If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Daily Caller)   Is it a coincidence that Lois Lerner's former FEC colleague also has emails that are now missing? I think NOT   (dailycaller.com) divider line 43
    More: Interesting, Lois Lerner, Fe C, Federal Election Commission, black female, Office of Inspector General  
•       •       •

484 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Jul 2014 at 1:23 PM (18 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



43 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-07-15 10:48:25 AM  
What a coincidence that submitter potatoes? Intredasting, but I think NOT.
 
2014-07-15 11:04:43 AM  
They "went missing?" Or they weren't there to begin with and we only just found out they weren't there because of the constantly widening net to get communications that were poorly archived and stored under IRS guidelines?

Doesn't seem so much "coincidence" as "the same damn thing." Like the power going out in your house and marveling each time you walk into a room and it's dark.
 
2014-07-15 11:11:55 AM  
I almost feel bad for the Republicans who are left in the bar at 2:30AM and have to take this chicken home to fark after every other, even mildly attractive, chicken has already been taken home, farked, smoked a cigarette and scuttled home.
 
2014-07-15 11:18:37 AM  
Since there was a policy of trashing mail after a certain period, it would be suspicious if only her email was missing.
 
2014-07-15 01:31:24 PM  
I can't even try to try to care.
 
2014-07-15 01:32:24 PM  
OK, I haven't really been following this one, but..

1. Are her emails gone off of the server? No large scale operation is only going to have email stored locally on the user's machine. Even Gmail has their shiat on the server, and you really just see a peek of it.
2. What is the average time for a a hard drive to sit before being recycled?
3. Did all of this happen AFTER the investigation started?
4. What are the standard gov't practices for these old drives?
5. Is there anything different about her hard drive than the average federal employee?
 
2014-07-15 01:34:17 PM  

DeaH: Since there was a policy of trashing mail after a certain period, it would be suspicious if only her email was missing.


Such a policy, if one was in fact in place, would almost certainly violate Sarbanes-Oxley, would it not?
 
2014-07-15 01:35:51 PM  
Dear every single Republican ever, When will U learn that Barack Hussein Obama is simply smarter than U? Stand down, Signed #Obama2012 #p2

obama's light-years ahead of us.
he's a slippery one.
 
2014-07-15 01:35:55 PM  

Mikey1969: OK, I haven't really been following this one, but..

1. Are her emails gone off of the server? No large scale operation is only going to have email stored locally on the user's machine. Even Gmail has their shiat on the server, and you really just see a peek of it.
2. What is the average time for a a hard drive to sit before being recycled?
3. Did all of this happen AFTER the investigation started?
4. What are the standard gov't practices for these old drives?
5. Is there anything different about her hard drive than the average federal employee?


In response to 1...Um, yeah, actually. I work at a Fortune 500 company and we only have 200MB each for server email storage. Pretty sure that's standard for Outlook.
 
2014-07-15 01:38:19 PM  
Ms. Lerner's time at the FEC is pretty interesting...
 
2014-07-15 01:42:07 PM  

IMDWalrus: Mikey1969: OK, I haven't really been following this one, but..

In response to 1...Um, yeah, actually. I work at a Fortune 500 company and we only have 200MB each for server email storage. Pretty sure that's standard for Outlook.


200MB.... far from standard.  We sport about 2gb max per user here
 
2014-07-15 01:42:19 PM  

Mikey1969: OK, I haven't really been following this one, but..

1. Are her emails gone off of the server? No large scale operation is only going to have email stored locally on the user's machine. Even Gmail has their shiat on the server, and you really just see a peek of it.
2. What is the average time for a a hard drive to sit before being recycled?
3. Did all of this happen AFTER the investigation started?
4. What are the standard gov't practices for these old drives?
5. Is there anything different about her hard drive than the average federal employee?


