IRS Apologizes For Targeting Conservative Political Groups In 2012 Ele (1 Viewer)

[ArbyMelt]

Drummer sounds like the perfect fit for the next IRS commissioner

 

[drummer]

Drummer sounds like the perfect fit for the next IRS commissioner

Yeah, and you owe like a LOT you deadbeat.

 

[drummer]

Does that make them illegitimate because they may be not around now?

Maybe because they weren't in the first place.

OK, my guess is, like a lot of things political, you don't know what a PAC is. So....why are you so concerned?

 

[MaxThreshold]

Does that make them illegitimate because they may be not around now?

Maybe because they weren't in the first place.

OK, my guess is, like a lot of things political, you don't know what a PAC is. So....why are you so concerned?

And, as usual, you make a lot of incorrect assumptions. I'm just asking where the proof of them being "illegitimate" is coming from.

 

[Stinger Ray]

Does that make them illegitimate because they may be not around now?

Maybe because they weren't in the first place.

OK, my guess is, like a lot of things political, you don't know what a PAC is. So....why are you so concerned?

Like most of your political posts you are again being a condescending ###

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

People still upset over this?

Yeah, it's kind of front-page news.

So your PAC was on that list?

You think people should care only about things

that affect them personally?

That would be a strange rule. Nonetheless, I think that gross incompetence (or worse) by the

IRS has the potential to affect all of us

personally. So I think people are justified in being disturbed by this issue, even if they are not associated with PACs, until the

incompetence is cured.

They're PACs. Most who were trying to game

the system with a tax exemption. You'd figure

those who are conservative to be against anything trying to game the system. Heck the whole idea of PACs are the real problem. People should get upset over Joe Blow starting a website to get paid via a half arsed

"conservative" PAC.

Yes, that totally justifies the IRS breaking the law and covering it up

Which law did they break?

The Federal Records Act

 

[drummer]

Does that make them illegitimate because they may be not around now?

Maybe because they weren't in the first place.

OK, my guess is, like a lot of things political, you don't know what a PAC is. So....why are you so concerned?

And, as usual, you make a lot of incorrect assumptions. I'm just asking where the proof of them being "illegitimate" is coming from.

Here's a list:

https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php?cycle=2012

As you can see on this list, there are a lot of SuperPACs that have zero dollars in contributions. Not that they are illegitimate, rather they can be anything like "**** Cheney For A Better America", which has zero dollars in contributions.

Now some info on PACs and filing for tax exemption:

http://www.taxfreecharity.com/politicalactioncommittees.htm

This is where the whole "Social Welfare Program" thingy comes into play.

Do I need to post more? Or can you go back and learn how to read a thread?

 

[drummer]

Does that make them illegitimate because they may be not around now?

Maybe because they weren't in the first place.

OK, my guess is, like a lot of things political, you don't know what a PAC is. So....why are you so concerned?

Like most of your political posts you are again being a condescending ###

Then I am doing my job, and doing it well.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Does that make them illegitimate because they may be not around now?

Maybe because they weren't in the first place.

OK, my guess is, like a lot of things political, you don't know what a PAC is. So....why are you so concerned?

And, as usual, you make a lot of incorrect assumptions. I'm just asking where the proof of them being "illegitimate" is coming from.

Here's a list:

https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php?cycle=2012

As you can see on this list, there are a lot of SuperPACs that have zero dollars in contributions. Not that they are illegitimate, rather they can be anything like "**** Cheney For A Better America", which has zero dollars in contributions.

Now some info on PACs and filing for tax exemption:

http://www.taxfreecharity.com/politicalactioncommittees.htm

This is where the whole "Social Welfare Program" thingy comes into play.

Do I need to post more? Or can you go back and learn how to read a thread?

Wait...now you're saying they ARE legitimate? Which is it?

Maybe you need to go back and re-read your previous post that started this whole conversation.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Does that make them illegitimate because they may be not around now?

Maybe because they weren't in the first place.

OK, my guess is, like a lot of things political, you don't know what a PAC is. So....why are you so concerned?

Like most of your political posts you are again being a condescending ###

Then I am doing my job, and doing it well.

If you job is being an incorrect and a jackass, then you're doing it extremely well.

 

[drummer]

Does that make them illegitimate because they may be not around now?

Maybe because they weren't in the first place.

OK, my guess is, like a lot of things political, you don't know what a PAC is. So....why are you so concerned?

And, as usual, you make a lot of incorrect assumptions. I'm just asking where the proof of them being "illegitimate" is coming from.

Here's a list:

https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php?cycle=2012

As you can see on this list, there are a lot of SuperPACs that have zero dollars in contributions. Not that they are illegitimate, rather they can be anything like "**** Cheney For A Better America", which has zero dollars in contributions.

Now some info on PACs and filing for tax exemption:

http://www.taxfreecharity.com/politicalactioncommittees.htm

This is where the whole "Social Welfare Program" thingy comes into play.

Do I need to post more? Or can you go back and learn how to read a thread?

Wait...now you're saying they ARE legitimate? Which is it?

Maybe you need to go back and re-read your previous post that started this whole conversation.

Maybe you need to go back and finish high school.

 

[drummer]

Does that make them illegitimate because they may be not around now?

Maybe because they weren't in the first place.

OK, my guess is, like a lot of things political, you don't know what a PAC is. So....why are you so concerned?

Like most of your political posts you are again being a condescending ###

Then I am doing my job, and doing it well.

If you job is being an incorrect and a jackass, then you're doing it extremely well.

I don't think anybody can help you.

 

[rockaction]

Just a link for those interested. There's a guy that Instapundit links to that rounds up the IRS "scandal" (I put that in quotes to remain non-partisan) every day. His name is Paul Caron, and he runs a blog called TaxProf Blog. His effort is largely one of an aggregator, linking to almost all major media outlets' coverage of the scandal. This is his blog. One can check daily for the summary of what is going on.

It's a rightist slant, to be sure, but he includes almost all links from the left as well. Enjoy!

http://taxprof.typepad.com

 

[MaxThreshold]

Does that make them illegitimate because they may be not around now?

Maybe because they weren't in the first place.

OK, my guess is, like a lot of things political, you don't know what a PAC is. So....why are you so concerned?

And, as usual, you make a lot of incorrect assumptions. I'm just asking where the proof of them being "illegitimate" is coming from.

Here's a list:

https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php?cycle=2012

As you can see on this list, there are a lot of SuperPACs that have zero dollars in contributions. Not that they are illegitimate, rather they can be anything like "**** Cheney For A Better America", which has zero dollars in contributions.

Now some info on PACs and filing for tax exemption:

http://www.taxfreecharity.com/politicalactioncommittees.htm

This is where the whole "Social Welfare Program" thingy comes into play.

Do I need to post more? Or can you go back and learn how to read a thread?

Wait...now you're saying they ARE legitimate? Which is it?

