It's worth noting the decision was unanimous with the Justices, reminding the President that the Senate makes Senate rules, not the White House; and that Obama's appointments were unnecessarily extreme.
“These emails are not stored on a signal server or a single computer, so if there were a crash of a hard drive or some sort of system failure, they would still be retrievable. According to [John] Koskinen, the IRS Commissioner at the time, he told Congress that emails were stored offsite. That jives with people who said emails were backed up daily. There is a responsibility on the part of government officials to retain the data, make sure that is and can’t be lost in the system. If it’s true that the emails are lost, that’s quite a story in itself,” she said.
She thinks Congress should act fast to investigate if anyone inside the IRS is attempting to hide or destroy the emails.
“I would call in certain officials. Let’s assume there could have been some mischief committed — before they have time to get their stories straight and fix things up, I would get them in there under oath and start digging down and getting the timeline and getting people on the record about this. The only people that I see than can do this are members of Congress. The question is, do they have the will to do that?” Attkisson stated.
Attkisson said that regardless of whether the emails were lost accidentally or improperly, the individuals responsible should be held accountable.
“One official wrote me…to say this is entirely implausible, and he said there are criminal penalties for destroying federal records, which makes sense, including liability for negligence for not taking the necessary steps to protect files, including a federal requirement to backup data. This doesn’t happen. He said … all email servers are backed up with something called ‘RAID’ (Redundant Array Of Independent Disks), and it’s nearly impossible for something to delete the files, and that even if that were to happen they would not be gone forever,” she said.
“One final comment that this particular guy made, he said if there was a cover-up here — let’s just assume for the sake of argument that maybe something went wrong — he said laws have been broken during an alleged coverup that are much easier to prove than the original act, some poor IT schmuck, if you get him under oath, he will fold like a cheap suit, and I do feel like there is some truth to that. So if you call in the IT professionals who supposedly reported the crash and went after the irretrievable material and found they couldn’t be found I think you’d probably get the truth; and maybe the truth is nothing more than what the IRS says, but it’s just strange that they kept the subpoena and official request from Congress for 7-10 months without mentioning it that the emails don’t exist or are that they were gone. And it also then would be exposing a huge vulnerability in our federal computers if indeed data has been irretrievably lost by this. Remember, but the IRS is part of Healthcare.gov, if the IRS system can indeed be so vulnerable that some sort of crash can lose all kind of important data like this, what does t say about the federal system?”
1. What steps did each of you, as counsel for the Defendants, each of them, take to ensure that any and all documents as described in the litigation hold letter and as required by federal law were, in fact, preserved?
2. When did you learn that the destruction, loss or spoliation of emails of Defendant Lois Lerner had occurred?
3. What steps have you, each of you, taken to restore Ms. Lerner’s “lost” emails?
4. Were the “lost” emails from Ms. Lerner’s computer at the IRS or her home computer?
5. Are there documents or records, as described in the Litigation Hold letter or the subpoenas issued to the IRS from any of the Committees, belonging to other defendants that have been “lost”?
Time to find out who the IT guys were that tried to recover the "lost" emails, and get them under oath..
With some tearing up gun registration forms in public protest on Tuesday, some 1 million New York gun owners shrugged off an April 15 deadline to register assault-style weapons under a tough post-Sandy Hook gun control law.
The rebellious stance is being taken by a subgroup of Americans who often make a show of being “law-abiding.” But it’s now set off a possible standoff with the New York State Police over registering assault-style weapons – a sore subject in a country simmering with gun-confiscation fears after myriad high-profile shootings.
For now, gun rights experts say, the outcome in New York is uncertain. Will the state take the initiative to seize unregistered weapons? If it doesn’t, will the new gun controls be exposed as toothless, even meaningless?
“The line in the sand has been drawn, and if Gov. Andrew Cuomo wants to send state police out on house-to-house searches and put hundreds of thousands of people in prison, they can do that,” says Dave Kopel, research director at the Independence Institute, a free-market think tank in Denver.
