Slashdot Mirror


Congressman Asks NSA To Provide Metadata For "Lost" IRS Emails

An anonymous reader writes in with news that the IRS lost email scandal is far from over. Representative Steve Stockman (R-TX) has sent a formal letter to the National Security Agency asking it to hand over "all its metadata" on the e-mail accounts of a former division director at the Internal Revenue Service. "Your prompt cooperation in this matter will be greatly appreciated and will help establish how IRS and other personnel violated rights protected by the First Amendment," Stockman wrote on Friday. The request came hours after the IRS told a congressional committee that it had "lost" all of the former IRS Exempt Organizations division director's e-mails between January 2009 and April 2011.

69 of 347 comments (clear)

  1. Just imagine "if" by Karmashock · · Score: 2, Interesting

    if they actually had that information... they can't possibly... and even if they do I'm pretty sure they'll deny it. The feds are in full blown police state at this point as regards due process. But still imagine if they actually had that information. That would be pretty incredible.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:Just imagine "if" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      For all their mouth-breathing bullshit, nobody should make the mistake of thinking that the GOP is stupid. This is a lose-lose for the President on its face: if the NSA doesn't come back with the data that it's asserted they have, then they're in cahoots with Obama; if they somehow do come back with it, then it proves the GOP right. Either way, they win. It's a slimy, empty, political victory, but a victory all the same.

    2. Re:Just imagine "if" by buchner.johannes · · Score: 5, Funny

      NSA is the National Backup Service

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    3. Re:Just imagine "if" by MrDoh! · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is hilarious. If they CAN get the info, it makes everyone in government VERY nervous, if they can't get it, then the next thing this congressman should bring up is "why the heck are we funding the NSA if they don't actually seem to do anything?" Ok, the NSA's answer to that is "we do lots of stuff, but we can't tell you about it, it's secret".

      --
      Waiting for an amusing sig.
    4. Re:Just imagine "if" by master5o1 · · Score: 5, Funny

      National Storage Archives.

      --
      signature is pants
    5. Re:Just imagine "if" by JackieBrown · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Amazing how you have made this into the GOP being slimy when the whole issue is due to the Democrat controlled IRS (during that time-period) losing all relevant emails from a large period of time. That is what is slimy here.

    6. Re:Just imagine "if" by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I keep telling everyone, the NSA blew it - had they advertised their services as the ultimate backup, folks would have paid them to spy on everyone.

      Sometimes you do need some help from marketing.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    7. Re:Just imagine "if" by plover · · Score: 5, Funny

      All they needed was some marketing. If only they had called themselves SkyDrive, or OneDrive, or iCloud...

      --
      John
    8. Re:Just imagine "if" by Karmashock · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wrong. What we've been seeing lately is that they'll just tell you they don't have it. They'll confirm they don't have it. Especially if they do actually have it.

      They're on record lying to congress already. So they're not going to have any trouble looking you right in the eye and saying "nope"...

      Keep in mind, we're talking about investigating an IRS scandal in which the IRS is now claiming the requested emails were lost in a hard drive crash.

      They expect us to believe that the emails were only stored on an end user laptop and that there were no back ups and that the server retained no records... of official IRS email.

      Do you believe that? No one does. Even the people saying they believe it don't actually believe it... its just part of the political game going on right now.

      Apparently the IRS was taken over by some political factions that wanted to limit speech... and when they got caught at it the whole IRS is now trying to cover it up.

      None of which is being made easier by the white house which wants everyone to believe their shit doesn't stink... and the "justice" department which so far as I've seen has made a point of not investigating anything.

      I could respect the "neither confirm nor deny" line because it wasn't a lie. It was a refusal to answer. But they're not doing that anymore. They're just lying now. And they're not just doing it to casual requests for information. They're lying on court documents, lying in response to FOIA orders, and they're lying directly to congress.

      Which means they're lying to everyone we have access to... they could be lying to the president as well for all we know.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    9. Re:Just imagine "if" by fche · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "It's a slimy, empty, political victory,"

      Remember what this was about - the IRS actively impeding a particular political organization. That's not an "empty" matter.

    10. Re:Just imagine "if" by krashnburn200 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No Secrets Anywhere else

      The e is silent

    11. Re:Just imagine "if" by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Amazing how you have made this into the GOP being slimy when the whole issue is due to the Democrat controlled IRS (during that time-period) losing all relevant emails from a large period of time. That is what is slimy here.

      But, but ... the GOP is always slimy, all the cool kids say so. Because, er, it just is, you know.

    12. Re:Just imagine "if" by Darinbob · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, they did not target one single organization. Instead they targeted multiple organizations, according to a popular viewpoint.
      From a different point of view, meaning from other news stations, they were asked to apply extra scrutiny to the rash of new requests for tax exempt status which was then performed overzealously by some staffers.
      The problem here is that rather than deciding which of these viewpoints are closer to the truth that guilt has been decided a-priori.

