Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies.


Skip to comments.

JUDICIAL WATCH FIGHTS CLINTON IRS ATTEMPTED AUDIT
Judicial Watch ^ | April 18, 2002

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.


TOPICS: Announcements; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Free Republic; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: judicialwatch
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,601-1,6201,621-1,6401,641-1,660 ... 2,001-2,014 next last
To: Iwo Jima
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...
1,621 posted on 04/27/2002 8:07:26 AM PDT by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1614 | View Replies]

To: deport
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.
1,622 posted on 04/27/2002 8:08:43 AM PDT by Iwo Jima
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1619 | View Replies]

To: Iwo Jima; deport
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.

1,623 posted on 04/27/2002 8:18:59 AM PDT by Amelia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1614 | View Replies]

To: Amelia
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.
1,624 posted on 04/27/2002 8:39:09 AM PDT by Iwo Jima
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1623 | View Replies]

To: Iwo Jima
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".

1,625 posted on 04/27/2002 10:12:47 AM PDT by Amelia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1624 | View Replies]

To: Amelia
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

1,626 posted on 04/27/2002 10:34:28 AM PDT by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1625 | View Replies]

To: deport
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?
1,627 posted on 04/27/2002 11:09:07 AM PDT by Amelia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1626 | View Replies]

To: 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? 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.
1,628 posted on 04/27/2002 11:32:07 AM PDT by Iwo Jima
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1627 | View Replies]

To: Iwo Jima; deport
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.

1,629 posted on 04/27/2002 11:52:58 AM PDT by Amelia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1628 | View Replies]

To: Amelia; Howlin
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.
1,630 posted on 04/27/2002 11:59:57 AM PDT by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1629 | View Replies]

To: 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?

Point well made!

1,631 posted on 04/27/2002 7:21:51 PM PDT by goldilucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1627 | View Replies]

To: Iwo Jima
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.

1,632 posted on 04/27/2002 11:33:38 PM PDT by reformjoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1611 | View Replies]

To: FreedominJesusChrist

1,633 posted on 04/28/2002 12:06:26 PM PDT by ned
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reformjoy; deport
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?

1,634 posted on 04/28/2002 5:48:23 PM PDT by Amelia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1632 | View Replies]

To: Amelia

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

1,635 posted on 04/28/2002 6:49:36 PM PDT by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1634 | View Replies]

To: deport
It would be a stupid thing to do.
1,636 posted on 04/28/2002 7:16:02 PM PDT by Amelia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1635 | View Replies]

To: Amelia, reformjoy, goldilucky, BeAChooser, christine11, Fred Mertz, deport
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.

1,637 posted on 04/28/2002 7:46:02 PM PDT by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1634 | View Replies]

To: Amelia
Yes, it would be a stupid thing to do, but I highly doubt that they would do such a thing.
1,638 posted on 04/28/2002 7:46:33 PM PDT by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1636 | View Replies]

To: Amelia, reformjoy, goldilucky, BeAChooser, christine11, Fred Mertz, deport
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.
1,639 posted on 04/28/2002 7:49:11 PM PDT by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1637 | View Replies]

To: FreedominJesusChrist
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?

1,640 posted on 04/28/2002 7:57:51 PM PDT by Amelia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1638 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,601-1,6201,621-1,6401,641-1,660 ... 2,001-2,014 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson