcibly take your DNA, whether or not you have been convicted of a crime", Maryland v. King, 2013; "Police can stop, search, question and profile citizens and non-citizens alike", Arizona v. U.S., 2012;  "Police can subject Americans to virtual strip searches, no matter the offense", Florence v. Burlington, 2012; "Police can break into homes without a search warrant, even if it's the wrong home", Kennedy v. King, 2011;  "It's a crime to not identify yourself when a policeman asks your name", Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada (based on a Nevada statute allowing 'stop and identify', 2004;  "Legally owning a firearm is enough to justify a no-knock raid by police", Quinn v. Texas, 2014;  "the military can arrest and detain American citizens", in refusing to hear Hedges v. Obama, 2014 and "Police officers who don't know their actions violate the law aren't guilty of breaking the law", scotus let stand a 9th Cir. decision in Brooks v. City of Seattle, 2013 (cops repeatedly tasered a pregnant woman during a routine traffic stop but were granted immunity from prosecution). 

So, it's pretty bad, and not a peep from any of the law schools or the Deans.

Last edited 06/24/2014 12:07 PM by DevilMayCare2

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/24/2014 12:08 PM

Re: QUESTION FOR T2- DO YOU REALLY THINK THE IRS' BEHAVIOR 



johnnyo53 wrote: PASSES THE SNIFF TEST?
Depends who's sniffing?  Elijah Cummings seemed mighty impressed by the performance of the IRS as he listened to testimony that they had failed to follow the law?

Some would even say there isn't a smidgeon of foul aroma emanating from the agency.

What are you? a racist, birther, climate denying, anti choice, heartless immigrant hater?
Here's a toast with one last pour, may it last forever plus a minute more;
May fortune sing you her sweet song; to live and love way past long
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/24/2014 5:28 PM

Man, I'd love to hear his genuine answer to that question 


Because every lengthy explanation I've read from Terry indicates that he feels, yeah, it passes the sniff test.  The general flavor I take from Terry's response is slight incredulity that one would even raise a question.  IRS official takes the fifth then her emails are missing?  Just a coincidence and well within bounds of the IRS' email retention guidelines.  Read my lengthy response which provides a reason.  There is no story here.  Move along. 

I just can't believe that.  I can't believe that an agency that literally has your liberty in the palm of their hands can be so cavalier as to have a data retention policy that not even a small business would want.  THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO TAKE ALL OF OUR FEDERAL TAX MONEY. 

The IRS has over 90,000 permanent employees.  How many disk crash/lost emails have there been?  The IRS Chief Counsel, Obama appointee William Wilkins could answer that, one would hope.  His history lay in reviewing 501(c)3's, and he was briefed in April 2011 on that topic.  He was magna cum laude from Yale with a Harvard law degree, and was a WilmerHale partner in their Tax practice.  Did he do his best work at the IRS?

Is it credible that William J. Wilkins, a well-trained lawyer with a history of counseling 501(c)(3)'s, would have learned of the political targeting of groups and not informed The White House?  Of interest to me is that Wilkins, a major Democratic donor, defended Jeremiah Wright of the United Church of Christ in Chicago ("God Damn America!") and he did it pro bono when they were under investigation by the IRS in 2008.

And how is it that the systematic harassment of conservative groups continued at the IRS even after President Obama's man at the IRS knew of the previous targeting as of August 4, 2011?  For example, the timeline entry for January 25, 2012 reads as follows:

The BOLO ["be on the lookout"] criteria were again updated. The criteria was revised as "political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding Government, educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, social economic reform/movement."



"Après moi le déluge" Louis XV

Last edited 06/24/2014 5:35 PM by Mick1

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/24/2014 6:03 PM

Killer points, Mick 




the IRS was nothing but a politically driven gear in the Obama machine... terry2's apology/credulity-stretched explanation lubricates with WD-40 to help provide needed 'deniability' 

none of us, nor the American people, fell off the turnip truck

Last edited 06/24/2014 6:06 PM by FrankO

Reply | Quote

Posted: 06/24/2014 7:09 PM

The IRS "did not follow the law".... 