    13. Re:Just imagine "if" by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2

      The Congressman did not ask for the email. He asked for the "metadata", who sent it and when, and to whom. NSA monitoring and collection of metadata was shown as pervasive by Edward Snowden's revelations and by their own testimony to Congress, so it's difficult for them to now say "we only collect metadata". The IRS office that handles tax exemptions also corresponds with many international organizations, some of which are accused of being criminally based or fronts for illegal political activity. (Sinn Fein from Ireland, and numerous Muslim charities have been accused of this for years.)

      It's a fascinating "damned if you do, damned if you don't" for the NSA. If they can't produce the metadata on request, then the amount of effort and money invested in their monitoring is clearly wasted. If they do produce the data, it verifies that they do, as a matter of course, monitor the ordinary business communications of peaceful, law abiding personnel going about charitable enterprise.

    14. Re:Just imagine "if" by ganjadude · · Score: 4, Insightful

      well lets see... the IRS admitted it did wrong, so its not a witch hunt by any means.

      anyone who knows anything about government systems knows about retention laws. If somehow all her emails were on a single device, with no backups, someone needs to be held accountable for that. To make it even worse

      as for the NSA why not use this issue to bring to light some more NSA BS??? we get info regardless of their response. I commend this congressman for thinking outside the box

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    15. Re:Just imagine "if" by PapayaSF · · Score: 2

      Apparently the IRS was taken over by some political factions that wanted to limit speech... and when they got caught at it the whole IRS is now trying to cover it up.

      Exactly. Lois Lerner also went after the Christian Coalition when she was at the FEC.

      --
      Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
    16. Re:Just imagine "if" by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, it isn't so much where the bodies are burried and more the civil service act. It limits the ability of administrations to rid non cabinet level positions and stack government with incompetent friends and donars. Of course the latest craze is to create a new position, call it a czar which has absolutely no power outside of recomending something to the administration and the gaft runs rich again.

      But this civil service act limits an administration's abilitty to clean house and makes sure somewhat competent people fill most of the positions.

      As for Learner being a bush appointee, it doesn't matter. We already have confirmation that she was working with someone in the white house. The extent and degree of legitimacy in that is what is trying to be determined.

    17. Re:Just imagine "if" by sumdumass · · Score: 2

      It is actually worse than no one was blocked from donating to one of these organizations. Donar lists were being used to select for audits and being passed to opposition groups if the claims in the current lawsuits are accurate.

      So it became known early on that if you donated to one of these groups trying to get tax status that you would be exposed to an IRS audit. This is one of the accusations that got congress involved before the IRS issued its report and admision.

    18. Re:Just imagine "if" by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      Remember that the tea party was just one targeted group among a long list of political groups on both sides of the fence that were rightly being looked into for cheating on their taxes by masquerading as charities. That was the first and most easily forgotten critical fact in this matter.

      If not, how could the Republicans harness their voters' potent persecution complex to once again build a slightly quesitonable government action into a partisan scandal, and then beat that dead horse until its bones are turned to powder?

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    19. Re: Just imagine "if" by baristabrian · · Score: 2

      RE: "both parties ..." AMEN! Somebody who has *not* drunk the kool-aid and realizes that we are screwed if we choose either Tweedle Dee *or* Tweedle Dum. Most drones who post here (regarding politics) seem genuinely clueless---blindly and rabidly clinging to the delusion that *their* party of choice [Democratic/Republican] is *really* any different or better. Idiots---smart and educated, or not.

      --
      -- "I'm not in a hurry; I'm in Hawaii." The Homeless Guy
  2. Captain Oblivious by ThisIsSaei2561 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Quickly! Use your fourth amendment violation to help us with this first amendment violation! No, that's not a joke. Why are you laughing?!

    1. Re:Captain Oblivious by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Use your fourth amendment violation to help us with this first amendment violation!

      Government records are not protected by the fourth amendment. Here is the amendment:

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      Corporations may be people, but government agencies are not.

    2. Re:Captain Oblivious by jxander · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While this particular set of data isn't a(n alleged) violation of the 4th amendment, it was (allegedly) caught in the net of massive (alleged) 4th amendment violations

      --
      This signature is false.
  3. That's a long wait... by raydobbs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's going to be a long wait for a train that never comes - the NSA will simply not comply. Its a nice 'in your face' gesture though, real cute. Should get some political points during election time, I'm sure.

    1. Re:That's a long wait... by funwithBSD · · Score: 2

      Not really, it seems perfectly possible they are collecting internal emails from all federal government agencies.

      Hell, I would expect and demand that they do, as a "watchers of the watchers" role.