Maybe you need to go back and re-read your previous post that started this whole conversation.

Maybe you need to go back and finish high school.

I'll go to the one your currently attending.

 

[drummer]

Does that make them illegitimate because they may be not around now?

Maybe because they weren't in the first place.

OK, my guess is, like a lot of things political, you don't know what a PAC is. So....why are you so concerned?

And, as usual, you make a lot of incorrect assumptions. I'm just asking where the proof of them being "illegitimate" is coming from.

Here's a list:

https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php?cycle=2012

As you can see on this list, there are a lot of SuperPACs that have zero dollars in contributions. Not that they are illegitimate, rather they can be anything like "**** Cheney For A Better America", which has zero dollars in contributions.

Now some info on PACs and filing for tax exemption:

http://www.taxfreecharity.com/politicalactioncommittees.htm

This is where the whole "Social Welfare Program" thingy comes into play.

Do I need to post more? Or can you go back and learn how to read a thread?

Wait...now you're saying they ARE legitimate? Which is it?

Maybe you need to go back and re-read your previous post that started this whole conversation.

Maybe you need to go back and finish high school.

I'll go to the one your currently attending.

You can't. You're from Wisconsin.

 

[rockaction]

Hard drives were destroyed.

This administration is truly lawless. While you progressives might think it's cool and funny to do whatever it takes to stick it to the political opposition, what you are in fact doing is creating the perfect breeding environment for a future strongman to take over a heavy-handed executive branch whose powers have been so thoroughly corrupted.

Good lord these people are crooks. Also arent emails stored on a server not a hard drive?

From that article:

That’s because before May 2013, the IRS backed up emails only for six months on a tape, then recycled the tapes, so they essentially threw out the data. Many agencies do the same, transparency experts say.

That is indeed the new narrative. Glad a version of Journolist still exists.

From The Nation: Moreover, this is not an uncommon occurrence. Federal record-keeping borders on abysmal. Time and again crucial documents from many different agencies have gone missing. This episode reveals a much more banal form of federal noncompliance and malfeasance than what’s alleged by Limbaugh and company—but a much more real scandal.

I'm not even going to bother looking at the other liberal papers because I know already that the "real scandal" is going to be about record-keeping.

Megan McArdle (a "responsible" conservative journalist if ever there was one) did the same thing in the Atlantic a day ago, blah blah blah.

eta* I should add that regardless of the unwillingness by particular papers and online magazines to press the point of a more nefarious scandal, recognizing that regulators and federal agencies are held to lower standards of record-keeping than those they regulate -- especially since they have the power to punish for inadequate record-keeping -- is, as McArdle points out, something which people should be fuming about.

This guy got the message, as did Jon Stewart. This is the REAL scandal. In caps, no less. This gets more cynical/hilarious by the day.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/25/jon-stewart-irs-scandal_n_5528478.html

 

[tommyboy]

Ted Cruz calling for Special Prosecutor from Holder, and if Holder doesn't comply, then impeach Holder.

wow

 

[drummer]

Ted Cruz

wow

 

[tommyGunZ]

Hard drives were destroyed.

This administration is truly lawless. While you progressives might think it's cool and funny to do whatever it takes to stick it to the political opposition, what you are in fact doing is creating the perfect breeding environment for a future strongman to take over a heavy-handed executive branch whose powers have been so thoroughly corrupted.

Good lord these people are crooks. Also arent emails stored on a server not a hard drive?

From that article:

That’s because before May 2013, the IRS backed up emails only for six months on a tape, then recycled the tapes, so they essentially threw out the data. Many agencies do the same, transparency experts say.

That is indeed the new narrative. Glad a version of Journolist still exists.

From The Nation: Moreover, this is not an uncommon occurrence. Federal record-keeping borders on abysmal. Time and again crucial documents from many different agencies have gone missing. This episode reveals a much more banal form of federal noncompliance and malfeasance than what’s alleged by Limbaugh and company—but a much more real scandal.

I'm not even going to bother looking at the other liberal papers because I know already that the "real scandal" is going to be about record-keeping.

Megan McArdle (a "responsible" conservative journalist if ever there was one) did the same thing in the Atlantic a day ago, blah blah blah.

eta* I should add that regardless of the unwillingness by particular papers and online magazines to press the point of a more nefarious scandal, recognizing that regulators and federal agencies are held to lower standards of record-keeping than those they regulate -- especially since they have the power to punish for inadequate record-keeping -- is, as McArdle points out, something which people should be fuming about.

This guy got the message, as did Jon Stewart. This is the REAL scandal. In caps, no less. This gets more cynical/hilarious by the day.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/25/jon-stewart-irs-scandal_n_5528478.html

If that's the "scandal", then LOFL indeed.

Are we really going to listen to republicans whine about how our gov't agencies do not have the latest and greatest technologies to properly manage their documents????

 

[timschochet]

Ted Cruz calling for Special Prosecutor from Holder, and if Holder doesn't comply, then impeach Holder.

wow

Damn, that's pretty serious. And coming from Ted Cruz too! He's usually the height of caution.

 

[pizzatyme]

I get sick of you government ball washers going around and making excuses for their ####ups. It's like you're in bed with them.

See it for what it is once in a while!

That includes Iraq, IRS, Benghazi, etc.

 

[drummer]

I get sick of you government ball washers going around and making excuses for their ####ups. It's like you're in bed with them.

See it for what it is once in a while!

That includes Iraq, IRS, Benghazi, etc.

Start your own party and then see how much money you won't raise then.

 

[tommyboy]

Media Having Trouble Finding Right Angle On Obama's Double-Homicide

News • Politics • barack obama • ISSUE 45•16 • Apr 14, 2009

The press hasn't figured out how best to display the gruesome crime-scene photos from the president's bloody rampage.

• 9.0K
• 939
• 93

WASHINGTON—More than a week after President Barack Obama's cold-blooded killing of a local couple, members of the American news media admitted Tuesday that they were still trying to find the best angle for covering the gruesome crime.

"I know there's a story in there somewhere," said Newsweek editor Jon Meacham, referring to Obama's home invasion and execution-style slaying of Jeff and Sue Finowicz on Apr. 8. "Right now though, it's probably best to just sit back and wait for more information to come in. After all, the only thing we know for sure is that our president senselessly murdered two unsuspecting Americans without emotion or hesitation."

Added Meacham, "It's not so cut and dried."

Associated Press reporters investigate any possible gym training regimens the president might have used to get into peak physical condition for the murders.

Since the killings took place, reporters across the country have struggled to come up with an appropriate take on the ruthless crime, with some wondering whether it warrants front-page coverage, and others questioning its relevance in a fast-changing media landscape.

"What exactly is the news hook here?" asked Rick Kaplan, executive producer of the CBS Evening News. "Is this an upbeat human-interest story about a 'day in the life' of a bloodthirsty president who likes to kill people? Or is it more of an examination of how Obama's unusual upbringing in Hawaii helped to shape the way he would one day viciously butcher two helpless citizens in their own home?"

