| 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 you don't know, do you? I suspect a lot of ppl didn't think Jim/Tammy Bakker would do the things they did nor that the cousin of Jerry Lee Lewis would be chasing prostitutes in Baton Rouge. All I'm saying is that we'll see when this audit is done.... if'n the results are made public.
Judicial Watch is a beacon of ethics and they would never falsify their financial records.
I still hope that they look into the corrupt government that pervades both Chicago and its suburbs. We need outside influence to come and fix this problem, because it doesn't matter if one is a Democrat or Republican in IL when it comes to government corruption--they all cover it up.
He is the cousin of Mickey Gilley AND the infamous Jimmy Swaggert. They all took piano lessons from their grandmother.
My dad was always suspicious of Micky Gilley (counry western singer and owner of a huge club in Texas back in the 80's) because of the connection with Swaggart and Lewis.
Swaggart had a big thing going in Baton Rouge.... Large church with several thousand capacity, major tv things, Christian college with a couple thousand students.... So yes people you believe that wouldn't do something will sometimes let you down, hard.
Not hardly...for starters, deport is a HE. But I'm sure if you're worried about it, the Admin Moderator could do some more sleuthing. ;-)
I have no problem with an audit in and of itself. What I do have a problem with is a politically motivated audit because it bypasses traditional probable and reasonable cause warranting an investigation into one's financial records.
You only have Larry's word that it's politically motivated. I know you trust him, but...
You also have to realize that everyone is subject to random audits, and Larry's number might have turned up. Or, there could have been discrepancies as in the article deport posted above, which would certainly give "probable and reasonable cause" for further investigation.
Judicial Watch is a beacon of ethics and they would never falsify their financial records.
You hope.
Actually, I sort of hope so too, for your sake -- I'd hate to see your youthful idealism crushed.
I still hope that they look into the corrupt government that pervades both Chicago and its suburbs.
Why don't you write them?
This is the Bush Administration's #1 failure - to remove the Clinton 5th column from the government. It will result in the loss of Congress this fall, and the election of a Democrat as president in 2004.
FEDS PROBING HILL
By AL GUART
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 28, 2002 -- EXCLUSIVE
Senior Justice Department officials have traveled to Brazil twice to interview runaway business- man Peter F. Paul about his financial dealings with Bill and Hillary Clinton, The Post has learned.
Paul, 52, claimed Hillary Clinton's campaign for Senate in 2000 reported on federal election records only about $500,000 of the $1.9 million he laid out for a lavish, star-studded fund-raiser in Hollywood on Aug. 12, 2000.
Documents obtained by The Post show Justice officials flew to Sao Paulo for two days last August, and returned for two more days last October to question Paul, a convicted felon in prison there fighting extradition to the United States to answer charges arising from his failed business venture with Stan Lee, the creator of the Spider-Man comic-book character.
Sources told The Post the feds offered Paul a deal in which he would plead guilty to outstanding federal charges in New York and California and become a "cooperating witness" into Clinton fund-raising and "other matters."
As first reported by Post columnist Robert Novak last year, Paul has told investigators he covered the $1.9 million cost of the Hollywood fund-raiser as part of a plan to get Bill Clinton to raise the profile of Stan Lee Media, which at the time owned the Spider-Man rights and wanted to use the character in a worldwide marketing scheme.
When that proposal fell through, Paul approached a Democratic National Committee official about the possibility of a presidential pardon for his past crimes from then-President Clinton, sources said. He was not pardoned.
Paul, who received handwritten letters of thanks from both Clintons after the fund-raiser, later filed a lawsuit to recoup his alleged outlays for the Hollywood event. The suit was dismissed last year, because Paul was a fugitive, but could be re-filed if he returns to the United States.
Paul's lawyer, Larry Klayman, a founder of Judicial Watch - an organization that has filed numerous lawsuits against the Clintons - said "Mrs. Clinton should be significantly worried about this, especially since the Justice Department said everything Peter told them is checking out."
Robin Johansen, a lawyer for the Clintons, called Paul's claims "ludicrous."
Paul's Hollywood event, dubbed the "Bill Clinton Farewell Tribute" but in fact a fund-raiser for the outgoing president's wife, featured performances by Cher, Diana Ross and Melissa Etheridge. It netted $1.5 million for Hillary's Senate bid, according to Paul's lawsuit.
Justice Department spokeswoman Jill Stillman declined comment on the case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that Judicial Watch is right about this one too.
My apologies, for about a year now, I thought you were female. I don't know why, I guess that this was just something I assumed. Why didn't you correct me? You should have.
GO Larry GO!!
The real piece of evidence needed and to my knowledge hasn't been shown by JW is the submissions by Paul to the campaigns of the expenses he paid in the amount of $1.9 million. If he did submit those and they only claimed $500,000 then there will be some sanctions toward the campaigns. If he didn't submit the total $1.9 million but only $500,000 then the campaigns can't be faulted for not reporting what they didn't know.
In any case it does look like Paul is going to be guilty of some other criminal activities.... assuming he cops a plea. Paul is trying to stay out of prison.
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.