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
  4. 1st Amendment rights?? by fustakrakich · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Bullshit. These people are just trying to avoid paying taxes. Kill this 501(c) bullshit now. Or are you going to try to tell me that would violates everybody's "rights"?

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:1st Amendment rights?? by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I was under the impression that one of the requirements for being a non-profit was the agreement that you wouldn't be an actionable organization. Seems to me that most of the organizations, both conservative and liberal, were rightly under the microscope.

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    2. Re:1st Amendment rights?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are advocating for the removal of charitable organizations? Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. This would cost society far more than it would ever save in tax revenue.

      Capcha is "patriot" lol

    3. Re:1st Amendment rights?? by CraigCruden · · Score: 3, Informative

      There are two independent issues. The investigation is about using the IRS to pursue the political agenda or those that are in charge of the IRS. The 501c is a separate issue. Non-profit status should only be inferred on charitable organizations or religious (i.e. not political) , and the congress could make those changes anytime it wants.

    4. Re:1st Amendment rights?? by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The laws appear to be vague such that somebody has to make a judgment call over what suspicious activity to inspect further. If anybody has an idea for making those judgements more objective and/or fair, please speak up.

      And it may require more staff and resources. You can't have good & fair auditing on the cheap; pony up the taxes or stop complaining when one low-level person has "too much power" to make such decisions.

      There is no free lunch.
       

    5. Re:1st Amendment rights?? by khallow · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If anybody has an idea for making those judgements more objective and/or fair, please speak up.

      Sure, apply existing law fairly and impartially.

      And it may require more staff and resources.

      Which wasn't a problem here. Favoritism is worse than no enforcement at all.

    6. Re:1st Amendment rights?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Charities are not all religious and they really need that 501c status and tax-break

    7. Re:1st Amendment rights?? by plover · · Score: 2

      Maybe, maybe not. Congress is saying "Since charities like food shelves and food banks take care of feeding people in trouble, we are cutting funding to food assistance programs." Never mind that people need food shelves because their assistance programs were reduced by the very same Congress.

      They're outsourcing assistance programs and the only funding comes from donations. If people and corporations don't get tax exemptions for their donations, they won't donate as much. Many of the already stretched thin food banks would close, and the rest would have to cut back on their assistance. The resulting crisis might spark enough outrage to require restoration of the assistance programs.

      But yeah, when it comes to religious organizations, they should be taxed exactly like nightclubs. They behave the same: mood lights, candles, music, ritualized dancing, ringing bells, drinking wine, their customers dress up for the occasion, and they're filled with people talking about unbelievable nonsense. The primary difference is that one of them cards you at the door.

      --
      John
    8. Re:1st Amendment rights?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      These people are just trying to avoid paying taxes. Kill this 501(c) bullshit now.

      The problem isn't that the Tea Party folks wanted to avoid paying taxes. The problem is that the IRS, which has vast powers so that it can extract tax revenue from the people, abused those powers for political ends. And what is worse, it abused those powers unequally, harassing one group while leaving another group alone.

      For 27 months, not one single Tea Party group was approved for 501(c) status, while dozens of liberal groups were approved. And since you will automatically call me a liar if I link Fox News, here's a USA Today story about this.

      http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/14/irs-tea-party-progressive-groups/2158831/

      I view this as tampering with an election, and it is very much NOT OKAY. I'm pissed about this and you should be.

      Or are you going to try to tell me that would violates everybody's "rights"?

      Are you going to try to tell me that nobody's rights have been violated? Or is it just that you think it's okay to violate the rights of "Tea Party" groups since you don't approve of them?

      If you think it's okay to violate the rights of those with whom you disagree, just be honest about it and say so.

      If you think it's not okay for the IRS to abuse its powers for political ends, regardless of whom they were abusing, then wake up and start reading the news.

      I want to see dozens of people from the IRS fired, tried in court, and go to jail if convicted. But if I can't have that, then I will look forward to the day when some conservative President gets elected and the IRS starts doing this stuff to liberal groups. Perhaps then you will take it seriously.

    9. Re:1st Amendment rights?? by Jaxim · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm just telling you the reality of the situation. It's never going to happen where everyone plays fairly. Each side will find workarounds. Liberal groups like Unions and MoveOn.org get around campaign finance laws.

      Eventually the Republicans/Tea Party Groups wizened up and started their own groups to get around tax exempt laws, but when they did so, the Liberals didn't like it. The Liberals tried to squash the conservatives in the courts, but were defeated by the Supreme Court, so the liberal senators and federal officials in the IRS and other federal agencies put pressure on conservative groups in order to minimize the conservatives' community organizing effectiveness. This is not right and it's hypocritical.

      So one way to solve this is to revoke tax exempt status to any group that is political which would include Unions, Media Matters, MoveOn.Org - as well as Tea Party and conservative groups. However, as I stated before, that's never going to happen in this political environment.

