The IRS claimed today that they have “irretrievably lost” two years’ worth of Lois Lerner’s email. This is a fairly outlandish and quite convenient event.
In fact, it completely fails the “sniff test”.
So, as someone who has a fair amount of experience in networking systems, email systems and IT in general – I (Phil801) have looked into their claims as deeply as I can to try to understand what they are claiming happened, to analyze what systems they have in place and what systems they are *required* to have in place – so that I can offer an informed, professional and technical opinion on it.
This is my conclusion:
They are lying.
What they are saying has happened is not possible. This could change, however, if other evidence comes to light. Allowing for the typical RUE in reporting the technical aspects of the situation, it is still highly improbable to have been able to happen and if it did indeed happen, it highlights an absolute dereliction of duty on not only those in charge of the IT Department, but the Department heads who were over Lois Lerner. It, in fact, shows criminal negligence and criminal activities on behalf of those individuals.
Because of the importance of credibility in an endeavor such as this, I have requested that all my findings be reviewed and commented on by a few other highly qualified and professional technologists. Ihave asked them to verify the accuracy of my analysis of the technical aspect of each key issue, to check my source material to ensure that the statements I make based on that material are correct and that the source material affirms my assertions from it and finally, to validate, verify and and endorse or challenge each of the conclusions I present.
By presenting this in a Peer Reviewed manner, my objective is for the content and claims of this analysis be above reproach and that those who do not understand these concepts can have confidence in reporting and repeating the conclusions drawn through this analysis. Each concept or issue will be presented in its own post and will be a “deep dive” into the technical aspects of it while doing my best to explain everything in such a way that everyone will be able to understand my conclusion. I will then present a summarized post which will identify each issue and will link to the detailed post explaining the issue. This will hopefully enable everyone, regardless of their technical background, to realize the truth of this blatant deception.
Those who have thus far weighed in on the Peer Review are as follows (others will be added to this list as they weigh in):
- Phil Burns (the author), Professional Software Engineer, originally trained as a Network and Systems Engineer in the US Air Force, spent years building and maintaining enterprise networks and servers.
- Alan Fullmer, Professional Software and Systems Engineer, has been in the industry for most of his life, has worked for a leading software forensics company who sells data recovery and forensics software to the government and owns, operates and manages email servers for over 50,000 users.
- Larry Diffey, Professional Software Engineer, has worked for years in the IT Industry as a System Administrator and Network Engineer.
- Tyler Jensen, Professional Software Engineer, previously owned an Internet Service Provider (ISP) company and spent years working on networking systems and servers.
- Justin Sharp, Systems and Network Engineer, has spent years managing networks, servers and other major enterprise computing systems.