Lerner: “. . . we need to be cautious about what we say in emails.”
I’ve written previously (here . . . and here . . . and here – and Jonn’s written about it here) about the IRS and “missing” email relating to their recent scandal. Well, today we have a new indication that something shady was indeed going on – albeit a circumstantial indication.
The quote above is accurate. It came from Lois Lerner – the former head of the IRS Exempt Organization, which has been accused of blatant anti-conservative bias in its actions from 2009-2011.
The quote is from one of Lerner’s emails that didn’t disappear. In it, she’s telling subordinates to be cautious about what they say in email.
The email from which the quote comes is from 2013. It was written after Congress had started inquiring about email traffic.
The basic article linked above has more info. IMO it’s worth a read.
Now, why would someone working for “the most transparent Administration in history” feel the need to tell her employees to “be cautious in what we say” in their email – by sending them an email, no less? (smile) And why would she do that right after Congress started asking about getting access to IRS email?
C’mon, Lois – enlighten us. “Inquiring minds want to know.” (smile)
Lying, hypocritical…Bitch.
Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. But with this administration where there’s smoke, there’s nothing to see here, move along people. Good thing the IRS is in charge of enforcing Obama Care. They won’t fuck that up.
Seems like I’ve been cutting this situation some unnecessary slack. I don’t expect every email to be saved for years automatically–that’s silly. What I do expect is for people not to be deliberately evasive, especially when the spotlight is on them. ‘Watch what you say in email’ is good general info to pass out, but it seems a lot like it was given about the time that the ’emails can sometimes be “records” that need proper handling’ advice may have been more appropriate.
Reaperman: every email? No. But a surprising amount of email generated by Federal employees does indeed qualify for retention as a Federal record.
Did a quick search. This DHS briefing below actually is a pretty decent overview of Federal records retention policy as it applies to email.
http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/toolkit/pdf/ID317.pdf
And yeah – the IRS should indeed have been archiving all email where agency policy and/or specific agency actions were being discussed. See the 6th slide in the deck.
I don’t think we’re really in disagreement. Certain emails are records, but it’s not necessarily on the email system to automatically retain them (slide 17). The slack I was cutting them was about their emails being expected to be automatically archived when user-based retention is acceptable and is pretty frequently used. The longer this mess goes on, the slimier the IRS starts looking, especially when it comes to testimony. I don’t think I’ll be cutting them any more slack. Especially when there is an expectation that more scrutiny was coming–cousel would have certainly brought up the topic of increased record keeping.
Not in disagreement at all. I was just providing the DHS briefing as an example of current Federal policy regarding email, its status as an official Federal record, and guidance as to what did/did not qualify.
It’s pretty obvious to me that the IRS was – for whatever reason – taking a rather casual approach to its organizational responsibility to archive email records. Storage being relatively cheap, I’m rather surprised they were (allegedly) allowing user retention of email locally vice server-based storage with offline archive of anything more than XX months old (I’d recommend XX be 12, but other periods could be apropos). And I’m quite surprised that “high roller” accounts (e.g., SES accounts) weren’t journaled by default.
‘Wild and free’ is pretty much the email archive standard in both of the sea-based services (don’t know about the others). There is record managment software, but it sure isn’t automatic. Not too weird to see more of government doing it that way. It’s also important to remember that exchange itself doesn’t rise to the level of a proper ‘records management system,’ though taking a couple seconds to throw in a transport rule to add a bcc when somebody specific ‘just might be under some scrutiny’ seems like common sense and probably one of the first things to cross their counsel’s mind.
Storage of all email adds up *fast* in a modern large office with people improperly using it for document collaboration, cat pictures, etc. There’s a chance this kind of event might trigger a requirement for all email to be stored far from user/admin control–wouldn’t surprise me at all. It’ll cost a lot, and shady stuff will all happen via phone, fax, or personal email then…
True. But we’re not talking just anyone here. Lerner was an IRS SES. That puts her on par with a GO/FO.
It’s been my experience that very senior people in an organization almost always have their email handled very differently than the rest of the folks working there.
Yeah, you may well be right for the VIPest of VIP. You’ve got me curious about that for other spots.
