quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

The amount you don't know about computers is staggering. Email is not usually stored on servers. The only usual time an email is stored on a server is when it is sent through a web mail service. If you have a mail client like Exchange on your computer, which Lerner likely did, then your computer sends and receives email directly. So yes, if her hard drive crashed and she had not been archiving her email those emails are likely lost unless you can get the recipient's copies.

Yes, it is staggering, which is why among other things I was a major contributor to certain email-related patent applications. And I've also taught computer science as well as been an engineer. Nevertheless, I am humble and my ignorance is staggering indeed.

Exchange uses a client/server model (in most cases). The Exchange server is not going to be on your own PC because other people also with the same domain use it. If I am [email protected] and you are [email protected], we each have an Exchange client on our computers (which is actually Outlook acting as an Exchange client). The server is elsewhere. Because you need one Exchange server, not thousands of them (excluding redundancies/backups/etc.). Now, you may say "but Lerner might not have checked the "save email on server" setting. First of all, she's not an IT admin. That's a pretty standard setting unless she consciously and deliberately changed it. Second, it shouldn't be too hard to find the settings. Third, there are these things called backups. Doesn't matter what she deleted off the server because it's still on the backups.

If you use gmail, hotmail, outlook.com, etc., these are all cloud based. The servers are far, far away.

In all cases, the utter destruction of your computer deletes all LOCAL copies. Not anything else. I have to consciously choose to permanently delete something and even then, there are often ways to recover things because deleted emails and deleted files aren't really "deleted" unless you do certain other things.

Other than those corrections, you're spot on about email. Just happens that the spot is the empty set.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

I said it when the story initially broke way back when, but I doubt the White House was involved, and that this may or may not go up to the top of the IRS. I think this will end up being shown to be some Federal employees working to the benefit of President Obama without any knowledge or direction from the President.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

The amount you don't know about computers is staggering. Email is not usually stored on servers. The only usual time an email is stored on a server is when it is sent through a web mail service. If you have a mail client like Exchange on your computer, which Lerner likely did, then your computer sends and receives email directly. So yes, if her hard drive crashed and she had not been archiving her email those emails are likely lost unless you can get the recipient's copies.

Yes, it is staggering, which is why among other things I was a major contributor to certain email-related patent applications. And I've also taught computer science as well as been an engineer. Nevertheless, I am humble and my ignorance is staggering indeed.

Exchange uses a client/server model (in most cases). The Exchange server is not going to be on your own PC because other people also with the same domain use it. If I am [email protected] and you are [email protected], we each have an Exchange client on our computers (which is actually Outlook acting as an Exchange client). The server is elsewhere. Because you need one Exchange server, not thousands of them (excluding redundancies/backups/etc.). Now, you may say "but Lerner might not have checked the "save email on server" setting. First of all, she's not an IT admin. That's a pretty standard setting unless she consciously and deliberately changed it. Second, it shouldn't be too hard to find the settings. Third, there are these things called backups. Doesn't matter what she deleted off the server because it's still on the backups.

If you use gmail, hotmail, outlook.com, etc., these are all cloud based. The servers are far, far away.

In all cases, the utter destruction of your computer deletes all LOCAL copies. Not anything else. I have to consciously choose to permanently delete something and even then, there are often ways to recover things because deleted emails and deleted files aren't really "deleted" unless you do certain other things.

Other than those corrections, you're spot on about email. Just happens that the spot is the empty set.

Funny that is what happened. And what happened with Rove. And what has happened numerous times with systems I've dealt with. Lots of mails servers aren't set up to archive. And who knows she might have been on a Linux box and then the mail server would have definitely been on that box.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

I said it when the story initially broke way back when, but I doubt the White House was involved, and that this may or may not go up to the top of the IRS. I think this will end up being shown to be some Federal employees working to the benefit of President Obama without any knowledge or direction from the President.

Barack is complicit at the very least in that he is helping to stonewall the investigation

Who can say with a straight face that he is devoting any resources to any kind of a serious investigation

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

I said it when the story initially broke way back when, but I doubt the White House was involved, and that this may or may not go up to the top of the IRS. I think this will end up being shown to be some Federal employees working to the benefit of President Obama without any knowledge or direction from the President.

Barack is complicit at the very least in that he is helping to stonewall the investigation

Who can say with a straight face that he is devoting any resources to any kind of a serious investigation

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

I said it when the story initially broke way back when, but I doubt the White House was involved, and that this may or may not go up to the top of the IRS. I think this will end up being shown to be some Federal employees working to the benefit of President Obama without any knowledge or direction from the President.