Tuesday’s protests were another sign of New York emerging as a battleground on gun issues. In late 2012, The Journal News in White Plains, N.Y., drew heavy criticism after publishing addresses of pistol permit holders in the county. Just this week, former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg pledged $50 million toward a national effort called Everytown for Gun Safety, focused on improving background checks.
As for the legislation in question, the SAFE Act, it bans semiautomatic rifles that can take detachable magazines and those with military features like pistol grips, folding stocks, second hand grips, bayonet mounts, and flash suppressors.
New York residents who already own those guns can legally keep them so long as they register them with the state – the failure of which is punishable as a misdemeanor and, possibly, a felony.
Your move, Mr. Governor. Are you going to issues warrants, and arrest a million of your taxpaying citizens, or are you going to do nothing?
“These new emails show that the day before she broke the news of the IRS scandal, Lois Lerner was talking to a top Obama Justice Department official about whether the DOJ could prosecute the very same organizations that the IRS had already improperly targeted,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement. “The IRS emails show Eric Holder’s Department of Justice is now implicated and conflicted in the IRS scandal. No wonder we had to sue in federal court to get these documents.”
Received my notification from the City and County of Denver that my application for a CCW permit was approved. Next step is to visit the Police Department and pick up my credentials.
The process was an interesting one. Colorado requires you take a class (instructor must be certified), pass a background check, and pay a fee ($152.50!). Really enjoyed the class I took. Instructor was a former Jefferson County Sherriff Deputy, and taught me a lot more than I thought I would learn. I would highly recommend using Joe, if you plan on taking such a course. The process at the Police station was a little challenging, as my fingers don't like being fingerprinted.
My permit is good for 5 years, at which point I pay a lower fee to get reissued.
Nice to know that I have the option of carrying in situations that would make my family feel safer. Ever since the shooting at the Batman movie a few years ago, the fetching Mrs. P has been uncomfortable at movie theaters. She was actually the one who pushed for me to get my permit.
Not sure how often I'll actually carry one of my guns, but I'm glad that I live in a State that still believes in the Constitution, and respects my Second Amendment right. I may carry frequently, I may not.
Are there any limits to what the President can do, in regards to passed laws?
For example, the President recently decided to delay the implementation of Obamacare for business with 50-99 employees until 2016. Democrats don't seem to have a problem with a President using this power.
Is there any reason why a Republican President couldn't delay the implementation of Obamacare until 2100? Any reason why a Republican President couldn't decide that abortion was no longer legal? Any reason why a Republican President couldn't decide that all Democrats are required to contribute 100% of their earnings, wealth , and possessions to their Republican neighbors?
If your answer is "Yes!" to any of my scenarios, please explain why, and then explain why Obama is okay in doing what he has done (and continues to do) with his signature legislation.
The class-action lawsuit will be filed against Obama, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Director of the National Security Agency Keith Alexander and FBI Director James Comey.
The complaint? “I am filing a lawsuit against President Barack Obama because he has publicly refused to stop a clear and continuing violation of the 4th Amendment,” Paul said in a statement. “The Bill of Rights protects all citizens from general warrants. I expect this case to go all the way to the Supreme Court and I predict the American people will win.”
Cuccinelli, acting as lead counsel, said he’s “excited” about the opportunity “to get the courts to affirm the rights protected by the 4th Amendment to the Constitution.”
“We have assembled a legal team and we expect to be opposed by the vast resources of the federal government, yet I am optimistic that we will prevail, because we are seeking to protect a cornerstone of the Constitution,” added Cuccinelli, who was defeated in the Virginia governor’s race last fall by Terry McAuliffe.
“This class action suit isn’t about Republican versus Democrat, or progressive versus conservative. This is about defending the basic civil liberties of every American from a government that has crossed the line. FreedomWorks is participating in this suit on behalf of our community of 6 million citizens nationwide, along with any American who has a phone,” Kibbe said. “If you use a phone, you should care about this case. Never in American history has there been such a warrantless gathering of citizens information. We believe it is time to put this before the courts. ”
Sometime tomorrow after the suit is filed, we'll learn from many Democrats and MSMers why Paul is racist.