BREAKING: E-mails Show Lois Lerner Intentionally Sought to Hide Information from Cong

[G.T.]

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. If transmission and receipt data are not printed by the email system, annotate the paper copy. More information on IRS records management requirements is available at http://erc.web.irs.gov/Displayanswers/Question.asp?FolderID=4&CategoryID=5 or see the Records Management Handbook, IRM 1.15.1 http://publish.no.irs.gov/IRM/P01/PDF/31421A03.PDF).



All?


N'AW.

 

[depotoo]

And to answer one of your questions...

The head of the national Archives and Records Administration, at one of the hearings, informed the committee that anytime records are lost...INCLUDING EMAILS.....his administration is to be informed so a process can be undertaken to find/preserve them.

When asked if the IRS did this with Lerners emails....he said "No."

That, too, adds to the suspicion.

Were crimes committed?

We don't know. We cant get access to the information to prove guilt OR innocence.

Is there suspicion that such evidence was intentionally destroyed?

Yes. Every single protocol/law that was to be followed to ensure they are NOT lost was not followed.

You don't find that suspicious?

Why doesn't the President? The AG? The Ranking Member Cummings? You?

Actually , according to NARA they did break the law.

That is what I was saying...

He said "no" to the question of "Did the IRS report the crashed hard drive and missing data when it first happened in accordance with the law"

I was referring your question of were crimes committed. No matter what else happened, her dept. did not notify nara nor preserve the hard drive, nor print out those records, and that indeed, broke the law, a crime.

 

[Jarhead]

Daft, as always.

I understand.

Just didn't think you wanted to be that way on this topic.

Nice diversion from making an ass of yourself.

I didn't make an ass of myself, those ignorant on the subject did.

*The law doesn't require ALL emails be printed and imaged, only those which fall under the definition of "Federal Record" which the IRS as precedent (I know, that doesn't matter to you) has only always followed loosely.

The B part of the equation is that she did print and image many emails.


So, go **** yourself and stop whining for your 1, 566th time that "the president" said there's no corruption. It's a lil' whine fest, the guy was standing by his agency and most can understand but Anything to whine about the prezzz. Anything. Even if it's your millionth time whining of the same ******* comment. Sanctimony is so phony it jumps off the screen.

Sorry to press your button. Hope you didnt break any keys on your keyboard.

And you call me a whiner. Funny.

Soooo....anyways.....

do yourself a favor and read the law again and determine WHAT falls under the guise of Federal records.

And then DONT get back to me.

You are as worthless to me as your "trainer" job is to most people.

Including yourself.

 

[Care4all]

Lets see...

Hard drive crashes and no effort to ensure the back up tape is preserved. I mean, the day it crashed, they could have gone to the back up tape and implant it on her new hard drive. Why would they not? Was she not involved in any IRS "business" at the time the hard drive crashed?

What makes you believe there was a back up drive? Do you have a link that says the Irs backs up their emails on to a server or back up drive? Or is this just speculation? (I agree, you would think they do have a back up to emails, but their irs code wouldn't be saying they should make a print copy of their own emails involved in cases if they did back them up on a server, would it?)

I mean, my hard drive crashes and I immediately go to my most recent back up and implant it on my new hard drive. After all, I would have gone out of business if I did not have access to the stuff I was doing the day before. The week before. The month before.

Learner IS ON RECORD of going to the IRS'S tech team to recover her information on her computer...there is documentation of such jarhead, so why are you implying that she didn't? The Computer. Tech team told her that her information was unrecoverable, they even sent her computer off to some "forensic" type team to see if they could recover it for her....

Now don't you think that these Irs Technical team workers would know if there was a back up to her computer's information and try to recover it that way, IF IT WERE RECOVERABLE?


No paper copies made despite the law saying otherwise.

why would they need to make paper copies (which is utterly ridiculous in this day and age and "the computer" in the workplace was suppose to rid business of redundant paper), but why would they need to make paper back ups, IF AS YOU SAY, they had a back up? (and then intentionally erased the back up, in order for your speculation to work)

NARA was not informed immediately of lost data as per regulation to ensure all can be done to retrieve the information.

who is NARA? was it Learner that was suppose to notify them or was it the Team of Irs Technical workers that she handed her computer over to after it blew up, that were trying to recover her information for her?