Barack is complicit at the very least in that he is helping to stonewall the investigation

Who can say with a straight face that he is devoting any resources to any kind of a serious investigation

Obama does not handle investigations. Do you have the ability to think? He gets reports from the bosses of the bosses of the bosses of the bosses of the bosses of the bosses of the people who do investigations.

The idea that the President should devote any time at all to what ever crazy shit the RW is obsessing over at any given moment is absurd. The President is not a writer for wingnutdaily..

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

I said it when the story initially broke way back when, but I doubt the White House was involved, and that this may or may not go up to the top of the IRS. I think this will end up being shown to be some Federal employees working to the benefit of President Obama without any knowledge or direction from the President.

Barack is complicit at the very least in that he is helping to stonewall the investigation

Who can say with a straight face that he is devoting any resources to any kind of a serious investigation

Obama does not handle investigations. Do you have the ability to think? He gets reports from the bosses of the bosses of the bosses of the bosses of the bosses of the bosses of the people who do investigations.

The idea that the President should devote any time at all to what ever crazy shit the RW is obsessing over at any given moment is absurd. The President is not a writer for wingnutdaily..

Then it's odd how many times Lerner and others visited the White House. It takes a President about 10 seconds in a private conversation to say "take care of the Tea Party" or better yet to have a trusted surrogate (Valerie Jarrett, anyone) do his dirty work. Panetta and types like him wouldn't have done it. I don't agree with him, but Panetta is not a scumbag. I don't think Biden would have done it either. Someone with absolute fealty to him. Ah, kind of like Goebbels.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

I said it when the story initially broke way back when, but I doubt the White House was involved, and that this may or may not go up to the top of the IRS. I think this will end up being shown to be some Federal employees working to the benefit of President Obama without any knowledge or direction from the President.

Barack is complicit at the very least in that he is helping to stonewall the investigation

Who can say with a straight face that he is devoting any resources to any kind of a serious investigation

Obama does not handle investigations. Do you have the ability to think? He gets reports from the bosses of the bosses of the bosses of the bosses of the bosses of the bosses of the people who do investigations.

The idea that the President should devote any time at all to what ever crazy shit the RW is obsessing over at any given moment is absurd. The President is not a writer for wingnutdaily..

Then it's odd how many times Lerner and others visited the White House. It takes a President about 10 seconds in a private conversation to say "take care of the Tea Party" or better yet to have a trusted surrogate (Valerie Jarrett, anyone) do his dirty work. Panetta and types like him wouldn't have done it. I don't agree with him, but Panetta is not a scumbag. I don't think Biden would have done it either. Someone with absolute fealty to him. Ah, kind of like Goebbels.

Lerner never visited the White Hose and certainly never met privately with the President that is fantasy.

But keep on spreading lies Herr Goebbels.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom


Just call me Joe.

In fact, you're correct and I'm wrong. It wasn't Lerner. Rather:

1) Embattled IRS official Sarah Hall Ingram made 155 visits to the White House to meet with a top Obama White House official with whom she exchanged confidential taxpayer information over email.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/10/irs-white-house-officials-that-shared-confidential-taxpayer-info-had-155-white-house-meetings/#ixzz37VMYIXGe

(And, yes, it's a conservative rag, just as HuffPo is a leftist one -- that doesn't make everything either of them reports false.)

quote:

2) Last night on The Kelly File Chief Counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice Jay Sekulo revealed that the former chief of staff to former IRS Commissioner Steven Miller, Nikole Flax, visited the White House 35 times after talking with former head of tax exempt groups Lois Lerner about working to criminally prosecute conservative tea party groups for "lying" about political activity. At the White House, Flax met with a top Obama aid during some of those visits.

Source: quoted material and testimony referenced in an opinion column: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/06/20/irs-official-whose-emails-were-lost-visited-white-house-35-times-n1853823

quote:

3) Note the above two stand alone from the more controversial claim about former IRS Commissioner's ostensibly having visited the WH 157 times. Debunkers said this was to discuss Obamacare (157 times, really?!) and that the number was overstated.

quote:

The amount you don't know about computers is staggering. Email is not usually stored on servers. The only usual time an email is stored on a server is when it is sent through a web mail service. If you have a mail client like Exchange on your computer, which Lerner likely did, then your computer sends and receives email directly. So yes, if her hard drive crashed and she had not been archiving her email those emai
ls are likely lost unless you can get the recipient's copies

