Hugh Pickens writes:
Lois Lerner, former director of the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division, is a key figure in the IRS's controversy over the tax-exempt status by tea party and other conservative groups. Now CBS News reports that the IRS has told congressional investigators that the IRS cannot locate many of Lois Lerner's emails prior to 2011 because her computer crashed that year. "Isn't it convenient for the Obama Administration that the IRS now says it has suddenly realized it lost Lois Lerner's emails requested by Congress and promised by Commissioner John Koskinen?" says House Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa. "Do they really expect the American people to believe that, after having withheld these emails for a year, they're just now realizing the most critical time period is missing?
According to a veteran IT professional, the IRS' claim that the agency lost two years' worth of former IRS official Lois Lerner's emails is "simply not feasible." Norman Cillo, an Army veteran who worked in intelligence and a former program manager at Microsoft, says it is very difficult to lose emails for good because Microsoft Exchange used by the government for their email servers have built-in exchange mail database redundancy and all servers use some form of RAID technology and tape backup. Cillo says it's possible the IRS is telling the truth if the federal agency is "totally mismanaged and has the worst IT department ever." "I don't know of any email administrator that doesn't have at least three ways of getting that mail back. It's either on the disks or it's on a TAPE backup someplace or in an archive server. There are at least three ways the government can get those emails."
Why is it any time someone says anything against this administration is is politically divisive?
It usually is intended to be so, especially when you say "this administration". What's the point of that at all? I firmly believe they have all been corrupt, so see no point in singling out any specific Democratic or Republican administration.
One could just as easily say "government" and mean the same thing to me. In other words, to reference a single administration gives room to say the others were any better. Something I firmly believe is not true, and only introduces a bunch of emotional partisan noise to the rather important signal.
Does it not bother you in the least that they think you are so stupid you would eve believe thisstory about data loss? They are laughing their asses off at you and you worry about being politically divisive.Unbefuckinglievable!
That's why I say it's political divisive. You're writing out vitriolic statements without even reading my post completely, and that was due to my observation about complaining about Barrack Obama. If you noticed, the poster replied back *only* with comments about Barrack Obama and not my technical observations about how unfeasible the data loss really was. Mr. Obama has nothing to do with this, other than he's the current sitting President of the United States. It could have just as easily been Bush, or Hillary doing this. I'm openly acerbic about *all* administrations and political parties.
I also wrote at length about just how many different technologies are available, and common, to deal with regulatory compliance. If that wasn't enough, I thought the bold and italicized statement at the bottom about ineptitude or corruption was pretty damn clear.
My point about political divisiveness was spot-on, as you didn't even read my post.
I'm old enough to remember some worse ones.
It is certainly not unique to any administration.