JUDICIAL WATCH FIGHTS CLINTON IRS ATTEMPTED AUDIT

Judicial Watch ^ | April 18, 2002

[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.

[goldilucky]

How could I possibly forget that? Thanks!

[Admin Moderator]

I looked back over Registered's posts on April 6th and back a few days before that. I don't see any place where he posted any graphics that were not from legitimate places, such as ying.yahoo.com (where they host their pictures). I don't see any place where he posted pictures that he hosts, or that were hosted by a place that hosts edited pictures, nor do I see images posted from any site that could possibly be considered a porn site of any type. I also do not see any pictures of any sort posted to any Keyes thread.

I had Jim check to see if it looks like Registered has any additional accounts, and he does not appear to.

As such, I am convinced that he was in fact being sarcastic and he is having his words used against him in a manner which is not really fair to him. I understand how that can happen. Sarcasm is very hard to tell on text pages.

If someone can give me evidencce that I am missing something, feel free, but otherwise I think that some unfair comments have been made here.

[Admin Moderator]

ping

[Amelia]

You're welcome! :)

[Native American Female Vet]

More than just 'some' unfair comments have been made.

[Amelia]

I don't see any place where he posted pictures that he hosts...If someone can give me evidence that I am missing something, feel free...

Here is a link to some of the offensive pictures.

On the thread I've linked Registered was asking whether I thought they were porn, and I told him I thought they were questionable. As I told him, I probably should have used quotes around the term "gay porn" on this thread, but I knew he'd know what I was referring to, given that he'd called them "gay porn" himself.

You probably didn't catch the ones on the Keyes threads, because he replaced those images on his server with this one:

which at the time I'm posting it says "This image censored by DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet and Southflanknorthpawsis".

In any case, you'll notice that Registered posted to me first on this thread, post #1459, with a snide comment about my son that referred to the thread I linked above. If Registered will leave me alone, I'll be more than happy to reciprocate.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

Interestingly, Registered accuses others of lying and demands apologies. He was the one that lied about Daughter and I censoring his pictures. We couldn’t if we wanted to and he has the unusual opportunity to go back and change anything in his images after the fact. I suppose I should have run and cried waa-waa to the AM because he posted a lie about us, but I have a life.

When the whole truth is told, the story becomes a little clearer.

In addition, I believe that 99.9% of the time, it is Registered that starts taunting and then cries foul when things get tough.

I know that a few others have begun to ignore him completely and it is probably the best thing to do. I too expect that his complaint means he will stop pestering us. We’ll see……..

[ArneFufkin]

Judicial Watch doesn't have a high profile ... if they don't have supporters here, people who've contributed in the past and are familiar with Larry and his mission ... they're not getting individuals from anywhere. We're a microcosm here.

Larry's enterprise is more ... complex ... LOL! I hope he passes the audit and he nails some bad guys in court.

I'm really suspicious of Ross Perot's agenda ... that guy has a Jones about the GOP. I can only think that he was hung out to dry during his Rambo mission, or George W. Bush undermined his private airport north of Dallas .... but Perot want's a pound of flesh. If I ever saw Ross in person, I'd directly tell him ... "congratulations, your petty grievences against the GOP gave us Clinton corruption and vulnerability for our servicemen. I hope you're proud"

I do business with EDS, I know some of the moolas there ... Ross Perot was a despot. I hate the man.

[Howlin]

Larry hasn't failed, rather, people have let him and JW down.

What is that suppose to mean?

[reformjoy]

Larry Nichols claims that Bill Clinton, while Govenor of Arkansas gave copies of Hitler's Mein Kampf
to his circle of advisors, with special instructions to pay attention to Goebbels, Hitler's Propaganda Minister,
or shall I say, his Master of Lies so that the Clinton campaign could enjoy the same, err, success.

Very interesting, in light of this report from Newsmax's Carl Limbacher!!!
www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2002/4/26/200721

***Hitler's Book a Hit in Arabic***

"An Arabic translation of Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf" is a best-seller
in the Palestinian territories. Now it's being sold in Britain"...

"...In the preface, according to this month's Jewish Voice/Iyar,
translator Luis al-Haj writes: "National Socialism did not die
with the death of its herald. Rather, its seeds multiplied under each star."

**********
hmmmm. I wonder if Hillary and Bill
would be classified as "seeds" or "stars?"

[Iwo Jima]

That's very interesting. But not the point of this thread.

[deport]

Donors.... I see in the Chronicle today that some of the GOP are after the non profit headed by Cisneros as being partisan. It also mentions that as a non profit they don't have to make their donors public, but fails to mention the ability or lack thereof of the IRS to compel the non profit to supply the names to the IRS. My guess is the IRS can ask for and get the donor list, but that is only a guess at best.

[Amelia]

Speaking of the point of the thread, where in the article does it say that the IRS is interested in the names of all the donors to JW?

I would think that the reason they're interested in the political affiliations of the directors is to see if JW is actually pursuing a partisan as opposed to ideological agenda.

But I still can't figure out when JW is going to decide that any audit is not "politically motivated" -- all they have to do to claim that is launch an "investigation" into whatever administration is in power, and they can claim that forever.

[Iwo Jima]

My guess is the IRS can ask for and get the donor list.

Well, I don't like that at all, if that's the case. The IRS better have some very solid proof that something criminal is going on to even make a request like that. And even then, the request should be limited to donors who gave huge sums or your top five donors, etc., not just every Joe SixPack who sent in 100 bucks.

I just don't like the government knowing every little thing about who gives what to whom.

[deport]

I don't have the time to look for it now but the IRS submitted a request to the 'ethical Washington Watchdog' for a list of the donors among other things. He has it posted on one of his releases on his web site, in a pdf file I think.

[M Kehoe]

I am curious to know just how many other conservative non-profits are audited by the IRS.

A bunch! During the i42 administration.

Since this thread is so long, I imagine that someone listed all of them.

5.56mm

[christine]

y'all are still going at it on this thread?? ;)

[Iwo Jima]

You're right. That information is not in this "article" (actually, JW press release), but if you go to JW's website, click on "An Urgent Message," then click on "attachment," you will see the actual summons which asks for that information.

I am wondering if a request for the names of all donros, addresses, and amounts donated for five years is standard operating procedure in cases like this or if it is an indication of something the IRS is on to in this particular case.

In any event, it seems to me that the IRS could get the information it needs to conduct whatever inquiry it is making with a substantially more limited request.

[deport]

See page two

By now, you may have read or heard that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Clinton appointee, Charles Rossotti, has attempted to audit Judicial Watch, and that they have demanded we turn over to them records regarding contributions you have made to us. (SEE ATTACHMENT, requires Adobe Acrobat).

Please do not panic. First , I pledge that, pursuant to law, it will be “over my dead body” before I release your name to the IRS. Second, you deserve to know the whole story behind the unlawful IRS actions which we are fighting.

[Iwo Jima]

Yes, I really did want to be Poster No. 1500, but just missed it by a few numbers. Now, I am aiming for No. 2000.

Wish me luck!