Tom, the Obama supporters don't want to be bothered by things like laws, The Constitution or Facts.

Quote:

---

Read my post above yours, equating the two does not make sense.

---

On the contrary, your claim to terabytes of emails being a hardship is unsupportable. My laptop can store 2 Tb, my old desktop can store 16. Taking Commissioner Obstruction's testimony into account, the IRS has the storage capacity for 6 months of all it's correspondence, AND an outside storage contractor. That doesn't take into account the Federal Records Act, which REQUIRES every doodle and solitaire game be copied.

The IRS hired Sonasoft, to archive emails for long-term retrieval . That contract got canceled just weeks after Lois Lerner’s hard-drive failure ....right about the same time Congress began it's investigation. Coincidence ? I don't think so . Then they allegedly "recycled " her hard drive so that can't be retrieved either .

Now did Koskinen reveal all this in testimony ? uhh no .
Did the Congress specifically ask for this information ? Yes .

See question # 5 from House Oversight Committee chair Darrell Issa.

Quote:

---

5. Please identify all vendors and outside contractors used by the IRS for the following purposes:
q. To develop, service, or maintain the IRS’s e-mail systems.
r. To develop, service, or maintain the IRS’s e-mail exchange servers.
s. To recycle or destroy IRS hard drives.
t. To provide mobile phone and data services.

---

IRS email controversy continues this week with two hearings - The Washington Post

Maybe someone in the IRS neglected to give him this vital information too ? What does he have ? A no show job because he's a big Dem donor ?
REMINDER: IRS Commissioner John Koskinen is Major Democratic Donor | Washington Free Beacon

"They are by law rquired to sensure all e mails are always available. The Archivist knows what is required... it doesn't require a law degree to understand or know"

Yes, everyone knows that Smoothy, but what I am saying is he can't determine the degree of criminality. You DO need a law degree for that.

"Gowdy was just trying to determine on what basis he made such a claim".

Yes Tom, and that basis was clearly established. He said he found no evidence and then he changed it to he and seen no evidence. It is pretty obvious that he did make any effort to look for evidence. A very weak defense. So what? This has already been established.

What is also obvious is that Gowdy is trying to hit him over the head time and time again with a Modus ponens argument. So what? This point has already been established.Time to move on and make some progress. No wonder nothing ever gets done.

Quote:

---

he can't determine the degree of criminality. You DO need a law degree for that.

---

then he should've admitted that he was ignorantly blowing smoke when he made the absurd comment that he found no criminal activity in the IRS actions.

Quote:

---

What is also obvious is that Gowdy is trying to hit him over the head time and time again with a Modus ponens argument. So what? This point has already been established.Time to move on and make some progress. No wonder nothing ever gets done.

---

Always the Dem last line of defense "nothing there ....move on " Koskinen could've just as easily conceded Gowdy's point that destroying evidence infers guilt and is certainly wrong doing ..even if it's unintentional .
I did not here anyone on the Dem side come to Scotter Libby's defense when a special prosecutor's relentless questioning tricked him into lying .

please, the dog actually did eat his homework!

I didn't actually say "nothing there....move on". I said, "move on."

my sentiments exactly! is there nothing new in your world?

"then he should've admitted he was ignorantly blowing smoke when made the absurd the absurd comment that he found no criminal activity in the IRS action."

Isn't that a reference to the Gowdy questioning?

what, you are expecting acknowledgement of source?

No, I thought Tom had confused the two tapes. Maybe he didn't, I'll have another look

Gowdy lectured Koskinen on the “negative inference” drawn by the inability of the IRS to retrieve these emails. He then pressed Koskinen on how he knows there was no criminal wrongdoing. Koskinen made the ridiculous claim that he was relying on “common sense”. He also admitted that he had no clue about the statutes that govern the handling of government emails. So it was important to establish beyond a doubt that the commish was obfuscating ,and perhaps participating in an obstruction of justice .

Tom never avoids going a bridge too far in his campaign

Tom

' Koskinen made the ridiculous claim that he was relying on "common sense" '


Yes, almost as ridiculous as the other dude saying the law of negative inference is based on common sense.

"So it is important to establish beyond doubt that the commish was obfuscating, and perhaps participating in an obstructing of justice."

He didn't establish anything beyond doubt. That's the whole point. Yes, he might be obstructing justice- on the other hand, he might not.

The political dude didn't establish anything beyond doubt, otherwise you wouldn't have said "perhaps" he was obstructing justice. He didn't establishing anything except your contention of a "perhaps." We already know this.

Hello ! That's why you have investigations and hearings ,to establish the facts. If you are being stonewalled at every attempt it is logical to infer guilt . It would be very easy to end that ...cooperate with the investigation much like the Bush adm did during the Plame investigation. If I were Gowdy or the head of the committee I'd be slapping Koskinen with contempt of Congress charges and have the Sgt at Arms of the Congress detain him until he produces the emails ;or an adequate explanation ...instead of his smug responses like "I gave up law for Lent " .

Hello Tom,

Would that be common sense logic to infer guilt, or some other logic?

Tom starts with guilt and works back, must have french ancestory

Here 's the logic .... American courts have responded to a party’s evidence tampering by allowing the opponent to argue to jurors that they should draw an adverse inference against the offending party in deciding the merits of the case. That was one of the key points in the OJ Simpson defense. Gowdy in a previous life was a prosecutor and know that .It has nothing to do with common sense . It's been part of Anglo jurisprudence since before we became a nation.