"Not even a smidgen of corruption"

[Metuo Accipiter]

How many times can this guy be wrong? Anyway - it appears the IG is looking into possible criminal charges based on the IRS actions during this investigation. It's apparent the leadership is dirty - and I'm wondering how anyone can trust the IRS to police itself at this point. They didn't even try to recover the emails and over and over testified to Congress they were lost.



The Timothy P. Camus told the House Oversight Committee in a rare late-night hearing meant to look into the status of the investigation.



"There is potential criminal activity," Mr. Camus said....

...But under questioning from Mr. Chaffetz, IRS depository for them, the workers there said they'd never been contacted by the agency itself.
Republicans said that was stunning because Congress the emails were irretrievably lost.


"I think they have misled or lied to the committee," said Rep. John L. Mica, Florida Republican.
IRS probe


This post was edited on 2/27 10:11 AM by Metuo Accipiter

 

[86Hawkeye]

No link.

I saw the story earlier this AM.

Democrat Maloney said the emails are the same ones already known, though I'm not sure how she can know that.

Let the investigators go through them and figure that out.

 

[aflachawk]

As the Clinton machine used to say....Nothing to see here, move on..........

The Dems are as dirty as any party ever has been and they all have a hand in it. At what point will the MSM drop their blind allegiance to covering up what the Dems have done and report the news as it is. Thanks God, we have FNC

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

Originally posted by 86Hawkeye:
No link.

I saw the story earlier this AM.

Democrat Maloney said the emails are the same ones already known, though I'm not sure how she can know that.

Let the investigators go through them and figure that out.

Fixed the link.

I don't get how Cummings is able to still part of this investigation. He was directly involved in pushing the IRS to launch these investigations in the first place --- and he's been sandbagging the investigation every step of the way.

 

[gusto79]

"To date we have found 32,744 unique emails that were backed up from Mr. Camus said.

I think this is the key part. If there are new emails it will definitely raise questions about why these weren't produced before. I predict it won't produce any new emails, but in a few months you'll see people on the right talking about all these backup tapes that the IRS were hiding.

 

[86Hawkeye]

Originally posted by Metuo Accipiter:

Originally posted by 86Hawkeye:
No link.

I saw the story earlier this AM.

Democrat Maloney said the emails are the same ones already known, though I'm not sure how she can know that.

Let the investigators go through them and figure that out.

Fixed the link.

I don't get how Cummings is able to still part of this investigation. He was directly involved in pushing the IRS to launch these investigations in the first place --- and he's been sandbagging the investigation every step of the way.

Only thing I can think of is that he wanted the investigation because he thought there was nothing there.

Now he doesn't want it because he knows that there is something there.

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

Originally posted by gusto79:
"To date we have found 32,744 unique emails that were backed up from Mr. Camus said.

I think this is the key part. If there are new emails it will definitely raise questions about why these weren't produced before. I predict it won't produce any new emails, but in a few months you'll see people on the right talking about all these backup tapes that the IRS were hiding.

The people who had the backup tapes weren't even asked for them by the IRS. The IRS testified before Congress over and over that they were lost and unrecoverable. Sounds like corruption to me.

 

[gusto79]

Originally posted by Metuo Accipiter:

Originally posted by gusto79:
"To date we have found 32,744 unique emails that were backed up from Mr. Camus said.

I think this is the key part. If there are new emails it will definitely raise questions about why these weren't produced before. I predict it won't produce any new emails, but in a few months you'll see people on the right talking about all these backup tapes that the IRS were hiding.

The people who had the backup tapes weren't even asked for them by the IRS. The IRS testified before Congress over and over that they were lost and unrecoverable. Sounds like corruption to me.

Or maybe they knew there was nothing there. Almost every time there has been some type of new huge development with these lost emails it ends up being completely wrong. If I were you, I'd wait and see what comes of these tapes before getting too worked up.

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

Originally posted by gusto79:
Or maybe they knew there was nothing there. Almost every time there has been some type of new huge development with these lost emails it ends up being completely wrong. If I were you, I'd wait and see what comes of these tapes before getting too worked up.

Completely irrelevant. They testified before Congress on a number of occasions these emails were destroyed. In no way does it matter what's in the emails - what matters is they lied to Congress. If they thought the emails were completely clean - why lie to Congress?

