IRS Commissioner Koskinen is obviously obstructing the investigation of Lois Lerner's lost emails

IRS Commissioner Koskinen asserts positively that he knows the emails are lost. There are only three explanations for why he knows this:

• He read it in a paper or electronic document.
• He heard it from someone.
• The emails were entrusted to him and he lost them himself.

Now, we may legitimately ask which one of these explanations is true. Obviously, the third explanation is highly unlikely. That leaves the first and second explanations. Each of these explanations logically leads to other individuals (the author of the document the Commissioner read or the person telling the Commissioner). These individuals form additional links in the investigation and should be questioned. If the Commissioner is unwilling to reveal who these people are, then he is obstructing the investigation.

If he says he does not remember how he first learned of the loss of the emails, we may legitimately ask him: "Well, how can you then be sure now that the emails are in fact lost? There has to be some evidence that engenders in you the epistemological certainty that allows you to state unequivocally that the emails are lost. What is this evidence, from whom did you receive it, at what time did you receive it, and at what time did you reach a state of epistemological certainty that the emails were lost?"

And once again, if he is not willing to state the evidence on the basis of which he currently knows that the emails are lost, from whom he received this evidence, when he received it, and when he became certain that the emails were lost, then he is obstructing the investigation.