.... this was the testimony before Congress of the nation's top archivist.

All government agencies are required by law to contact the archivist when problems such as what happened with the IRS in 2011 happen.

The IRS didn't notify the nation's achivist until the same day that it told Congress the e-mails were lost, which was two years later,  2013.

The archivist won't say the IRS "broke" the law...  only that the law was not followed...

Worth a read by you....



The Archivist Testifies:
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/24/2014 7:28 PM

Re: Man, I'd love to hear his genuine answer to that question 


This short article from Town Hall adds some meat to the sausage.  He's not much of a political appointee if he didn't keep the political operatives in the White House informed.
Here's a toast with one last pour, may it last forever plus a minute more;
May fortune sing you her sweet song; to live and love way past long
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/24/2014 9:31 PM

How are Obama and the IRS getting away with a blatant coverup? 


Kyle Smith from the New York Post wants to know


why not appoint a special prosecutor? 
.
Of the IRS' 90,000+ employees, only two were Obama appointments.  IRS Commissioner Koskinen has donated $100k to democrats since 1979, nothing to Republicans.

It appears that Koskinen may have lied under oath -- twice -- with respect to the IRS scandal.  Koskinen stated that "e-mail isn't really an official record" when the IRS manual explicitly states that it is.

The IRS recently completed a 15 year, multi-billion dollar engagement with Computer Sciences Corporation to upgrade its infrastructure.  They spend $1.8 billion annually on its computer systems.  But apparently a C:drive crash can eliminate e-mail records.  And according to Terry2, it is simply....IRS policy.

Oh.  Wow.  Just...wow.
"Après moi le déluge" Louis XV
Reply | Quote

Posted: 06/24/2014 9:38 PM

Here's the working link for Mick's story.... 




..... and it's a killer story....   devastating to this administration....

Worth reading....
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/25/2014 9:19 AM

Re: QUESTION FOR APPARENTLY T2 HASN'T TAKEN A BREATH LOL 


NT
"...I thought something is brewing inside the head of this Coach. He sees something in me, some kind of raw talent that he can mold. But that's when I felt the handcuffs go on."

Jack Handy
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/25/2014 5:44 PM

The IRS's behavior, Lerner, and the loss of emails 



johnnyo53 wrote: DO YOU REALLY THINK THE IRS' BEHAVIOR PASSES THE SNIFF TEST?
That depends on which behavior you're talking about. I think the IRS has behaved improperly in some ways. I think some of the other allegations against the IRS are not supported by the available facts.

I think there is a lot of inaccurate information floating around in media reports, blog posts, etc. To the extent possible, I have tried to read the underlying documents myself and come to my own conclusions, rather than relying on media reports.

As I have said all along, I'm basing my opinions on the facts that have been disclosed to date. Other facts could come out later, which might change my views.

Ways in which the IRS behaved improperly

I think the IRS behaved improperly by flagging certain 501(c)(4) applications for review based on the name of the applicant. In particular, I think it was improper to flag applications for further review if the applicant's name included terms such as "tea party" or "patriot." The IRS should have flagged applications for further review based on indications that the applicant's primary activity was politics, not based on the name of the organization.

I think Lois Lerner probably behaved improperly by making misleading statements to Congress in 2012. By that time, Lerner had learned of the improper screening criteria and had ordered those criteria changed. But she apparently told Congress that there had been no change in handling 501(c)(4) applications. In a letter in May 2013, a House Committee threatened criminal prosecution of Lerner based on her statements to Congress in 2012. I think she could face criminal liability. Even if she didn't commit a crime, her behavior probably was improper. I think this threat of criminal prosecution probably is the reason that Lerner started taking the 5th Amendment in May 2013.

