@parados,
We are expected to take the word of this guy? He has been stone walling the investigation since he took office. Lois Lerner has also stone walled the investigation. You are guessing that they were using tech that old, and I do not tend to believe the IRS period. Why was the head of the IRS using such old equipment. I want to know what this hardware was that they are using. I highly doubt they are using PC's from the the late 90's and early 2000's. Once again I work in this field and I know how things fail. I don't buy his story.
If her hard drive crashed after the request for the emails, why didn't the investigators then get the emails? You are not helping your case. If you want to claim the requests were made, then they had a HDD crash and then failed to get the backup copies from the Backup SW company before they ended the contract? You do realize that if the HDD had crashed prior to the emails being requested then you might have a story.
I will ask this one again. What happened to the emails that were stored on the server, and where are the copies of those backups?
@coldjoint,
You have to hand it to the Reps. They are very convincing liars.
@Baldimo,
Quote:We are expected to take the word of this guy? He has been stone walling the investigation since he took office. Lois Lerner has also stone walled the investigation. You are guessing that they were using tech that old, and I do not tend to believe the IRS period. Why was the head of the IRS using such old equipment.
Hmm.. so we should ignore the people there and instead take your word for it? I am not guessing since I posted what the IRS said. It is you that is guessing.
Quote:I will ask this one again. What happened to the emails that were stored on the server, and where are the copies of those backups?
A good question but one that shows you don't know any of the facts about the story. The IRS relied on individuals to keep backups of their emails which is a bad policy but not criminal.
Quote: I highly doubt they are using PC's from the the late 90's and early 2000's. Once again I work in this field and I know how things fail. I don't buy his story.
There are all kinds of issues related to hard drives failing over the years. Here is one from 2009 for a recall on failing Seagate drives.
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/seagate-7200.11-failing,6844.html
@coldjoint,
coldjoint wrote:
Quote: There are some problems with your conspiracy theory.
There are some problems with anyone that believes the WH wasn't behind this.
Sure.. Obama has been hiding that time machine again. It's a conspiracy.
@cicerone imposter,
Its coming up all over the nation. Finally. Now we are about equal to what value it was in 1972.
@parados,
Quote:Lerner's hard drive crashed in 2011.
Congress didn't ask questions until 2012.
Coldjoint thinks that is just a minor technicality.
@Baldimo,
Best you got? It was asked and answered. Move on.
Where the hell is the 1.5 million missing WH emails about the all those Federal Attorneys W fired over night. They disappeared AFTER Congress asked for them. At least 10 WH and Justice Dept figures went to jail or resigned in shame.
Your hypocrisy has no bounds.
If you are as ignorant about this sad chapter as you were about the Reagan WH/CIA/Taliban relationship, I have links ready.
@parados,
Quote:Hmm.. so we should ignore the people there and instead take your word for it? I am not guessing since I posted what the IRS said. It is you that is guessing.
Seeing as I work in the data storage field, I'm pretty sure I have more expertise than the IRS head.
Quote:A good question but one that shows you don't know any of the facts about the story. The IRS relied on individuals to keep backups of their emails which is a bad policy but not criminal.
It is against the law for the IRS to just allow people to store their own emails. There are laws about such things. Figured I would provide you with this:
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/06/17/irs-regulations-require-e-mails-that-are-federal-records-to-be-stored-in-separate-permanent-system/
Just to show you that you don't know what you are talking about, PC's were not using single spindle 1TB HDD's. Most PC's back then were using much smaller HDD's due to price. This is what you would call anecdotal evidence. It has no effect of the HDD's the IRS were using in there PC's or laptops. I'm fully aware of the 2009 failure as there were drives that were being used in many LARGE servers back then. As I mentioned in another post, the IRS is going to be using large servers such as the DL380 G7 or 8. These systems have between 8 and 24 HDD's. As I said then and I will say again, a single HDD failure WILL NOT cause total data failure. It would only lead to degraded performance but not data loss. Have you ever heard of RAID?
@RexRed,
Most of us are! Almost 75%!
Its good to be on a vociferous majority!
The word is that Scott Walker has cut a deal and is cooperating and naming names!!!!!!
The Investigation Into Scott Walker Could Be Way, Way Bigger Than Scott Walker
Posted: 06/25/2014 7:37 am EDT Updated: 06/25/2014 8:59 am EDT
An investigation into Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker could turn into a major court challenge to campaign finance law. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
WASHINGTON -- An investigation targeting Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) for alleged illegal coordination with independent conservative groups during his 2012 recall election has been thrown into limbo by a lawsuit that could turn into the next big challenge to campaign finance limits.
The case has the potential to blow a hole in anti-coordination rules in Wisconsin and beyond -- a hole that would effectively wipe away campaign contribution limits by allowing candidates to control the unlimited and secret contributions raised by not-really-independent groups.
