Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

alp227

(31,962 posts)
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 10:56 AM Jun 2014

IRS chief defiant on Lois Lerner email loss

Source: Politico

A defiant IRS Commissioner on Friday refused to apologize for the loss of ex-IRS official Lois Lerner’s emails, and said the agency produced what they could, attributing their disappearance to dated technology.

“I don’t think an apology is owed,” chief John Koskinen told Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp after the Republican lawmaker asked for one at the first hearing since news came of crashed computers of some IRS officials.

It comes a week after the IRS revealed that two years worth of emails of Lerner, the ex-IRS official at the center of the tea party targeting controversy, were lost in a computer crash. Republicans accused the IRS chief of deceit while Democrats said there was no evidence of bad faith.

Camp and other Republicans accused Koskinen of hiding the missing emails from Congress, saying the agency and the White House knew for months there was a problem before they told the Hill, even before he testified before the panel earlier this year.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/irs-emails-lost-tea-party-john-koskinen-108118.html

39 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
IRS chief defiant on Lois Lerner email loss (Original Post) alp227 Jun 2014 OP
It's incompetence. “Back-up tapes from 2011 no longer exist because they have been recycled." n/t jtuck004 Jun 2014 #1
Not if that's the agency's policy. Not everyone can afford to keep indefinite backups ffr Jun 2014 #3
n/t=no text. n/t PeoViejo Jun 2014 #5
N/T means no text. AtheistCrusader Jun 2014 #8
Thank you. Now I get it. n/t ffr Jun 2014 #10
Don't get confused when some people, for some reason, place N/T in the body of the post. Hassin Bin Sober Jun 2014 #17
n/t means there's no text in the body of the post starroute Jun 2014 #9
Agency records retention policy requires National Archives approval. Hangingon Jun 2014 #15
The IRS recommends you keep records for 10 years. Can't take their own advice. jtuck004 Jun 2014 #24
If I understand correctly, Sarbanes-Oxley requires a company keep emails for longer than that hughee99 Jun 2014 #29
No emails were destroyed. former9thward Jun 2014 #33
You are correct. Yavin4 Jun 2014 #37
Not incompetence, the emails were intentionally removed, and I doubt they will be able to prove it lostincalifornia Jun 2014 #14
"intentionally removed"? How do you know? alp227 Jun 2014 #23
I am not, but I am speculating. The irs is one of the most efficient organizations in government lostincalifornia Jun 2014 #26
Why do you think the emails were purposely erased? Nt alp227 Jun 2014 #32
The repukes are doing a Salem witch hunt, but the fact is that progressives are targeted all the lostincalifornia Jun 2014 #34
So the IRS erased those emails to get back at Darrell Issa? alp227 Jun 2014 #35
That isn't my point. The IRS have targeted groups, or profiled them as a criteria for audit. The lostincalifornia Jun 2014 #38
Bullshit. truebrit71 Jun 2014 #2
I can actually believe it. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jun 2014 #4
That's it LittleGirl Jun 2014 #19
Yep--doesn't surprise me at all joc46224 Jun 2014 #25
BS. 840high Jun 2014 #6
2011 was only fucking 3 years ago. AtheistCrusader Jun 2014 #7
Is audit retention the policy for data retention? ffr Jun 2014 #11
I did grab that from the wrong part. AtheistCrusader Jun 2014 #16
It is hard to not notice the IRS fakery gets more Propaganda than the torture investigation. Todays_Illusion Jun 2014 #12
Isn't that the truth lostincalifornia Jun 2014 #27
Republicans want you to forget, they, the Republicans own that shame. Torture. Todays_Illusion Jun 2014 #28
Because everyone has, at one point christx30 Jun 2014 #30
if they are still working with 1980s computer systems Garion_55 Jun 2014 #13
yep n/t LittleGirl Jun 2014 #20
Given they've spent 3.5 BILLION since the 90's on their systems, hughee99 Jun 2014 #31
I know federal agency with the latest computers and laptops itsrobert Jun 2014 #36
Given the software upgrades they've had to make for eFile, not to mention security, hughee99 Jun 2014 #39
My company asked people to store their emails on their HDDs, until they all started to fail. TheBlackAdder Jun 2014 #18
Records Management by Federal Agencies mahatmakanejeeves Jun 2014 #21
Thanks, I'll run too, elleng Jun 2014 #22
 

jtuck004

(15,882 posts)
1. It's incompetence. “Back-up tapes from 2011 no longer exist because they have been recycled." n/t
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 10:58 AM
Jun 2014

ffr

(22,649 posts)
3. Not if that's the agency's policy. Not everyone can afford to keep indefinite backups
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 11:14 AM
Jun 2014