      So another solution is to allow tax exempt groups to say what ever they want politically. Why should the federal government be able to squash a group's 1st amendment rights? Heck, let's abolish the IRS and make April 15th just another day of the year. Let's get rid of the income tax and just have use/sales tax: i.e. Fair Tax. The IRS is way too powerful.

      But of course, that's never going to happen either, but we can only dream.

    10. Re:1st Amendment rights?? by TapeCutter · · Score: 2

      In my mind "non-profit" and "charity" are two different things. The red cross is a well run charity that minimises admin costs, it deserves support for it's selfless work. The Catholic church is a religious organisation that spends some portion of it's income on charitable work, the Heartland institute is a partisan for-hire lobbyist agency that pumps money back into it's self-serving propoganda machine. All three have the same non-profit status.

      We don't need to encourage political and religious organisations to lobby the government anymore than we need to pay old people to write to their congressman. The money would be much better spent creating an independent, well educated, public service capable of "speaking truth to power".

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    11. Re:1st Amendment rights?? by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

      Bullshit. These people are just trying to avoid paying taxes. Kill this 501(c) bullshit now. Or are you going to try to tell me that would violates everybody's "rights"?

      You're right, they are. And you're also right that the 501(c) nonsense is bullshit.
      The point is, however, that the IRS decided it was only a bad thing if you had the words "Tea Party" or "Israel" in the name of your organization.
      This is called Selective Enforcement

      Historically, selective enforcement is recognized as a sign of tyranny, and an abuse of power, because it violates rule of law, allowing men to apply justice only when they choose. Aside from this being inherently unjust, it almost inevitably must lead to favoritism and extortion, with those empowered to choose being able to help their friends, take bribes, and threaten those from whom they desire favors.

      A good example of this is when Chicago tried to make being in a "Gang" illegal.
      There are plenty of white groups in Chicago that were not illegal. The difference being that most people in the gang were black. Basically law enforcement were selectively targeting black men in groups. This is clearly discriminatory.
      http://www.law.cornell.edu/sup...

      The targeting of Right Wing groups was also clearly discriminatory. The IRS may very well have "Felt" that these right-wing groups were more likely to be circumventing the law. But even if that were true, it's still a violation of the constitution to target them solely based on their political beliefs.

    12. Re:1st Amendment rights?? by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      Tax exempt status is a really tiny amount of money overall compared to the government actively becoming a wide safety net. Compare to parts of Europe where charitable giving is very small but the government provides extensive support paid for by taxes, but in the US charitable giving is relatively much higher but the tax burden is much smaller and the safety net has larger holes.

      I would agree that there could be reforms here. For instance a church should be measured on the charitable activities, to see if they compare similarly to a service organization or instead to a social organization.

    13. Re:1st Amendment rights?? by funwithBSD · · Score: 5, Informative

      They cannot explain OFA getting status, seeing how the supposed 501(4)(c) uses the Presidents Twitter account to make announcements.

      There is no way that the Tea Party applicants can be scrutinized when OFA was not, given the regulations. OFA is the proverbial camel that passed through the eye of a needle, while conservative organizations are being examined in detail.

      501(c)(4) organizations may inform the public on controversial subjects and attempt to influence legislation relevant to its program[44] and, unlike 501(c)(3) organizations, they may also participate in political campaigns and elections, as long as their primary activity is the promotion of social welfare.[45] The tax exemption for 501(c)(4) organizations applies to most of their operations, but contributions may be subject to gift tax, and income spent on political activities – generally the advocacy of a particular candidate in an election – is taxable.[46] An "action" organization generally qualifies as a 501(c)(4) organization.[47] An "action" organization is one whose activities substantially include, or are exclusively,[48] direct lobbying or grass roots lobbying related to advocacy for or against legislation or proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation that is related to its purpose.[49] A 501(c)(4) organization may directly or indirectly support or oppose a candidate for public office as long as such activities are not a substantial amount of its activities.[37][50]

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    14. Re:1st Amendment rights?? by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      Compare churches to a service club like Rotary or Kiwanis. Or if you want goofiness then compare them to the Shriners. These groups do get highly involved in charitable activities (not just donating money but actually donating the time and manpower). However there are other social clubs which are not as actively involved in charity despite having goofy practices, providing only the occasional fund raiser for a good cause.

      Some churches will be much more charitable than others when it's actually measured. Some church charities are not religious in nature and do not involve proselytizing. Some churches are a big mix with separate budgets and firewalls that keep them separate.

      Then there's the side issue of non-profits which are not charities. Ie, business trade groups can apply to be tax-exempt.

    15. Re:1st Amendment rights?? by funwithBSD · · Score: 2

      Must not be a complete list, seeing how a quick google showed many with more than that $200M Cap you claim as "richest"

        teacher's union $316M

      http://www.unionfacts.com/unio...

