IRS tech experts: Lerner’s hard drive only 'scratched,' not destroyed

[depotoo]

Once again, erroneous info. What can I say?

 

[Care4all]

Once again, erroneous info. What can I say?

how is it erroneous? I linked to the information....?

 

[Care4all]

here is a better link explaining the IRS policy on how to handle their emails back in 2011

IRS uses Microsoft Outlook for email, with hundreds of millions of messages stored on servers at three data centers, Leonard Oursler, IRS’ national director for legislative action, said in a letter to the Senate finance committee.
The email servers are backed up daily onto tapes that until May 2013 were stored for six months before rewritten with new data. When investigators last year started asking about the agency giving extra scrutiny to conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status, officials began holding the daily backup tapes indefinitely, at an estimated cost of $200,000 a year, the letter said.
The average IRS employee’s email storage is limited to 500 megabytes, or approximately 6,000 emails. Before 2011, typical IRS accounts only held 1,800 emails. Employees whose inboxes approached the limit were notified to prioritize their emails, either by deleting them or storing them to their own hard drives. No other digital copies were preserved.
The agency said last week Lerner’s hard drive crashed in 2011, resulting in the loss of her archived email

basically saying if they were on the Cloud this would not have happened
IRS Emails Wouldn?t Have Vanished in the Cloud - Nextgov.com

So the Investigating committees got all of her emails after june of 2011 and at least 1800 of her most recent emails at the time of her crash were recovered...Why haven't they been able to find this collusion or collaborations with the white house or with someone, anyone, that this was politically motivated? WHY?

Is the speculation that she moved them all to her archives on purpose and then fried her own hard drive? Testimony says there is no evidence of her doing such...so why is this presumed...? and why wouldn't she just delete these supposed incriminating emails and then fry her hard drive...why would she archive them at all?

Seriously guys, have you even thought this conspiracy theory through?

Why would she archive these emails if she thought something incriminating was on them? Why?

10 to 1, there is nothing on those emails

1- because as she said, she has done nothing wrong
2- because if she did have something to hide, she certainly would not save and ARCHIVE this incriminating evidence to her hard drive

 

[Quantum Windbag]

here is a better link explaining the IRS policy on how to handle their emails back in 2011

IRS uses Microsoft Outlook for email, with hundreds of millions of messages stored on servers at three data centers, Leonard Oursler, IRS’ national director for legislative action, said in a letter to the Senate finance committee.
The email servers are backed up daily onto tapes that until May 2013 were stored for six months before rewritten with new data. When investigators last year started asking about the agency giving extra scrutiny to conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status, officials began holding the daily backup tapes indefinitely, at an estimated cost of $200,000 a year, the letter said.
The average IRS employee’s email storage is limited to 500 megabytes, or approximately 6,000 emails. Before 2011, typical IRS accounts only held 1,800 emails. Employees whose inboxes approached the limit were notified to prioritize their emails, either by deleting them or storing them to their own hard drives. No other digital copies were preserved.
The agency said last week Lerner’s hard drive crashed in 2011, resulting in the loss of her archived email

basically saying if they were on the Cloud this would not have happened
IRS Emails Wouldn?t Have Vanished in the Cloud - Nextgov.com

So the Investigating committees got all of her emails after june of 2011 and at least 1800 of her most recent emails at the time of her crash were recovered...Why haven't they been able to find this collusion or collaborations with the white house or with someone, anyone, that this was politically motivated? WHY?

Is the speculation that she moved them all to her archives on purpose and then fried her own hard drive? Testimony says there is no evidence of her doing such...so why is this presumed...? and why wouldn't she just delete these supposed incriminating emails and then fry her hard drive...why would she archive them at all?

Seriously guys, have you even thought this conspiracy theory through?

Why would she archive these emails if she thought something incriminating was on them? Why?

10 to 1, there is nothing on those emails

1- because as she said, she has done nothing wrong
2- because if she did have something to hide, she certainly would not save this incriminating evidence to her hard drive

I already posted a direct link to the IRS policy on emails, all your link does is explain why the IRS is scrambling for excuses for not following federal law.

 

[Care4all]

And so much more is going on behind the scenes that may be driving this republican investigator witch hunt....