 

[That tractor guy]

Global warming is going to take a hell of a hit in about 16 months...because this admin is going to kill a forest with all the Presidential Pardons that'll be flying around.

Given O's use of EO's we'll be lucky to have 5 people left in prison when it's all over.

 

[fredjr82]

Originally posted by gusto79:

Originally posted by Metuo Accipiter:

Originally posted by gusto79:
"To date we have found 32,744 unique emails that were backed up from Mr. Camus said.

I think this is the key part. If there are new emails it will definitely raise questions about why these weren't produced before. I predict it won't produce any new emails, but in a few months you'll see people on the right talking about all these backup tapes that the IRS were hiding.

The people who had the backup tapes weren't even asked for them by the IRS. The IRS testified before Congress over and over that they were lost and unrecoverable. Sounds like corruption to me.

Or maybe they knew there was nothing there. Almost every time there has been some type of new huge development with these lost emails it ends up being completely wrong. If I were you, I'd wait and see what comes of these tapes before getting too worked up.

I'll agree with your assumption in that they won't find anything new. That doesn't change the fact that he shouldn't have lied to Congress (not the first time someone has done this to save their ass) and asked the IT guys for the tapes. If he knew the tapes wouldn't contain any new emails then asking for them right up front doesn't add gas to the fire and make him look guilty when in reality he probably isn't. Regardless the guy sounds like a scumbag for lying and not doing his duties to provide evidence of the data housed on the tapes.

That said, I cringe at the thought of some poor schmuck having to go through all those tapes and looking at emails that made up those tapes. I've worked backup/tape infrastructure in my time in the IT field and they are a pain in the ass.

 

[gusto79]

Originally posted by Metuo Accipiter:

Originally posted by gusto79:
Or maybe they knew there was nothing there. Almost every time there has been some type of new huge development with these lost emails it ends up being completely wrong. If I were you, I'd wait and see what comes of these tapes before getting too worked up.

Completely irrelevant. They testified before Congress on a number of occasions these emails were destroyed. In no way does it matter what's in the emails - what matters is they lied to Congress. If they thought the emails were completely clean - why lie to Congress?

I didn't mean nothing there as in nothing important in the emails. I meant no new emails.

 

[INXS83]

Maybe gross incompetence as part of corruption.

 

[gusto79]

Fred, I agree if somebody lied to congress that is absolutely wrong. Which person lied to congress though? Are you saying Koskinen lied?

 

[gusto79]

I listened to some of the testimony today and I think I understand why these 744 tapes weren't "found" earlier. Apparently the IRS changed email servers in 2011 after Lerner's computer crashed. They moved the servers from New Carrollton, MD to Martinsburg, WV. If they are looking for emails that would have been located only on Lerner's computer, you would need to find backups from the email servers from before her computer crashed. The backups of the email servers from after the computer crash wouldn't contain the missing emails. The new 744 backup tapes are from Martinsburg and would be backups from after her computer crashed. I don't see how they could contain the missing emails. Camus said the earliest backups they were able to get from these 744 were from Nov 2012 (Lerner's hard drive crashed in June 2011).

I'd also like to point out it's not like the IG found these on their own. They just asked the IRS for all the backups and the IRS gave them to them. The IRS probably didn't do anything with them before because they would have been outside the time frame they were looking for.

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by That tractor guy:
Global warming is going to take a hell of a hit in about 16 months...because this admin is going to kill a forest with all the Presidential Pardons that'll be flying around.

Given O's use of EO's we'll be lucky to have 5 people left in prison when it's all over.

What an interesting new world that would be. National clean slate for all.

 

[lucas80]

I love it when R's flog themselves blind over this non-issue. You keep at it fellas. Someday you'll find something.

 

[BABiscuit]

Originally posted by gusto79:
I listened to some of the testimony today and I think I understand why these 744 tapes weren't "found" earlier. Apparently the IRS changed email servers in 2011 after Lerner's computer crashed. They moved the servers from New Carrollton, MD to Martinsburg, WV. If they are looking for emails that would have been located only on Lerner's computer, you would need to find backups from the email servers from before her computer crashed. The backups of the email servers from after the computer crash wouldn't contain the missing emails. The new 744 backup tapes are from Martinsburg and would be backups from after her computer crashed. I don't see how they could contain the missing emails. Camus said the earliest backups they were able to get from these 744 were from Nov 2012 (Lerner's hard drive crashed in June 2011).