"Or maybe the story is just that murder is cool now," Kaplan continued. "I don't know. There are a million different angles on this one."

So far, the president's double-homicide has not been covered by any major news outlets. The only two mentions of the heinous tragedy have been a 100-word blurb on the Associated Press wire and an obituary on page E7 of this week's edition of the Lake County Examiner.

While Obama has expressed no remorse for the grisly murders—point-blank shootings with an unregistered .38-caliber revolver—many journalists said it would be irresponsible for the press to sensationalize the story.

"There's been some debate around the office about whether we should report on this at all," Washington Post seniorreporter Bill Tracy said while on assignment at a local dog show. "It's enough of a tragedy without the press jumping in and pointing fingers or, worse, exploiting the violence. Plus, we need to be sensitive to the victims' families at this time. Their loved ones were brutally, brutally murdered, after all."

Nevertheless, a small contingent of independent journalists has begun to express its disapproval and growing shock over the president's actions.

"I hate to rain on everyone's parade, but we are in the midst of an economic crisis here," political pundit Marcus Reid said. "Why was our president ritualistically dismembering the corpses of his prey when he should have been working on a new tax proposal for small businesses? I, for one, am outraged."

The New York Times newsroom is reportedly still undecided on whether or not to print a recent letter received from Obama, in which the president threatens to kill another helpless citizen every Tuesday and "fill [his] heavenly palace with slaves for the afterlife" unless the police "stop the darkness from screaming."

"President Obama's letter presents us with a classic journalistic quandary," executive editor Bill Keller said. "If we print it, then we're giving him control over the kinds of stories we choose to run. It would be an acknowledgment that we somehow give the nation's commander in chief special treatment."

Added Keller, "And that's just not how the press in this country works."

 

[rockaction]

Hard drives were destroyed.

This administration is truly lawless. While you progressives might think it's cool and funny to do whatever it takes to stick it to the political opposition, what you are in fact doing is creating the perfect breeding environment for a future strongman to take over a heavy-handed executive branch whose powers have been so thoroughly corrupted.

Good lord these people are crooks. Also arent emails stored on a server not a hard drive?

From that article:

That’s because before May 2013, the IRS backed up emails only for six months on a tape, then recycled the tapes, so they essentially threw out the data. Many agencies do the same, transparency experts say.

That is indeed the new narrative. Glad a version of Journolist still exists.

From The Nation: Moreover, this is not an uncommon occurrence. Federal record-keeping borders on abysmal. Time and again crucial documents from many different agencies have gone missing. This episode reveals a much more banal form of federal noncompliance and malfeasance than what’s alleged by Limbaugh and company—but a much more real scandal.

I'm not even going to bother looking at the other liberal papers because I know already that the "real scandal" is going to be about record-keeping.

Megan McArdle (a "responsible" conservative journalist if ever there was one) did the same thing in the Atlantic a day ago, blah blah blah.

eta* I should add that regardless of the unwillingness by particular papers and online magazines to press the point of a more nefarious scandal, recognizing that regulators and federal agencies are held to lower standards of record-keeping than those they regulate -- especially since they have the power to punish for inadequate record-keeping -- is, as McArdle points out, something which people should be fuming about.

This guy got the message, as did Jon Stewart. This is the REAL scandal. In caps, no less. This gets more cynical/hilarious by the day.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/25/jon-stewart-irs-scandal_n_5528478.html

If that's the "scandal", then LOFL indeed.

Are we really going to listen to republicans whine about how our gov't agencies do not have the latest and greatest technologies to properly manage their documents????

That's so far afield, it's on the practice pitch.

and @tommyboy

 

[Lutherman2112]

Media Having Trouble Finding Right Angle On Obama's Double-Homicide

News • Politics • barack obama • ISSUE 45•16 • Apr 14, 2009

The press hasn't figured out how best to display the gruesome crime-scene photos from the president's bloody rampage.

• 9.0K
• 939
• 93

WASHINGTON—More than a week after President Barack Obama's cold-blooded killing of a local couple, members of the American news media admitted Tuesday that they were still trying to find the best angle for covering the gruesome crime.

"I know there's a story in there somewhere," said Newsweek editor Jon Meacham, referring to Obama's home invasion and execution-style slaying of Jeff and Sue Finowicz on Apr. 8. "Right now though, it's probably best to just sit back and wait for more information to come in. After all, the only thing we know for sure is that our president senselessly murdered two unsuspecting Americans without emotion or hesitation."

Added Meacham, "It's not so cut and dried."

Associated Press reporters investigate any possible gym training regimens the president might have used to get into peak physical condition for the murders.

Since the killings took place, reporters across the country have struggled to come up with an appropriate take on the ruthless crime, with some wondering whether it warrants front-page coverage, and others questioning its relevance in a fast-changing media landscape.

"What exactly is the news hook here?" asked Rick Kaplan, executive producer of the CBS Evening News. "Is this an upbeat human-interest story about a 'day in the life' of a bloodthirsty president who likes to kill people? Or is it more of an examination of how Obama's unusual upbringing in Hawaii helped to shape the way he would one day viciously butcher two helpless citizens in their own home?"

"Or maybe the story is just that murder is cool now," Kaplan continued. "I don't know. There are a million different angles on this one."

So far, the president's double-homicide has not been covered by any major news outlets. The only two mentions of the heinous tragedy have been a 100-word blurb on the Associated Press wire and an obituary on page E7 of this week's edition of the Lake County Examiner.

While Obama has expressed no remorse for the grisly murders—point-blank shootings with an unregistered .38-caliber revolver—many journalists said it would be irresponsible for the press to sensationalize the story.

"There's been some debate around the office about whether we should report on this at all," Washington Post seniorreporter Bill Tracy said while on assignment at a local dog show. "It's enough of a tragedy without the press jumping in and pointing fingers or, worse, exploiting the violence. Plus, we need to be sensitive to the victims' families at this time. Their loved ones were brutally, brutally murdered, after all."

Nevertheless, a small contingent of independent journalists has begun to express its disapproval and growing shock over the president's actions.

"I hate to rain on everyone's parade, but we are in the midst of an economic crisis here," political pundit Marcus Reid said. "Why was our president ritualistically dismembering the corpses of his prey when he should have been working on a new tax proposal for small businesses? I, for one, am outraged."

The New York Times newsroom is reportedly still undecided on whether or not to print a recent letter received from Obama, in which the president threatens to kill another helpless citizen every Tuesday and "fill [his] heavenly palace with slaves for the afterlife" unless the police "stop the darkness from screaming."

"President Obama's letter presents us with a classic journalistic quandary," executive editor Bill Keller said. "If we print it, then we're giving him control over the kinds of stories we choose to run. It would be an acknowledgment that we somehow give the nation's commander in chief special treatment."

Added Keller, "And that's just not how the press in this country works."

