| 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.
This is yet another figment of your imagination.
You sure like the word EXACTLY ... almost as much as Bill Clinton. We've had this discussion repeatedly and each time you have fallen back not on the intent of what you said but on what you EXACTLY said. You never called Linda a liar but you did say in the context responding to my mention of Linda's (and others) testimony in Filegate that people lie under oath all the time. The implication was obvious and undeniable. In fact, even on this thread, when you said there was "nothing" to the allegations by Klayman in Chinagate, Emailgate AND FILEGATE, you are in fact calling Linda Tripp a LIAR. SPIN any way you want, Howlin. You are just going around in circles, digging yourself deeper into a hole all the time.
You made the offer; now produce it or be stop using that red herring.
Oh you must know your credibility is in trouble now ... having to defend Slate and the Washington Post as reliable sources.
The difference between your sources and mine are a chasm. In the Brown case, for example, my sources are all verifiable. You can go listen to interviews with people like Janowski that verify everything in the articles written by Ruddy and others. How can we verify anything you have to say about the Brown case when all you use are unnamed "sources"? And I've shown that the Washington Post LIED about some of the facts in the Brown matter and failed to publish the rest of the facts. I doubt SLATE did any better (you are welcome to prove me wrong). Your sources are demonstrably unreliable and BIASED.
Oh I doubt they are ignoring them. They are probably watching with interest and wondering who you really are?
You can't prove anything that you have claimed. You keep hanging on with anticipation of making your case, but you can't.
You like Larry Klayman and JW. You don't like the fact that he/they may be audited. Thus, your reaction is that it is unfair and politically motivated.
That is strictly your take on it and you have not presented a sliver of evidence to back it up.
If you had a few more years of experience, you might have a clearer perspective. It often serves the people well that various money-soliciting organizations are monitored. As has been mentioned here, Jesse Jackson should definitely be audited.
If you were not so fearful of wrongdoing being discovered, you would view this audit as just another business nuisance.
What is it that really bothers you? Other than your imagination, you have absolutely no idea why an audit of JW may be forthcoming.
Believe it or not, even people we admire sometimes end up disappointing us. Likewise, a clean bill of health can greatly enhance the reputation of an individual.
Why don't you shed your adolescent impatience and know-it-all attitude and wait? You will end up either satisfied or embarrassed. Be a big girl and look before you leap. It will save you a lot of regret.
Lastly, I say again that you need to work on that tendency to give yourself away with the increasingly bitter tone of your posts. You are very frustrated and it shows. You have chosen a screenname that should carry a self-appointed responsibility. Think about that as you rave on.
I hate to shatter your wild world of imagination and paranoia, but I have only one screenname here. I know it would be fun to lengthen your lists of conspiracies, but you have hit a dry hole with this one.
For the second time, paste right here on this thread where I defended either one of them.
He'll never have a clue, but you were spot on about the other 70,000 people. Thankfully they DO ignore this guy and his few cronies.
There ought to be a name for these characters. Most of us know the standouts. It becomes common knowledge after one has freeped for a little while. Maybe they could insert little rolling eyeballs next to the screennames of kooks.
I volunteered for the famous democrat, David McIntosh, in his gubernatorial campaign. Some democrat I am!
You are really going to have to get over the idea that because people don't agree with your take, they must be democrats. That is silly.
On the other hand, you do tie up a lot of time expecting everyone to answer every single post you put up, even though they are repetitive. I don't know whether Brown was murdered or not; Bill Clinton didn't do it, because he was here in this country. If Brown was murdered, it was either by a someone on the ground who happened upon the crash site and was looting, or an agent at directions from Clinton, in which case the perpetrator is long gone.
It serves NO purpose to keep dragging this matter back up. There is no more evidence today than there was right after it happened. Your interest is in convincing us that we should all distrust Bush and Ashcroft because they don't follow YOUR appraoved plan of attack. I guess you said it best:
"It is easy to PRETEND to be conservative on the internet. "
Hmmmmmmmm..........try a profile check.
Pardon me, but your post is the strangest read I have ever come across.
What's your point? You seek to assert that the audit under discussion was not politically motivated? The pattern and practice of abusing Americans who spoke to a broad audience about the wholesale corruption of the clinton administration by directing the IRS to repeatedly such folks is well documented. We see in this article a quote form an IRS official admitting that this audit was a politically motivated punitive act anyhow, seems like a moot point.
So clinton is a nazi, one would have to posess a negative intelligence quotient, or be an ideologically blinded hack to seriously hold forth that a collectivist, statist, authoritarian control freak like clinton, utterly deviod of honesty, integrity, and character is not appropriately defined as such.
So then on to Judicial Watch, in my opinion, if this organization fails to demonstrate its integrity in the audit process, it simply means that Mister Klayman, in a truly just world, would occupy a jail cell aling side clinton's.
In the case of clinton, his corruption is of such historic proportions that disgrace will follow his name through history, it is outragous that it is politically impossible to punish him as blind justice would have it. In Klayman's case, nothing has been shown that demonstrates criminality. If he is a bad boy I will shake my finger at him and celebrate his correction, jim dandy no problem.
Really seems a silly argument.
So, using your modus operandi, was TWA 800 shot down by a missile?
Didn't I read back up the thread somewhere that the "ethical Washington Watchdog" indicated on a talk show that it could have been Clinton that did the deed assuming it was indeed a done deed. Deed you get that?
PS..... put them on ignore and let them talk to themselves, no telling what we may read then about the deeds.
You are probably some bitter 40 year old woman that is wishing she was back in her college years. Sorry I incited such a passionate response from you. Go take your meds and a good breather please.
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.