The IRS needs to explain why they weren’t using email servers which are SOP for all large IT organizations.

They also need to explain why they didn’t restore Lerner’s data, including emails, from backup tapes.

What about the multiple, redundant Exchange Servers that the individual workstation Outlook progarms get their data from?

What about the backups of those systems?

What about the enterprise email backup service that we know the IRS subscribed to?

What about the paper copies she was legally obligated to print and file?

What about the copies resident in the email systems of all the people she communicated with? We know who we’re most interested in, why don’t we (Congress) subpoena those records?

And lastly, why not subpoena the NSA since we know they’ve got records of all of this?

In your “friendly lawsuit” model, an environmental outfit sues one of the Federal agencies, who shortly thereafter “settles” by giving the enviro-fascists what they wanted. “Oh, golly-gee, they made us do it”.

In these lawsuits, the adversaries are NOT friendly. An ancillary investigation by another Federal agency MIGHT stay the proceedings, but it isn’t likely, IMNHO. There would have to be a very compelling argument put to the courts, explaining why their docket should be kludged up pending some other procedure.

Before a judge finds someone…or an agency…in contempt, there are predicates to be laid. They have to be given a chance to comply with the court’s rulings and orders, and those orders have to be subjected to objection and due process. A record has to be made.

And nobody would want it any other way.

A federal judge has ordered the IRS to explain “under oath” how the agency lost a trove of emails from the official at the heart of the Tea Party targeting scandal.

And what happens when nobody explains anything, under oath or otherwise? Nothing at all happens.

If a judge told someone specific – say, Lerner – that she is required to produce the e-mails – and no excuses – or go to jail and stay there until the e-mails appear, that would be different. Something might actually happen then. At the very least, a criminal might go to jail, and the other criminals might be slightly more reluctant to pervert the government in the name of the Party.

But demanding a declaration by an “appropriate official” is just a show. There’s no way to exert unpleasant pressure on an “appropriate official” when there is no such person actually in the vise.

Is it possible for the Obama administration to scuttle judicial investigations by setting up a phony inquiry, then having the sympathetic judge accept BS explanations?

They’ve already done this “Trojan horse” model before, in lawsuits where the EPA is sued by environmental groups.

Sure, Kerry is an ass, but in this photo he was just wearing the required garb for crew module entry.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/another-federal-judge-tells-irs-to-explain-itself-on-lost-emails/article/2550394

IRS attorneys will be even busier than normal next week, because another federal judge has told them to show up in court July 11 to defend the federal tax agency.

They will have to explain to U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton why the IRS shouldn’t be required to let an outside expert evaluate whether emails on the computer hard drives of former IRS official Lois Lerner and six colleagues really are lost forever, as the agency recently told Congress.

Sadly Kerry’s work isn’t done — he isn’t done harming America, Israel, and all our allies.

Thank goodness GWB sent him back to the Senate.

See Clinton, Bill.

It is too long to allow a month, they knew about this six months or more ago, it happened 3 years ago, if they don’t have the story straight by now another few weeks won’t help.

And it’s a mistake to let IRS decide who answers, too. It will either be someone with plausible deniability (“to the best of my knowledge and belief” doesn’t mean “I’m positive”) or someone low enough to be expendable.

Looks like this Judge is going to get a lot more people taking the 5th. Hope it’s on TV!