| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
Posted on 04/18/2002 10:49:16 AM PDT by FreedominJesusChrist
For Immediate Release
Apr 18, 2002
Press Office: 202-646-5172
JUDICIAL WATCH FIGHTS CLINTON IRS ATTEMPTED AUDIT
IRS OFFICIAL ADMITS: “WHAT DO YOU EXPECT WHEN YOU SUE THE PRESIDENT?”
(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the non-profit educational foundation that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it was fighting in court an audit attempt instituted by the Clinton IRS in retaliation for Judicial Watch’s litigation against President Clinton. Judicial Watch first received notice of an attempted IRS audit on October 9, 1998, a few days after its “Interim Impeachment Report,” which called for Bill Clinton’s impeachment for misuse of the IRS, was officially made part of the Congressional record. The IRS’s initial audit letter demanded that Judicial Watch “[p]rovide the names and addresses of the directors and their relationship to any political party or political groups.” In January, 1999, an IRS official admitted to Judicial Watch representatives, in the context of the propriety of the audit, “What do you expect when you sue the President?” Another IRS official admitted in June, 1999, that the political affiliations of Judicial Watch’s directors is a factor in any IRS audit.
After Judicial Watch scored legal victories against the Clinton Administration, Judicial Watch received audit notices and warnings from the IRS. For instance, immediately following its uncovering of the Clinton-Gore White House e-mail scandal in February, 2000, Judicial Watch lawyers received a call from an IRS official to inform them that Judicial Watch was still on the IRS’s “radar screen.” The IRS finally agreed to defer on deciding whether to audit Judicial Watch until after the Clinton Administration ended. Despite this agreement, in one of the last acts of the Clinton Administration, the IRS sent Judicial Watch another audit notice on January 8, 2001. The IRS also sent new audit notices throughout 2001 after Judicial Watch criticized IRS Commissioner Charles Rossotti. Rossotti is a Clinton appointee who “inexplicably” continues to serve under President Bush. In addition to presiding over the audits of perceived critics of the Clinton Administration, Judicial Watch requested criminal and civil investigations of Rossotti for his criminal conflict of interest in holding stock in a company he founded, AMS, while it did business with the IRS.
Judicial Watch now is fighting the attempted audit in federal courts in the District of Columbia and Maryland. As Robert Novak reports in his April 18th column, despite repeated requests to Attorney General Ashcroft to investigate, his Bush Justice Department has thus far refused to do so. (See Judicial Watch's letter to Attorney General John Aschroft) Instead, in the context of Judicial Watch’s lawsuit against the Cheney Energy Task Force, a Bush Administration official told Novak, “I don't know what we are going to do with this Klayman.” A copy of Judicial Watch’s complaint against IRS officials is available by clicking here.
“Judicial Watch has no objection to IRS audits at the proper time and place, under correct, non-political circumstances. We have nothing to hide. But when we were told that we were being audited because we sued Bill Clinton, we had no choice but to stand up and fight in court. Now, for its own reasons, the Bush Administration is content to let Clinton appointee Rossotti continue to harass Judicial Watch. Our lawsuits in response are intended not only to protect Judicial Watch, but are for the good of all Americans,” stated Judicial Watch Chairman and General Counsel Larry Klayman.
© Copyright 1997-2002, Judicial Watch, Inc.
.......and this statement is untrue? How?
If all is in order, an audit is nothing more than a pain and an inconvenience.
The only fear I have ever observed is that on the face of a cheater or liar.
I hate to say this about anyone, because shooting him was probably an overreaction, but if he was cheating he had to know the risks involved.
I think we have the same or similar sources, but my memory is such that I can't be certain anymore whether it was the Chance or the Community Chest cards.
In any event, a mid-game reshuffle is definitely not kosher. But would you shoot somebody over something like that? I just don't think that I could do it.
I do not believe that you should make light of the fact that Ron Brown was murdered. There is credible evidence out there pointing to the fact that he was.
Cut out this monopoly garbage.
Why thank you ... that's high praise coming from you.
you know very well that the reason he went after Bush is because the money dried up from the Republicans.
That's only your assumption. I think there are a great many Republicans (as opposed to NEW Republicans) that share my (and apparently Klayman's) concern that both parties might now be corrupt. Bush's administration does seem to be ignoring the many serious crimes committed by the last administration.
And the only reason I brought up Scaiffe is because FIJC said that Klayman was non-partisan
I just find it interesting that you just decided to use the same argument that democRATS tried unsuccessfully to use against Klayman (or anyone else that Scaiffe funded for that matter) for all those years Clinton was in power committing crimes, fending off Klayman's efforts to discover those crimes. How conservative of you? How do you differ from democRATS? Refresh my memory.
And while your at it, perhaps you could tell us why you cited as a reliable source an article from the Washington Post, a paper that villifies Scaiffe and willingly spread disinformation by the head of the AFIP about the opinions of his pathologists and the nature of the wound in the Brown matter? Did the Washington post ever mention the rape allegation against Clinton? Did they ever mention that Sid Blumenthal lied under oath to protect Clinton in an impeachment trial about lying under oath? Did they ever mention the real opinions of the pathologists in the Brown case? Prove to me they aren't as biased as I suspect.
Klayman got his START with the GOP and the hard right, but when they deserted him, he HAD to look somewhere else.
How do you know the "hard right" deserted Klayman ... you certainly aren't in that crowd and its ridiculous to think that the "left" is giving him money given that Klayman is still pursuing lawsuits that could put their leader Bill and many others in the DNC in jail for a long time. This is the sort of the hysterical suggestion that was put forth by other move-on'ers a while back ... that Klayman was a tool of Clinton, funded by Clinton, from the very beginning ... even during the time he was digging deep into Chinagate, Filegate, Emailgate and the like. Seems to me some of your best friends on this forum at the time were the people posting such nonsense.