Hatch, who is on the Senate Investigating committee for this....has an interest at stake

http://www.propublica.org/article/dark-money-group-sues-irs-over-targeting-disclosure

A conservative nonprofit sued the Internal Revenue Service Monday because the agency targeted it for extra scrutiny and disclosed the group's application for tax-exempt status to ProPublica.
The group, Freedom Path, was launched by backers of Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch and ran ads supporting Hatch and other Republicans in 2012.

Freedom Path is one of dozens of social welfare nonprofits, also known as "dark money" groups, that have dumped hundreds of millions of dollars from anonymous sources into direct election ads and indirect ads that criticize or praise certain candidates since the Supreme Court's Citizen United ruling in 2010.
The groups are allowed to spend money on election activity, as long as they promise that social welfare, and not politics, is their primary purpose. The nonprofits don't have to report their donors, raising concerns about possible corruption.

In its lawsuit, filed against the IRS and agency officials, Freedom Path also said it was damaged by the IRS releasing its pending application to ProPublica.
In November 2012, the IRS sent ProPublica nine pending applications of conservative groups, in response to a ProPublica request for applications of 67 different nonprofits. Applications are supposed to be confidential until the IRS recognizes a group. Despite a Treasury Department and congressional investigations, no one has publicly determined why the pending applications were mailed.
As part of the damages claimed by Freedom Path, the group said it "suffered actual damages in the form of legal fees associated with its communications with Defendant IRS and ProPublica, as well as public relations costs associated with the news articles resulting from the disclosure."
After redacting financial information, ProPublica published Freedom Path's pending application, along with those of five other groups that understated their planned political activities.
In its application to the IRS, Freedom Path checked "no" to the IRS question asking whether it planned to spend money to influence elections. It said it planned to spend 90 percent of its effort on doing "public education and outreach programs intended to inform the general public about current issues that may impact them, and to promote certain nonpartisan causes." Freedom Path also said it would spend 10 percent of its effort on giving out grants.
In its lawsuit, Freedom Path downplays what it initially said in its application, saying that allegations it misstated its activities on tax documents "are unfounded."
The IRS still hasn't recognized Freedom Path as a tax-exempt nonprofit, the lawsuit says.
An IRS spokesman told ProPublica that the IRS does not comment on pending litigation and federal law prohibits the IRS from discussing any particular taxpayer situation or case.
Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer, an expert in nonprofit tax law at the University of Notre Dame law school, said that Freedom Path's biggest chance to prevail in its lawsuit was for its claim about the disclosure of its pending application.

Since the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, many new groups have exploited gaps between the IRS and the Federal Election Commission, which requires political committees to report their donors. ProPublica has documented extensively how some of these groups have managed to skirt the rules.
Freedom Path is a case in point, showing how the groups can tell the IRS one thing, then do another, and how closely some of the groups are associated with political operatives or certain causes. Freedom Path also illustrates why knowing who is behind a dark money group might be important to voters — before the election.
Lawyer Chris Gober, who's helped launch several conservative social welfare nonprofits, formed Freedom Path in January 2011. Gober, Mark Emerson and J. Scott Bensing were on the group's board of directors. Emerson, a longtime Republican operative, once worked to elect Hatch as the leader of the Utah Republican Party. Bensing is a Republican consultant who once worked with Hatch on the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
Although Freedom Path's donors are confidential, other records released after the 2012 election give clues of who was behind the group. Tax returns from the pharmaceutical industry's leading trade association, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, show that it gave $1 million in 2011 and 2012 to Freedom Path.
Freedom Path received a total of almost $1.58 million those two years, tax returns show. That means that about 63 percent of the group's revenue during that time came from PhRMA.
Hatch has been a longtime supporter of PhRMA. PhRMA has been a longtime supporter of Hatch.
The fact that PhRMA was Freedom Path's biggest supporter was not disclosed until PhRMA listed the donations in its tax filings — the first was released months after Hatch won a primary in which Freedom Path ran $300,000 worth of ads directly supporting the senator. Initially, a more conservative candidate was thought to have a chance at winning the party's slot.
Freedom Path also spent another $160,000 on an indirect TV ad praising Hatch, Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney that was reported to the FEC. In its lawsuit, Freedom Path said the IRS deemed the ad to be political, but argues that the ad wasn't.