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-06-26/lois-lerner-s-e-mails-ruh-roh

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-06-26/lois-lerner-s-e-mails-ruh-roh

From the article, man claims that Lerner at the FEC personally tried to intimidate him into dropping out of the Senate race against **** Durbin (IL) and promising to never run fir office again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrXdUuEb2Rs

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2013/06/lerner-asked-salvi-for-200000-plus-never-run-again-promise.html

CHICAGO - Former GOP U.S. Senate candidate Al Salvi's (photo right) revelation this week that IRS official Lois Lerner offered to drop the Federal Election Commission's (FEC) 1996 case against him if he promised to never run for office again was the proverbial tip of the iceberg.

"Before Lois Lerner (photo right) took us before the federal judge, her last offer was for me to promise to never run for office again. That was always part of their demands," Salvi said. "Before that last offer, another FEC representative that reported to Lerner wanted $200,000 and a promise not to run."

Knowing his $1.1 million campaign loan to himself was legal, Salvi rejected the initial settlement offer from FEC attorney Colleen Sealander. In later conversations, Sealander lowered the amount to $100,000, then $40,000, but always with the additional promise to never run for office again.

"Every time we talked, I refused the offer, and Colleen said she'd have to check with someone," Salvi said. "I finally told her I'd like to talk to whomever she reported. That's when I got a call from Lois Lerner."

During that call, Salvi said, he explained to Lerner exactly what happened -- that while the loan to himself was legal, there may be a difference of opinion on how the loan was reported to the FEC. Salvi explained it was a simple matter and said he thought Lerner would suggest an agreeable solution and dismiss the Democratic National Committee's complaint.

But that was not Lerner's reaction. Instead, that's when she said to Salvi, "Promise me you'll never run for office again, and we'll drop the case."

Salvi said he asked Lerner if she would be willing to put the offer into writing.

"We don't do things that way," Salvi said Lerner replied.

Salvi queried how then could such an agreement be enforced.

According to Salvi, Lerner replied: "You'll find out."

Without a settlement, the Salvi case went to federal court. After months and years of briefings, delays and court appearances, federal judge George Lindbergh dismissed the case on its merits. Lindbergh said the FEC's disagreement over filing, when two ways of reporting were acceptable, was groundless. The FEC appealed Lindbergh's decision, but their appeal was thrown back to Lindbergh's decision and the Salvi campaign won. Court documents show that Salvi was never fined or penalized.

Sealander and Lerner made similar offers to Salvi and his legal counsel in the process leading up to the court proceedings. Salvi's brother Mike and his wife Kathy led Salvi's defense against a team of D.C. attorneys, who were flown into Chicago to appear before the judge, Salvi said.

Negotiations with those facing FEC complaints are part of standard procedure, an FEC spokesperson told Illinois Review, but records of those negotiation conversations are not available in court documents.

The FEC office in D.C. confirmed to Illinois Review that a person in the Litigation Department named Colleen Sealander did work there during the years the Salvi case was active, and very well could have negotiated with Salvi. Sealander is no longer employed at the FEC.

Public FEC records show Colleen Sealander was active in FEC litigation through 2007, and resident records show Sealander continues to live in Washington DC.

Open Secrets.org also shows Sealander made seven campaign contributions to Barack Obama in 2012.

Salvi said the FEC controversy filed in 1996 lingered through his 1998 challenge of Secretary of State Jesse White. The Democrats used the questions raised in campaign ads that implied he had been involved in criminal activity.

"I remember getting a pizza with my kids, and looking up to see the TV showing the [Democrat] ad, and I didn't want to upset my kids, so I distracted them away," he said. "I'll never forget the concern that went on for months, affecting my law firm and my business."

And Salvi said when he thinks of that, he recalls the shock on Lerner's face when the judge dismissed his case. "We never lose!" Lerner said, and then, he said she distinctly threatened, "We'll get you!"

Salvi said he told his wife right away to get ready for an IRS audit - that it would be coming. He instructed his firm's accountants to err on the conservative side when filing tax returns, just in case.

But after the May 2000 dismissal, there was no contact from the FEC or from the IRS. However, there was from the FBI. In the fall of 2000, FBI agents knocked on the door of the Salvis' home and said they wanted to ask him about his mother's $2000 donation to his 1996 U.S. Senate campaign.

"That visit from the FBI was significant," Salvi said. "That meant a criminal investigation, not a civil disagreement with the elections commission. And, if a person lies to the FBI, they can go to jail."

Salvi said he reviewed the situation with the agents, and told them they were being used for political purposes. The two agents visited with his elderly mother and soon after, notified Salvi they were terminating the investigation.

"It was a nightmare," Salvi said. "People ask me today why I've never run for office again after being a state representative for two terms, winning a GOP primary against the sitting lieutenant governor to run for U.S. Senate, and then finally losing an intense campaign against Durbin. All the time this long FEC ordeal continued while I ran for Secretary of State in 1998 and beyond. Why would anyone run for office again after all that? I'm very happy now, representing clients and raising my family. Never been happier."

Some would say Lerner and those pushing her to use the FEC to stop Salvi from running for office again got exactly what they wanted after all.

 

[tommyboy]

Lois Lerner should be publicly executed

 

[MaxThreshold]

Lois Lerner should be publicly executed

No way she acted alone in this. This goes much higher.

 

[Kevrunner]

Lois Lerner should be publicly executed

No way she acted alone in this. This goes much higher.

I guess we will never know, Obama picked Holder for a reason.

 

[Sand]

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-06-26/lois-lerner-s-e-mails-ruh-roh

From the article, man claims that Lerner at the FEC personally tried to intimidate him into dropping out of the Senate race against **** Durbin (IL) and promising to never run fir office again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrXdUuEb2Rs

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2013/06/lerner-asked-salvi-for-200000-plus-never-run-again-promise.html

The FEC office in D.C. confirmed to Illinois Review that a person in the Litigation Department named Colleen Sealander did work there during the years the Salvi case was active, and very well could have negotiated with Salvi. Sealander is no longer employed at the FEC.

Public FEC records show Colleen Sealander was active in FEC litigation through 2007, and resident records show Sealander continues to live in Washington DC.

Open Secrets.org also shows Sealander made seven campaign contributions to Barack Obama in 2012.

Salvi said the FEC controversy filed in 1996 lingered through his 1998 challenge of Secretary of State Jesse White. The Democrats used the questions raised in campaign ads that implied he had been involved in criminal activity.

"I remember getting a pizza with my kids, and looking up to see the TV showing the [Democrat] ad, and I didn't want to upset my kids, so I distracted them away," he said. "I'll never forget the concern that went on for months, affecting my law firm and my business."

And Salvi said when he thinks of that, he recalls the shock on Lerner's face when the judge dismissed his case. "We never lose!" Lerner said, and then, he said she distinctly threatened, "We'll get you!"