I'd also like to point out it's not like the IG found these on their own. They just asked the IRS for all the backups and the IRS gave them to them. The IRS probably didn't do anything with them before because they would have been outside the time frame they were looking for.

Well that killed the start of a good right wing circle jerk.

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

Originally posted by BABiscuit:
Well that killed the start of a good right wing circle jerk.

I'm curious why, if it's so clear there is nothing to see, has the IG now opened a criminal investigation?

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

Originally posted by BABiscuit:
Well that killed the start of a good right wing circle jerk.

I'm curious why, if it's so clear there is nothing to see, has the IG now opened a criminal investigation?

 

[BABiscuit]

Originally posted by Metuo Accipiter:

Originally posted by BABiscuit:
Well that killed the start of a good right wing circle jerk.

I'm curious why, if it's so clear there is nothing to see, has the IG now opened a criminal investigation? Probably to investigate. You claimed it was clear they lied. Do you stand by that? The circle jerk started when you thought something was proven as fact. Do you have something to dispute gusto's post?

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

Originally posted by BABiscuit:

Probably to investigate. You claimed it was clear they lied. Do you stand by that? The circle jerk started when you thought something was proven as fact. Do you have something to dispute gusto's post?

Of course I dispute his post. If it was as simple as his summary there wouldn't now be a criminal investigation. The IG has been investigating this for a long time - but only now have they changed it from an oversight investigation to a criminal investigation. From the Deputy Inspector General for Investigations Tim Camus: "There is potential criminal activity"

And thus, it's reasonable to believe they have uncovered evidence of criminal activity within the IRS relating to the missing Lois Lerner emails. I find it very hard to believe the IG suddenly became overly aggressive after spending the last couple years pushing back against calls for a criminal probe. Clearly they have found evidence of wrongdoing. Is that wrongdoing significant enough to lead to indictments at some point? There's absolutely no way to know. But at very least the game has certainly changed for certain employees within the IRS.

 

[BABiscuit]

So you dont know where he is wrong, but dispute it with the argument that it MUST be wrong. What you were claiming was their evidence has been disputed and you are not able to counter. So your argument is now they must have other evidence because they said there was "potential" criminal activity. I bet most prosecuting attorneys would love to have you on their jury. You are exercising real sound ligic here.

 

[gusto79]

Originally posted by Metuo Accipiter:

Originally posted by BABiscuit:

Probably to investigate. You claimed it was clear they lied. Do you stand by that? The circle jerk started when you thought something was proven as fact. Do you have something to dispute gusto's post?

Of course I dispute his post. If it was as simple as his summary there wouldn't now be a criminal investigation. The IG has been investigating this for a long time - but only now have they changed it from an oversight investigation to a criminal investigation. From the Deputy Inspector General for Investigations Tim Camus: "There is potential criminal activity"

And thus, it's reasonable to believe they have uncovered evidence of criminal activity within the IRS relating to the missing Lois Lerner emails. I find it very hard to believe the IG suddenly became overly aggressive after spending the last couple years pushing back against calls for a criminal probe. Clearly they have found evidence of wrongdoing. Is that wrongdoing significant enough to lead to indictments at some point? There's absolutely no way to know. But at very least the game has certainly changed for certain employees within the IRS.

He also said there is the potential for no criminal activity. I've been listening to the rest of the testimony today while watching basketball and I haven't heard anybody say that the investigation just recently changed to a criminal investigation. I'm under the impression that throughout the entire investigation there has always been the potential for criminal activity. Doesn't mean they'll find any. Wouldn't pretty much any investigation have the potential for criminal activity?

And what do you dispute from my post?

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

Originally posted by BABiscuit:
So you dont know where he is wrong, but dispute it with the argument that it MUST be wrong. What you were claiming was their evidence has been disputed and you are not able to counter. So your argument is now they must have other evidence because they said there was "potential" criminal activity. I bet most prosecuting attorneys would love to have you on their jury. You are exercising real sound ligic here.

