Lerner, fears enraged public, wants IRS testimony sealed
- Thread starter pronstar
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Nope. Not even a little bit do I buy this.
Sorry, I do not accept the "I was only following orders" excuse (as used so extensively by the Nazi's). She knew it was wrong. She could have refused. She was NOT caught in the middle. I have left jobs rather than sacrifice my integrity, as have many other people. She could have done the same.
And she was not operating within the confines of the law.
I do not believe her when she claims this fear for her life. She is likely making that up to prevent her misdeeds from further seeing the light of day.
If you believe nothing else, you should believe that. Working for the IRS gets you death threats even if you're just a clerk.
Well having jacked with the IRS for 2 years over a tax return with a fraudulent SSN used, I can understand this. Everyone I dealt with was incompetent except for the last person on the phone. I made 5 visits to 3 locations.
I have 0 sympathy for Lerner. How do you know she was forced to do it and didn’t actually agree with the admin.? She made no mention of being forced to do crap when she testified, well took the 5th.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
People constantly get death threats. YouTube personalities get death threats on a daily basis.
I can believe she may have gotten threats, but I don't believe she actually fears for her life. In fact, if the act of simply working for the IRS gets you death threats and she was obviously in that position, she would have already been receiving threats. But, she and other agents were not leaving the IRS due to these threats. So why do the threats suddenly become worthy of giving her special protections now?
"I was just following orders" is, of course, not a valid excuse. (It's not even what was happening, if you understand how the paperwork flowed.) I just said she was caught between a rock and a hard place, gradually, and by the time she realized that things were wrong it was too late. Then she delayed leaving longer than she should, a simple condition of inertia in her personal life.
Look, Lois Lerner presided over the processing of some forms, some handled properly, some unduly delayed via incompetence, and a *very* few (apparently, though it's not known conclusively) deliberately messed with. To the classifiers and others processing that paper, it was just more of the infinite pile of paper they must deal with. Yes, those forms had an impact on political speech and were more important in more lives than the people handling them realized. Yes, real people were severely inconvenienced to the point that it's reasonable for them to claim real harm to their lives.
No one is trying to hide behind "following orders" as if they realized, at the time, the impact of their work. But no one is trying to excuse herding people into boxcars, here, either. The condemnations in this thread, coming from folks who haven't read her testimony, don't know how the system works, and (I'd be willing to bet) haven't even read the relevant TIGTA report are, in my opinion, entirely unjustified.
Look, Lois Lerner presided over the processing of some forms, some handled properly, some unduly delayed via incompetence, and a *very* few (apparently, though it's not known conclusively) deliberately messed with. To the classifiers and others processing that paper, it was just more of the infinite pile of paper they must deal with. Yes, those forms had an impact on political speech and were more important in more lives than the people handling them realized. Yes, real people were severely inconvenienced to the point that it's reasonable for them to claim real harm to their lives.
No one is trying to hide behind "following orders" as if they realized, at the time, the impact of their work. But no one is trying to excuse herding people into boxcars, here, either. The condemnations in this thread, coming from folks who haven't read her testimony, don't know how the system works, and (I'd be willing to bet) haven't even read the relevant TIGTA report are, in my opinion, entirely unjustified.
I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. There's a big difference between "death threats" and "credible death threats." People who work for the IRS get stupid threats all the time at work. Outside of work, they don't let anyone know where they work. "I work for the U.S. Treasury" is the basic dodge, used by just about everyone.
Lois Lerner is now a public figure, not eligible for a security detail like the IRS Commissioner. She is the focal point of hate for anyone who really wants to kill someone from the IRS. Real fear for her own life, under these circumstances, is not easily dismissible.
Three things:
- For most employees, simple anonymity, as referenced above, is sufficient protection.
- Revenue Agents, Revenue Officers, and Special Agents who do taxpayer-facing work and can reasonably be expected to receive credible death threats on an ongoing basis may be issued an alias under which they work, making it very difficult for anyone to find them outside work. Obviously, this is not a workable solution for executives like Lerner.
- Finally, for those employees who are occasionally credibly threatened, a temporary security detail is assigned until the threat can be assessed with more granularity and appropriately resolved.
I can understand the lens through which you view the agency; thanks for the insight.
BTW, the problem you describe is one of the worst out there and toughest to handle. If you got it resolved in 2 years, you did well.
Protip for everyone - To avoid someone else using your SSN, file first. I mean, quite literally, file your taxes the second you have all the forms you need. Frankly, these days, if I were a W-2 earner I'd use a Substitute W-2 and file the first week of January, the day after the forms become available. If you beat the bad guys to the punch, they're the ones who get denied the refund.
Last edited:
Lunyfringe
Well-Known
Then the system is seriously flawed- and has a known vulnerability that should be addressed ASAFP... (but you and I already know this)
in my line of work (financial networking), knowing about a vulnerability and ignoring it is criminal (I'm hoping the Equifax management gets the book thrown at them for this).
