| 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.
Hey, look at your post, you are asking your debating partners to enter the nebulous world of your imagination and join you in wrestling with insubstantial spectres that inhabit only your mind.
I experienced this often debating with liberals at the Post, but this silly kubuki dance nightmare rarely unfolds here.
Sorry, you will have to gnaw the bones of your troubling ruminations alone.
Outside your mind in the light of day a self admitted felon stands acused of acting like a crook.
His accuser is protected by the same expectation of good faith that fair minds extend to every non crook.
They are protesting the intention behind the audit, not the audit itself.
Title of thread:
JUDICIAL WATCH FIGHTS CLINTON IRS ATTEMPTED AUDIT
Confused again or just another misunderstanding, Rebeckie?
Don't you wish. The problem is that now, thanks to Ron Brown, the cat is out of the bag. Howlin, thanks to her own statements on this thread, is going to have an even harder time convincing readers she is conservative and honest the next time she posts. And lurkers are going to be wondering about those of you who continue to appear supportive of her after all she's revealed here too.
And by the way, I wonder what you think of the fact that the Washington Post and Slate are the only two sources Howlin seems to be able to cite about anything? I wonder what you think about her statement that the Chinagate, Filegate, Emailgate and Riady non-refund matters have been "investigated" and found to be "nothing"?
I'm always on the side of Mr. and Mrs. America, Freedom. This audit business stinks. If the IRS gets away with doing this to Larry, what's to protect you? Or me? Or our children? Or their children?
Judicial Watch must stand firm. We are dealing with important principles here!
Judicial Watch will not fold. And we will not fold! Nothing, not even a prison term for our champions, can be permitted to break our spirit!
There must be no settlement in this matter.
I agree, they have nothing to fear because there is no evidence, no pattern, no practice of criminality.
clinton has little to fear because, in spite of overwhelming evidence of criminality, he is protected by ideologically blind syncophants.
I wonder who sleeps better.
And, that, of course, would be quite unlike you, who makes yours up as you go along.
BTW, when will you be posting my quote calling Linda Tripp a liar?
Yeah, I know.
No, they are not. In the beginning, they QUESTIONED the intent of the audit; they have now been told personally by Michael Chertoff that he has reviewed the files and says that there is no politics involved. Everything they have said since then is based on an untruth, as it has already been decided there is no political intent behind the audit.
Is he a liar, too?
Actually, no. I am not the one who claimed not to be condescending.
I'm kind of new to all this and I probably don't always come across as clearly as I should.
Thanks for the warning. I'll try to turn it up a notch or two.
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.