That is not enough suspicion to warrant the AG getting involved?

What you posted isn't enough to cause suspicion, if you tell the whole story...which I filled in some of it for you....

and what about all of my questions, was it just these 7 harddrives that blew up at the irs and only these hard drives? Or was this common with irs computers?

Did these 7 do anything out of the ordinary by not printing their own emails, or was this what the entirety of Irs employees did as well....?

How YOU and others can just presume so much about guilt when you've got nothing that proves or shows guilt.....without taking it out of context? Where's the "context" jarhead, in your accusations and speculations?

Congresscritters have gotten 70,000 pieces of email and documents subpena from the IRS.... if these emails were not important for the congress critters to have and they ONLY WANTED the emails of these 7 people, WHY IN THE HECK did they send the IRS on this wild goose chase on my tax dollar dime, to get these 70,000 other emails????? Why, oh why oh why? It's a circus show....an unprofessional, 3 ring circus of failed performers....how you can't see this...I don't know?

Maybe if these clowns had been a little more professional and not grand standing every chance they could, with throwing out speculation after speculation after speculation to their beloved right wing media every breath they took, and actually did their job, and called learner to the stand with immunity, we could ACTUALLY GET TO the bottom of this....but obviously, this does not serve the purpose of the congress critter CLOWNS.... you betcha it pisses me off...

Something's fishy here, and it ain't just Learner....Jarhead.

 

[G.T.]

I understand.

Just didn't think you wanted to be that way on this topic.

Nice diversion from making an ass of yourself.

I didn't make an ass of myself, those ignorant on the subject did.

*The law doesn't require ALL emails be printed and imaged, only those which fall under the definition of "Federal Record" which the IRS as precedent (I know, that doesn't matter to you) has only always followed loosely.

The B part of the equation is that she did print and image many emails.


So, go **** yourself and stop whining for your 1, 566th time that "the president" said there's no corruption. It's a lil' whine fest, the guy was standing by his agency and most can understand but Anything to whine about the prezzz. Anything. Even if it's your millionth time whining of the same ******* comment. Sanctimony is so phony it jumps off the screen.

Sorry to press your button. Hope you didnt break any keys on your keyboard.

And you call me a whiner. Funny.

Soooo....anyways.....

do yourself a favor and read the law again and determine WHAT falls under the guise of Federal records.

And then DONT get back to me.

You are as worthless to me as your "trainer" job is to most people.

Including yourself.

My trainer job?

 

[Jarhead]

Law 1.....all emails are to be printed and saved on paper
.

By the way, here is where you erred only to act like it was someone else.

As always, egg meet face.

Excuse me...but when I say all emails...I don't mean her email to her daddy asking if he made her lunch you moron.

But you knew that....so now you are trying to find something to slowly back out of it.

You should spend more time looking for a job you free loader.

 

[G.T.]

I'd love to know what this fool thinks I do for a living. It'd be delicious.

 

[Siete]

Daft, as always.

I understand.

Just didn't think you wanted to be that way on this topic.

Nice diversion from making an ass of yourself.

I didn't make an ass of myself, those ignorant on the subject did.

*The law doesn't require ALL emails be printed and imaged, only those which fall under the definition of "Federal Record" which the IRS as precedent (I know, that doesn't matter to you) has only always followed loosely.

The B part of the equation is that she did print and image many emails.


So, go **** yourself and stop whining for your 1, 566th time that "the president" said there's no corruption. It's a lil' whine fest, the guy was standing by his agency and most can understand but Anything to whine about the prezzz. Anything. Even if it's your millionth time whining of the same ******* comment. Sanctimony is so phony it jumps off the screen.

I can't find a law Requiring emails be backed up with paper ... in fact, a law requiring paper reduction was passed in 1996... maybe someone who is retired with plenty of time on their hands can find that law somewhere in this ...

Federal Laws, Policy & Regulations


OR they can accept the word of The Daily Caller .

 

[Oldstyle]

During this period of the 7 hard drive crashes, how many hard drive crashes took place at IRS?