SO, if I were Lerner's lawyer and she was on trial....I would definitely brng this up... it shows reason or at least adds some doubt as to what the motives are of the GOP / Rebublican investigator's witch hunt...

and then there is that email on Grassley... learner gets an invitation meant for Grassley to a fund raising party put on by a 501c group, offering to pay for his wife's stay etc, if he would go yadahdah, that Learner turned in to a superior on the law because it is illegal for 501c's to directly support a candidate... grassly never went so no laws broken at all on his end, but the 501c had the INTENT of breaking the rules and law on this...

the republicans are STEAMING about this...saying it proves she was attacking republicans..... she had every right to question the 501c that was breaking the rules.... it was her job....

This is about dark money, it's about who is behind the curtain, and better rules need to be writen by the IRS clarifying a standard for the 501c's so we know who the wizzard of oz is backing politically

dark money in politics should be illegal

 

[Care4all]

here is a better link explaining the IRS policy on how to handle their emails back in 2011

IRS uses Microsoft Outlook for email, with hundreds of millions of messages stored on servers at three data centers, Leonard Oursler, IRS’ national director for legislative action, said in a letter to the Senate finance committee.
The email servers are backed up daily onto tapes that until May 2013 were stored for six months before rewritten with new data. When investigators last year started asking about the agency giving extra scrutiny to conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status, officials began holding the daily backup tapes indefinitely, at an estimated cost of $200,000 a year, the letter said.
The average IRS employee’s email storage is limited to 500 megabytes, or approximately 6,000 emails. Before 2011, typical IRS accounts only held 1,800 emails. Employees whose inboxes approached the limit were notified to prioritize their emails, either by deleting them or storing them to their own hard drives. No other digital copies were preserved.
The agency said last week Lerner’s hard drive crashed in 2011, resulting in the loss of her archived email

basically saying if they were on the Cloud this would not have happened
IRS Emails Wouldn?t Have Vanished in the Cloud - Nextgov.com

So the Investigating committees got all of her emails after june of 2011 and at least 1800 of her most recent emails at the time of her crash were recovered...Why haven't they been able to find this collusion or collaborations with the white house or with someone, anyone, that this was politically motivated? WHY?

Is the speculation that she moved them all to her archives on purpose and then fried her own hard drive? Testimony says there is no evidence of her doing such...so why is this presumed...? and why wouldn't she just delete these supposed incriminating emails and then fry her hard drive...why would she archive them at all?

Seriously guys, have you even thought this conspiracy theory through?

Why would she archive these emails if she thought something incriminating was on them? Why?

10 to 1, there is nothing on those emails

1- because as she said, she has done nothing wrong
2- because if she did have something to hide, she certainly would not save this incriminating evidence to her hard drive

I already posted a direct link to the IRS policy on emails, all your link does is explain why the IRS is scrambling for excuses for not following federal law.

ohhhh, but that is not a relevant point at all to this conspiracy....

if no one in the entire IRS followed that policy and made paper copies because they were directed NOT TO due to not having space on their 3 email servers, then how is Lerner to be blamed for this?

what makes what she did, archiving them on her own laptop, suspicious of wrong doing or criminality involved in this scrutiny of groups that this investigation is about? when all of the thousands of IRS employees did the SAME thing and followed the same IRS Policy?


Sure...the head of the IRS that made that financial decision on not to buy larger servers might be to blame,

but it has nothing to do with this investigation on lerner...and erases the suspicion that she and she alone did not print her emails because she wanted to hide them, which has been the republican contention.

so you can quote that rule all day long...shoot, even i have quoted and linked it earlier in this investigation, but NOW WE KNOW it is MEANINGLESS to this investigation...

 

[JoeB131]

Internal Revenue Manual - 1.10.3 Standards for Using Email

You just lost the argument.

No, he didnt.
What you did was throw actual factual information at him. Joe doesn't do facts. They are irrelevant to him. He has a narrative and if he throws his narrative up against you enough times then you'll tire of it and he'll win. That's how Joe works. Because he's a piece of shit worthless goldbricking low information low intelligence motherfucker.

Well, I wasn't going to waste time on Quantum Crazybag's link, but just for fun, I found this.

