Share This Page

The IRS scandal: Do the Lois Lerner emails still exist?

| Wednesday, Aug. 27, 2014, 9:00 p.m.

Suing over its targeting by the Internal Revenue Service for extra scrutiny, conservative group Judicial Watch now says Justice Department lawyers have told it that the supposedly lost emails of Lois Lerner, the targeting scandal's now-retired central figure, could be recovered. It's a stunning development — if true.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton contends that Justice Department lawyers said the government backs up all emails in case of catastrophe and that Ms. Lerner's missing emails from a two-year span following her hard drive's supposed 2011 crash thus can be found. But it adds that the backup system is “too onerous to search.”

An unidentified Obama administration official tells The Hill newspaper that Mr. Fitton's interpretation is wrong and that Justice lawyers simply referred to IRS email backup tapes recycled twice a year prior to the targeting investigation's start in 2013 and mentioned by IRS Commissioner John Koskinen in congressional testimony.

Fitton accuses the administration of “lying to the American people about Lerner's missing emails.” He vows to bring this “jaw-dropping revelation” to the attention of the judge presiding over Judicial Watch's lawsuit.

With this latest twist further clouding both the issue and the Obama administration's credibility, the situation cries out for a special prosecutor to cut through the murk.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.