I'm not saying gusto's information is necessarily wrong - I'm saying it's incomplete. And even gusto doesn't claim he KNOWS -- he said "I THINK I UNDERSTAND" why these tapes weren't found earlier. You're now portraying that as lock solid proof. That makes no sense. Gusto's information doesn't prove/disprove anything - and it clearly doesn't answer why this has now shifted to a criminal investigation.

Let's turn this around - how about you explain what it takes for a criminal investigation to be launched by the IG. In your opinion - why would this change from an oversight investigation to a criminal investigation? You act as if that means nothing - but in reality it means a considerable amount. The IG would not have mentioned that aspect without some significant discovery.

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

Originally posted by gusto79:

He also said there is the potential for no criminal activity. I've been listening to the rest of the testimony today while watching basketball and I haven't heard anybody say that the investigation just recently changed to a criminal investigation. I'm under the impression that throughout the entire investigation there has always been the potential for criminal activity. Doesn't mean they'll find any. Wouldn't pretty much any investigation have the potential for criminal activity?

And what do you dispute from my post?

Uh, of course there's potential for no criminal activity.

As for this now being a criminal investigation - that was the headline yesterday - so it's logical to conclude this is new. Are you trying to infer it was a secret criminal probe before?

It does appear you aren't familiar with the difference between oversight and criminal investigations. Administrative/oversight investigations are conducted when something goes wrong - to get to the bottom of the issue. Such as mistakes being made. You don't run an oversight investigation when you believe there's probable criminal activity. If you have evidence of criminal activity you have to treat the investigatory process differently because the standard of proof is higher.
This post was edited on 2/28 2:26 PM by Metuo Accipiter

 

[gusto79]

Originally posted by Metuo Accipiter:

Originally posted by gusto79:

He also said there is the potential for no criminal activity. I've been listening to the rest of the testimony today while watching basketball and I haven't heard anybody say that the investigation just recently changed to a criminal investigation. I'm under the impression that throughout the entire investigation there has always been the potential for criminal activity. Doesn't mean they'll find any. Wouldn't pretty much any investigation have the potential for criminal activity?

And what do you dispute from my post?

Uh, of course there's potential for no criminal activity.

As for this now being a criminal investigation - that was the headline across most major news sources yesterday - so it's logical to conclude this is new. Are you trying to infer it was a secret criminal probe before?

It does appear you aren't familiar with the difference between oversight and criminal investigations. Administrative/oversight investigations are conducted when something goes wrong - to get to the bottom of the issue. Such as mistakes being made. You don't run an oversight investigation when you believe there's probable criminal activity. If you have evidence of criminal activity you have to treat the investigatory process differently because the standard of proof is different (higher).

This post was edited on 2/28 2:13 PM by Metuo Accipiter

There was nothing in the testimony saying there was a different criminal investigation now. I think that is getting blown out of proportion. The chairman asked him if they were investigating potential criminal activity and he said the entire thing continues to be investigated.

We'll know soon enough. They said several times they should have a finished report in a couple weeks. Which makes one wonder why have the hearing now with incomplete information. Camus said several times that facts change daily. It seems irresponsible to bring incomplete information out to the public when we could just wait a couple weeks for a finished report.

Do you agree with me that these backups from 2012 won't help them get the missing emails from 2011? Those are the emails that Koskinen said they didn't have the back ups for. Koskinen says that don't have the backups from 2011. They find backups from 2012 and you said that sounds like corruption. How does that sound like corruption?

 

[gusto79]

Also want to add that Camus and George confirmed that there is evidence showing Lerner's HD crashed before they were notified of the investigation.

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

Originally posted by gusto79:


Do you agree with me that these backups from 2012 won't help them get the missing emails from 2011? Those are the emails that Koskinen said they didn't have the back ups for. Koskinen says that don't have the backups from 2011. They find backups from 2012 and you said that sounds like corruption. How does that sound like corruption?

I'm not sure how you're missing the significance of the IG revealing it's now a criminal investigation. This is the first time in two years that has been stated. This is especially key because the GOP has been calling for a criminal investigation for a considerable amount of time - and the IG has pushed back because it had not found any probable cause of criminal activity. The fact the IG has changed its stance should reasonably tell everyone they've found something. That doesn't mean anyone will get charged or any actual crime has been committed - but it certainly means they have found what appears to be wrongdoing - not just mistakes.