1. Yes.  According to regulations at the time, the network department at the IRS did not keep their tape backups for more than a couple months; it was the employee's job to archive emails and other documents.  In theory, the employee was supposed to print out every single email they wrote or received and physically file it in a file cabinet (in regulations obviously written decades ago before emails even existed).  In practice, nobody followed this regulation because it was stupid and because they they thought that saving them locally on the hard drive met the requirement (it apparently didn't).
2. Dunno.
3. Nope; Lerner's hard drive crashed years before the investigation started.
4. Dunno.
5. Nope.
 
2014-07-15 01:44:15 PM  

GoldSpider: DeaH: Since there was a policy of trashing mail after a certain period, it would be suspicious if only her email was missing.

Such a policy, if one was in fact in place, would almost certainly violate Sarbanes-Oxley, would it not?


From what I remember reading, they violated a lot of things including their own recording procedures. Then again their procedures involved things like "print off everything you write to anyone and archive it for ten years." Apparently it's like planet Vogon at the IRS and after a while systemic inertia lead to people not caring.
 
2014-07-15 01:44:27 PM  
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.

"Dear every single Republican ever, When will U learn that Barack Hussein Obama is simply smarter than U? Stand down, Signed #Obama2012 #p2," Sands wrote on May 1, 2012.

The FEC's Office of Inspector General sought to conduct a criminal investigation into Sands' activities but were stymied when they found that the agency had recycled her computer hard drive.
 
2014-07-15 01:44:54 PM  

Mikey1969: 1. Are her emails gone off of the server? No large scale operation is only going to have email stored locally on the user's machine. Even Gmail has their shiat on the server, and you really just see a peek of it.


I don't have direct knowledge of the IRS, but that's certainly how the USMC did it as late as 2009.  If you had an email address it (barring very high rank) had something like a 50 or 100 mb size limit.  You go over that limit and you can't send any more emails until you delete a few or move them to a pst saved somewhere other than the email servers.

You'd be amazed how quickly a "large scale operation" can eat up hard drive space once people start attacking pdfs and hitting "reply all".  And the powerpoint porn, dear God, the powerpoint porn.
 
2014-07-15 01:45:33 PM  

netizencain: IMDWalrus: Mikey1969: OK, I haven't really been following this one, but..

In response to 1...Um, yeah, actually. I work at a Fortune 500 company and we only have 200MB each for server email storage. Pretty sure that's standard for Outlook.

200MB.... far from standard.  We sport about 2gb max per user here


Same here.  I am an IT admin for a municipality.

If it is shaping up that her emails were disposed of per IRS guidelines, then this really is a dead end.  Of course, there is a little bit of pulp left for the chicken farkers, so they will keep going.
 
2014-07-15 01:46:00 PM  

IMDWalrus: Mikey1969: OK, I haven't really been following this one, but..

1. Are her emails gone off of the server? No large scale operation is only going to have email stored locally on the user's machine. Even Gmail has their shiat on the server, and you really just see a peek of it.
2. What is the average time for a a hard drive to sit before being recycled?
3. Did all of this happen AFTER the investigation started?
4. What are the standard gov't practices for these old drives?
5. Is there anything different about her hard drive than the average federal employee?

In response to 1...Um, yeah, actually. I work at a Fortune 500 company and we only have 200MB each for server email storage. Pretty sure that's standard for Outlook.


We have between 2GB and 5 GB here and had the same at the last place I worked. Hell, MY Inbox can hold up to 49.5 GB, although why anyone would need that much is beyond me. Of course, at the printing place I worked, people wanted to call in and use their art files from 3-4 years ago. The file servers also had 2 or 3 different backup schemes.
 
2014-07-15 01:47:15 PM  

Mikey1969: 4. What are the standard gov't practices for these old drives?


Lerner handed her computer over to the IRS's tech weenies.  They tried to recover the data and were not able to.  At that point, they threw it away, or sent it off for recycling, or did something else which isn't really relevant to the discussion since the data had already gone bye-bye.
 
2014-07-15 01:47:29 PM  

GoldSpider: DeaH: Since there was a policy of trashing mail after a certain period, it would be suspicious if only her email was missing.

Such a policy, if one was in fact in place, would almost certainly violate Sarbanes-Oxley, would it not?