The Secure Enterprise Messaging system (SEMS) establishes a standard size of 500 MB (500 megabytes) for individual mailboxes. The system mails you daily warning messages that the limit is being approached when your mailbox reaches a size of 475 MB. When it exceeds the 500 MB limit, you will receive the following warning each time you attempt to send a message:

"You have exceeded your storage limit on your mailbox " .

Delete some mail from your mailbox or contact your system administrator to adjust your storage limit. (Consider whether any of the items you want to delete may be a federal record. IRM 1.10.3.3.2 above.)

It is not the practice of the SEMS staff to adjust any individual mailbox storage limits, but rather to provide guidance on reducing the size of the contents. The Outlook Help menu provides instructions for enabling and configuring both Auto-archiving and Rules to manage mail and mailbox folders to maintain proper storage limits.

Wow. That encourages people to DELETE e-mails that are no longer needed.

 

[JoeB131]

Internal Revenue Manual - 1.10.3 Standards for Using Email

You just lost the argument.

No, he didnt.
What you did was throw actual factual information at him. Joe doesn't do facts. They are irrelevant to him. He has a narrative and if he throws his narrative up against you enough times then you'll tire of it and he'll win. That's how Joe works. Because he's a piece of shit worthless goldbricking low information low intelligence motherfucker.

Aww give poor Joe a Break -yes he's low on information and high on parrotted rhetoric, but he's not really as dumb as he leads people to beleive -every now and again he betrays a slight glimmer of intelligence -

Um, check out the section I cited above. It tells IRS employees to delete emails and delete them frequently.

And there's nothing in that mess about printing out hard copies. In fact, the whole thing reads like 'cover your ass' instructions that probably no one actually follows.

 

[Freewill]

here is a better link explaining the IRS policy on how to handle their emails back in 2011

basically saying if they were on the Cloud this would not have happened
IRS Emails Wouldn?t Have Vanished in the Cloud - Nextgov.com

So the Investigating committees got all of her emails after june of 2011 and at least 1800 of her most recent emails at the time of her crash were recovered...Why haven't they been able to find this collusion or collaborations with the white house or with someone, anyone, that this was politically motivated? WHY?

Is the speculation that she moved them all to her archives on purpose and then fried her own hard drive? Testimony says there is no evidence of her doing such...so why is this presumed...? and why wouldn't she just delete these supposed incriminating emails and then fry her hard drive...why would she archive them at all?

Seriously guys, have you even thought this conspiracy theory through?

Why would she archive these emails if she thought something incriminating was on them? Why?

10 to 1, there is nothing on those emails

1- because as she said, she has done nothing wrong
2- because if she did have something to hide, she certainly would not save this incriminating evidence to her hard drive

I already posted a direct link to the IRS policy on emails, all your link does is explain why the IRS is scrambling for excuses for not following federal law.

ohhhh, but that is not a relevant point at all to this conspiracy....

if no one in the entire IRS followed that policy and made paper copies because they were directed NOT TO due to not having space on their 3 email servers, then how is Lerner to be blamed for this?

what makes what she did, archiving them on her own laptop, suspicious of wrong doing or criminality involved in this scrutiny of groups that this investigation is about? when all of the thousands of IRS employees did the SAME thing and followed the same IRS Policy?


Sure...the head of the IRS that made that financial decision on not to buy larger servers might be to blame,

but it has nothing to do with this investigation on lerner...and erases the suspicion that she and she alone did not print her emails because she wanted to hide them, which has been the republican contention.

so you can quote that rule all day long...shoot, even i have quoted and linked it earlier in this investigation, but NOW WE KNOW it is MEANINGLESS to this investigation...

We will never know what Learner was doing, she is invoking the 5th, why?

 

[JoeB131]

[

I already posted a direct link to the IRS policy on emails, all your link does is explain why the IRS is scrambling for excuses for not following federal law.

Except the policy is contradictory. It says to preserve certain e-mails, but to delete others because they eat up too much space in your computer.

This is typical "Cover your ass" boilerplate. No matter what the individual operator does, IT can say they covered their asses.

Now here's something you guys don't think much about I suspect. What if Lerner- who was again, appointed by Bush, not Obama - decided to go after the Tea Party because she legitimately thinks they are a poison that is destroying the Republican Brand?