IF it was only 2 others that crashed, then it is very suspicious that the 7 all crashed....

but if 70 hard drives crashed during the same period at the irs, it becomes LESS suspicious.

As far as these employees including Learner not printing back ups to their own emails...

It is NOT suspicious IF none of the IRS employees were making paper copies of their own email...

But it would be suspicious for the 7, including Learner, if the rest of IRS employees were making copies of their own emails and these 7 were not....

IF there was back ups on servers for IRS employee emails, with the exception of the 7 people of interest , that would be suspicious...

However, if there were no emails from irs employees from this time period saved on servers, then the emails lost or rather missing from these 7 people of interest, are not out of the ordinary because no one's emails were saved on servers.

The onus is on the IRS to provide evidence exonerating itself since it has not complied with a lawful subpoena. The onus is not on the citizens to accept speculation from a partisan political supporter of this administration.

no, the onus is on the accuser of the supposed wrong doer, ALWAYS in this nation. The law, the government, has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, guilt...so to say....so, if these dog and pony, showmanship congress critters have enough evidence to charge someone with criminal behavior, they need to do it....mere speculation is meaningless and serves no purpose other than political posturing for the up coming elections.

you're right that this should not be political, AS YOUR SIDE of the Aisle chose to make it, from day 1!!!! I challenge you to prove otherwise!

so so sad too....when these congress critters chose to spend all this tax money, on all these hearings, and once again, they've got nothing but speculations....they could have saved a ton and spared us their grand standing in front of the cameras if they would have just given lois learner immunity....


BUT NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, they benefit more politically, from the right wing media circus...is what they obviously decided.

I honestly don't see how you Obama haters can't see this? It's plain as day....

So, many of us would like to get to the bottom of this, we just don't accept mere speculation as PROOF, like you guys are so willing to do....or without information missing that is needed to become more suspicious....like I had inquired in my post above...

You continue to try and make this point that there is nothing but "speculation" involved in the IRS scandal, Care and it's an argument that simply isn't backed up by the facts.

Fact #1...the IRS did indeed improperly target conservative groups. We know this because the IRS apologized for doing so.

Fact #2...when the IRS was subpoenaed to produce the emails of those involved in the targeting...7 different computers subsequently had hard drive crashes.

Fact #3...the IRS failed to make paper back up copies of their emails despite being required to do so by law.

Fact #4...while telling the Congressional investigators that the emails would be forthcoming, the IRS neglected to tell those investigators that they had lost said emails to a sudden "rash" of computer crashes.

Fact #5...despite knowing that Congressional investigators had subpoenaed the emails that were on those crashed hard drives, the IRS failed to retrieve the data that had been lost from the back up tapes specifically designed for that purpose.

Fact #6...despite knowing that Congressional investigators had subpoenaed the lost emails the IRS allowed the back up tapes to be "scrubbed" months after this scandal broke.

None of that is "speculation". That's all fact.

Now if it's "speculation" that you want...I'd be happy to oblige. I speculate that people working in the IRS deliberately destroyed 7 hard drives to hide evidence from a Congressional investigation. I speculate that there was communication between the IRS...the Justice Department and the Obama White House on how to carry out the targeting of conservative groups. I speculate that the same people who destroyed the 7 hard drives also got rid of any paper copies of what was on those hard drives. I speculate that those same people didn't even make an attempt to retrieve those lost emails from the tape backups and didn't inform Congress of the problem until AFTER those tape backups had been scrubbed. Is that enough "speculation" for you...or did you want to go back to talking about the facts?

 

[Jarhead]

Lets see...

Hard drive crashes and no effort to ensure the back up tape is preserved. I mean, the day it crashed, they could have gone to the back up tape and implant it on her new hard drive. Why would they not? Was she not involved in any IRS "business" at the time the hard drive crashed?

What makes you believe there was a back up drive? Do you have a link that says the Irs backs up their emails on to a server or back up drive? Or is this just speculation? (I agree, you would think they do have a back up to emails, but their irs code wouldn't be saying they should make a print copy of their own emails involved in cases if they did back them up on a server, would it?)

The IRS admitted that their back ups are overwritten every 6 months...thus they back up.