For the last few years, Wisconsin prosecutors have been looking into allegations that Walker and his aides illegally coordinated with a dozen groups, ranging from the Wisconsin Club for Growth to the Koch brothers' Americans for Prosperity, to support both the governor's recall campaign and those of Republican state senators. After its offices were raided and documents seized by prosecutors, the Wisconsin Club for Growth sued, arguing that the investigation itself was a violation of its First Amendment rights to free speech and free association.
Moreover, the group contended it had not violated the state's anti-coordination law because the ads it ran in coordination with the Walker camp constituted issue advocacy, which the group claims is not covered by the anti-coordination rules. While the ads named specific candidates for office, the group said, they did not rise to the level of electoral activity because they didn't urge viewers to "vote for" or "vote against" anyone.
In January, a state judge agreed with the Wisconsin Club for Growth that Wisconsin law did not cover coordination between candidates and groups engaging in issue advocacy, even if the attack ads in question simply sidestepped the rules by avoiding the explicit "vote for/against" language.
In May, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Randa concurred with the state judge in a far more sweeping ruling. Analogizing the investigation to "attempts to purify the public square" that lead to "the Guillotine and the Gulag," Randa suspended the probe and ordered that all evidence be returned immediately. He held that prosecutors' interpretation of the state law as it might apply to Walker and the groups would violate their First Amendment rights -- by taking campaign restrictions beyond the constitutional limit -- and thus so did the investigation. The judge repeatedly referenced the restricted definition of political "corruption" laid out by the Supreme Court in its recent Citizens United and McCutcheon decisions.
"The plaintiffs have found a way to circumvent campaign finance laws, and that circumvention should not and cannot be condemned or restricted," Randa wrote. "Instead, it should be recognized as promoting political speech, an activity that is 'ingrained in our culture.'"
The case has moved to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, which has already stayed Randa's ruling, thereby allowing the investigation to continue. The prosecutors argue that the state's anti-coordination law is meant to cover coordination of issue advocacy.
"If Randa's ruling stands on appeal, then the rules against coordination between a candidate and outside groups would go out the window in Wisconsin," University of California-Irvine electoral law professor Rick Hasen wrote in Slate.
A recent report from professors Daniel Tojaki and Renata E.B. Strause of The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law warned that campaigns and independent groups are already doing everything in their power to coordinate without technically breaking these rules. Campaign staff complain, however, that they can't control the messages of the groups helping them.
"A frequent refrain from campaign staff was that even independent spending by 'friendly' sources was less useful than it could have been," the report states.
If it stands, Randa's ruling would open the door to this kind of greater control in Wisconsin. If the case finds its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, the five justices opposed to campaign finance limits could extend this loophole across the country.
Following Randa, the Supreme Court could find it unconstitutional to apply anti-coordination rules to issue advocacy in state and federal campaigns. This would essentially "eviscerate campaign contribution limits" across the country, Hasen told HuffPost.
There are national groups ready and willing to take advantage of another Supreme Court strike against campaign finance law.
In the 2014 midterm elections, groups controlled by the Kochs, including Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, have already spent tens of millions of dollars on ads attacking Democratic candidates in Senate battleground states. These ads are generally designed to meet the standards for issue advocacy.
In a world where the circumvention of coordination rules "should not and cannot be condemned or restricted," as Randa wrote, the Koch-linked groups could coordinate messaging in these issue advocacy spots and plan advertising buys with the campaigns they support. In effect, federal candidates and their campaigns would be able to direct the operations of groups that can accept checks for $10 million or $20 million from secret donors.
That's likely to sound a lot more tempting than running their election efforts through their own campaigns. After all, those campaigns are hampered: They have to abide by laws that limit them to a measly $5,200 per individual donor and require the public disclosure of the names of their donors.
Top Tea Party Activist: If Cochran Wins In Mississippi, 'GOP Is Done'
Hhl5cy0e5xojtckkndjm
AP Photo / Bruce Smith
Daniel Strauss – June 24, 2014, 10:22 PM EDT
Amy Kremer, a tea party activist and the former chairwoman of the Tea Party Express, warned that if Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) defeated challenger and tea party favorite state Sen. Chris McDaniel (R) in the runoff election for the GOP nomination for U.S. Senate the "GOP is done."
If Cochran wins this #mssen race, the GOP is done. They teamed up with Dems to steal a race. Kiss the base goodbye.
— Amy Kremer (@AmyKremer) June 25, 2014
Kremer's tweets came as most of the election results of the runoff had come in. Those results showed Cochran leading McDaniel.
In the weeks before the runoff, Cochran's campaign sought to win over Democratic voters to defeat McDaniel.
Kremer left Tea Party Express in the weeks before the Kentucky primary to work for tea party candidate Matt Bevin, who lost to Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY).
Later on election night Kremer referred to the Cochran campaign seeking Democrats' support to win the race.
Sad that GOP establishment has to reach out to the Dems to help keep the Barbour lobbying business profitable. That's politics ppl. #mssen
— Amy Kremer (@AmyKremer) June 25, 2014
This post was updated.