Salvi said he told his wife right away to get ready for an IRS audit - that it would be coming. He instructed his firm's accountants to err on the conservative side when filing tax returns, just in case.

But after the May 2000 dismissal, there was no contact from the FEC or from the IRS. However, there was from the FBI. In the fall of 2000, FBI agents knocked on the door of the Salvis' home and said they wanted to ask him about his mother's $2000 donation to his 1996 U.S. Senate campaign.

"That visit from the FBI was significant," Salvi said. "That meant a criminal investigation, not a civil disagreement with the elections commission. And, if a person lies to the FBI, they can go to jail."

Salvi said he reviewed the situation with the agents, and told them they were being used for political purposes. The two agents visited with his elderly mother and soon after, notified Salvi they were terminating the investigation.

"It was a nightmare," Salvi said. "People ask me today why I've never run for office again after being a state representative for two terms, winning a GOP primary against the sitting lieutenant governor to run for U.S. Senate, and then finally losing an intense campaign against Durbin. All the time this long FEC ordeal continued while I ran for Secretary of State in 1998 and beyond. Why would anyone run for office again after all that? I'm very happy now, representing clients and raising my family. Never been happier."

Some would say Lerner and those pushing her to use the FEC to stop Salvi from running for office again got exactly what they wanted after all.

Not a surprise to read this. At all.

 

[MaxThreshold]

And when a free people lose their capacity for outrage, they are susceptible to almost anything.

 

[avoiding injuries]

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-06-26/lois-lerner-s-e-mails-ruh-roh

From the article, man claims that Lerner at the FEC personally tried to intimidate him into dropping out of the Senate race against **** Durbin (IL) and promising to never run fir office again.

I'm surprised. I'm also surprised that this is the only place I'll likely hear that story. So crooked.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Lois Lerner should be publicly executed

No way she acted alone in this. This goes much higher.

BIGGER THAN WATERGATE-aZZZZZZZZZZZZZI!!!!!

 

[The Commish]

Yet federal law specifies the retention policies of these institutions. And it has to be longer than 6 months or whatever they used to recycle those tapes. From a common sense point of view an agency that requires people to keep records for 7 years for tax purposes should have an internal email retention policy at least that long. Even you can't argue this.

This isn't correct. Your tax records are a different classification of information than email. They typically aren't, nor have they ever been, held to the same retention standards. Thus the questions I was asking above. Our company's policy is around the person's inbox....you can keep up to 9 months of emails there. If you want to keep them longer than that, you create another place to keep them or back them up yourself.

The bolded is a TERRIBLE company policy, and will get the company in trouble with a judge some day. If there's one thing a judge doesn't want to see, it's an arbitrary policy in which end-users can decide for themselves how long the retention should be.

Regarding e-mails in particular, the actual policy itself is somewhat irrelevant, as long as it is written, standardized, and followed. "Standardized" could even be "six months for regular users, twelve months for executives". "End-users can copy e-mails to their local hard drive at their own discretion" is not standardized.

Not sure I understand. What's the problem with the policy? Email is a form of communication, not documentation. If it's important enough to document, it belongs in a more secure place than your inbox. I don't trust my email as far as I can throw it for those purposes. No one should.

E-mail is very much documentation. It documents who said what to whom, and when. It can document who agreed to what, and when. It can serve as proof that one person provided certain information to another person at a specific time. It's like having official meeting minutes on all correspondence. A company wouldn't let each attendee at a meeting go through the meeting minutes whatever they wanted. E-mail should be the same way.

It's fine if you don't want the e-mail in your Inbox any more, but the company should have a policy regarding how long it keeps copies of e-mails in its archive. Many companies will have multiple policies, such as one retention policy for e-mail within the company and another retention policy for e-mail to/from addresses outside the company.

On a separate note, why wouldn't you trust e-mail for important information? What's "a more secure place"?

I should have been more clear. Email can be whatever you (personally or via company policy) want it to be. It can be your method of documentation if you choose. The key part is "if you choose". I'd agree with you on all counts if the company did indeed choose to use email this way. I don't know many companies that do for obvious reasons, so I was coming at this from that perspective. We don't use email for documentations purposes. Period. When you have 200,000+ employees that becomes very expensive and very vulnerable. That's our company policy and I struggle to see why it's "terrible". Far more effective avenues are at our disposal like sharepoint sites (though not very secure, they are ONLY on internal networks). An exchange server is the last place I want "sensitive" data. We have other SOR for things requiring signatures. All of it is held on secure data warehouses within our intranet. It's all stable, backed up daily and architected for DR kinds of situations.

 

[RCon]

Not sure I understand. What's the problem with the policy? Email is a form of communication, not documentation. If it's important enough to document, it belongs in a more secure place than your inbox. I don't trust my email as far as I can throw it for those purposes. No one should.

E-mail is very much documentation. It documents who said what to whom, and when. It can document who agreed to what, and when. It can serve as proof that one person provided certain information to another person at a specific time. It's like having official meeting minutes on all correspondence. A company wouldn't let each attendee at a meeting go through the meeting minutes whatever they wanted. E-mail should be the same way.

It's fine if you don't want the e-mail in your Inbox any more, but the company should have a policy regarding how long it keeps copies of e-mails in its archive. Many companies will have multiple policies, such as one retention policy for e-mail within the company and another retention policy for e-mail to/from addresses outside the company.

On a separate note, why wouldn't you trust e-mail for important information? What's "a more secure place"?

I should have been more clear. Email can be whatever you (personally or via company policy) want it to be. It can be your method of documentation if you choose. The key part is "if you choose". I'd agree with you on all counts if the company did indeed choose to use email this way. I don't know many companies that do for obvious reasons, so I was coming at this from that perspective. We don't use email for documentations purposes. Period. When you have 200,000+ employees that becomes very expensive and very vulnerable. That's our company policy and I struggle to see why it's "terrible". Far more effective avenues are at our disposal like sharepoint sites (though not very secure, they are ONLY on internal networks). An exchange server is the last place I want "sensitive" data. We have other SOR for things requiring signatures. All of it is held on secure data warehouses within our intranet. It's all stable, backed up daily and architected for DR kinds of situations.

The bolded is where you're wrong. E-mail doesn't magically become "not documentation" just because you say it's not. E-mail is documentation, period. What it documents depends on what you write (and attach) in each e-mail. You may choose not to write anything "important" in an e-mail, but every single e-mail message documents something, just like every other "recorded" item documents something.

 

[The Commish]

Not sure I understand. What's the problem with the policy? Email is a form of communication, not documentation. If it's important enough to document, it belongs in a more secure place than your inbox. I don't trust my email as far as I can throw it for those purposes. No one should.

E-mail is very much documentation. It documents who said what to whom, and when. It can document who agreed to what, and when. It can serve as proof that one person provided certain information to another person at a specific time. It's like having official meeting minutes on all correspondence. A company wouldn't let each attendee at a meeting go through the meeting minutes whatever they wanted. E-mail should be the same way.