 

[Sallow]

1:36? I have had many computers and have never had a hard drive fail. Where does the IRS buy their computers, Toys are US?

You had lots and lots of them, eh?

I have worked in IT for close to 20 years.

Hard drives fail all the time.

That is why backups are done and regularly.

A better question is when was the last time these machines were replaced?

How old is the technology?

Is IRS IT properly financed?

If you want gold star service?

You have to pay for it.

I worked for a Government agency that wasn't half as well financed as the IRS for many years- our systems were replaced every 2 -3 years . I have a friend who works for a regional iRS Office - their desk tops are replaced annually , the hard drives wiped cleam and auctioned off - I have two of them at my shop - that are about 5 years old and they work just fine with minimal maintainence.

As for the IRS in DC - I find it hard to believe that a regional office would have such grandiose maintainence and the head office has squat - just not believable ---- the odds are 1 in 78 Billion - that's 78 followed by Nine Zeroes - did you play the Lotto today - your odds of hitting are much better.

You worked for a government agency that replaced it's PCs regularly?



I find that extremely hard to believe.

 

[JoeB131]

We will never know what Learner was doing, she is invoking the 5th, why?

Maybe because after working in Washington, she knows that it's frequently the person who didn't cover her ass who ends up with a conviction for something tangentel.


Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you, Scooter Libby. He wasn't the guy who leaked Valerie Plame's name to Robert Novak. Nope, that Was Richard Armitage. Armitage, who was against the war leaked her name to Novak who was also against the war, to explain why her husband was given the assignment to go to Niger to ask them nicely if they sold any uranium to Iraq.

Well, that wasn't actually a crime, but Scooter made the mistake of testifying, and his testimony differed from some of the reporters he talked to. Could be he just remembered conversations differently. Instead he got charged with perjury, convicted, and while Bush DID commute his sentence, he didn't get a pardon and lost his law license.

I also give you Cap Weinberger, former Secretary of Defense. Now old Cap testified in front of Congress about his part of Iran-Contra. He said that he thought it was a really, really stupid idea to sell weapons to Iran. George Bush and William Casey overruled him and Ronald Reagan sided with them. Then Congress asked him if he had kept a diary of his time. He replied he had not.

Well, lo and behold, when Lawrence Walsh couldn't sustain convictions against North and Poindexter (Because those guys got immunity before they talked) he went after Cap on "Perjury" charges because Cap's meeting notes were a diary in the deranged mind of Larry Walsh. And when a judge threw that shit out, he charged him again.

So, no, there's no good reason for Lerner to testify without immunity.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I already posted a direct link to the IRS policy on emails, all your link does is explain why the IRS is scrambling for excuses for not following federal law.

ohhhh, but that is not a relevant point at all to this conspiracy....

if no one in the entire IRS followed that policy and made paper copies because they were directed NOT TO due to not having space on their 3 email servers, then how is Lerner to be blamed for this?

what makes what she did, archiving them on her own laptop, suspicious of wrong doing or criminality involved in this scrutiny of groups that this investigation is about? when all of the thousands of IRS employees did the SAME thing and followed the same IRS Policy?


Sure...the head of the IRS that made that financial decision on not to buy larger servers might be to blame,

but it has nothing to do with this investigation on lerner...and erases the suspicion that she and she alone did not print her emails because she wanted to hide them, which has been the republican contention.

so you can quote that rule all day long...shoot, even i have quoted and linked it earlier in this investigation, but NOW WE KNOW it is MEANINGLESS to this investigation...

We will never know what Learner was doing, she is invoking the 5th, why?

Because the burden rests solely with the state to prove guilt, not the citizen to prove innocence. Lerner and all citizens are innocent until proved guilty in a court of law. The 5th Amendment prevents the government from pursuing criminal prosecution based only on the statements of citizens, absent objective, documented evidence.

One does not invoke the 5th Amendment to avoid criminal prosecution or punishment, it does not mean one is 'guilty,' or 'hiding something,' but is meant to compel the state to meet the standard necessary to potentially take from a citizen his liberty.

And the 5th Amendment is indeed significant in this situation, as the intent of the Amendment was to prevent the government from punishing political opponents for purely partisan reasons, which is clearly true in this case – where the republican agenda has nothing to so with the truth or facts.

