| 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.
Proverbs 24:24-25 = Whoever says to the guilty "You are innocent"--peoples will curse him and nations will denounce him. But it will go well with those who convict the guilty, and rich blessing will come upon them.
Proverbs 17:15 = Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent, the LORD detests them both.
In short, the Bible has a lot to say about Justice, Injustice, and Complacency.
Equal protection under the law also means equal obedience to it. I would rather there were no IRS at all, but as long as there is one I expect everyone to have to obey the same rules.
You have a point and I am sure that Judicial Watch will comply if they are forced to. However, this is absolutely nothing wrong with them protesting this audit while they can.
The burden of the 5th and the 14th Amendments is on the Federal and in the case of the 14th, the State Government.
I won't go into any detail. Suffice it to say, they take their thousands from me so why should I worry about not filing for the last ten years?.....oops, I didn't really say that, did I?
How accommodating. So "trust" is the key word. On what do you base that trust ... a demonstrated willingness to uphold the laws of this land? NOT.
I am more interested in the war on terrorists.
And what if in the interest of fighting terrorists the Bush administration decides to further restrict our rights and monitor everything we say and do? I think you are wrong to believe that terrorists could ever be the threat to this country that ignoring the laws that protect us from our own government poses. Terrorists cannot destroy the institutions and principles on which this country is founded. Ignoring the crimes of Presidents, there staffs and their party officials can. Just look at what doing that did to the Soviet Union. Heck, just look at what doing that during the Clinton years did!
You don't like my answer, and label me a "move-on" type. I don't like YOUR attitude, and will label you "obsessive." How do you like those apples?
I don't mind being labeled "obsessive" about upholding our constitution and the laws that made this country great. Do you, MOVE-ON'ER?
Can you tell me with 100% certainty that there is no other reason than politics for this audit? If you can't, you haven't a leg to stand on.
Let's hear your proof.
What facts. You STILL haven't listed any, Howlin. You can't even come up with any sources to prove that Klayman told untruths on the matters of Chinagate, Filegate, Emailgate, the Riady non-refund and the death of Brown. In fact, the only sources you seem to be able to mention are a left leaning democRAT congresswomen who you said is the reason you believe Brown wasn't murdered and the Washington Post, which is clearly a left leaning rag.
"Alleging the existence of forensic evidence of murder, he explained, "Everybody in that lab believed there was a round hole the size of a .45 caliber bullet." (In one TV interview, Klayman suggested the killer was "perhaps the president himself."
Oh great. Now Howlin is citing SLATE as a credible, reliable source. Get a clue Howlin. You've done more damage to your reputation as a conservative in this one thread then you've managed to do in months of discourse. Just keep on talking ... and I'll keep on logging.
Yeah. Sure Howlin. We believe you. (wink wink)
Please cite my accusation of illegal activity? You can't.
I have nothing to prove because I have claimed nothing.
You, OTOH, have declared your personal opinion to be facts.
Do you believe everything you read in SLATE, that LEFT-WING-NUT rag?
If by this adolescent question you mean do I pay taxes, the answer is "yes". I abide by the law whether I like it or not.
.......and guess what? I don't have to fear an audit either.
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.