I think it's possible that the IRS may have failed to retain some emails that constituted official records, and may have failed to give notice of the loss of official records. However, at this point, I don't think there's good evidence that official records were lost. Some copies of employee emails were lost, but not all employee emails are official records, and even if one copy of an official record was lost, there could be another copy in someone else's files. So it's possible that there was a loss of official records, but it's not clear. And if any official records were lost, there's not any evidence that they had anything to do with the "targeting" issue. (Contrary to some press reports, I don't think the IRS had a duty to save every employee email. It was required to save only official records. I would guess that few employee emails would constitute official records of the agency.)

Whether the White House used the IRS to silence political opponents

The grand theory of this "scandal" is that the White House ordered the IRS to crack down on conservative 501(c)(4) groups in order to silence political opponents. I'm aware of no evidence to support this allegation.

The Treasury Inspector General's report said that its investigation found no evidence of direction from the White House and no evidence of a political motive. IRS employees who were called before Congressional committees consistently testified that there was no direction from outside the agency and no political motive.

So far as I am aware, there is no evidence that the White House even knew about the IRS's screening criteria, let alone ordered those criteria. Nor is there any evidence that top management in the IRS knew about, let alone ordered, the improper criteria. Rather, the testimony was that the improper criteria were developed at a lower level.

I don't think the alleged conspiracy is particularly plausible for several reasons.

(1) The supposed conspiracy was directed at small-time, small-budget conservative organizations. No action was taken against the big conservative 501(c)(4) organizations that were spending millions. I don't see why the White House would do something so risky just to slow down some small-time organizations that wouldn't make any real difference in the campaign. 

(2) The conspiracy supposedly involved ordering the IRS to slow-play the 501(c)(4) applications of conservative applicants. But that wouldn't have silenced these organizations, because they didn't need IRS approval. They were free to participate in the campaign without approval. The only way to silence them would have been to deny their 501(c)(4) applications. But the IRS didn't deny any conservative applications. (The only applications the IRS denied were progressive groups' applications.) So, even if the conspiracy were successful, it wouldn't have achieved much. I don't see the point in that.

(3) The IRS adopted improper screening criteria in spring 2010, dropped those criteria in June 2011, adopted different but problematic screening criteria in January 2012, and dropped those criteria in May 2012, at which time it started granted approvals of pending conservative applications. So the conspiracy supposedly started, stopped, started again, and stopped again well before the November 2012 election. And both times the improper criteria were dropped, it was Lerner who ordered the field agents to stop using the improper criteria. That sequence of events doesn't make much sense as a conspiracy.

(4) If there were a conspiracy, I believe that some evidence would come out. It's really hard to destroy all evidence of a conspiracy of this nature. Somebody usually keeps a copy of something. Or some witness gives an indication of what happened. None of that has happened here. About 40 witnesses have testified before Congress and over 750,000 pages of IRS documents have been produced, but the Republicans haven't pointed to any evidence of the grand conspiracy. It's really hard to pull off a big multi-player conspiracy without leaving a trace. 

So, the alleged conspiracy wouldn't have made much sense in the first place because it wouldn't really have accomplished anything, and in any event, there's no evidence that it happened. 

The loss of some of Lerner's emails

A little background on my perspective -- I spent most of my career representing public companies in big lawsuits. Many times, I have been responsible for searching my clients' records, including emails, to find relevant evidence. I often have interviewed the top IT guy at a public company about record retention, back-up procedures, and so forth. So I have some familiarity with the way these things work.

In my experience, collecting all relevant documents in a big lawsuit is time-consuming, expensive, and difficult. It is never a completely "clean" process. There always are some issues that come up. I often have been involved in cases in which emails were deleted or back-up tapes were recycled before anybody knew they would be needed for purposes of a lawsuit. In my experience, it never looks good when documents have disappeared, but it happens regularly, and there's usually an innocent explanation. So, I do not start out with the assumption that "these things just don't happen, so somebody must be hiding something." Rather, I start out with the knowledge that these things can happen for lots of reasons. The real question is whether there's a reasonable explanation.