I mean, my hard drive crashes and I immediately go to my most recent back up and implant it on my new hard drive. After all, I would have gone out of business if I did not have access to the stuff I was doing the day before. The week before. The month before.

Learner IS ON RECORD of going to the IRS'S tech team to recover her information on her computer...there is documentation of such jarhead, so why are you implying that she didn't? The Computer. Tech team told her that her information was unrecoverable, they even sent her computer off to some "forensic" type team to see if they could recover it for her....

You missed it Care. The IRS admits they back up and it is kept for 6 months. The day it crashed there was back up available according to what the IRS admits. But they seemed to have waited beyond the 6 months to recover the back up because they claim the back up was overwritten when they tried to recover it
Now don't you think that these Irs Technical team workers would know if there was a back up to her computer's information and try to recover it that way, IF IT WERE RECOVERABLE?


Yes. I would think so. Unless, of course, the crash never happened and the paper records showing she TRIED to recover the data were not real. I mean...why were those emails saved on paper but none others?

No paper copies made despite the law saying otherwise.

why would they need to make paper copies (which is utterly ridiculous in this day and age and "the computer" in the workplace was suppose to rid business of redundant paper), but why would they need to make paper back ups, IF AS YOU SAY, they had a back up? (and then intentionally erased the back up, in order for your speculation to work)

Because it is the law. And because , as they said, they only keep back up for 6 months.

NARA was not informed immediately of lost data as per regulation to ensure all can be done to retrieve the information.

who is NARA? was it Learner that was suppose to notify them or was it the Team of Irs Technical workers that she handed her computer over to after it blew up, that were trying to recover her information for her?

Exactly my point. If her hard drive truly crashed, then why did the IT department not follow protocol? Maybe because they did not know it crashed? Maybe because it didn't?

That is not enough suspicion to warrant the AG getting involved?

What you posted isn't enough to cause suspicion, if you tell the whole story...which I filled in some of it for you....

And I filled in showing even more suspicion.

and what about all of my questions, was it just these 7 harddrives that blew up at the irs and only these hard drives? Or was this common with irs computers?

Did these 7 do anything out of the ordinary by not printing their own emails, or was this what the entirety of Irs employees did as well....?

How YOU and others can just presume so much about guilt when you've got nothing that proves or shows guilt.....without taking it out of context? Where's the "context" jarhead, in your accusations and speculations?

Congresscritters have gotten 70,000 pieces of email and documents subpena from the IRS.... if these emails were not important for the congress critters to have and they ONLY WANTED the emails of these 7 people, WHY IN THE HECK did they send the IRS on this wild goose chase on my tax dollar dime, to get these 70,000 other emails????? Why, oh why oh why? It's a circus show....an unprofessional, 3 ring circus of failed performers....how you can't see this...I don't know?

Maybe if these clowns had been a little more professional and not grand standing every chance they could, with throwing out speculation after speculation after speculation to their beloved right wing media every breath they took, and actually did their job, and called learner to the stand with immunity, we could ACTUALLY GET TO the bottom of this....but obviously, this does not serve the purpose of the congress critter CLOWNS.... you betcha it pisses me off...

Something's fishy is here, and it ain't just Learner....Jarhead.

My responses are in black......

As for all of the other stuff you posted...I agree......except calling congress clowns and partisan.

That is just childish.

 

[Jarhead]

I understand.

Just didn't think you wanted to be that way on this topic.

Nice diversion from making an ass of yourself.

I didn't make an ass of myself, those ignorant on the subject did.

*The law doesn't require ALL emails be printed and imaged, only those which fall under the definition of "Federal Record" which the IRS as precedent (I know, that doesn't matter to you) has only always followed loosely.

The B part of the equation is that she did print and image many emails.


So, go **** yourself and stop whining for your 1, 566th time that "the president" said there's no corruption. It's a lil' whine fest, the guy was standing by his agency and most can understand but Anything to whine about the prezzz. Anything. Even if it's your millionth time whining of the same ******* comment. Sanctimony is so phony it jumps off the screen.

I can't find a law Requiring emails be backed up with paper ... in fact, a law requiring paper reduction was passed in 1996... maybe someone who is retired with plenty of time on their hands can find that law somewhere in this ...