Heck GWB made sure all E-mail communications were deleted immediately. What was it? Something between 6 million and 22 million E-mail destroyed?

BTW, what does n/t stand for? I keep seeing it, but have no idea what it means?

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
8. N/T means no text.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 11:19 AM
Jun 2014

Saves people a click on the subject of the post, only to find out the entire response was in the subject line.

Hassin Bin Sober

(26,273 posts)
17. Don't get confused when some people, for some reason, place N/T in the body of the post.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 11:51 AM
Jun 2014

Why? I don't know.

N/T

starroute

(12,977 posts)
9. n/t means there's no text in the body of the post
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 11:20 AM
Jun 2014

It's for the convenience of people who might be viewing the tree listing of the thread and not "view all" -- it lets them know it's not worth opening that particular post.

Hangingon

(3,071 posts)
15. Agency records retention policy requires National Archives approval.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 11:38 AM
Jun 2014

I would like to see the schedule item for email backup. Since email is so often one of the first records requested in an investigation, I would think the retention would be much longer.

 

jtuck004

(15,882 posts)
24. The IRS recommends you keep records for 10 years. Can't take their own advice.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 01:16 PM
Jun 2014

Incompetence. Or cover up.

I do this shit for a living - the excuses don't measure up.

n/t stands for no text to follow - so you don't waste time opening the msg - or a subtle exclamation point

hughee99

(16,113 posts)
29. If I understand correctly, Sarbanes-Oxley requires a company keep emails for longer than that
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 02:35 PM
Jun 2014

as well.

Yavin4

(35,357 posts)
37. You are correct.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 08:30 PM
Jun 2014

This is my line of work. Hardly any company keeps backup tapes from 2011 unless required to by law. Don't know if the IRS, or any other govt agency, is required to keep backup tapes nor for how long. I imagine that they are not under such a directive.

lostincalifornia

(3,639 posts)
26. I am not, but I am speculating. The irs is one of the most efficient organizations in government
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 01:54 PM
Jun 2014

This absolutely does not pass the smell test.

It will never be proven one way or another

lostincalifornia

(3,639 posts)
34. The repukes are doing a Salem witch hunt, but the fact is that progressives are targeted all the
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 08:00 PM
Jun 2014

Time by the IRS, and nothing is save, and that is the real problem. No one should be targeted because of their political beliefs. They should be targeted because there is a questionable deduction or something else on their tax return, not because of their personal beliefs

alp227

(31,962 posts)
35. So the IRS erased those emails to get back at Darrell Issa?
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 08:03 PM
Jun 2014

Since the IRS knows that Issa will make all sorts of shit up to manufacture scandal?

lostincalifornia

(3,639 posts)
38. That isn't my point. The IRS have targeted groups, or profiled them as a criteria for audit. The
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 08:31 PM
Jun 2014

Problem is that the repukes present it like they are the ONLY ones being targeted, which is a gross misrepresentation of the facts, and which the MSM is only too happy to oblige

Keying words which have "blue" in the names should not be a criteria to trigger an audit, which is one example of their profiling of progressive s

Simply put, Issa is an idiot who is not trying to improve the audit process, but play political games

I would not know if the missing emails were intentional or not, but I would have no doubt there are emails which indicate a policy to specifically target certain groups, progressives included, hat the IRS would not want to mak public

All of this is speculation on my part of course

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)
4. I can actually believe it.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 11:15 AM
Jun 2014

Tech departments rarely get the funding they really need, and people get sloppy about things they don't consider important. The small IT company I worked for lost a lot of mail over the decade+ I worked there, and we actually were all tech people.