It's fine if you don't want the e-mail in your Inbox any more, but the company should have a policy regarding how long it keeps copies of e-mails in its archive. Many companies will have multiple policies, such as one retention policy for e-mail within the company and another retention policy for e-mail to/from addresses outside the company.

On a separate note, why wouldn't you trust e-mail for important information? What's "a more secure place"?

I should have been more clear. Email can be whatever you (personally or via company policy) want it to be. It can be your method of documentation if you choose. The key part is "if you choose". I'd agree with you on all counts if the company did indeed choose to use email this way. I don't know many companies that do for obvious reasons, so I was coming at this from that perspective. We don't use email for documentations purposes. Period. When you have 200,000+ employees that becomes very expensive and very vulnerable. That's our company policy and I struggle to see why it's "terrible". Far more effective avenues are at our disposal like sharepoint sites (though not very secure, they are ONLY on internal networks). An exchange server is the last place I want "sensitive" data. We have other SOR for things requiring signatures. All of it is held on secure data warehouses within our intranet. It's all stable, backed up daily and architected for DR kinds of situations.

The bolded is where you're wrong. E-mail doesn't magically become "not documentation" just because you say it's not. E-mail is documentation, period. What it documents depends on what you write (and attach) in each e-mail. You may choose not to write anything "important" in an e-mail, but every single e-mail message documents something, just like every other "recorded" item documents something.

Perhaps we are talking past each other or meaning different things when we use the term documentation. So if I receive an email asking me to move $400 from x account to y account, it doesn't document anything other than I got an email from someone (supposedly the owner of the email account) asking me to move money. I can't take action on that for obvious reasons. Until that transaction goes through our formal systems where it's actually documented, it never happened. What do you believe is actually documented in that email? That an email was sent? Ok...that's fine. It doesn't document who the person was that was sending it and it doesn't document if anyone actually received it or took action on it. What does that give you that's so valuable that not having it would be enough to consider a system that deleted such messages after a few months as "terrible"?

 

[RCon]

Perhaps we are talking past each other or meaning different things when we use the term documentation. So if I receive an email asking me to move $400 from x account to y account, it doesn't document anything other than I got an email from someone (supposedly the owner of the email account) asking me to move money. I can't take action on that for obvious reasons. Until that transaction goes through our formal systems where it's actually documented, it never happened. What do you believe is actually documented in that email? That an email was sent? Ok...that's fine. It doesn't document who the person was that was sending it and it doesn't document if anyone actually received it or took action on it. What does that give you that's so valuable that not having it would be enough to consider a system that deleted such messages after a few months as "terrible"?

Going with your example, the e-mail documents that "sender" requested something be done. If we look at the logs of the various servers involved, we also have documentation that you received said request. If your company's formal policy is that action needn't be taken (or, can't be taken) based solely on e-mail requests, that's all well and good.

Let me give an alternate example. Suppose Joe in sales sends an internal e-mail to Jane in accounting asking what color her bra is or whether she's wearing a thong. Documentation now exists that can substantiate Jane's claim of sexual harassment.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Not sure I understand. What's the problem with the policy? Email is a form of communication, not documentation. If it's important enough to document, it belongs in a more secure place than your inbox. I don't trust my email as far as I can throw it for those purposes. No one should.

E-mail is very much documentation. It documents who said what to whom, and when. It can document who agreed to what, and when. It can serve as proof that one person provided certain information to another person at a specific time. It's like having official meeting minutes on all correspondence. A company wouldn't let each attendee at a meeting go through the meeting minutes whatever they wanted. E-mail should be the same way.

It's fine if you don't want the e-mail in your Inbox any more, but the company should have a policy regarding how long it keeps copies of e-mails in its archive. Many companies will have multiple policies, such as one retention policy for e-mail within the company and another retention policy for e-mail to/from addresses outside the company.

On a separate note, why wouldn't you trust e-mail for important information? What's "a more secure place"?

I should have been more clear. Email can be whatever you (personally or via company policy) want it to be. It can be your method of documentation if you choose. The key part is "if you choose". I'd agree with you on all counts if the company did indeed choose to use email this way. I don't know many companies that do for obvious reasons, so I was coming at this from that perspective. We don't use email for documentations purposes. Period. When you have 200,000+ employees that becomes very expensive and very vulnerable. That's our company policy and I struggle to see why it's "terrible". Far more effective avenues are at our disposal like sharepoint sites (though not very secure, they are ONLY on internal networks). An exchange server is the last place I want "sensitive" data. We have other SOR for things requiring signatures. All of it is held on secure data warehouses within our intranet. It's all stable, backed up daily and architected for DR kinds of situations.

The bolded is where you're wrong. E-mail doesn't magically become "not documentation" just because you say it's not. E-mail is documentation, period. What it documents depends on what you write (and attach) in each e-mail. You may choose not to write anything "important" in an e-mail, but every single e-mail message documents something, just like every other "recorded" item documents something.

Perhaps we are talking past each other or meaning different things when we use the term documentation. So if I receive an email asking me to move $400 from x account to y account, it doesn't document anything other than I got an email from someone (supposedly the owner of the email account) asking me to move money. I can't take action on that for obvious reasons. Until that transaction goes through our formal systems where it's actually documented, it never happened. What do you believe is actually documented in that email? That an email was sent? Ok...that's fine. It doesn't document who the person was that was sending it and it doesn't document if anyone actually received it or took action on it. What does that give you that's so valuable that not having it would be enough to consider a system that deleted such messages after a few months as "terrible"?

What you get from it will depend on what's in it, and the thread associated with it if you have that thread available. Just like a string of printed memos.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

Perhaps we are talking past each other or meaning different things when we use the term documentation. So if I receive an email asking me to move $400 from x account to y account, it doesn't document anything other than I got an email from someone (supposedly the owner of the email account) asking me to move money. I can't take action on that for obvious reasons. Until that transaction goes through our formal systems where it's actually documented, it never happened. What do you believe is actually documented in that email? That an email was sent? Ok...that's fine. It doesn't document who the person was that was sending it and it doesn't document if anyone actually received it or took action on it. What does that give you that's so valuable that not having it would be enough to consider a system that deleted such messages after a few months as "terrible"?

Going with your example, the e-mail documents that "sender" requested something be done. If we look at the logs of the various servers involved, we also have documentation that you received said request. If your company's formal policy is that action needn't be taken (or, can't be taken) based solely on e-mail requests, that's all well and good.

Let me give an alternate example. Suppose Joe in sales sends an internal e-mail to Jane in accounting asking what color her bra is or whether she's wearing a thong. Documentation now exists that can verify Jane's claim of sexual harassment.

Where do you get sexual harassment from either of those examples?