As for the emails --- I think you're greatly oversimplifying how email works. Email strings that started in 2011 can linger well into 2012. And if the backup record to certain 2011 emails were lost -- it's possible a later string of the same email thread can be recovered in the 2012 backup. I have email strings at work that last for months due to complicated, long-term projects.

Also - most of the time you can classify the emails as business sensitive, business record, etc. I have no idea how the IRS does it - but I assume they are able to hold certain emails longer than others simply by classifying it. And thus, if an email was held longer that means many 2011 emails may have been drug into 2012 because they were saved longer. Lois Lerner might not have been classifying these emails in a hold category -- but she's the director. People who work for her may well have.

Obviously there could be many, many reasons why you need both years to check the 2011 records.

This post was edited on 2/28 2:59 PM by Metuo Accipiter

 

[gusto79]

Originally posted by Metuo Accipiter:

Originally posted by gusto79:


Do you agree with me that these backups from 2012 won't help them get the missing emails from 2011? Those are the emails that Koskinen said they didn't have the back ups for. Koskinen says that don't have the backups from 2011. They find backups from 2012 and you said that sounds like corruption. How does that sound like corruption?

I'm not sure how you're missing the significance of the IG revealing it's now a criminal investigation. This is the first time in two years that has been stated. This is especially key because the GOP has been calling for a criminal investigation for a considerable amount of time - and the IG has pushed back because it had not found any probable cause of criminal activity. The fact the IG has changed its stance should reasonably tell everyone they've found something. That doesn't mean anyone will get charged or any actual crime has been committed - but it certainly means they have found what appears to be wrongdoing - not just mistakes.

As for the emails --- I think you're greatly oversimplifying how email works. Email strings that started in 2011 can linger well into 2012. And if the backup record to certain 2011 emails were lost -- it's possible a later string of the same email thread can be recovered in the 2012 backup. I have email strings at work that last for months due to complicated, long-term projects.

Also - most of the time you can classify the emails as business sensitive, business record, etc. I have no idea how the IRS does it - but I assume they are able to hold certain emails longer than others simply by classifying it. And thus, if an email was held longer that means many 2011 emails may have been drug into 2012 because they were saved longer. Lois Lerner might not have been classifying these emails in a hold category -- but she's the director. People who work for her may well have.

Obviously there could be many, many reasons why you need both years to check the 2011 records.

This post was edited on 2/28 2:59 PM by Metuo Accipiter

Again, there was nothing in the testimony saying they are starting a different criminal investigation. Don't you think with any investigation there is the "potential" for criminal activity?

I know how email strings work. The lost emails though were emails that were moved off the server to her computer. When her computer crashed the emails were lost because they were no longer on the server, which means they wouldn't be in backup tapes over a year later. IRS retention policy at the time was to print out emails, as ridiculous as that seems.

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

Originally posted by gusto79:

Again, there was nothing in the testimony saying they are starting a different criminal investigation. Don't you think with any investigation there is the "potential" for criminal activity?

Why do you say "different" criminal investigation? Can you show me where it was announced previously that criminal investigators were involved?

And of course there is the potential for criminal activity being discovered in any investigation like this - but you don't launch a criminal probe without some degree of probable cause a crime has been committed. It's a different process, a different stardard and different personnel are involved when it goes from administrative to criminal.

 

[gusto79]

Originally posted by Metuo Accipiter:

Originally posted by gusto79:

Again, there was nothing in the testimony saying they are starting a different criminal investigation. Don't you think with any investigation there is the "potential" for criminal activity?

Why do you say "different" criminal investigation? Can you show me where it was announced previously that criminal investigators were involved?

And of course there is the potential for criminal activity being discovered in any investigation like this - but you don't launch a criminal probe without some degree of probable cause a crime has been committed. It's a different process, a different stardard and different personnel are involved when it goes from administrative to criminal.

Different than any current investigation. Nobody said the investigation has changed. Nobody said a criminal probe has been launched.

This post was edited on 2/28 3:59 PM by gusto79

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

Originally posted by gusto79:

I know how email strings work. The lost emails though were emails that were moved off the server to her computer. When her computer crashed the emails were lost because they were no longer on the server, which means they wouldn't be in backup tapes over a year later. IRS retention policy at the time was to print out emails, as ridiculous as that seems.