 

[GreenBean]

You had lots and lots of them, eh?

I have worked in IT for close to 20 years.

Hard drives fail all the time.

That is why backups are done and regularly.

A better question is when was the last time these machines were replaced?

How old is the technology?

Is IRS IT properly financed?

If you want gold star service?

You have to pay for it.

I worked for a Government agency that wasn't half as well financed as the IRS for many years- our systems were replaced every 2 -3 years . I have a friend who works for a regional iRS Office - their desk tops are replaced annually , the hard drives wiped cleam and auctioned off - I have two of them at my shop - that are about 5 years old and they work just fine with minimal maintainence.

As for the IRS in DC - I find it hard to believe that a regional office would have such grandiose maintainence and the head office has squat - just not believable ---- the odds are 1 in 78 Billion - that's 78 followed by Nine Zeroes - did you play the Lotto today - your odds of hitting are much better.

You worked for a government agency that replaced it's PCs regularly?



I find that extremely hard to believe.

Yes a State Agency. And replacing equipment on a regular basis was allways done - not so much out of concern by the bearucratic rulers for the peasantry -but I always surmised out of concern for supporting their "Good Old Boy" network.

We also received one new overhead project annually - it's a device nobody ever uses - it is wholly obsolete - yet every year - every office got one that was never taken out of the box because some fat cat somewhere had a contract to supply them.

Federal Agencies are no different. The peons and peasants may starve - but the old boy network must be supported.

 

[GreenBean]

ohhhh, but that is not a relevant point at all to this conspiracy....

if no one in the entire IRS followed that policy and made paper copies because they were directed NOT TO due to not having space on their 3 email servers, then how is Lerner to be blamed for this?

what makes what she did, archiving them on her own laptop, suspicious of wrong doing or criminality involved in this scrutiny of groups that this investigation is about? when all of the thousands of IRS employees did the SAME thing and followed the same IRS Policy?


Sure...the head of the IRS that made that financial decision on not to buy larger servers might be to blame,

but it has nothing to do with this investigation on lerner...and erases the suspicion that she and she alone did not print her emails because she wanted to hide them, which has been the republican contention.

so you can quote that rule all day long...shoot, even i have quoted and linked it earlier in this investigation, but NOW WE KNOW it is MEANINGLESS to this investigation...

We will never know what Learner was doing, she is invoking the 5th, why?

Because the burden rests solely with the state to prove guilt, not the citizen to prove innocence. Lerner and all citizens are innocent until proved guilty in a court of law. The 5th Amendment prevents the government from pursuing criminal prosecution based only on the statements of citizens, absent objective, documented evidence.

One does not invoke the 5th Amendment to avoid criminal prosecution or punishment, it does not mean one is 'guilty,' or 'hiding something,' but is meant to compel the state to meet the standard necessary to potentially take from a citizen his liberty.

And the 5th Amendment is indeed significant in this situation, as the intent of the Amendment was to prevent the government from punishing political opponents for purely partisan reasons, which is clearly true in this case – where the republican agenda has nothing to so with the truth or facts.

Clayton -STFU - nobody reads your biased opinionated unqualified "legal briefs" so do yourself a favor and stop taking up space on everybodies computer screens - thanks Pal

 

[Freewill]

ohhhh, but that is not a relevant point at all to this conspiracy....

if no one in the entire IRS followed that policy and made paper copies because they were directed NOT TO due to not having space on their 3 email servers, then how is Lerner to be blamed for this?

what makes what she did, archiving them on her own laptop, suspicious of wrong doing or criminality involved in this scrutiny of groups that this investigation is about? when all of the thousands of IRS employees did the SAME thing and followed the same IRS Policy?


Sure...the head of the IRS that made that financial decision on not to buy larger servers might be to blame,

but it has nothing to do with this investigation on lerner...and erases the suspicion that she and she alone did not print her emails because she wanted to hide them, which has been the republican contention.

so you can quote that rule all day long...shoot, even i have quoted and linked it earlier in this investigation, but NOW WE KNOW it is MEANINGLESS to this investigation...

We will never know what Learner was doing, she is invoking the 5th, why?

Because the burden rests solely with the state to prove guilt, not the citizen to prove innocence. Lerner and all citizens are innocent until proved guilty in a court of law. The 5th Amendment prevents the government from pursuing criminal prosecution based only on the statements of citizens, absent objective, documented evidence.