The IRS explained in a letter what happened to some of Lerner's emails. The IRS's procedures called for employees to print out and file hard copies of emails that were important enough to be official records. The IRS email servers contained the emails that were in employees' Outlook mailboxes (the Inbox, folders within the Inbox, Sent Items, Deleted Items). The IRS did daily tape back-ups of email servers. The backup tapes were kept for six months, then recycled. Employee mailboxes were limited in capacity, so employees sometimes had to delete old email from their mailboxes to make room for new ones. When employees deleted old emails from their Outlook mailboxes, they had the option of keeping copies of those deleted emails on their hard drives. Individual employee hard drives were not backed up.

Given the way the IRS managed its email system, if an employee kept old deleted emails on his or her hard drive, those emails were vulnerable to being lost in a disk crash. The IRS says that's what happened to some of Lerner's old emails in June 2011.

The conspiracy theory is that Lerner crashed her computer on purpose to destroy emails that would have revealed an administration-ordered plot to silence conservative groups.

I think the IRS's explanation seems more plausible than the conspiracy theory for several reasons.

(1) Given the IRS's procedures, an employee's old deleted emails that were stored on the employee's hard drive were vulnerable to being lost in a disk crash. The fact that the IRS was relying on old equipment and old data retention practices made the loss of data more likely. See this article.

(2) There are contemporaneous emails documenting Lerner's disk crash and the IRS's efforts to restore the disk.

(3) The Treasury Inspector General's report says Lerner found out about the inappropriate screening criteria on June 29, 2011. Her computer crash occurred on June 13, 2011. Lerner's computer crash therefore occurred before she found out about the improper screening criteria, according to the TIG report. The timing undercuts the idea that she was trying to destroy evidence because she didn't yet know of the improper screening criteria when her computer crashed.

(4) There are emails showing that Lerner contacted the IRS tech people and tried to get them to restore her hard drive. She wouldn't have done that if she were trying to destroy the contents of the hard drive. On the contrary, that's absolutely the last thing she would have done.

(5) The only emails that were lost were old emails that Lerner deleted from her Outlook mailboxes and chose to save on her hard drive. It doesn't seem particularly likely that Lerner would have chosen to save a personal copy of an incriminating email on her hard drive, then turned around and crashed her computer to get rid of it. If she didn't want to have a copy of an incriminating email, she probably wouldn't have chosen to save it in the first place. Or she could have simply deleted it without crashing her hard drive.

(6) Crashing a hard drive would destroy copies of emails only if the drive crashed in a way that made it absolutely impossible to recover anything. I doubt that Lerner has the technical know-how to crash her own hard drive in such a way as to make the contents unrecoverable.

(7) Any email has at least two copies. Lerner's crash destroyed only her own copies of the emails she had deleted from her Outlook mailboxes and saved on her hard drive. Somebody else had another copy of all those emails. The IRS found other copies of 24,000 Lerner emails during this period. But so far as I know, there are no emails proving a conspiracy in anyone else's email records. In my experience, it's really hard to lose all copies of an email. Usually there's another copy somewhere.

A familiar dynamic at work

As I mentioned above, I've represented many public companies in big lawsuits. I've often seen allegations that a company conspired to commit fraud. I've had to respond to subpoenas for massive amounts of documents. I've supervised the production of millions of documents by my clients. In many cases, I've had situations in which some of my client's documents were lost or deleted for some reason.

There is a typical dynamic in these cases. When the opposing party can't find any evidence to prove their conspiracy claims in the hundreds of thousands of documents that are available, they inevitably proclaim that the real evidence of the conspiracy must have been in the documents that aren't available. It happens all the time. And it's almost never true.

In my experience, the explanation is almost always happenstance, accident, or incompetence, rather than conspiracy. Hanlon's Razor is usually right: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

Or the more obscure British version of the principle probably is more on point: "Many journalists have fallen for the conspiracy theory of government. I do assure you that they would produce more accurate work if they adhered to the cock-up theory." -- Bernard Ingham (per Wikipedia)

Last edited 06/26/2014 9:51 AM by terry2

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/25/2014 5:55 PM

William Wilkins 


Mick1 wrote: 

The IRS has over 90,000 permanent employees.  How many disk crash/lost emails have there been?
The IRS says it has had 2000 computer crashes this year.

