THE LOVE BOAT AIN'T GOT NOTHIN' ON THE WATCH BOAT
| 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.
But I still like JW and what they do. They are a beacon of light in Washington.
Hmmmmm.....you might be right. It might be grounds for Larry to sue.
This from the person who spreads unsubstansiated rumors about David Keene.
Well given that she almost NEVER shows up on a thread of any consequence (i.e., something to do with the crimes the Clintons and their associates committed) what choice have I. But she ALWAYS shows up on Klayman threads which makes it easy. And incase you didn't notice, I never enter these threads until she or someone like her suggests that Klayman never accomplished anything, that there were no crimes committed by the Clinton administration and the democRAT party, that Bush is upholding the laws of this land or something equally outlandish. Now as long as you folks stick to discussing Bill and Hillary's looks or Condit or Blake or what inconsequential story of the hour you want to chat about, you won't hear from me. But try and spread DISINFORMATION about Klayman and Clinton and Bush, you best be looking over your shoulder.
By the way, I'm sure lurkers find it illuminating that you wish to appear so friendly with someone who would lie about as serious a matter as the death of a Secretary of State, someone who parses her words as well as Clinton ever did, someone who only seems to be able to cite left-leaning sources like the Washington Post and Slate, someone who tell us (on this thread) that Chinagate, Emailgate, Filegate and all the rest of the Clinton related crimes were about "nothing". That's says volumes about YOU.
Really?? Aw shucks......does this mean you won't be back at all?
That's probably true but then I wouldn't have to worry about those 70000 lurkers you mentioned getting the wrong idea. Who knows, there might then be a groundswell of interest in the Brown case or the Riady non-refund, forcing Bush to take action. But then that is what you move-on'er fear, isn't it?
Then why not discuss the Brown case some more. You seemed to loose interest after your last "attempt".
I'm sure being despised by you also says volumes about me.
I don't think I'll lose any sleep over it.
I said I don't agree; you're never going to change my mind, along with the vast majority of Americans.
The only thing I can think of is that you NEED to have somebody to argue with, so you just keep asking unsuspecting posters the same questions over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.
BTW, you're in great company if BAC doesn't like you. I scrolled down the posts today; I'm happy with the people who are on this side.
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.