I thought sarbox only applied to publicly traded corporations.

Plus, sarbox does not require email to be kept forever, I believe it is only seven years (I say that because I am to lazy to research it, but that is our tape retention policy for email and many other types of data.)
 
2014-07-15 01:51:32 PM  

Karac: Mikey1969: 1. Are her emails gone off of the server? No large scale operation is only going to have email stored locally on the user's machine. Even Gmail has their shiat on the server, and you really just see a peek of it.

I don't have direct knowledge of the IRS, but that's certainly how the USMC did it as late as 2009.  If you had an email address it (barring very high rank) had something like a 50 or 100 mb size limit.  You go over that limit and you can't send any more emails until you delete a few or move them to a pst saved somewhere other than the email servers.

You'd be amazed how quickly a "large scale operation" can eat up hard drive space once people start attacking pdfs and hitting "reply all".  And the powerpoint porn, dear God, the powerpoint porn.


Wow, that's ridiculously low, even for '09. Surprising, too. And yeah, I constantly had to tell users that they needed to clean their shiat up. What can really add up without people thinking about it is images in custom email signatures, if Joe Bob sends you 20 emails in a day, that little company logo adds up. Have 200 or so users receiving 100 or so emails a day, and those little files make a difference. This "scandal" is the very reason that you would want to keep the email server archived. I figured you'd be able to go into a storeroom and find stacks of backup drives, NAS units, etc...  I'm sure the policy will change after this.
 
2014-07-15 01:53:56 PM  

Mikey1969: Karac: Mikey1969: 1. Are her emails gone off of the server? No large scale operation is only going to have email stored locally on the user's machine. Even Gmail has their shiat on the server, and you really just see a peek of it.

I don't have direct knowledge of the IRS, but that's certainly how the USMC did it as late as 2009.  If you had an email address it (barring very high rank) had something like a 50 or 100 mb size limit.  You go over that limit and you can't send any more emails until you delete a few or move them to a pst saved somewhere other than the email servers.

You'd be amazed how quickly a "large scale operation" can eat up hard drive space once people start attacking pdfs and hitting "reply all".  And the powerpoint porn, dear God, the powerpoint porn.

Wow, that's ridiculously low, even for '09. Surprising, too. And yeah, I constantly had to tell users that they needed to clean their shiat up. What can really add up without people thinking about it is images in custom email signatures, if Joe Bob sends you 20 emails in a day, that little company logo adds up. Have 200 or so users receiving 100 or so emails a day, and those little files make a difference. This "scandal" is the very reason that you would want to keep the email server archived. I figured you'd be able to go into a storeroom and find stacks of backup drives, NAS units, etc...  I'm sure the policy will change after this.


I bet it wont.
 
2014-07-15 01:54:53 PM  

jst3p: I bet it wont.


Oh, it'll change alright. It won't be improved.
 
2014-07-15 01:55:02 PM  

Karac: Mikey1969: 4. What are the standard gov't practices for these old drives?

Lerner handed her computer over to the IRS's tech weenies.  They tried to recover the data and were not able to.  At that point, they threw it away, or sent it off for recycling, or did something else which isn't really relevant to the discussion since the data had already gone bye-bye.


Hard drives are fun to take to the gun range, they're an easy to spot target, they're easy to transport, and easy to clean up when you're done. Besides, it makes data recovery almost impossible, so if someone steals it out of the garbage, it isn't gonna do them much good.

Can you imagine if the IRS techies were able to do that,and it came out? It would elevate the "scandal" exponentially...
 
2014-07-15 01:55:05 PM  

Bloody William: They "went missing?" Or they weren't there to begin with and we only just found out they weren't there because of the constantly widening net to get communications that were poorly archived and stored under IRS guidelines?

Doesn't seem so much "coincidence" as "the same damn thing." Like the power going out in your house and marveling each time you walk into a room and it's dark.


But it's dark in HERE TOO!

SURELY these things must be connected!
 
2014-07-15 01:56:51 PM  

Mikey1969: Can you imagine if the IRS techies were able to do that,and it came out? It would elevate the "scandal" exponentially...


