Hacker News Reader

Comment by casual_slacker | Hacker News Reader

If there "is evidence", you should provide it.

He said that on March 30, 2012, NOM became aware that the Human Rights Campaign, the pro-gay rights group, obtained confidential information of its donors and posted the information without redacting the names. That information later appeared on websites like the Huffington Post. NOM discovered another document with redactions that had been posted. A computer analysis, after removing the document's redaction layer, discovered the document had "originated from within the IRS itself." He said the group found the header of each page read: “THIS IS A COPY OF A LIVE RETURN FROM SMIPS. OFFICIAL USE ONLY." And that was proof that the leak originated from the IRS.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/04/National-...

The testimony states only that documents originated within the IRS. There isn't any indication of the means in which they were released. What would be the political sense in releasing the names of donors? A rogue leaker seems more likely to me.

Testimony: http://waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/eastman_testimon...

You asked for "evidence". Obviously, this evidence requires further investigation.

Here you go, straight from the "outside group": http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/14/irs-sent-confidential-info...

Here's the original source from your article:

http://www.propublica.org/article/irs-office-that-targeted-t...

I'm not convinced it's a targeting of opposing political groups by the white house though. If Propublica requested papers, and got them even if they shouldn't have, that's a bureaucratic error.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com