Due to circumstances beyond my control, I frequently don't get all my papers until April- is it legal that the trustee on out-of-state farms that my wife is a beneficiary of doesn't file her paperwork on time? probably... and we're taking steps to address that. But because of a flaw with the SSA's "system", I have to file twice a year (once to CYA, once to amend)? Going to cost extra with the accountant, too... I've got identity theft insurance that covers this.
This is another reason why I don't give out my SSN unless I really have to... every doctor's office asks for it now... I write in that space "DECLINE"
Oh, yeah.
Unfortunately, overcoming the tax preparers lobby is a minority part of the solution but a necessary one and, from my experience, I'm betting it will never happen.
Agreed. The Equifax problem was clearly known from a specific date, with solutions that could be implemented quickly. That didn't happen.
That's a tough situation but I've known filers who used exactly that solution. They shouldn't be forced to but sometimes life makes you do things you shouldn't have to do.
That's smart. However, every doctor's office I've been in for the last few years no longer asks for my SSN for anything; I find it odd that you're still encountering that problem.
Do you or did you work for the IRS? Your pro tip is to file first? That sounds like a typical IRS response. I dunno, how about just check your prior records? We lived in the same house for a decade, both of us had the same employer from the year before (my wife for 13yrs), we actually paid the IRS the year before and they can’t figure out which is the fraudulent return? I speak as a former Criminal Inv. Myself.
I am sorry but “filing first” is a poor excuse for and agency that is beholden to tax paying citizens. As for Lerner being between a rock and a hard place, please. Again, how do you know? See, she got paid a six figure salary to make proper decisions. Not only she did she make bad decisions, I am sure the testimony she wants sealed probably shows criminal intent.
Her like so many others from the BHO admin should be in prison.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I can see the logic in this and will consider it an adequate explanation.
However...
I take this to mean that having all of the information would show that she isn't as vilanace as we are taking her to be. If this is the case, why would she be appealing to keep these records sealed?
When someone attempts to keep something locked away it gives the impression that there is something bad to hide. Knowing the political divisions and attitudes that are prevalent, it would seem they felt the obvious backlash of keeping a secret would be less than the backlash of letting that secret out. It leads me to believe they have something pretty damning to hide.
Hope that makes sense and somewhat communicates my logic in coming to the conclusion that something pretty F'd up must have gone on and whatever is sealed must be pretty incriminating.
GS-1811? Good for you. But it if you weren't an 1811 (or an 1169 or a 512 or any of a half-dozen more) in the IRS, then you do realize, I hope, that your experience doesn't provide a basis for judging how these things are handled at the IRS.
Frequently, no. Stealing your identity to steal your tax refund is big business and the crooks can cover a lot of those bases just as well as the innocent taxpayer who got ripped off. Figuring out who's telling the truth and who isn't is always difficult and often takes a long time. You got it fixed in 2 years; you did well.
It's not an excuse for the agency; it's a strategy to beat crooks. Those are very different things.
Probably because:
- She's embarrassed that she "went along to get along", hoping to rack up a better "high 3" before things went to hell,
- She's embarrassed that she wasn't competent to recognize the locus of the problem earlier,
- She's frustrated that actually fixing it was something the administration was actively impeding, and
- Knowing all this, she didn't have the testicular fortitude to fall on her sword, especially since doing so really wouldn't have been a big ask.
Yes, you have absolutely communicated your logic clearly. In much of it, I agree with you. We already know that something F'd up happened.
But we also know that under both BHO and Trump, the depositions have been read by people who declined to find criminal wrongdoing worth prosecuting. Incompetence and political influence are pretty well established; criminal wrongdoing may not exist at all.
Personally, I think the question comes down to whether or not we can believe Lois Lerner right now. She feels that revealing the full details of the way she didn't swoop in and do a Supergirl cleanup of every clerical F-up in the place would put her in danger. I think that fear is credible.
The line for folks who don't care about the technicalities and simply wish to be issued pitchforks and torches forms to the right. It's already pretty long, apparently.
Lunyfringe
Well-Known
Part of me thinks it's better to not push this issue... if political affiliation is a "protected class" that needs to be sheltered from discrimination, then it will be all that much harder to refuse service to Democrats simply because they register as Democrats 
Lunyfringe
Well-Known
What's to prevent a criminal from filing an amended return anytime after the initial?
Once you come up with a way to block a certain scam, they look for the next... the people building the system have to be smarter than the criminals- which generally doesn't happen with gov't employees, what is their motivation even if they are smarter?
