JUDICIAL WATCH FIGHTS CLINTON IRS ATTEMPTED AUDIT

(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.

Doncha know that anybody who disagrees with Larry and his gang HAVE to be Democrats? He's the "real" conservative."

I thought you'd like this one:

Contents:
    Definition of term
    About the editor
    Critics' corner
    Current articles
    Archives:
       1998, 1999, 2000

by Bob Somerby
somerby@dailyhowler.com

A companion site.

Site maintained by Allegro Web Communications, comments to Marc.

Caveat lector

18 January 2002

Our current howler: JOHN NASH AWARD NOMINEE

Synopsis: Hay-yo! Andrew Sullivan, bollixed again, slammed Larry Klayman—for liberal bias!

THOSE PESKY LABELS
Andrew Sullivan, andrewsullivan.com, 1/17/02

You simply can’t make this stuff up. All hail our hero, the bollixed Brit, Andrew Sullivan:

ANDREW SULLIVAN:
THOSE PESKY LABELS: "The lawsuit alleges the defendants, during a Dec. 10, 2001 public meeting to discuss the awarding of minority-oriented contracts by Toyota, surrounded and assaulted Rev. Peterson—calling him "nigger" as they taunted and harmed him. Rev. Peterson is a nationally known conservative civil rights activist who has been critical of Jesse Jackson and his Rainbow/Push operation. At one point during the assault, Gregory Mathis, who hosts the nationally televised program "Judge Mathis," is alleged to have yelled "where’s your buddy (Bill) O’Reilly (of Fox News) now?" (Rev. Peterson is a regular guest on the O’Reilly’s program, "The O’Reilly Factor.")" — U.S. Newswire. So Peterson is a ‘conservative,’ but it is not relevant that Mathis or Jackson are left-liberals?

According to Sullivan’s meticulous web site, this item was posted at 1:34:50 P.M.—ten seconds before 1:35.

Anyone who follows the battling Brit will recognize the line he was pushing. He’d again found the heartbreak of liberal bias; the Big Liberal Media had identified Rev. Peterson as a "conservative," but had failed to identify Rev. Jackson as a "liberal." Sullivan was once again boohooing loudly. Before we get to our major point, let’s examine the brawling Brit’s lesser fumbles:

No one has ever heard of Rev. Peterson. No one can escape from Rev. Jackson. Ever hear the expression, "This next guy needs no introduction?" The line was invented for Jackson. Does anyone think that Jesse Jackson needs to be ID’ed this way?
Even if the two Reverends were equally famous, would this be an example of "liberal bias?" It’s hard to divine an author’s intention or motive when your "N" is the loneliest: 1.

But don’t waste your time with these minor memos. Let’s go straight to the Big Entertainment. You may have noticed the source of the biased piece which Sullivan slams; the brainy Brit seems to think that he’s quoting a report by some Liberal Outfit called "U. S. Newswire." But what exactly is U. S. Newswire? It’s an on-line service which, for a fee, will post a press release for you! What was Sullivan actually quoting? It wasn’t a media story at all. Incredibly, Sullivan was quoting a press release posted by—that’s right—Larry Klayman! Go to www.usnewswire.com and you may still find the posting (release 112-0116). Klayman’s Judicial Watch was posting notice of a press conference scheduled for Thursday at noon. Silly Sully—bollixed again—was quoting the section marked "Details."

So hay-yo! Helping you learn about media bias, Sullivan quoted a press release. It was not a media story. It was a release by—egads—Larry Klayman!

Maybe the dude is just doing bad pills. Maybe the dude drinks too much Diet Pepsi. But one major fact has long been clear; the bollixed Brit has gone way round the bend. So the next time the little guy starts his loud, nasty ranting, we advise you to recall this latest brouhaha. Andrew Sullivan—writing bravely, writing boldly, at precisely ten seconds before 1:35—took the time and the trouble to warn you of a serious problem: Larry Klayman has liberal bias!!

A Citizen Reporter is most definitely not a democrat.

And now we are to believe you, a move-on'er as well?

A Citizen Reporter joined my discussion with Howlin by claiming that he'd witnessed her put me "under the table" when discussing Brown many times. Do you think that's true? I asked him TWICE to post a SINGLE URL or quote a SINGLE exchange between Howlin and I on the Brown matter which would show that result. In both instance, he immediately RAN from the thread. Perhaps YOU would like to post a URL or quote an exchange having to do with Brown where Howlin put me "under the table"? Because if you can't, and he can't, and Howlin can't, that seems to make him dishonest, AT BEST.

Go back on this thread and look at Howlin's arguments about Brown's death, bearing in mind that that is the FIRST TIME she has EVER tried to talk specifics about the matter. Of course, she cites no sources and can come up with no names of the "others" that she CLAIMED convinced her that Brown was not murdered. She dare not try the Ken Starr gambit again and I guess she's dropped her claim that it was that democRAT congresswoman and the report she said told her Brown's death was innocent. Perhaps YOU have a source or two to challenge ANY of the facts I've listed on many occasions regarding the Brown matter?

And look at what I had to say about the specific reasons Howlin listed in this thread for not believing Brown was murdered. She claimed he couldn't have survived the crash, apparently unaware of what the pathologists in the case (who are experts trained to evaluate such possibilities) have said. She claimed that noone on the ground could have known where the plane was going to crash, apparently unaware of the missing beacon (although how could she be since I've asked her about it many times) and what that means with regard to her question. And she claimed that the hole in Brown's head doesn't match the gun that was found ... when no gun was found. Perhaps YOU would like to tell us what gun was found? Perhaps YOU would like to discuss what the pathologists and other experts have had to say about the size of the wound and what type of weapons might create such a hole?

Clearly, Howlin knows nothing about the Brown matter. She's just doing her job of trying to keep anything that might actually, seriously, damage the democRATS from gaining traction. And clearly, neither does A Citizen Reporter. BOTH are being dishonest and deceptive about their views and their knowledge. BOTH are suggesting we just move-on in the face of credible evidence that someone(s) associated with the Clintons and DNC committed murder ... no ... MASS MURDER and then covered up with the willing complicity of the American mainstream press.

Now Howlin has made it abundantly obvious in this thread that she is a democRAT. She said that all the allegations about Chinagate, Filegate, Emailgate, the Riady non-refund, the death of Brown have been investigated and amounted to "nothing". Is it any coincidence that the ONLY sources she seems to be able to quote ... that she seems to view as "reliable" are left-leaning rags like the Washington Post and SLATE? Is it only coincidence that she is a court reporter and friendly with many lawyers because everyone knows that lawyers are about the most liberal group around? And if A Citizen Reporter wants to defend this obvious democRAT, by being dishonest like her, then it seems perfectly nature to suspect the he/she is a democRAT too. And if YOU want to defend HIM, then you are next in line.

It is easy to PRETEND to be conservative on the internet. All you have to do is say some witty nasty remarks about Bill or Hillary's looks from time to time. That works, until someone finally probes your views about what happened the last 9 years and whether anything should be done about it. As I've said on many occasions, the Brown case is a great litmus test for democRATS. They can't just ignore it because it is so potentially damaging (all it takes is a simple exhumation and autopsy to watch the democRATS come apart at the seams) and they can't debate it because the facts clearly suggest a possible murder. It can't be spun, it has no statue of limitations, and the evidence needed to prove it is still just waiting in the ground.

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.