The server and the backup tapes are different. It's my understanding the backup is independent of the server istorage. And the difference between 2011 and 2012 is one day not one year. Obviously there will be a considerable amount of spillover from 2011 into 2012.

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

Originally posted by gustoDifferent than any current investigation. Nobody said the investigation has changed. Nobody said a criminal probe has been launched.

This post was edited on 2/28 3:59 PM by gusto79

Read my quote in the original post. Are you disputing the accuracy of that report?

 

[gusto79]

Originally posted by Metuo Accipiter:

Originally posted by gusto79:

I know how email strings work. The lost emails though were emails that were moved off the server to her computer. When her computer crashed the emails were lost because they were no longer on the server, which means they wouldn't be in backup tapes over a year later. IRS retention policy at the time was to print out emails, as ridiculous as that seems.

The server and the backup tapes are different. It's my understanding the backup is independent of the server istorage. And the difference between 2011 and 2012 is one day not one year. Obviously there will be a considerable amount of spillover from 2011 into 2012.

The backup are of the server. The backups are from Nov 2012. They need backups from before June 2011. That is where over a year comes from.

 

[gusto79]

Originally posted by Metuo Accipiter:

Originally posted by gustoDifferent than any current investigation. Nobody said the investigation has changed. Nobody said a criminal probe has been launched.

This post was edited on 2/28 3:59 PM by gusto79

Read my quote in the original post. Are you disputing the accuracy of that report?

There may be a criminal investigation, but if there is, it's nothing new. You keep saying that things have changed into a criminal investigation, or there is a new different investigation. The investigation is the same as it's always been.

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

Originally posted by gusto79:
There may be a criminal investigation, but if there is, it's nothing new. You keep saying that things have changed into a criminal investigation, or there is a new different investigation. The investigation is the same as it's always been.

I really don't get the point you're trying to make. This is clearly the first time we've heard about any criminal probe by the Inspector General at the IRS.

The IRS scandal entered its 659th day on Friday, says a law professor who keeps track. But the date might be historic, given that for the first time, the public learned that a criminal probe is actually taking place Read More At Investor's Business Daily

 

[gusto79]

Originally posted by Metuo Accipiter:

Originally posted by gusto79:
There may be a criminal investigation, but if there is, it's nothing new. You keep saying that things have changed into a criminal investigation, or there is a new different investigation. The investigation is the same as it's always been.

I really don't get the point you're trying to make. This is clearly the first time we've heard about any criminal probe by the Inspector General at the IRS.

The IRS scandal entered its 659th day on Friday, says a law professor who keeps track. But the date might be historic, given that for the first time, the public learned that a criminal probe is actually taking place Read More At Investor's Business Daily

The Inspector General has been investigating this issue (missing emails) since June or July of last year. There has always been the potential for criminal activity. You keep saying something recently has changed. Nothing has changed. It's the same investigation that has been going on since last summer.

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

Originally posted by gusto79:

The Inspector General has been investigating this issue (missing emails) since June or July of last year. There has always been the potential for criminal activity. You keep saying something recently has changed. Nothing has changed. It's the same investigation that has been going on since last summer.

It's not ME that's saying the criminal investigation is new -- it's many different news sources. So you think all of these news agencies are wrong? I've already linked a number of them - and it's easy to find more. But I don't get why you're clinging to the idea that nothing has changed.

IRS Opens Criminal Inquiry into 'Lost' Lois Lerner Emails Newsmax.com

Lerner's lost emails prompted a new round of scrutiny by Congress, and a new investigation by the inspector general's office. ABC news

ACLJ Calls For Independent Prosecutor As IRS Inspector General Reveals Criminal Investigation Now Underway In IRS Targeting Scheme Yahoo News

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

Originally posted by gusto79:

The backup are of the server. The backups are from Nov 2012. They need backups from before June 2011. That is where over a year comes from.

Saying the backups are "from Nov 2012" doesn't mean anything. What time period are they supposed to have covered? They clearly aren't one month's worth of backups. And isn't the new Lois Lerner email supposed to be from those backup tapes? (it was written in June 2011)



This post was edited on 3/1 8:03 AM by Metuo Accipiter