The IRS Chief Counsel, Obama appointee William Wilkins could answer that, one would hope.  His history lay in reviewing 501(c)3's, and he was briefed in April 2011 on that topic. . . . Is it credible that William J. Wilkins, a well-trained lawyer with a history of counseling 501(c)(3)'s, would have learned of the political targeting of groups and not informed The White House? . . . And how is it that the systematic harassment of conservative groups continued at the IRS even after President Obama's man at the IRS knew of the previous targeting as of August 4, 2011?
William Wilkins did not attend the August 4, 2011 meeting and did not learn about the "targeting" until spring 2013. The story you linked was debunked right after it appeared, over a year ago. Link

Last edited 06/25/2014 6:08 PM by terry2

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/25/2014 6:34 PM

The thing about debating with T2 is... 


He doesn't fight fair.  He gathers information and uses facts.  And he presents them relatively impassionately.  It is completely off base on a board like this!  pirate

"I pledge - on the souls of my grandchildren - that I will not be the one to break the peace that we have made today."

Reply | Quote

Posted: 06/25/2014 9:20 PM

Re: QUESTION FOR T2- DO YOU REALLY THINK THE IRS' BEHAVIOR 


Some here are equating government computer systems/practices with those of a major corporation, and that is a mistake. My wife has worked for the Labor Dept for the past 30+ years. The computer resources/IT dept there would be considered a joke at most public corporations. For instance, she has had the same govt supplied laptop for most of the past decade, to be used for working at home. The only problem is that the laptop is so outdated she can't use it to access her office network. No problem, you say, just requisition another updated model. Sorry, they have no such animal. So you can all chip in to pay me for my wife's govt use of my laptop on the rare occasions she works from home.

I don't find a crash of a govt computer the least bit surprising, or the fact that the IRS reports 2000 such crashes this year alone.

Last edited 06/25/2014 9:21 PM by RandyB2

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/25/2014 10:01 PM

Re: The IRS's behavior,SO THE LERNER EMAIL REVEALED TODAY 


WHERE SHE ASKED TO HAVE THE REPUBLICAN SENATOR GRASSLEY AUDITED DOESN'T GIVE YOU ANOTHER REASON TO BELIEVE SHE'S NOT ON THE LEVEL?  AND THAT MAYBE EVEN YOU MIGHT JUST BE TRYING A LITTLE TOO HARD TO DISPROVE OR DISBELIEVE THAT THERE'S A HELLUVA PATTERN EMERGING?  YOU'RE HAVING A HARD TIME SEEING ANY PATTERN OF INSTITUTIONALIZED CRIMINALITY OR JUST OUTRIGHT LIES STARTING WITH JAY CARNEY'S CINCY LINKAGE ALL THE WAY UP TO LERNER'S CONDUCT THROUGHOUT?  IF THE TRUTH WERE MORE INTERESTING, THESE GUYS WOULD STILL TELL US LIES- THE EMPEROR'S HAD NO CLOTHES FOR QUITE SOME TIME, EVEN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE COME AROUND ON THAT, SO NOTHING WOULD SURPRISE ME COMING OUT OF THIS ADMINISTRATION WHEN IT COMES TO PERFIDY, MENDACITY, BUT YOU'RE STILL HAVING A HARD TIME SEEING THAT SIDE OF THE COIN EH?
LET'S JUST SUPPOSE THAT NIXON HAD ERASED THE TAPES LIKE JOHN CONNALLY ADVISED HIM...THERE WAS NOTHING TO LINK THE WHITE HOUSE TO THE WATERGATE GUYS EITHER...
I AGREE THERE ARE OTHER COPIES OF EMAILS, AND THEY CAN BE FOUND, BUT YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT 10 DAYS AFTER THE INVESTIGATION BEGINS LERNER AND 6 OTHERS HAVE COMPUTER CRASHES AND THEY FIRE THE STORAGE AND RECOVERY COMPANY?
IT'S ALL JUST COINCIDENCE? THAT THEY AREN'T GOING TO TRY TO RUN OUT THE CLOCK ON THIS JUST LIKE THEY DID BENGHAZI BEFORE THE LAST ELECTION?
TOO MANY COINCIDENCES AND TOO MANY BS COVERUP LIES BY THIS ADMINISTRATION (LIKE THE BENGHAZI VIDEO BS) FOR ME PERSONALLY.
YET YOU STILL WANT ME TO GIVE THIS ADMINISTRATION THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT?
TERRY, YOU'RE UNDOUBTEDLY A GOOD LAWYER, AND IT DOESN'T SURPRISE ME THAT YOU CAN MAKE ANGELS DANCE ON THE HEAD OF A PIN, BUT HOW MANY TIMES DOES THIS ADMINISTRATION DO IT BEFORE EVEN YOU WONDER HOW IT CAN ALL BE HAPPY ACCIDENTS?
LET'S APPOINT A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR AND GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS ONCE AND FOR ALL.  