I don't know. Those techies have a GOD GIVEN RIGHT to shoot whatever they want with those guns, so they'd probably just become GOP heroes-of-the-moment.
 
2014-07-15 02:10:29 PM  
you lost another one????

images4.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2014-07-15 02:15:49 PM  
At first, the IRS used search terms to narrow down and provide the relevant Lerner emails to the inspector general and Congress - in 2013, the agency handed over more than 10,000 emails Lerner sent or received. But GOP committee chairs Darrell Issa and Dave Camp weren't satisfied, and wanted to see all of Lerner's emails since 2009. Early in 2014, the IRS finally agreed to supply them all, and set about collecting them - an expensive, time-consuming process. According to the agency, while doing so, it realized that many of Lerner's emails prior to April 2011 were missing, and sought to ascertain why.

Last week, the IRS told Congress of its findings - Lerner's computer crashed in mid-2011, and many of her emails appear to be gone. The agency did manage to reconstruct and supply some of them by pulling them from other employees' accounts - and 67,000 emails that Lerner wrote or received were handed over.


Vox article here

It's a boring story that ends predictably with Darrell Issa being a giant asshole.
 
2014-07-15 02:17:51 PM  

GoldSpider: DeaH: Since there was a policy of trashing mail after a certain period, it would be suspicious if only her email was missing.

Such a policy, if one was in fact in place, would almost certainly violate Sarbanes-Oxley, would it not?



I am not certain that Sarbanes-Oxley applies to government offices. Do we have an expert on this in the thread? My understanding is that it applies to corporations to protect investors.
 
2014-07-15 02:22:23 PM  

incendi: Mikey1969: Can you imagine if the IRS techies were able to do that,and it came out? It would elevate the "scandal" exponentially...

I don't know. Those techies have a GOD GIVEN RIGHT to shoot whatever they want with those guns, so they'd probably just become GOP heroes-of-the-moment.


That's a point I hadn't thought of... Interesting.
 
2014-07-15 02:30:31 PM  

Mikey1969: Karac: Mikey1969: 1. Are her emails gone off of the server? No large scale operation is only going to have email stored locally on the user's machine. Even Gmail has their shiat on the server, and you really just see a peek of it.

I don't have direct knowledge of the IRS, but that's certainly how the USMC did it as late as 2009.  If you had an email address it (barring very high rank) had something like a 50 or 100 mb size limit.  You go over that limit and you can't send any more emails until you delete a few or move them to a pst saved somewhere other than the email servers.

You'd be amazed how quickly a "large scale operation" can eat up hard drive space once people start attacking pdfs and hitting "reply all".  And the powerpoint porn, dear God, the powerpoint porn.

Wow, that's ridiculously low, even for '09. Surprising, too. And yeah, I constantly had to tell users that they needed to clean their shiat up. What can really add up without people thinking about it is images in custom email signatures, if Joe Bob sends you 20 emails in a day, that little company logo adds up. Have 200 or so users receiving 100 or so emails a day, and those little files make a difference. This "scandal" is the very reason that you would want to keep the email server archived. I figured you'd be able to go into a storeroom and find stacks of backup drives, NAS units, etc...  I'm sure the policy will change after this.


Nah, that would involve whoever's in charge of Congress to actually pay for new systems.
Good luck with that nowadays.
 
2014-07-15 02:31:46 PM  

GoldSpider: DeaH: Since there was a policy of trashing mail after a certain period, it would be suspicious if only her email was missing.

Such a policy, if one was in fact in place, would almost certainly violate Sarbanes-Oxley, would it not?


For publicly held companies, 7 years after the close of an investigation.

So, no, SOX would not be in play here.

/ not meant as consultative advice
// consult a SOX consultant
 
2014-07-15 02:47:00 PM  

jst3p: Mikey1969: Karac: Mikey1969: 1. Are her emails gone off of the server? No large scale operation is only going to have email stored locally on the user's machine. Even Gmail has their shiat on the server, and you really just see a peek of it.