Federal Laws, Policy & Regulations


OR they can accept the word of The Daily Caller .

Emails as Possible Federal Records



1.All federal employees and federal contractors are required by law to preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency. Records must be properly stored and preserved, available for retrieval and subject to appropriate approved disposition schedules.


2.The Federal Records Act applies to email records just as it does to records you create using other media. Emails are records when they are:


•Created or received in the transaction of agency business


•Appropriate for preservation as evidence of the government’s function and activities, or


•Valuable because of the information they contain





3.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. If transmission and receipt data are not printed by the email system, annotate the paper copy. More information on IRS records management requirements is available at http://erc.web.irs.gov/Displayanswers/Question.asp?FolderID=4&CategoryID=5 or see the Records Management Handbook, IRM 1.15.1 http://publish.no.irs.gov/IRM/P01/PDF/31421A03.PD


From the IRTS website.

Internal Revenue Manual - 1.10.3 Standards for Using Email

 

[Siete]

Backup Preservation.—
(1) A governmental entity acting under section 2703 (b)(2) may include in its subpoena or court order a requirement that the service provider to whom the request is directed create a backup copy of the contents of the electronic communications sought in order to preserve those communications. Without notifying the subscriber or customer of such subpoena or court order, such service provider shall create such backup copy as soon as practicable consistent with its regular business practices and shall confirm to the governmental entity that such backup copy has been made. Such backup copy shall be created within two business days after receipt by the service provider of the subpoena or court order.

 

[Jarhead]

I understand.

Just didn't think you wanted to be that way on this topic.

Nice diversion from making an ass of yourself.

I didn't make an ass of myself, those ignorant on the subject did.

*The law doesn't require ALL emails be printed and imaged, only those which fall under the definition of "Federal Record" which the IRS as precedent (I know, that doesn't matter to you) has only always followed loosely.

The B part of the equation is that she did print and image many emails.


So, go **** yourself and stop whining for your 1, 566th time that "the president" said there's no corruption. It's a lil' whine fest, the guy was standing by his agency and most can understand but Anything to whine about the prezzz. Anything. Even if it's your millionth time whining of the same ******* comment. Sanctimony is so phony it jumps off the screen.

I can't find a law Requiring emails be backed up with paper ... in fact, a law requiring paper reduction was passed in 1996... maybe someone who is retired with plenty of time on their hands can find that law somewhere in this ...

Federal Laws, Policy & Regulations


OR they can accept the word of The Daily Caller .

What I find funny is you could not find it....yet it was quite easy to find ON THE IRS WEBSITE....

And then you criticize me for stating something that is inaccurate.

You are an ass. Go have fun with GT. Neither of you are worthy of my time.

 

[G.T.]

speaking of not worthy, how fast are you going to back away from "trainer" and "free loader?"

retard.

 

[depotoo]

Yep, and she as division head was responsible for just that-

Can Records Be Removed from the Agency? Federal law (44 U.S.C. § 3105) requires agencies to establish safeguards against the removal or loss of Federal records. These safeguards include notifying agency officials that: Criminal penalties are provided for the willful and unlawful destruction, removal, or private use of Federal records. Concealment, Removal, or Mutilation of Records (18 U.S.C. § 2071) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term "office" does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States. Heads of Federal agencies are required to notify the Archivist of the United States of any actual or threatened unlawful removal or destruction of records in their custody.

Unlawful or Accidental Removal, Defacing, Alteration, or Destruction of Records (36 CFR 1230.14) (a) The head of a Federal agency shall report any unlawful or accidental destruction, defacing, alteration, or removal of records in the custody of that agency to NARA (NWML), 8601 Adelphi Rd., College Park, MD 20740-6001. The report shall include: (1) A complete description of the records with volume and dates if known; (2) The office of origin; (3) A statement of the exact circumstances surrounding the alienation, defacing, or destruction of the records; (4) A statement of the safeguards established to prevent further loss of documentation; and (5) When appropriate, details of the actions taken to salvage, retrieve, or reconstruct the records. Agencies are also required to ensure that departing officials do not remove records from Agency custody.