      Electrical workers, $730M

      http://www.unionfacts.com/unio...

      SEIU, $411M

      http://www.unionfacts.com/unio...

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    16. Re:1st Amendment rights?? by Sarius64 · · Score: 2

      Yeah, it took literally 2 seconds to Google thousands of examples of the Red Cross being overrun with corruption. Here's just one entry:

      Red Cross Scandals

      Or Google yourself: https://www.google.com/#q=red+cross+scandal

      Interesting how you pick one of the worst organizations that regularly flaunts its largess as a champion of altruism. Though I'm not a fan of the Roman Catholic Church, at least they have people dedicated to altruism instead of making their CEO wealthy. The second worst offender this year is Marsha J. Evans, President and CEO of the American Red Cross... for her salary for the year ending in 2009 was $651,957 plus expenses. Enjoys 6 weeks - fully paid holidays including all related expenses during the holiday trip for her and her husband and kids. including 100% fully paid health & dental plan for her and her family, for life. This means out of every dollar they bring in, about $0.39 goes to related charity causes. Gotta love bias.

  5. Re:SubjectsForCommentsAreStupid by fredprado · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is very difficult not to reach this conclusion, unless you believe that the IRS just lost all relevant information by accident...

  6. BS indicator spiking.... by CraigCruden · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Earlier testimony by the IRS indicated that it would take years to fulfil the current request to get the emails from the email server. Now they are saying a workstation crashed so the emails were lost....... Time to start charging people with obstruction of congress/justice.

    1. Re:BS indicator spiking.... by khallow · · Score: 4, Funny

      I don't think you ever worked for a bureaucracy before.

      Imagine trying to use that excuse in an IRS audit of your business.

  7. Re:Nice Synergy by gnu-sucks · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There's nothing "stupid" about naming a political party with a political name.

    It's a real scandal when the party in power can leverage tax exempt status, or any other "treatment" from the IRS. You can agree or disagree with the political opinions or positions of these parties, but you must never use political power to prevent another party from gaining traction.

    That's more than a scandal, it's pure simple corruption.

    You'll probably reply with something political now, such as that you don't like the tea party or Romney or something. Totally irrelevant, save it for a real political discussion.

  8. Re:Nice Synergy by Aeonym · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Take a real scandal (NSA) and link it to a fake one (IRS)"

    Translation: "Take government malfeasance that I imagine affects me personally and link it government malfeasance that I don't think impacts me personally...yet"

    You (and so many others) fail to appreciate what's obvious to others of us: that while the NSA behavior is egregious, it's now out in the open, and you can take steps to protect yourself. And if you already assume the worst--that the NSA is scanning/saving *everything*, then that can't get any worse.

    But the extent of the IRS behavior *isn't* out in the open. It *can* get much worse. If there's *any* politically motivated behavior going on the the IRS, then that is tacit approval and groundwork for more. And you won't think it's a "fake" scandal in a decade when, left unchecked, you find yourself the subject of a tax audit because you donated to the political party not in power. They can put a lien on your house. They can garnish your wages. In terms of practically achievable damage to the average citizen's life, the IRS is far more dangerous. The power to tax is the power to destroy.

    You can stymie the NSA. You can't stymie the IRS.

  9. Special prosecutor by Tailhook · · Score: 5, Interesting

    We've got politically motivated BOLO lists, a political appointee hatchet-person taking the fifth, a government agency bullshitting the nation about "crashed" computers and "lost" emails....

    There is a turd in here somewhere. Let a special prosecutor to sift through the IRS back up tapes, and subpoena all the other agencies for Lerner's mail. Let's find out why all these motherfuckers are stonewalling and lying.

    It's personally offensive to me; to be told they can't recover the mail. I know that's bullshit. It's not even vaguely plausible. It's an insult to my intelligence and it deserves to be persecuted if only to expose and humiliate the fuckwits that have the temerity to make such a stupid claim. Letting that one slide just isn't tolerable. Let's kick open the door and find out what in the hell is going on here.

    lost the emails............ I know that's bullshit and so do you.

    --
    Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    1. Re:Special prosecutor by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A Special Prosecutor would have to be appointed by a member of 'The Most Transparent Administration.' That ain't gonna happen.

      We can hope for change, though.

    2. Re:Special prosecutor by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      Hold on, Tex, why assume malice over stupidity without clear evidence? Guilty until proven innocent? What special inside knowledge do you have? Slashdotters are supposed to pride themselves in careful analysis and rational, carefully stated steps toward conclusions. Calling it "bullshit" on a gut feeling alone is not the spirit of STEM. That's for muggles.