Perhaps it's because I moved here from out-of-state, so I'm seeing all new doctors that don't already have it on file, or because East Texas is simpler, and they haven't caught up with the latest trends. (by no means a slam, I like simpler)
Let's not forget (all of the below is copypasta):
The IRS sent one of its intrusive scrutiny letters to a nonprofit group in order to throw up a smokescreen and prevent the group from complaining to Congress about poor treatment, according to one of Lois G. Lerner’s apparently lost emails, which were recovered by auditors and released by an interest group Tuesday.
Judicial Watch, which sued to force the production of the Lerner emails, said the emails confirm that Ms. Lerner, the central figure in the targeting probe, and her colleagues were aware of the sensitive nature of the cases but appeared to hide details of the massive backlog they were amassing as they held up hundreds of tea party and conservative group applications for nonprofit status.
“This material shows that the IRS‘ cover-up began years ago,” said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch. “We now have smoking-gun proof that top officials in the Obama IRS unlawfully harassed taxpayers just to keep them from complaining to Congress about IRS‘ targeting and abuse. No wonder the Obama IRS has had such little interest in preserving or finding Lois Lerner’s emails.”
The Lerner emails have become almost as big a scandal as the initial targeting. Ms. Lerner, who was head of the division that scrutinized the tea party applications until she retired while under investigation in 2013, suffered a computer hard drive crash that cost potentially thousands of emails that should have been part of the record.
The IRS took routine steps to try to recover the emails but reported that it was unable to do so.
But the agency’s independent inspector general said it was able to find the messages easily on backup tapes stored at remote locations — and that the IRS never bothered to look for those tapes, even as it was telling Congress that all possible routes for message recovery had been exhausted.
According to the new emails, Ms. Lerner and her colleagues were aware of the growing outcry among nonprofit groups that they were being delayed.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/28/new-irs-lerner-emails-show-block-congress-scrutiny/
The IRS sent one of its intrusive scrutiny letters to a nonprofit group in order to throw up a smokescreen and prevent the group from complaining to Congress about poor treatment, according to one of Lois G. Lerner’s apparently lost emails, which were recovered by auditors and released by an interest group Tuesday.
Judicial Watch, which sued to force the production of the Lerner emails, said the emails confirm that Ms. Lerner, the central figure in the targeting probe, and her colleagues were aware of the sensitive nature of the cases but appeared to hide details of the massive backlog they were amassing as they held up hundreds of tea party and conservative group applications for nonprofit status.
“This material shows that the IRS‘ cover-up began years ago,” said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch. “We now have smoking-gun proof that top officials in the Obama IRS unlawfully harassed taxpayers just to keep them from complaining to Congress about IRS‘ targeting and abuse. No wonder the Obama IRS has had such little interest in preserving or finding Lois Lerner’s emails.”
The Lerner emails have become almost as big a scandal as the initial targeting. Ms. Lerner, who was head of the division that scrutinized the tea party applications until she retired while under investigation in 2013, suffered a computer hard drive crash that cost potentially thousands of emails that should have been part of the record.
The IRS took routine steps to try to recover the emails but reported that it was unable to do so.
But the agency’s independent inspector general said it was able to find the messages easily on backup tapes stored at remote locations — and that the IRS never bothered to look for those tapes, even as it was telling Congress that all possible routes for message recovery had been exhausted.
According to the new emails, Ms. Lerner and her colleagues were aware of the growing outcry among nonprofit groups that they were being delayed.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/28/new-irs-lerner-emails-show-block-congress-scrutiny/
Regarding the Washington Times copypasta, I can dissect it if you'd like but it would be long, boring, and technical. It would also fork this conversation into one thread covering email retention issues at the IRS (Hint: it's a ridiculous mess.) and another thread about whether what the press calls a "cover-up" is what normal folks or employees or prosecutors would call a cover-up.
Come to think of it, that would fork the conversation 4 ways. Or more.
Come to think of it, that would fork the conversation 4 ways. Or more.
Ben, I understand from a philosophical stand point what you’re implying, but the reality of the matter is quite different. You’re making up excuses for poor behavior.
All that is necessary for evil to prosper is for good people to do nothing... or something like that.
Right or wrong haven’t changed over the last 8 years. If she felt she was being forced to do something wrong and did it anyway she has no excuses. I don’t care how broken the system is, how close to retirement she is wrong is wrong. Period. I’d venture to say she was in a personal gray area. It was her guy doing it and her guys lawyers saying it’s ok, so it must be ok.
If someone were to cone up to me and argue that a certain component of my design needs to be changed and I know the change will negatively impact performance and risk safety I won’t do it. Don’t care how close I am to retirement. Just as I won’t kill Jews cause I’m going to retire in 6 months. Come to me and tell me the color needs to be hot pink and we’ll be good to go.
She is afraid that people will see just how corrupt the systems are and just how little she did to stop it or quite possibly what all she did to feed it. I have zero sympathy for that. And neither should anyone else.
Yeah, talk dirty to me...
