| 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.
Yes, and I am sure that your idea of living on the edge is going to the deep end of the swimming pool.
Desperately trying to make some sense of this post. Having no luck.
You cannot prove your claims and I see you aren't about to touch that, are you?
You made claims; not me. The proof challenge is in your lap.
I don't feel like locating all the times we've discussed Filegate so just Look back a few posts (#858) and you'll find yourself saying that in the cases I'm concerned about Bush not following up on (Filegate being one of them) "there was nothing there!!!"
You're making stuff up again.
Oh ... maybe I just misinterpreted what you meant to say?
And, of course, people lie in depositions; I'm just interested in the reason why you all assume automatically that they are the ones doing the lying.
See for yourself folks ... Howlin who on one occasion said she "believed" Tripp (in order to SOUND conservative) suggests that Tripp and several other HEROS who gave depositions to Klayman in Filegate are LIARS. Now does that sound like something a conservative would say? NOT.
Your response was: Sure is !!!!
So what exactly were you implying then?
Who said fear was a factor here?
If you were notified you were to be audited would you open your books?
No need to answer, you've already bleated.
What is this chatter about innocence and guilt? Has anyone been charged with a crime?
Unless I have missed it, we are discussing a financial audit,
Do you know something we don't? At least you should wait for a charge before you begin screaming, "Innocent until proven guilty."
General response to general comment. Are you honestly that dense?
Yes she is. The sources are those she considers "reliable" ... like the Washington Post ... Slate ... and who knows ... maybe even the democRAT gazette!
By Brooks Jackson/CNN
Oh keep it coming Howlin. Thoroughly discredit yourself. Now you are quoting CNN as a reliable source of information. That's REALLY funny!
Can everyone out there spell D E M O C R A T?
You ever hear the expression ... it's the principle of the thing?
Oh this is priceless.
I've been saying all along that Howlin is a democRAT and she's single handedly proving it in this thread. I wonder how she'll feel tomorrow when she wakes up and realizes that her carefully crafted conservative deception that took her years to build on this forum has been laid waste to ... by her own hand!
Where's the "beef" as they say? See folks, when you can't argue the facts, this is all you have left to say in debates.
By the way, for the record, Howlin has been posted numerous times with a complete list of the facts that suggest Brown was murdered and some possible scenarios that are completely consistent with the facts on how it might have been done. But like all move-on'ers, Howlin wants to get the cart ahead of the horse. Just like she insists that Klayman present his information in court before Ashcroft should deign to look at it, she believes we must know EXACTLY how Brown was killed before beginning an investigation. If Howlin were as attentive a court reporter as she claims to be then she'd know that usually they find out if there was a murder before looking into motive, opportunity and means. But she doesn't want to do that because she doesn't want Brown's body exhumed and autopsied ... as ALL of the experts ... the pathologists ... said it should have been in the first place.
Yes, wouldn't you. But don't worry, it only helps us in the long run because anyone can see the purpose of their disruption.
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.