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

The amount you don't know about computers is staggering. Email is not usually stored on servers. The only usual time an email is stored on a server is when it is sent through a web mail service. If you have a mail client like Exchange on your computer, which Lerner likely did, then your computer sends and receives email directly. So yes, if her hard drive crashed and she had not been archiving her email those emai
ls are likely lost unless you can get the recipient's copies

It's just the opposite. My Exchange Outlook email client stores emails on servers. There are no emails solely stored on my workstation. The proof is apparent when my laptop is off and I access my Exchange email via a web client, which is run on a web browser from any location and machine. This happens because the web client reads my email, sent and received, from the servers. I cannot believe the IRS uses more primitive email architecture than this common one, which has been in use for years now.

This means the emails are available unless someone took them from the backed up servers. I suggest the smoking gun emails are already available and have been reviewed. I also suggest the GOP is waiting to drop a hammer on all these Obama issues, the timing is wrong, it is time to take the Senate and Obama is a distraction right now. The hammer drops on him (and maybe even Hillary) after the mid-terms. Well after the mid-terms, closer to the Presidential election.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

The amount you don't know about computers is staggering. Email is not usually stored on servers. The only usual time an email is stored on a server is when it is sent through a web mail service. If you have a mail client like Exchange on your computer, which Lerner likely did, then your computer sends and receives email directly. So yes, if her hard drive crashed and she had not been archiving her email those emai
ls are likely lost unless you can get the recipient's copies

It's just the opposite. My Exchange Outlook email client stores emails on servers. There are no emails solely stored on my workstation. The proof is apparent when my laptop is off and I access my Exchange email via a web client, which is run on a web browser from any location and machine. This happens because the web client reads my email, sent and received, from the servers. I cannot believe the IRS uses more primitive email architecture than this common one, which has been in use for years now.

This means the emails are available unless someone took them from the backed up servers. I suggest the smoking gun emails are already available and have been reviewed. I also suggest the GOP is waiting to drop a hammer on all these Obama issues, the timing is wrong, it is time to take the Senate and Obama is a distraction right now. The hammer drops on him (and maybe even Hillary) after the mid-terms. Well after the mid-terms, closer to the Presidential election.

That's a very insecure setup. As can be seen from you accessing your mail over the web. That wouldn't be how the IRS would do things.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

The amount you don't know about computers is staggering. Email is not usually stored on servers. The only usual time an email is stored on a server is when it is sent through a web mail service. If you have a mail client like Exchange on your computer, which Lerner likely did, then your computer sends and receives email directly. So yes, if her hard drive crashed and she had not been archiving her email those emai
ls are likely lost unless you can get the recipient's copies

It's just the opposite. My Exchange Outlook email client stores emails on servers. There are no emails solely stored on my workstation. The proof is apparent when my laptop is off and I access my Exchange email via a web client, which is run on a web browser from any location and machine. This happens because the web client reads my email, sent and received, from the servers. I cannot believe the IRS uses more primitive email architecture than this common one, which has been in use for years now.

This means the emails are available unless someone took them from the backed up servers. I suggest the smoking gun emails are already available and have been reviewed. I also suggest the GOP is waiting to drop a hammer on all these Obama issues, the timing is wrong, it is time to take the Senate and Obama is a distraction right now. The hammer drops on him (and maybe even Hillary) after the mid-terms. Well after the mid-terms, closer to the Presidential election.

That's a very insecure setup. As can be seen from you accessing your mail over the web. That wouldn't be how the IRS would do things.

It's just the opposite. The Web client and exchange server use encryption to protect email sent from the server to the web client. The IRS has no reason not to use this setup. I'm afraid Lois losing her email on her personal workstation did not lose the email. Lois did not lose the email when her harddrive crashed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: Arturas

Wait. One pleads the fifth because they are guilty and are not required to incriminate themselves. Did you guys go over that already? Because that is the only reason you plead the fifth.


The 5th ammendment like the 2nd ammendment applies to all of us. By this metric one can easily say that because you choose to own a gun the only reason you have a gun is so you can commit a crime.
See how phoqueing stupid your logic is?

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: Arturas

Wait. One pleads the fifth because they are guilty and are not required to incriminate themselves. Did you guys go over that already? Because that is the only reason you plead the fifth.


The 5th ammendment like the 2nd ammendment applies to all of us. By this metric one can easily say that because you choose to own a gun the only reason you have a gun is so you can commit a crime.
See how phoqueing stupid your logic is?