 

[The Commish]

Perhaps we are talking past each other or meaning different things when we use the term documentation. So if I receive an email asking me to move $400 from x account to y account, it doesn't document anything other than I got an email from someone (supposedly the owner of the email account) asking me to move money. I can't take action on that for obvious reasons. Until that transaction goes through our formal systems where it's actually documented, it never happened. What do you believe is actually documented in that email? That an email was sent? Ok...that's fine. It doesn't document who the person was that was sending it and it doesn't document if anyone actually received it or took action on it. What does that give you that's so valuable that not having it would be enough to consider a system that deleted such messages after a few months as "terrible"?

Going with your example, the e-mail documents that "sender" requested something be done. If we look at the logs of the various servers involved, we also have documentation that you received said request. If your company's formal policy is that action needn't be taken (or, can't be taken) based solely on e-mail requests, that's all well and good.

Let me give an alternate example. Suppose Joe in sales sends an internal e-mail to Jane in accounting asking what color her bra is or whether she's wearing a thong. Documentation now exists that can verify Jane's claim of sexual harassment.

Logs can certainly show that it was delivered to the email address. They can show if it's been opened as well. None of that can show who the individuals are that are sending the messages (or receiving them for that matter), which is a significant problem and why I don't consider it documentation. It's evidence that leads to more digging, sure. To your example, it's evidence of Jane's claim of sexual harassment, but there's a lot of work left to be done to tie it back to an individual.

 

[RCon]

Perhaps we are talking past each other or meaning different things when we use the term documentation. So if I receive an email asking me to move $400 from x account to y account, it doesn't document anything other than I got an email from someone (supposedly the owner of the email account) asking me to move money. I can't take action on that for obvious reasons. Until that transaction goes through our formal systems where it's actually documented, it never happened. What do you believe is actually documented in that email? That an email was sent? Ok...that's fine. It doesn't document who the person was that was sending it and it doesn't document if anyone actually received it or took action on it. What does that give you that's so valuable that not having it would be enough to consider a system that deleted such messages after a few months as "terrible"?

Going with your example, the e-mail documents that "sender" requested something be done. If we look at the logs of the various servers involved, we also have documentation that you received said request. If your company's formal policy is that action needn't be taken (or, can't be taken) based solely on e-mail requests, that's all well and good.

Let me give an alternate example. Suppose Joe in sales sends an internal e-mail to Jane in accounting asking what color her bra is or whether she's wearing a thong. Documentation now exists that can verify Jane's claim of sexual harassment.

Logs can certainly show that it was delivered to the email address. They can show if it's been opened as well. None of that can show who the individuals are that are sending the messages (or receiving them for that matter), which is a significant problem and why I don't consider it documentation. It's evidence that leads to more digging, sure. To your example, it's evidence of Jane's claim of sexual harassment, but there's a lot of work left to be done to tie it back to an individual.

It's still documentation, or evidence, if you prefer. In any given case, there might be other, competing evidence. It's kind of like DNA evidence versus eyewitness testimony; both are evidence, although not necessarily of equal value. In the Joe/Jane sexual harassment example, I'm pretty sure we can get Jane to verify that she did, in fact, receive and read the message. Whether we can prove that it was Joe who sent the e-mail versus his claim that someone hacked his account depends on a lot of other factors such as the company's password policies, screen-saver timeout policies, other server logs, eyewitness testimony regarding whether Jack was sitting at Joe's desk at the time the e-mail was sent, etc.

The point is that companies should have a formal policy determining how long such things are retained, rather than leaving it up to the end-user. Not having any policy is stupid and might very well cause the company a problem down the line when a discovery request comes in. If the company literally has no policy and no back-end retention, the end-user might destroy an e-mail evidence AFTER the discovery request comes in.

 

[stlrams]

I'm not a IT guy. But even if Lerner and 6 other IRTS employees had their hard drvies crash, every email is back up on the server(s) on nighty basis. All the servers would have to crash before you lose everything - right???

 

[RCon]

I'm not a IT guy. But even if Lerner and 6 other IRTS employees had their hard drvies crash, every email is back up on the server(s) on nighty basis. All the servers would have to crash before you lose everything - right???

Maybe, maybe not. One possible series of actions...

1. All e-mail comes into mailbox stored on mail server.

2. Servers are backed up nightly, with copies of each backup retained for N days.

3. Users are allowed to move messages from their "mailbox" into a local file stored on C: drive. When this happens, the message is removed from the mailbox, and is no longer stored on the mail server.

4. After N days, there is no longer a copy of a moved message on any server.

5. User's hard drive breaks.

 

[Sand]

I'm not a IT guy. But even if Lerner and 6 other IRTS employees had their hard drvies crash, every email is back up on the server(s) on nighty basis. All the servers would have to crash before you lose everything - right???

Maybe, maybe not. One possible series of actions...

1. All e-mail comes into mailbox stored on mail server.

2. Servers are backed up nightly, with copies of each backup retained for N days.

3. Users are allowed to move messages from their "mailbox" into a local file stored on C: drive. When this happens, the message is removed from the mailbox, and is no longer stored on the mail server.

4. After N days, there is no longer a copy of a moved message on any server.

5. User's hard drive breaks.

6. Offsite email backup provider is coincidentally fired right as hard drive "crashed".

 

[The Commish]

Perhaps we are talking past each other or meaning different things when we use the term documentation. So if I receive an email asking me to move $400 from x account to y account, it doesn't document anything other than I got an email from someone (supposedly the owner of the email account) asking me to move money. I can't take action on that for obvious reasons. Until that transaction goes through our formal systems where it's actually documented, it never happened. What do you believe is actually documented in that email? That an email was sent? Ok...that's fine. It doesn't document who the person was that was sending it and it doesn't document if anyone actually received it or took action on it. What does that give you that's so valuable that not having it would be enough to consider a system that deleted such messages after a few months as "terrible"?

Going with your example, the e-mail documents that "sender" requested something be done. If we look at the logs of the various servers involved, we also have documentation that you received said request. If your company's formal policy is that action needn't be taken (or, can't be taken) based solely on e-mail requests, that's all well and good.

Let me give an alternate example. Suppose Joe in sales sends an internal e-mail to Jane in accounting asking what color her bra is or whether she's wearing a thong. Documentation now exists that can verify Jane's claim of sexual harassment.

Logs can certainly show that it was delivered to the email address. They can show if it's been opened as well. None of that can show who the individuals are that are sending the messages (or receiving them for that matter), which is a significant problem and why I don't consider it documentation. It's evidence that leads to more digging, sure. To your example, it's evidence of Jane's claim of sexual harassment, but there's a lot of work left to be done to tie it back to an individual.

It's still documentation, or evidence, if you prefer. In any given case, there might be other, competing evidence. It's kind of like DNA evidence versus eyewitness testimony; both are evidence, although not necessarily of equal value. In the Joe/Jane sexual harassment example, I'm pretty sure we can get Jane to verify that she did, in fact, receive and read the message. Whether we can prove that it was Joe who sent the e-mail versus his claim that someone hacked his account depends on a lot of other factors such as the company's password policies, screen-saver timeout policies, other server logs, eyewitness testimony regarding whether Jack was sitting at Joe's desk at the time the e-mail was sent, etc.