And if Klayman is NOT partisan, why don't we ever see him on TV, supporting Daschle and Gephardt and Kennedy?
Let's turn that around. If Klayman is being funded by the supporters of Daschle and Gephardt and Kennedy as you seem to be implying, why don't we ever see him on TV with them supporting their own brand of corruption?
Look, I'm not fool enough to think that Klayman is totally "non-partisan". But he certainly appears to be a lot less partisan than dozens of other organizations whose existance you don't seem to care one iota about ... left leaning organizations whose activities are a lot more damaging to this country than anything you IMAGINE Klayman is doing. In any case, I'm not arguing with you about auditing Klayman ... audit away! But do it legally ... which means Klayman gets to fight that audit if he thinks it is motivated by political considerations.
Clinton might have figured that she was out of the picture and it was Ron that allowed her to manipulate her way back in with that huge profit on all the railroads and Marvin Gardens.
I don't think I would shoot anyone over it, but I wasn't there.
I think this guy was though.
Wouldn't you love to pick his brain?
That is stretching it Howlin. I believe that he was murdered and it is too bad that you so easily brush off his mysterious death as a conspiracy theory.
Do you brush off the wrongful deaths of Danny Casolaro, Paul Wilcher, Don Henry, and Kevin Ives, too?
With any luck, we can send the responsible party directly to jail without passing Go.
We all know that the IRS is attempting to silence Judicial Watch's political speech by this threatening audit.
There you have it Freepers ... more proof that Howlin isn't quite as conservative as she's led you to believe. She's suggesting that crimes were not committed in Chinagate, Filegate, Emailgate, etc.
She suggesting that its not illegal for the Clinton administration to have taken MILLIONS of dollars from foreign entities (like the Red Chinese military) ... something that Klayman helped discover and which we know to be absolute fact because our intelligence sources say its true and few people plead guilty to doing it (like Riady).
She's suggesting that its not illegal for the Whitehouse to have acquired over a thousand (and perhaps thousands according to sworn testimony) of FBI files ONLY on Republicans, nor to have been putting the contents of those files into the WhiteHouse database (which even democRATS admitted to doing), nor to have taken the contents of that databases home and to have loaded them into DNC databases (again, thanks to sworn testimony from multiple people, including some democRATS). Gee ... maybe she should tell the government they made a mistake sending a guy to prison for several years after Watergate because the man illegally acquired ONE FBI file.
She's suggesting that all those lost emails are just an "innocent mistake" and the threats the Clinton staffers made against regular people like you and me to keep them from fixing the problem or telling about it (sworn testimony) were just "misunderstandings".
But we did at least get her to admit that it was never Klayman's responsibility to actually investigate and prosecute those criminal ALLEGATIONS. Now let's see if we can get her to admit that it is Bush and Ashcroft's responsibility!
Now, the audit was started during the Clinton administration. It is now the BUSH administration. They have found that the IRS is behaving, and apparently in THIS case, was behaving properly.
Just because I didn't like Clinton doesn't mean that an IRS audit of my taxes would be politically motivated.
They do hundreds of audits of organizations every year. Why should Klayman be exempt?
We do???? Could you source that for "we all"?
You can speculate forever, Freedom, but you don't know any such thing.
In fact......for all you know this reported audit could be perfectly justified.
Shall we go back to the Bible once more? Matt 22:21 "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's."
You really are showing your true colors, Miss Marple.
Do you always bend your knee to the federal government? You shouldn't.
Not on cases that have been disposed of, or that they have looked at -- including Klayman's "evidence" -- and have decided there is just nothing there???
There you have it folks. Clear proof that Howlin is not a conservative as she PRETENDS to be but a democRAT.
Who but a democRAT would claim that the allegations of Chinagate have been looked at and that there is nothing there?
Who but a democRAT would claim that Filegate was fairly looked at (remember, those files were STILL in the Clinton Whitehouse YEARS after Starr told us that it was illegal for the Whitehouse to have them and the Whitehouse told us they had been returned) and there was nothing there.
Who but a democRAT who claim that the email case was properly investigated and there was nothing there ... given that multiple people (ordinary folks like us Freepers) were threatened with jail by Clintons henchmen if they revealed the missing emails ... given that a huge number of the emails which Klayman's actions managed to recover have apparently NEVER been looked at by anyone in an investigative manner.
Again, we must thank Howlin for finally clearing up our suspicions about whether she's a democRAT or not. She is!
And just because Klayman SAYS he has it doesn't mean other REPUTABLE ATTORNEYS WHO SEE KLAYMAN'S DEPOSITION MAY THINK THEY ARE CRIMINAL) and the designated people at the DOJ have ruled they are NOT criminal cases to be prosecuted, for whatever reason, whether YOU agree with their opinions or not!
Cite the ruling. Name those Attorneys. Name those designated people. Does the fact that you can't mean there's STILL "no controlling authority"? Provide ONE indication that the matters Klayman discovered and investigated in Chinagate, Filegate, Emailgate and the like were EVER looked into by ANYONE in the Bush administration. All we ever heard about were investigations closing down without ANY reason being given. Keep on SPINNING Howlin.
Tell us Howlin, if Filegate has been resolved, then you should be able to tell us how many files were taken, whose they were, where they are now and whether the information in those files is still on DNC computers? Can you? Of course not, because you are doing nothing but spreading disinformation and playing deny, deny, deny ... that favorite game of democRATS.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.