      By the way, I've yet to find evidence they are even required to keep emails for 4 years or more. Maybe it's not even a requirement, and any older emails are simply a bonus (required to be declared if known about).

  10. 1st Amendment rights?? by Jaxim · · Score: 3, Informative

    Fine. So long as they also do it for liberal groups like the Unions. But that won't ever happen because liberals like to play by a different set of rules.

  11. Golly, have you ever fallen for a scam! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Do you have ANY comprehension of what you seem to be supporting????? Consider:

    Person A pays his taxes. Person B pays his taxes. Person C pays his taxes.

    Persons A,B, and C form a club, and each tosses-in a few dollars to fund club activities.

    WHY ON EARTH is the government automatically entitled to apply a new tax to the already taxed money the three people chipped-in????

    Now let's extend this a bit...

    The club has functions of general benefit to society. Anything from providing medicine to needy kids, or food to hungry families, or teaching English to immigrants, helping drunks get sober, you name it ... and wealthy person D decides to donate to the cause. For a wide variety of historical and cultural reasons, in the US it has long been policy to not tax the money that person D donates to help the club. The general reason is that the US was never intended to be socialist - it had a small government and left "social welfare" to a huge array of voluntary and charitable organizations. Money already flowing to such organizations was already deemed to be in the public good, and it was therefore redundant and counter-productive to tax it "for the public good".

    do-gooders on the left long-ago declared that actions in the political realm were in this very nature of being "beneficial to society" and in that vein, the labor unions were enabled to become hugely involved in politics by disguising their Democrat-aligned election activities as "voter outreach", "volunteer training" and so-on and were able to do it under the 501(c4) section of the US code (which covers labor unions). For DECADES all the people on the left DEPENDED on this and defended it with lofty rhetoric about "civic responsibility" and so on. Only recently, as people on the right started to try using the same parts of US law in a similar way, have Democrats become critics - and ALL their proposals to remove the tax exemption have included the 501(c3) section of IRS code (which is where the non-union charities all are) while carefully and deliberately letting the 501(c4) section (which conveniently only applies to labor unions) stand. Any proposal to kill-off tax exemption for the 501(c3) groups in a partisan attempt to "get" the Koch Brothers or the TEA Party, will also hit things like the Shriners, Alcoholics Anon, Food Banks, etc while protecting the thugs at the UAW and the SEIU - an obnoxious result for something pretending to be "reform".

    IF you are going to remove ABSOLUTELY ALL tax exemptions from US Law, you'd at least be more fair than any proposal the Democrats have ever supported BUT you are still stuck with the problem of a group where all the members are contributing after-tax dollars: Should THAT money be re-taxed? I ask because many such proposals remove that tax exemption by declareing a gathering of people to be a new entity and the money chipped-in to be "income". Under that scheme there is no such thing as "freedom of assembly" because nearly every gathering costs money and as such would be taxed and regulated and subject to harassment and arbitrary suppression.

  12. Re:SubjectsForCommentsAreStupid by fredprado · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Oh they are all stored both in the server and in my own backups, but then again neither I not my company are a governmental entity who has the duty and the legal obligation to store and preserve this kind of information, what should I know.

  13. Re:The NSA does not have this data by erroneus · · Score: 2

    Actually, what they WANT is the Lerner emails which went out on the internet. The internal ones are less likely to be interesting.

  14. Sad thing about this is by UrsaMajor987 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The sad thing about this political firestorm is that not one person in a hundred can actually explain what it is about. It's amazing how many people think that the IRS was seeking to prevent the Tea Party from getting tax exempt status; that was never the issue, their tax exempt status was never in doubt. The issue was they were applying for 501(c)(4) status which is reserved for social welfare groups like civic leagues and volunteer fire departments. Social welfare groups are allowed to engage in political activity but it cannot be their primary activity. Wondering why the Tea Party wanted that 501(c)(4) designation? Such groups do not have to reveal who is donating money to them. There has been a large run up in the number of groups applying for the 501(c)(4) designation.

    1. Re:Sad thing about this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Pretty much this. It's also amazing how many people believe that ONLY the Tea Party groups were investigated (they weren't), or spout off with the "they should investigate unions too" crap (unions aren't this kind of organization and so such a thing would be meaningless).

      What this is all about is the Tea Party groups trying to keep their rich astrotuf donors secret, getting caught at it, and doing what conservatives do: accusing their enemies of doing what they themselves do. The louder the better, because like they learned during the Bush administration, a lie told loudly and often will be believed by a lot of people.

    2. Re:Sad thing about this is by mpercy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "civic leagues and volunteer fire departments"

      Like Greenpeace, PETA, Public Citizen, Priorities USA, League of Conservation Voters Inc., Planned Parenthood, etc.

