... 
then on to the Audit
| 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.
You know, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. You don't think the IRS would have even considered looking at JW, even if the magazine article is correct, if he hadn't been going after Clinton?
Don't you think that all the "discrepancies" O'Reilly and others found in Jessie Jackson's organizations might give "probable and reasonable cause" for further investigation?
Sure I do, and I've already told you so at least once on this thread.
Are you calling the Clinton IRS or the Bush IRS a stopped clock? It is hard to tell.
In either case, that's a pretty lame defense of either administration. You don't appear to deny that the facts overwhelmingly suggest the Clinton administration used the IRS to harass its political enemies (and JW was certainly that, wouldn't you agree) and you don't appear to have a counter argument to the inaction on the part of the Bush adminstration where the Jackson organizations are concerned (and the facts are even more suggestive of inappropriate if not illegal activities on their part than on JW's part, wouldn't you agree). I'm not saying the JW shouldn't be audited but if Jackson's organizations were not audited during the Clinton administration then clearly there were political reasons for auditing one and not the other. The same thing is also true if the Bush administration audits one and not the other. Wouldn't you agree?
Sure I do, and I've already told you so at least once on this thread.
So why aren't you up in arms about the Bush administration's inaction in that case? Your outrage is "selective" which leads me to question your motives.
Or one could say 'one audit at a time'....... Kinda like digging up the dead looking for bullet holes.... A little audit shouldn't be a problem if'n there is nothing there....
Let the digging begin
Go Audit Go
Because this thread is about KLAYMAN'S case.
...
then on to the Audit
Why would you think we don't like Judicial Watch? And assuming we don't, would you think it is just arbitrary, or that we might have some considered reasons?
And, thank you for the compliment! :)
Some of us actually have real lives -- you know, not politically motivated. (BTW, I thought you weren't going to be condescending?)
Well you'd think so but who knows what their thinking is.....
You should be ashamed.
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.