Exactly right, she knows she is guilty and the 5th say she does not have to provide evidence against herself, it does not allow her not to give evidence against someone else. So I am guess immunity is the only answer.

One does not invoke the 5th Amendment to avoid criminal prosecution or punishment, it does not mean one is 'guilty,' or 'hiding something,' but is meant to compel the state to meet the standard necessary to potentially take from a citizen his liberty.

Here is the fifth amendment: The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Now granted it has been extended to mean any hearing or such that might lead to criminal charges to be filed, as has been pointed out in other threads. That is why those in organized crime pleaded the 5th.

Let me point out something very off topic, but the 5th, does not mean those who are Americans are to be afforded due process before their are killed? If not an immediate threat?

And the 5th Amendment is indeed significant in this situation, as the intent of the Amendment was to prevent the government from punishing political opponents for purely partisan reasons, which is clearly true in this case – where the republican agenda has nothing to so with the truth or facts.

The actually intent was to stop the government from using torture and such to obtain confessions. Actually it was meant to keep the government from asking, did you kill this person and forcing the person to answer yes or no. Or using truth serum on a person. In opinion that the 5th in this case is being used for political reasons or to cover a crime. The facts are pretty clear. The fact is that the IRS has been used to attack political opponents for years. It is certainly way past time to stop that practice.

 

[JoeB131]

[

The actually intent was to stop the government from using torture and such to obtain confessions. Actually it was meant to keep the government from asking, did you kill this person and forcing the person to answer yes or no. Or using truth serum on a person. In opinion that the 5th in this case is being used for political reasons or to cover a crime. The facts are pretty clear. The fact is that the IRS has been used to attack political opponents for years. It is certainly way past time to stop that practice.

If there's a crime you should be able to prove it without her testimony.

Because what is clear to me is that the poor woman just tried to do her job when a bunch of groups were defrauding the system.

 

[The Rabbi]

[

The actually intent was to stop the government from using torture and such to obtain confessions. Actually it was meant to keep the government from asking, did you kill this person and forcing the person to answer yes or no. Or using truth serum on a person. In opinion that the 5th in this case is being used for political reasons or to cover a crime. The facts are pretty clear. The fact is that the IRS has been used to attack political opponents for years. It is certainly way past time to stop that practice.

If there's a crime you should be able to prove it without her testimony.

Because what is clear to me is that the poor woman just tried to do her job when a bunch of groups were defrauding the system.

See, there's Joe spewing his crap narrative again. No matter how many times it's been shown to be wrong he continues to spew it. Because facts dont matter to Joe. Only the narrative.

 

[JoeB131]

[

The actually intent was to stop the government from using torture and such to obtain confessions. Actually it was meant to keep the government from asking, did you kill this person and forcing the person to answer yes or no. Or using truth serum on a person. In opinion that the 5th in this case is being used for political reasons or to cover a crime. The facts are pretty clear. The fact is that the IRS has been used to attack political opponents for years. It is certainly way past time to stop that practice.

If there's a crime you should be able to prove it without her testimony.

Because what is clear to me is that the poor woman just tried to do her job when a bunch of groups were defrauding the system.

See, there's Joe spewing his crap narrative again. No matter how many times it's been shown to be wrong he continues to spew it. Because facts dont matter to Joe. Only the narrative.

and here's the thing. If Lerner ever finds herself in front of a jury, especially a DC Jury, you are going to find a lot of people who see it that way.

So there's really no point to this, other than to grandstand, is there?

 

[The Rabbi]

If there's a crime you should be able to prove it without her testimony.

Because what is clear to me is that the poor woman just tried to do her job when a bunch of groups were defrauding the system.

See, there's Joe spewing his crap narrative again. No matter how many times it's been shown to be wrong he continues to spew it. Because facts dont matter to Joe. Only the narrative.

and here's the thing. If Lerner ever finds herself in front of a jury, especially a DC Jury, you are going to find a lot of people who see it that way.

So there's really no point to this, other than to grandstand, is there?

Yeah, I'm stupid and believe this and a lot of other people are stupid and they'l probably believe it too.

Sure, go with that one Joe.