JUDICIAL WATCH FIGHTS CLINTON IRS ATTEMPTED AUDIT

Judicial Watch ^ | April 18, 2002

[deport]

I agree but it seems the IRS has the ability to get/require that a filer provide them with tons of documentation. I don't like it either as it can happen to anyone that gets afoul of them.... and as you say whether they are in the wrong or not...

[Iwo Jima]

Great minds really do think alike. But you're by far the superior computer person. This old dog just hasn't learned the trick of how to link to other articles. One of these days, I'm going to learn that.

[Amelia]

A list of ALL donors does seem very unusual - and if there are as many donors as the cash inflow might suggest, quite time-consuming to review.

I have to wonder as well if the IRS isn't "on to something" about a particular donor or perhaps type of donor.

[Iwo Jima]

If this information becomes public (my opposition notwithstanding), it would come in quite handy for someone looking to bring a class action against JW on behalf of contributors who made contributions based on false pretenses.

[Amelia]

As I understand it, the IRS does not make information about audits public, unless as part of criminal charges. Am I correct? In fact, we wouldn't know that the IRS had been trying to audit JW for nearly 4 years now, if not for JW's press releases, correct?

It does make one wonder what the IRS is looking for - and what it would take for JW to decide the audit was a standard audit and not "politically motivated".

[deport]

Look at the following regarding some of the acqusations that have been thrown around. I can't vouch for the accuracy... but it is basically stating the Scaife Foundations gave JW funds which weren't claimed on reporting forms. How they know all this I can't say other than through some public documents.... maybe

Click and go down the article a ways

[Amelia]

Yes, if Scaife's foundation claimed on its forms that it GAVE the money to JW, and JW didn't claim to have RECEIVED the money on its forms, that might raise some eyebrows at IRS....especially half a million dollars?

[Iwo Jima]

But that would also be super stupid. Scaife's contribution has been public knowledge for ever so long. How could anyone think that they could get away with not reporting it? Whatever else Larry Klayman might be, he is not stupid, and you would have to be major league stupid to pull a stunt like that.

And why? There is nothing illegal (as far as I know) or immoral about Scaife making a sizable contribution, nor would JW's likely contributors care. The press would make a stink, sure, but they were going to be ragging on JW anyway.

I just cannot believe that the Scaife contribution is the basis of this audit.

[Amelia]

But that would also be super stupid. Scaife's contribution has been public knowledge for ever so long. How could anyone think that they could get away with not reporting it?

I agree, and I don't know, but that's what the article deport linked above claims.

[deport]

There was another article/letter that was given to Hastert/Conyers requesting them to help get the IRS to preform an audit. I think maybe Howlin linked to it up the thread somewhere. I can't remember where I read it or I'd link it. This orginal audit process started back in 1998 for some prior years. It has progessed and gotten deeper with each progression it seems.

[goldilucky]

Yes, if Scaife's foundation claimed on its forms that it GAVE the money to JW, and JW didn't claim to have RECEIVED the money on its forms, that might raise some eyebrows at IRS....especially half a million dollars?

Point well made!

[reformjoy]

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

Actually, Clinton's fascination with Hitler has everything to do with Judicial Watch being subjected to this current IRS audit.

And if the Clinton's and the Palestine/Terrorist nations are both so fond of Hitler's Mein Kampf, then we here in the United States have to wonder, what the connection might be, and how did Clinton's term as President encourage the atrocity of 9-11!

As President, Clinton gave an oath to honor the Constitution, not to salivate over on the one of the most vile madman of the last century.

It's amazing what the Clinton's can get away with, and Judicial Watch is actively trying to uncover the corruption... Like the IRS agent told JW..."What do you expect when you go after a President?"

This audit is nothing more than revenge, and an attempt to take down JW before another Clinton tries for the White House.

[ned]

[Amelia]

This audit is nothing more than revenge, and an attempt to take down JW before another Clinton tries for the White House.

Did you read the article deport linked to in #1626?

If Scaiffe did donate half a million dollars to JW, and JW didn't report receiving it, do you think that would be grounds for an audit?

[deport]

and JW didn't report receiving it,

Naw..... the 'ethical Washington Watchdog' wouldn't do something like that.....

[Amelia]

It would be a stupid thing to do.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

I would personally like to see Judicial Watch open up a branch in the Midwest, so they can sue the pants off the Daley crime family, his associates, and bust up all the corrupt government officials in the Chicago Metropolitan area.

Then, after they get the Daley family, they can go after Betty Loren Maltese, or maybe go after both of these corrupt politicians at the same time.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

Yes, it would be a stupid thing to do, but I highly doubt that they would do such a thing.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

Although I have to admit this would be a dangerous task to undertake. They would probably need very high security if they opened up an office in the Chicago area and started investigating the government corruption there.

[Amelia]

Yes, it would be a stupid thing to do, but I highly doubt that they would do such a thing.

I'm sure you do. I'd also think that whoever wrote the article referenced above did some research before writing it. Do you think they just made that part up? If so, I wonder why Larry didn't sue them?