      The primary activity of a 501(c)(4) must be "issues-related" rather than "electioneering" but that is certainly a very broad brush. If candidate A supports issue X while candidate B opposes issue X, a group can support A (and oppose B) by running ads on issue X while never mentioning either candidate by name.

    3. Re:Sad thing about this is by UrsaMajor987 · · Score: 2

      The Revenue Act of 1913 which set up these categories specifically states that 501(c) organizations be "Civil leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes." In 1959, the IRS (without congressional approval) redfined things a bit: "[a]n organization is operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare if it is primarily engaged in promoting in some way the common good and general welfare of the people of the community. An organization embraced within this section is one which is operated primarily for the purpose of bringing about civic betterments and social improvements." Why they did this I do not know and how they expected to draw the line between an organization that primarily supports social welfare and one that secondarily supports social welfare is beyond me. To answer your question about which category under 501(c) the Tea Party should have applied for; the answer is none of them. By the wording of the original law, political organizations should not be getting any 501(c) designations. Obama's campaign organization did in fact convert to 501(c)(4) status (I assume you are talking about Organizing for Action). It converted after Obama won the 2008 election. Since Obama cannot run again, it is misleading to still refer to it as his "campaign organization". Both Republicans and Democrats are abusing the 501(c)(4) designation and deserve to be called out on it. It's a race to the bottom. It is however convenient for large donors; they can now safely give to both parties equally (in secrecy) and claim special access regardless of who wins.

  15. Re:SubjectsForCommentsAreStupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I happen to know for a fact that all of my email sent & received is backed up for 7 years, because those are the retention requirements imposed on my company by the federal government.

    So my emails from 2009 - 2011 are archived happily along with all of the other email from the 2nd half of 2007 through the present day. If a private corporation can be held to this level of competency (and it's really not THAT hard), why shouldn't the motherfucking IRS, which literally owns the fucking finances of the government?

  16. I'm Confused by NotSanguine · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Not surprising. That seems to happen a lot. As such, would someone please explain to me why the IRS allows anyone (let alone the IRS' top administrator) to download their emails to their desktops and delete them from their servers? And even if they did, why don't server backups exist which contain those emails?

    Are the IRS' IT staff that incompetent?

    As for demanding that the NSA turn over email metadata for Lois Lerner's IRS email address, that assumes they even have such information. Emails internal to the IRS shouldn't go across the Internet. I assume (maybe incorrectly) that the NSA isn't actively capturing packets on the IRS' internal networks, so what is to be gained here, except highlighting the incompetence of the IRS and using the "NSA is capturing everything" meme to make the Obama administration look bad.

    So. It's just business as usual. Nothing to see here, just political wrangling to distract us from the fact that our government is being run for the benefit of the monied interests and not its citizens. Move along.

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
  17. Bullshit but favorable bullshit by gman003 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This sounds like the action of a Congressman trying to discredit the NSA. The NSA obviously is not going to respond to this - if they did, they'd be inundated with requests from every small-town prosecutor wanting some more evidence (ironically, some might even get warrants for it). That would be worse than what will happen instead, which is that an anti-NSA legislator gets a talking point about how the NSA isn't using its data and isn't cooperating with the rest of the government (namely Congress).

    Yes, it's just a political point being scored. But it's a point hopefully in our favor - or at the very least, one against our common enemy.

    The more I think about it, the more I think this is the best way to get the NSA shut down. The general public has no control over it; trying to get them angry about it is pointless. The only way the general public could shut it down is by a revolution, and we're too well-fed and content to do that. But Congress could shut it down, so let's find every way to get Congressmen upset about the NSA. I wonder what a FOIA request for some congressional metadata would do...

    1. Re:Bullshit but favorable bullshit by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      Think of the cash flow in the past 10 years. Signals, human intelligence, the diverse layers of US gov agencies, mil that had their own cold war structures, 'votes' ~seats at the table (political access) all getting looked after. The past 10 years have had a huge growth in one agency both in funding, role and politcal/mil power.
      Active foreign clandestine signals, mil, gov, human intelligence groups now have to share, be open to or even get given tasks from one new agency.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  18. Stockman is an asshat by Required+Snark · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Stockman is one of the stranger Tea Party candidates who recently was elected to the House.

    He walked out of the State of the Union Address saying "I could not bear to watch as he continued to cross the clearly-defined boundaries of the Constitutional separation of powers". Really adult.

    He's running for Senate in Texas against Senator Corwyn, the Senate Minority Whip, and he just dropped off the map. He missed 17 House votes in a row. It also seems that even though he is a official candidate, he is doing zero campaigning. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-senate-candidate-steve-stockman-goes-awol/

    He has also been cited by the Office of Congressional Ethics (I know, I laughed too). He accepted campaign contributions from his own staff members, which is a big no no. He is also accused of using his full time House staff members to work on his Congressional campaign. They all pull this trick, but there is a legal way and a stupid way to do this. He chose stupid. http://oce.house.gov/2014/06/june-11-2014---oce-referral-regarding-rep-steve-stockman.html

    So it's not surprising that he would be the one to further complicate the snake pit of uncontrolled domestic surveillance by injecting it into a congressional investigation. Considering his quote about Obama breaking the constitution, his appeal to use unconstitutionally collected data to get at the IRS is mind boggling. His brain is clearly an irony free zone.