LittleGirl

(8,261 posts)
19. That's it
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 12:11 PM
Jun 2014

Backups are rarely if ever tested and they fail ALL OF THE TIME. Backups are so last century too. Mirroring drives is how it's done these days and if your business or company doesn't throw down the cash for the extra hardware, these things will happen. And if I remember correctly, Gov't contracts are lowest bid and there it is right there. LOWEST BID.

(former email administrator)

joc46224

(62 posts)
25. Yep--doesn't surprise me at all
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 01:29 PM
Jun 2014

I have been in IT for over 25 years now, during those years I've always been involved with data backup--either as the primary backup administrator or someone else on my team had that role. Every single company I worked for never wanted to invest enough money in backups to make sure the backups were reliable, that we had enough backup capacity to for a reasonable retention period, and that we had a comprehensive DR strategy. Every year some new manager would come in an wail about the fact that our backups were so woefully inadequate. We'd go out and look at the latest technology, talk to vendors, and craft a proposal to present to the same management on what would be required to beef up the backups. Every. Single. Time. when management saw the cost they'd drop the issue.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
7. 2011 was only fucking 3 years ago.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 11:18 AM
Jun 2014

"To coordinate with forthcoming auditing standards concerning the retention of audit documentation, the rule requires that these records be retained for seven years after the auditor concludes the audit or review of the financial statements, rather than the proposed period of five years from the end of the fiscal period in which an audit or review was concluded."

ffr

(22,649 posts)
11. Is audit retention the policy for data retention?
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 11:31 AM
Jun 2014

Audit retention is an audit standard.

"The auditor must retain audit documentation for seven years from the date the auditor grants permission to use the auditor's report in connection with the issuance of the company's financial statements..."

How an auditor is expected to retain electronic records pertaining to audits from a seven year period seems to be less clear.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
16. I did grab that from the wrong part.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 11:41 AM
Jun 2014

My understanding here in my corp is 5 years, for full compliance. That's how long I know my stuff stays around. My company might be over-conservative on that though. Hard to say. I couldn't find the non-audit records retention requirement.

christx30

(6,241 posts)
30. Because everyone has, at one point
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 02:47 PM
Jun 2014

had less-than-desirable dealings with the IRS, or known someone that has. The torture thing is something that happens overseas, and is far removed from our every day life. Anyone that gets a letter from the IRS has a sinking feeling before they open the envelope.

hughee99

(16,113 posts)
31. Given they've spent 3.5 BILLION since the 90's on their systems,
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 02:48 PM
Jun 2014

I'd find it hard to believe they still had an 80's computer system.

itsrobert

(14,157 posts)
36. I know federal agency with the latest computers and laptops
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 08:15 PM
Jun 2014

but using them to access DOS type programs.

hughee99

(16,113 posts)
39. Given the software upgrades they've had to make for eFile, not to mention security,
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 12:18 AM
Jun 2014

I'd be shocked if they were using any DOS or VAX based systems or even programs anymore. The software has to be newer since no one wants to program or maintain anything large-scale (like an email system) for that shit anymore (and they haven't in some time).

If I understand correctly, the IRS uses Microsoft Outlook running on Exchange servers.

Here's an article I just found a few minutes ago, suggesting that if the IRS is telling the truth, the IT department must be "profoundly incompetent", which I guess is possible. Then they compounded their issues by being incredibly cheap, too.

http://www.zdnet.com/is-the-irs-lost-email-story-plausible-7000030684/

TheBlackAdder

(28,076 posts)
18. My company asked people to store their emails on their HDDs, until they all started to fail.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 12:03 PM
Jun 2014

Then, they were caught either sending out the HDDs to a reclamation service at $1K per drive or the people abandoned their data and started over... with no history. Much like if your home PC's HDD fails and you didn't have a backup of it.

Since then, millions were spent on keeping emails in a centralized recoverable repository and other processes to routinely back up workstation drives at night.

===

So, yes... this is quite believable. Especially so, when you hear about the VA's old computers and that the U.S. Nuclear Strike Force still uses 8-inch floopy disk computers to launch missiles.
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»IRS chief defiant on Lois...