"...I thought something is brewing inside the head of this Coach. He sees something in me, some kind of raw talent that he can mold. But that's when I felt the handcuffs go on."

Jack Handy

Last edited 06/25/2014 10:26 PM by johnnyo53

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/25/2014 10:29 PM

good argument, Counselor 


the disk drive crash of external email correspondence certainly seems suspicious...  maybe it is just innocent coincidence as you say...

as to her taking the 5th Ammendment... maybe your  guess at a motive for her doing so is correct... my guess is we'll likely never know for sure

maybe the WH had no direct role/influence on this... maybe certain Dem Senators instead...

why did they (IRS) lie to the Congress back in 2011?... why did they (WH after learning from IRS)  wait 2 months to come clean on the 'lost emails'? 

we'll see how the investigations go...

Last edited 06/25/2014 11:40 PM by FrankO

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/25/2014 11:03 PM

Re: How are Obama and the IRS getting away with a blatant 



Mick1 wrote:

Koskinen stated that "e-mail isn't really an official record" when the IRS manual explicitly states that it is.
That's not accurate. What Koskinen actually said is that not all employee emails are official records:

In discussing document retention at the IRS, it is important to point out that our email system is not being used as an electronic record keeping system. Furthermore, it should be remembered that not all emails on IRS servers or backup tapes qualify as an “official record,” which is defined (in 44 U.S.C. 3301) as any documentary material made or received by an agency under federal law or in connection with the transaction of public business and appropriate for preservation. Accordingly, our agency’s email system is not designed to preserve email. Rather, email that qualifies as “records” are printed and retained in compliance with relevant records control schedules. Individual employees are responsible for ensuring that any email in their possession that qualifies as a “record” is retained in accordance with the requirements in the Internal Revenue Manual and Document 12990 (Record Control Schedules).
Link

I think Koskinen's statement is consistent with the IRS Manual, which says that employee emails can be federal records, but does not say that all employee emails are federal records. The relevant section of the Manual is headed "Emails as Possible Federal Records." It includes the following, among other things:

If you create or receive email messages during the course of your daily work, you are responsible for ensuring that you manage them properly. The Treasury Department’s current email policy requires emails and attachments that meet the definition of a federal record be added to the organization’s files by printing them (including the essential transmission data) and filing them with related paper records. . . . 

Please note that maintaining a copy of an email or its attachments within the IRS email MS Outlook application does not meet the requirements of maintaining an official record. Therefore, print and file email and its attachments if they are either permanent records or if they relate to a specific case.
So the manual requires that emails be printed out if they are federal records. It does not require that all emails be printed out, which would be required if all emails were federal records.

