The IRS admitted they targeted conservative political groups, but not unfairly. They also targeted left leaning groups, and they had the same delays. It may be wrong that they targeted political groups, but there were political groups targeted from both sides. Also in truth the tea party groups didn't actually need to make the application they did. It's not that there was nothing wrong that happened here, it's that there's no scandal whatsoever.
Then they shouldn't have anything to fear from an investigation. Lois Lerner didn't need to plead the 5th. They didn't need laughable excuse about the emails being destroyed. And the next news we're going to hear about all of the IRS' servers magically falling into a box of magnets is going to be a waste of time.
There has been an investigation. I'm sorry it didn't go the way you wanted it to, but it is over and there is nothing scandalous whatsoever, as usual with the clown show.
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/irs-lois-lerner-emails-108044.html **** this corrupt bs. Lerner better see atleast 10 yrs of prison time, though i am sure it will never happen.
If there are contemporaneous emails from or to IT about the failure of the hard drive, I see no problem with them throwing it away. Unless you are some conspiracy nut, there is no reason that the these officials would go to those lengths to cover their tracks in anticipation of some possible scandal. This is just on going conspiracy mongering preying on the unanalytical minds of dupes for page clicks.
a hard drive failure on lerner's own workstation would not corrupt the emails. the emails should be stored on the exchange server, and there should be multiple backups. the whole exchange service, for all employees, would have to go down, and subsequently be destroyed, for this scenario to be believable. it's transparent BS.
Did you care about the 5 to 22 MILLION emails that the Bush administration deleted after creating an outside the government email system when such action is completely illegal? Didn't think so.
No, it isn't. As a rule, backups aren't kept for years and years, it just takes too much disk space to do so for a large organization like the federal government. The "lost" email was likely contained in a PST (or equivalent) file on the local hard drive and when that drive crashed, the locally stored mail is gone, unless she backed that file up to some other media, which doesn't appear to be the case. Stop talking about things you obviously don't understand.
this is 2011, not "years and years." any competent corporation would store emails on a server, not , local, personal hard drives. that's how exchange works.
It is obvious that you don't have the first clue. Any email she wanted to keep was likely in a PST file on the local machine. Anything she deleted over the years probably dropped out of backup within 6-9 months. The "lost" emails were the ones she chose to store locally and, as a result of the hard drive crash, were lost with the PST which contained them. Even if they were backing up the desktop (not a given as a result of data growth and limited backup space), those backups likely would only go back a month. Either way, two things are clear... 1) This is hardly a "scandal," particularly in light of previous email losses by presidential administrations... 2) You know somewhere between little and nothing about IT.
Logical fallacy, please try again. Also, what is it 5 million or 22 million? That is a pretty big variance. Next thing you will be telling me is the Lois Lerner email disappearance was Bush's fault.
IRS CANCELLED Contract with Email-Storage Firm Weeks After Lerner’s Computer Crash people better be locked up.
No, we're talking about outrage over presidential administrations that either lost or deleted email. You are completely outraged over one even though the other was a dramatically larger offense. Lerner had a hard drive that crashed (FWIW, one of the immutable laws in IT is that hardware fails). Bush's administration created a shadow email system outside the oversight mechanisms set up so that the administration would have checks and balances. Before anyone could look at those emails, the administration willfully destroyed the system. One seems worse than the other, but you try to label it a "logical fallacy." There's a fallacy here, quoted in this post. I gave you the entire range of estimates. We don't know because the Bush administration destroyed the system so that nobody could see the email. No, I'm telling you it was a case of hardware failure, which is just a predictable outcome when it comes to IT. One was a hardware failure, documented as such, and the other was the willful destruction of millions of emails. You want me to be relatively more outraged over a hardware failure and the only explanation is that you suffer from ODS. is right.
Still waiting for you to comment on why I should be more outraged over this than the millions of destroyed emails under the Bush administration.
should u? what does one scandal have to do with the other? does one justify the other? Learn how to think for urself GR.