The point is that companies should have a formal policy determining how long such things are retained, rather than leaving it up to the end-user. Not having any policy is stupid and might very well cause the company a problem down the line when a discovery request comes in. If the company literally has no policy and no back-end retention, the end-user might destroy an e-mail evidence AFTER the discovery request comes in.

We do have a policy....as I stated before. It's kept for a period of time and then purged. If we as users want to keep it longer it's on us to take the necessary measures. You suggested that was "terrible" policy and I didn't (still don't) understand why. Doesn't matter though...we can move on.

 

[RCon]

We do have a policy....as I stated before. It's kept for a period of time and then purged. If we as users want to keep it longer it's on us to take the necessary measures. You suggested that was "terrible" policy and I didn't (still don't) understand why. Doesn't matter though...we can move on.

Without going into it a whole lot more, the reason I think it's bad policy is because, generally, attorneys don't like to be surprised at trial or during discovery. Counsel wants to know going in what evidence there is, both for and against. In a way, allowing end-users to keep their own copies of e-mail, separate from the servers, is like allowing users to randomly take copies of company documents home with them. When the company later decides to shred the document based on retention policy, the attorney is going to be pissed when, six months later, an unknown copy of the (presumed shredded) document shows up in an employee's car during discovery.

 

[The Commish]

We do have a policy....as I stated before. It's kept for a period of time and then purged. If we as users want to keep it longer it's on us to take the necessary measures. You suggested that was "terrible" policy and I didn't (still don't) understand why. Doesn't matter though...we can move on.

Without going into it a whole lot more, the reason I think it's bad policy is because, generally, attorneys don't like to be surprised at trial or during discovery. Counsel wants to know going in what evidence there is, both for and against. In a way, allowing end-users to keep their own copies of e-mail, separate from the servers, is like allowing users to randomly take copies of company documents home with them. When the company later decides to shred the document, the attorney is going to be pissed when an unknown copy of the (presumed shredded) document shows up in an employee's car during discovery.

So your issue was with allowing the user to keep info on their computer outside the email retention policies. Got it. No policy in the world is going to fix this issue for an attorney. You can't write a policy that prevents this. It's impossible. The best you'd be able to do is use a document library package instead of allowing attachments in email. We have that in some areas. We use Oracle's Content Management suite in some areas of our organization. Even then, there is nothing preventing the user from storing a doc on their desktop in addition to (or in lieu of) loading it to that app unless, of course, what you gave them was only a terminal of sorts. That's highly problematic for most companies.

 

[RCon]

We do have a policy....as I stated before. It's kept for a period of time and then purged. If we as users want to keep it longer it's on us to take the necessary measures. You suggested that was "terrible" policy and I didn't (still don't) understand why. Doesn't matter though...we can move on.

Without going into it a whole lot more, the reason I think it's bad policy is because, generally, attorneys don't like to be surprised at trial or during discovery. Counsel wants to know going in what evidence there is, both for and against. In a way, allowing end-users to keep their own copies of e-mail, separate from the servers, is like allowing users to randomly take copies of company documents home with them. When the company later decides to shred the document, the attorney is going to be pissed when an unknown copy of the (presumed shredded) document shows up in an employee's car during discovery.

So your issue was with allowing the user to keep info on their computer outside the email retention policies. Got it. No policy in the world is going to fix this issue for an attorney. You can't write a policy that prevents this. It's impossible. The best you'd be able to do is use a document library package instead of allowing attachments in email. We have that in some areas. We use Oracle's Content Management suite in some areas of our organization. Even then, there is nothing preventing the user from storing a doc on their desktop in addition to (or in lieu of) loading it to that app unless, of course, what you gave them was only a terminal of sorts. That's highly problematic for most companies.

It's pretty simple to disable the use of PST files in Outlook. It's also pretty simple to give end-users read-only access to their local desktops. It's reasonably simple to disable web sites such as Dropbox, Gmail, etc. at the firewall level (although this costs some money in software or hardware, plus administrative expertise).

It's also very simple to write a formal policy stating that users aren't allowed to do X (e.g. take copies of documents home, or store e-mail on local drives), and will be reprimanded or fired if caught doing X (whether or not the technology exists to enforce it). At the very least, having such a formal, written policy can provide some legal protection for the company in certain instances.

I think we're on the same page here now, though.

 

[The Commish]

We do have a policy....as I stated before. It's kept for a period of time and then purged. If we as users want to keep it longer it's on us to take the necessary measures. You suggested that was "terrible" policy and I didn't (still don't) understand why. Doesn't matter though...we can move on.

Without going into it a whole lot more, the reason I think it's bad policy is because, generally, attorneys don't like to be surprised at trial or during discovery. Counsel wants to know going in what evidence there is, both for and against. In a way, allowing end-users to keep their own copies of e-mail, separate from the servers, is like allowing users to randomly take copies of company documents home with them. When the company later decides to shred the document, the attorney is going to be pissed when an unknown copy of the (presumed shredded) document shows up in an employee's car during discovery.

So your issue was with allowing the user to keep info on their computer outside the email retention policies. Got it. No policy in the world is going to fix this issue for an attorney. You can't write a policy that prevents this. It's impossible. The best you'd be able to do is use a document library package instead of allowing attachments in email. We have that in some areas. We use Oracle's Content Management suite in some areas of our organization. Even then, there is nothing preventing the user from storing a doc on their desktop in addition to (or in lieu of) loading it to that app unless, of course, what you gave them was only a terminal of sorts. That's highly problematic for most companies.

It's pretty simple to disable the use of PST files in Outlook. It's also pretty simple to give end-users read-only access to their local desktops. It's reasonably simple to disable web sites such as Dropbox, Gmail, etc. at the firewall level (although this costs some money in software or hardware, plus administrative expertise).

It's also very simple to write a formal policy stating that users aren't allowed to do X (e.g. take copies of documents home, or store e-mail on local drives), and will be reprimanded or fired if caught doing X (whether or not the technology exists to enforce it). At the very least, having such a formal, written policy can provide some legal protection for the company in certain instances.

I think we're on the same page here now, though.

Well, like I said before, you could give them a CRT terminal only, but that's not a real solution that could work...not in today's technological world. That's essentially what you're proposing with the read only access. I can't even think of a job where "read only" access to a desktop is feasible. What industry were you thinking of when making this proposal exactly? Agree that disabling various sites is simple...we do it all the time. Issue is the individual and what they store on their PCs vs what's kept on a server. Of course, one could have a backup strategy that backs up everything on every PC every day and keep it forever. That's terribly unrealistic as well, but i did misspeak before. You COULD come up with a policy in theory. It wouldn't be practical or realistic for real world application though.