Last edited 06/26/2014 10:07 AM by terry2

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/25/2014 11:18 PM

Re: The thing about debating with T2 is... 



lex24 wrote: He doesn't fight fair.  He gathers information and uses facts.  And he presents them relatively impassionately.  It is completely off base on a board like this!  pirate
Beg to differ.  He shades his presentations materially and in such a way as to obfuscate regarding core issues.  Look no further than his presentation about White House involvement.  If a family member were killed by a drunk driver, I personally wouldn't care whether he blew a .08, a .15 or if he was totally blind at .25  Wouldn't matter at that point.  The damage would be done.

The White House and this President are personally and intimately involved.  Terry's basic deception is his willingness to promote the republican meme; the narrow formulation of a purely political fight.  Absent a smoking gun, everything is ok.  

But this approach simply deflects attention from the facts that are in evidence.  This administration has been a complete and total failure in the basic business of government.  The President reads about government failures in the paper.  The administrative systems behind his signature policy initiative fail completely.  The basic legislation is of such poor quality that he has to try to rewrite it absent the legislative branch.  His campaign commitments to the country's veterans and the VA system are never revisited.  He expresses outrage at the shenanigans at the IRS and then takes every opportunity to delay the investigation and disclosure.  His White House counsel sits on the knowledge of the records loss for two months and never reaches out to Justice, the Congress or the Archivist to see what could be done.  He listens to Clinton prattle on about the death of an ambassador and three others and her inability to discipline underperforming staff at the State Department, sees the same thing play out at the VA and yet refuses to use his pen or his phone to rewrite union work rules.  {Perhaps Terry should compare and contrast Obama's efforts with Reagan's and the air traffic controllers.}

Sure one can hang their hat on the simple fact that there is no direct evidence of politics as the cause of the IRS malfeasance, but one would have to acknowledge that multiple simultaneous hard drive failures is an odd coincidence.  Nonetheless, what is not in dispute is that there is yet another proven example of a lack of institutional control.  At the end of the day, Terry is left with a personal opinion about the role of 'politics' that is based on admittedly incomplete information and his experience with senior IT executives in for profit business.  That experience may or may not be relevant/ applicable to a political, public and unionized environment.  My experience with these organizations suggest the motivators for personal conduct and decision making are materially different than the for profit world.  The relative organizational power of policy makers relative to staff are material.  When a President castigates a Supreme Court decision in a State of the Union address the ripples can travel a great distance.  Right now, Terry has limited facts, facts that don't include a smoking gun, and he elects to advance his opinions based solely on the facts on the record.  He is entitled.  But clearly the facts and coincidences in the record can support other opinions.

At the end of the day, shouldn't Terry recognize that each and every year $3.7+ trillion dollars, much borrowed from his kids, is being pissed away by incompetents who may have a vision but have no interest or understanding as to how to manage to a result?  The strongest argument Terry could possibly advance would be, "Why would anyone assume this cover up is the only thing these clowns have succeeded at in five and one half years?"  But does it really matter Lex if the root cause of epic failure is the lack of character of the political class, incompetence or narrowly perceived political self interest?  It stinks like a week old fish either way.  Terry has perfected the art of holding his breath so he doesn't have to deal with the stench.

End of rant.  biggrin
Here's a toast with one last pour, may it last forever plus a minute more;
May fortune sing you her sweet song; to live and love way past long
Reply | Quote

Posted: 06/26/2014 12:06 AM

Re: The thing about debating with T2 is... 


I agree completely with T2's post.  Fwiw, my experience with Gov't agencies reads like Terry's with private co's, though with more antiquated equipment and systems.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/26/2014 6:35 AM

2,000 crashes likely overstates the applicable crashes 


Over the course of a thirty-year career, my computers have crashed a dozen times or so.  In not one of those crashes were my e-mails unrecoverable.

In what percentage of the 2,000 crashes at the IRS were e-mails unrecoverable?


terry2 wrote:
Mick1 wrote: 

The IRS has over 90,000 permanent employees.  How many disk crash/lost emails have there been?
The IRS says it has had 2000 computer crashes this year.
"Après moi le déluge" Louis XV

Last edited 06/26/2014 6:36 AM by Mick1

Reply | Quote
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 3  Next >