In any case, I had cut IRS some slack in earlier posts because, I dunno, one or two suspicious bits is at least a little believable. It just keeps getting thicker, though.
I believe she also inquired if Instant messages were archived
Nucsnipe…Yes she did. Why? Ass covering 101.
I think once she found out that IM’s we’re not saved she used them to conduct the dirty work http://online.wsj.com/articles/emails-point-to-irs-officials-using-instant-messages-1404936144
That is interesting. I would like to see the IRS IT usage policy. The DHS policy requires that official correspondence conducted through Office Communicator be saved as well. Here is the wording that pops up in the box when you open it to send a IM:
“Use of this service constitutes an understanding of IM and records management policy, including your obligation to use the “save as” feature to retain sessions that provide comments, communicate decisions, or otherwise document official XXX activities” The XXX is where the specific agency under DHS will appear.
Unfortunately, DHS policy probably doesn’t carry much weight at the IRS. They’re part of Treasury.
C’mon, Lois – enlighten us. “Inquiring minds want to know.” (smile)
At this time Ms. Lerner would like to exercise her right under the 5th amendment to refuse to answer the question.
“Use immunity. Now spill, lady – or go to jail for contempt.”
Boy, how I’d love to hear those two sentences spoken to a certain former IRS official by someone with the authority to do so who actually had a bit of integrity . . . .
I’d pay good money to see that my friend, good money indeed. Some serious head rolling after that would be my guess. There’s a lot of unanswered questions and apparently improper conduct to generate a 5th amendment plea. I like how you think on this.
This administration is nothing more than a den of thieves and cut throats. They don’t even try to hide their malfeasance anymore. This arrogant bunch simply farts in the general direction of the American people and gives them a hearty, “fuck you.” Why are people afraid of calling for impeachment? It’s way past time for a good house cleaning.
Why do you have to be cautious? Didn’t the current president campaign on a platform of transparency?
Why did she take the 5th after her claims of no criminal wrongdoing?
Where is the FBI?
Beretverde: the FBI? They’re part of the Department of Justice; the FBI Director reports to the guy who runs DoJ. You do remember who runs DoJ these days, right?
I’m most curious as to why Lerner found it necessary (and still does) to invoke the 5th amendment.
Obviously, she has something to hide… something she did wrong… something that was, perhaps, not just shady but downright criminal, perhaps?
I swear, these people actually do make Nixon’s bunch of bad boys like Haldeman and Ehrlichman and John Dean look like schoolboys and amateurs.
I admit that I have this very strong desire to get in Lerner’s face and end evrey question I asked with the word ‘bitch’. But that’s just me.
There is at least one difference between this Administration and Nixon’s, Ex-PH2.
No one died as the result of wrongdoing during Watergate.
So, the IRS, which is populated by anal-retentive (by definition) accountants, has yet to find ANYONE who retained ANY e-mails from Ms. Lerner during that time, as well?
I ask that as I sit here with my six Outlook .pst files on my hard drive (the third computer I’ve had in 12 years), containing important e-mails and documents going back on the program I work for over 12 years….
VI: actually, the IRS has found a fair number of Lerner’s emails for the period in question – around 27000 sent to other IRS users, as I recall (I might be off in the number). Presumably they did this via a search of locally-held email archives, apparently mostly on user machines since they claim the server tapes for the period were “recycled” every 6 months.
However, they haven’t found all of Lerner’s emails – and a few other key individuals’ “local hard drives” have also crashed, taking their emails with them as well. How . . . convenient.
Further: any emails between Lerner and outside recipients with no other recipients in the IRS domain are supposedly gone – together with their metadata, which would at least show what domain they’d come from.
In particular, any email between the EOP and/or DoJ and Lerner that had no other IRS addressees are now lost. Again: how . . . convenient.
Gosh, who would believe such an incredible coincidence?
It’s theoretically possible. And it may indeed be exactly what happened.
But at this point, it doesn’t look like the “smart money” bet.
Unless she’s on video tape strangling illegal children coming across the border Eric “Injustice” Holder isn’t gonna do shit. Even then it’s debatable whether he’d take action if there are reports of those illegal children belonging to the Tea Party.