I don't have direct knowledge of the IRS, but that's certainly how the USMC did it as late as 2009.  If you had an email address it (barring very high rank) had something like a 50 or 100 mb size limit.  You go over that limit and you can't send any more emails until you delete a few or move them to a pst saved somewhere other than the email servers.

You'd be amazed how quickly a "large scale operation" can eat up hard drive space once people start attacking pdfs and hitting "reply all".  And the powerpoint porn, dear God, the powerpoint porn.

Wow, that's ridiculously low, even for '09. Surprising, too. And yeah, I constantly had to tell users that they needed to clean their shiat up. What can really add up without people thinking about it is images in custom email signatures, if Joe Bob sends you 20 emails in a day, that little company logo adds up. Have 200 or so users receiving 100 or so emails a day, and those little files make a difference. This "scandal" is the very reason that you would want to keep the email server archived. I figured you'd be able to go into a storeroom and find stacks of backup drives, NAS units, etc...  I'm sure the policy will change after this.

I bet it wont.


I bet it already has: "At least one change has arrived at the IRS in the wake of the tax-exempt status controversy: The agency now stores its backup tapes for longer than six months."
 
2014-07-15 02:58:57 PM  

Mikey1969: 1. Are her emails gone off of the server? No large scale operation is only going to have email stored locally on the user's machine. Even Gmail has their shiat on the server, and you really just see a peek of it.


I am an employee of a state university with a written records retention policy where the email system's archiving defaulted to local computer storage of email archives (with the archive location housed directly off of the C: root). The configuration lasted until 2011, changing only with a complete switch of the email system to a new server.
 
2014-07-15 03:00:06 PM  

colon_pow: Dear every single Republican ever, When will U learn that Barack Hussein Obama is simply smarter than U? Stand down, Signed #Obama2012 #p2

obama's light-years ahead of us.
he's a slippery one.


Your comment is interesting, but I believe that I must give greater weight to individuals who, unlike yourself, have not demonstrated themselves to be unrepentant liars.
 
2014-07-15 03:10:59 PM  

Dimensio: Mikey1969: 1. Are her emails gone off of the server? No large scale operation is only going to have email stored locally on the user's machine. Even Gmail has their shiat on the server, and you really just see a peek of it.

I am an employee of a state university with a written records retention policy where the email system's archiving defaulted to local computer storage of email archives (with the archive location housed directly off of the C: root). The configuration lasted until 2011, changing only with a complete switch of the email system to a new server.


That is a completely ridiculous setup, and this would be a shining example of why. Not only that, but records retrieval for an ex-employee would be next to zero. Of course, people keep bringing up state or federal agencies, where common sense doesn't always win out.
 
2014-07-15 03:18:56 PM  

Karac: jst3p: Mikey1969: Karac: Mikey1969: 1. Are her emails gone off of the server? No large scale operation is only going to have email stored locally on the user's machine. Even Gmail has their shiat on the server, and you really just see a peek of it.

I don't have direct knowledge of the IRS, but that's certainly how the USMC did it as late as 2009.  If you had an email address it (barring very high rank) had something like a 50 or 100 mb size limit.  You go over that limit and you can't send any more emails until you delete a few or move them to a pst saved somewhere other than the email servers.

You'd be amazed how quickly a "large scale operation" can eat up hard drive space once people start attacking pdfs and hitting "reply all".  And the powerpoint porn, dear God, the powerpoint porn.

Wow, that's ridiculously low, even for '09. Surprising, too. And yeah, I constantly had to tell users that they needed to clean their shiat up. What can really add up without people thinking about it is images in custom email signatures, if Joe Bob sends you 20 emails in a day, that little company logo adds up. Have 200 or so users receiving 100 or so emails a day, and those little files make a difference. This "scandal" is the very reason that you would want to keep the email server archived. I figured you'd be able to go into a storeroom and find stacks of backup drives, NAS units, etc...  I'm sure the policy will change after this.

I bet it wont.