Agency Recordkeeping Requirements (36 CFR 1222.24) Agencies shall develop procedures to ensure that departing officials do no remove Federal records fro agency custody.

And to answer one of your questions...

The head of the national Archives and Records Administration, at one of the hearings, informed the committee that anytime records are lost...INCLUDING EMAILS.....his administration is to be informed so a process can be undertaken to find/preserve them.

When asked if the IRS did this with Lerners emails....he said "No."

That, too, adds to the suspicion.

Were crimes committed?

We don't know. We cant get access to the information to prove guilt OR innocence.

Is there suspicion that such evidence was intentionally destroyed?

Yes. Every single protocol/law that was to be followed to ensure they are NOT lost was not followed.

You don't find that suspicious?

Why doesn't the President? The AG? The Ranking Member Cummings? You?

Actually , according to NARA they did break the law.

Ironically....The IRS admitted to breaking 2 laws as they try to defend the fact that no laws were broken.

Law 1.....all emails are to be printed and saved on paper
Law 2.....The NARA is to be informed immediately if any data is lost or stolen

LMAO...

Their defense is admitting that they broke two laws.

and the irony?

Those laws are in place to ensure no cover up can take place.

 

[Siete]

Bottom line ...


other than the RW kneejerk specialists who gives a flying FK? ... Other than Issa (lol) certainly not the Republican lawmakers in Congress.

 

[Jarhead]

Bottom line ...


other than the RW kneejerk specialists who gives a flying FK? ... Other than Issa (lol) certainly not the Republican lawmakers in Congress.

In other words..

"what I don't want to see is meaningless and should be meaningless to everyone else. Thus why people call Obama lovers like myself sheeple"

Asshole.

 

[Siete]

I didn't make an ass of myself, those ignorant on the subject did.

*The law doesn't require ALL emails be printed and imaged, only those which fall under the definition of "Federal Record" which the IRS as precedent (I know, that doesn't matter to you) has only always followed loosely.

The B part of the equation is that she did print and image many emails.


So, go **** yourself and stop whining for your 1, 566th time that "the president" said there's no corruption. It's a lil' whine fest, the guy was standing by his agency and most can understand but Anything to whine about the prezzz. Anything. Even if it's your millionth time whining of the same ******* comment. Sanctimony is so phony it jumps off the screen.

I can't find a law Requiring emails be backed up with paper ... in fact, a law requiring paper reduction was passed in 1996... maybe someone who is retired with plenty of time on their hands can find that law somewhere in this ...

Federal Laws, Policy & Regulations


OR they can accept the word of The Daily Caller .

What I find funny is you could not find it....yet it was quite easy to find ON THE IRS WEBSITE....

And then you criticize me for stating something that is inaccurate.

You are an ass. Go have fun with GT. Neither of you are worthy of my time.

I posted the link and now you're running... typical RW'er

approached with facts, lace up Nikes and haul.


Adios muchacha

 

[Jarhead]

I can't find a law Requiring emails be backed up with paper ... in fact, a law requiring paper reduction was passed in 1996... maybe someone who is retired with plenty of time on their hands can find that law somewhere in this ...

Federal Laws, Policy & Regulations


OR they can accept the word of The Daily Caller .

What I find funny is you could not find it....yet it was quite easy to find ON THE IRS WEBSITE....

And then you criticize me for stating something that is inaccurate.

You are an ass. Go have fun with GT. Neither of you are worthy of my time.

I posted the link and now you're running... typical RW'er

approached with facts, lace up Nikes and haul.


Adios muchacha

And I posted a link from the IRS website that addresses how the IRS interprets the Federal Records Act...and it is a directive to the employees of the IRS.

And you ignored it.

What does that make you?

Doesn't matter. We know what you are.

 

[depotoo]

Poll: 71 Percent Believe IRS Deliberately Destroyed Emails | RealClearPolitics

Poll: 76 percent want special prosecutor to investigate IRS scandal | TheHill

71% Think IRS Likely to Have Destroyed E-mails to Hide Guilt - Rasmussen Reports?

Bottom line ...


other than the RW kneejerk specialists who gives a flying FK? ... Other than Issa (lol) certainly not the Republican lawmakers in Congress.