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
  19. So the IRS is a terrorist organization? by Virtucon · · Score: 2

    Since the NSA is supposed to be monitoring threats to the US, this request implies that the NSA is targeting the IRS or members of its staff as a potential threat.

    I could agree with that.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  20. Re:lost mail by Virtucon · · Score: 2

    Yes, mailgate was a big fiasco and the Democrats wasted no time in flogging the administration over the lost e-mails. Funny how things turn around now 7 years later and everybody is aghast that the Republicans would now be yelling about the same thing.

    Here's a solution for our branches of government, instead of every dept. having its own e-mail systems, get one and everybody use it. Set up default retention policies and eDiscovery mechanisms and then we won't have this kind of "lost" e-mail issue in the future. Of course they'll get CSC, IBM and Assenter to manage it and it'll cost the taxpayers billions but no longer will we have lost e-mails in the Federal Government. Come on they built a web site thingy, yeah that failed but with more money it was fixed, sort of.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  21. Re:The NSA does not have this data by AHuxley · · Score: 2

    The backbones gives you the real time split of all traffic passed - the email headers of all domestic US telcos would be trivial to keep as data.
    Recall Room 641A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... - domestic, all data is split (mirrored) and sent to another part of the USA for sorting, indexing and then efficient encoding and compression for longterm storage. The corporate pipes are the backbones.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  22. Re:Nice Synergy by PapayaSF · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Take a real scandal (NSA) and link it to a fake one (IRS)

    Can we please stop referring to this as a "fake scandal"? It's real.

    1. - Hundreds of conservative groups were targeted
    2. - Applications were delayed for months and years
    3. - Absurd, intrusive, unusual questions were asked: for membership lists, readings lists, the content of prayers (WTF?)
    4. - 100% of the 501(c)(4) groups audited by IRS were conservative
    5. - The IRS audited 10% of all Tea Party donors from the lists provided to the agency
    6. - Meanwhile, Obama's campaign org OfA smoothly became a 501(c)(4), and still runs his Twitter feed. No partisan politics there!
    7. - Obama's skeezy half-brother had his "charity" fast-tracked to 501(c)(3) status, despite years of illegal fundraising, and had those illegal actions approved retroactively.
    8. - And all along, administration officials lied repeatedly: it was a rogue activity of a few people in Cincinnati, etc., and most recently, Congressional testimony that the IRS has all of the emails.

    Richard Nixon could only dream of using the IRS like this. By now, only the willfully blind can consider this a "fake" scandal.

    --
    Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
  23. It's a bullshit excuse to start with by msobkow · · Score: 2

    In both the US and Canada, data is supposed to be retained for 7 years by companies. It's standard practice to archive email at the SERVER before letting a client download it. Some places won't even allow email downloads, but force you to stick with protocols that leave the email on the server for safe keeping.

    I don't buy it for a second. They didn't "lose" the emails and they can get them from the system backups for the email server ANY TIME.

    Someone should be SHOT for this fraud.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  24. Re:did you even NOTICE what you just admitted? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The level of discourse is very low on both sides.

    I have to suffer through way more "libtards" than "knuckle-dragger" (rare) or a "mouth breather" (never?) or a "religious nut" (now this one is common).

    And it's Limbaugh who is calling women "sluts" (and worse.)

    After Romney lost- it was my conservative friends who were defriending all my liberal friends. I couldn't believe they were shocked he lost. It was *clear* from August that he was going to lose- he was unelectable.

    I *used* to be a conservative independent (Voted for Reagan- twice... and for Bush Sr). But the republican party has been running so hard to the right, I'm finding myself unable to vote for any republican candidate that gets through the primary. They are all religious extremists who are neither fiscally conservative nor socially liberal.

    In my conservative mailing list, Eric Cantor ( A "grade A" conservative according to the NRA and the anti-abortion groups) was called a "Rino". As far to the right as he was, he was still considered a liberal.

    It is *literally* reached the point that it is crazy. Especially now that the Tea party has been taken over by the christian right who has basically forced out the original libertarian base.

    I don't think your view of reality is very realistic. I've seen that increasingly in both the left and the right wings becoming extremists. The right seems to also be losing touch with reality. I really am starting to think we are going to see the disintegration of the republican party into a wealthy/corporate party, a religious party, and a libertarian party. And none of them will be electable so that should be impossible.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.