I bet it already has: "At least one change has arrived at the IRS in the wake of the tax-exempt status controversy: The agency now stores its backup tapes for longer than six months."


Funny it doesn't say how long they keep them now though.
 
2014-07-15 03:44:36 PM  

Dimensio: colon_pow: Dear every single Republican ever, When will U learn that Barack Hussein Obama is simply smarter than U? Stand down, Signed #Obama2012 #p2

obama's light-years ahead of us.
he's a slippery one.

Your comment is interesting, but I believe that I must give greater weight to individuals who, unlike yourself, have not demonstrated themselves to be unrepentant liars.


oh, i remember you.  you're the individual who writes as if they have a big stick up their butt.
 
2014-07-15 05:47:02 PM  
Actually, from the "article", it appears that they were asking for Sands' computer usage history to see if she was using her office computer to tweet or to send fundraising emails for Obama.

Nothing about missing emails.  It's about whether an old hard drive was retained and how long web traffic records are retained.  fark whoever submitted this and fark whoever greened it.
 
2014-07-16 02:59:34 PM  

Geotpf: 3. Nope; Lerner's hard drive crashed years before the investigation started.


June 3, 2011, House Ways and Means Committee Chair Dave Camp sent a letter to the IRS requesting various documents, including from Lerner's division.  About 10 days later, Lerner's hard drive crashed.
 
2014-07-16 03:13:04 PM  

WelldeadLink: June 3, 2011, House Ways and Means Committee Chair Dave Camp sent a letter to the IRS requesting various documents, including from Lerner's division.  About 10 days later, Lerner's hard drive crashed.


Link to that letter, which is totally cause for Lerner to freak out and start destroying evidence, then calmly and politely ask other people to help recover that evidence.
 
2014-07-16 08:05:37 PM  

incendi: WelldeadLink: June 3, 2011, House Ways and Means Committee Chair Dave Camp sent a letter to the IRS requesting various documents, including from Lerner's division.  About 10 days later, Lerner's hard drive crashed.

Link to that letter, which is totally cause for Lerner to freak out and start destroying evidence, then calmly and politely ask other people to help recover that evidence.


"The Committee has an obligation to conduct oversight of the IRS..." Yup, that totally is not an "investigation".
 
2014-07-16 08:38:13 PM  

WelldeadLink: The Committee has an obligation to conduct oversight of the IRS..." Yup, that totally is not an "investigation".


Sure, it's an investigation. But I don't see anything in that letter that would cause a sane person, even if they were doing the most criminal things she's been accused of, to deliberately destroy their hard drive and then go through extra forensic recovery efforts to recover that data, which would (if successful) then expose your criminal activities to at least the recovery technicians. Doesn't make sense to me. The "oh, shiat happens sometimes and she tried to recover her data but failed" explanation seems a lot more likely than the "she clearly deliberately destroyed her drive to conceal evidence, and had such confidence in her efforts that she was comfortable submitting that destroyed evidence to potential forensic recovery as a sham "earnest effort" in order to thwart a subpoena that might possibly happen someday after a future negative inspector general's report and persistent congressional inquiry" explanation.
 
2014-07-17 12:15:32 AM  

incendi: WelldeadLink: The Committee has an obligation to conduct oversight of the IRS..." Yup, that totally is not an "investigation".

Sure, it's an investigation. But I don't see anything in that letter that would cause a sane person, even if they were doing the most criminal things she's been accused of, to deliberately destroy their hard drive and then go through extra forensic recovery efforts to recover that data, which would (if successful) then expose your criminal activities to at least the recovery technicians. Doesn't make sense to me. The "oh, shiat happens sometimes and she tried to recover her data but failed" explanation seems a lot more likely than the "she clearly deliberately destroyed her drive to conceal evidence, and had such confidence in her efforts that she was comfortable submitting that destroyed evidence to potential forensic recovery as a sham "earnest effort" in order to thwart a subpoena that might possibly happen someday after a future negative inspector general's report and persistent congressional inquiry" explanation.


I think we need a forensic psychic for that paragraph.
 
Displayed 43 of 43 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report