| 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.
Let the Digging begin
Go Audit Go
There's nothing wrong with her enjoyment of freeping. By the way - aren't most women your age knitting blankets and taking care of about 30 cats?
Peter Paul will have his day in court to expose the lying scumbag pieces of dog dung that the Clintons really are.
Because this thread is about KLAYMAN'S case.
Point to ANY statement you've made on ANY thread where you criticized the Clinton administration IRS or the Bush administration IRS' INaction in auditing ANY of the Jackson's activities? If you can then I will apologize for doubting your sincerity. If you can't then perhaps you can explain why you've never done so. Else, readers are liable to think that your criticism of Klayman is ... well ... politically motivated.
Of course he doesn't. But again, don't you think the facts are even more suggestive that Jackson's organizations have violated the law where the IRS is concerned? At least Bill O'Reilly and his staff seem to think so. So why didn't Clinton's administration audit Jackson? So why hasn't Bush administration audited Jackson? Since they apparently haven't in both cases, any pretense that there are no political motivations in the selection of IRS audit targets seems to be ludicrous. Add to that the fact that statistically conservative organizations and individuals (especial those who caused Clinton or his administration problems) were much more likely than their liberal counterparts to receive audits and one "reasonably" might suspect the Klayman audit was political in nature rather than based on any firm evidence of wrong doing. Why the presumption of just the opposite on your part and that of other move-on'ers?
Furthermore, if you agree that Jackson should be audited if Klayman is being audited, have you ever criticized either the Clinton or Bush administration IRS for not auditing Jackson? Point out to me where you have done so on ANY thread and I will apologize for doubting your motives. But if you can't, then there is ample cause to suspect your motives in only going after Klayman. After all, at least Klayman isn't implicated in helping to cover up a mass murder connected to the Clinton Whitehouse. Can't say the same for Jackson.
I also feel that you and deport need to realize that this audit is about more than just Larry Klayman or Judicial Watch, it is about whether or not we are going to allow the IRS to audit individuals and organizations out of pure political motivation.
How nice of you to ask! Yes, add me on!
How do you do that, by the way? Someone told me once, but I forgot the secret to user-friendly links...
So, I wonder exactly how does Hillary Clinton communicate with her comrades, if she doesn't use email???
The movie, "Hitler's Daughter" (also a book by the same name by Timothy Benton)...showed the wanna-be USA-Presidental Candidate dialing her comrades from Payphones...
Do you think Hillary does the same?
It may also be a scare tactic to push-around the little people who donate to Judicial Watch. I don't care though, my check still goes to Judicial Watch. Because WE need them!!! And they need us to do their job!!
One would have to be either blind or completely stupid to not get that impression from your posts. I think that you need to be more patient with Larry Klayman and Judicial Watch, that's all.
Freedom, you missed my point entirely. If I dislike someone, it's generally not out of the blue - most of the time I have some problems with their philosophy, morals, tactics, etc.
For example, a certain poster on this thread who follows people around, mischaracterizes what they say, and criticizes them for not commenting on subjects that are beyond the subject matter of the thread - that sort of thing gets on my nerves. The immorality of the Clintons bothers me. Especially around April, anything concerning the IRS bothers me, but if I've paid everything I owe, those other people better have too, know what I mean?
I also feel that you and deport need to realize that this audit is about more than just Larry Klayman or Judicial Watch, it is about whether or not we are going to allow the IRS to audit individuals and organizations out of pure political motivation.
This is assuming that Larry is correct, and the audit is solely politically motivated.
Is it possible that the article deport found is correct, and financial irregularities might be a factor?
Since this rude remark (in that you failed to ping me you were saying something about me) is obviously about me (just because you don't use a name doesn't excuse your rudeness), I shall respond ... by simply repeating my challenge to you:
Point to ANY statement you've made on ANY thread where you criticized the Clinton administration IRS or the Bush administration IRS' INaction in auditing ANY of the Jackson's activities? If you can then I will apologize for doubting your sincerity. If you can't then perhaps you can explain why you've never done so. Else, readers are liable to think that your criticism of Klayman is ... well ... politically motivated.
And don't try and claim that I "followed you" around to ask these questions (we have both been on this thread for a thousand or more posts and you obviously were discussing me behind my 'back'). And don't try an claim these questions mischaracterize anything you said. They clearly don't. And don't try to claim these questions are outside the subject matter of this thread. They clearly are not.
I'm glad to hear that but surely you can understand my reason for suggesting it. Nearly everyone on this thread who is criticizing Klayman IS a move-on'er.
I realize that they are a littlt busy with the war and everything,
I also understand the necessities of war but there were 8 months prior to 9/11 and as far as I can see, NOTHING was done by the Bush adminstration to even investigate what happened in the many Clinton scandals. So that makes me wonder if "the war" is just being used as an excuse. Afterall, SINCE the war began, the FBI and DOJ have had time to devote resources to investigating voter approved assisted suicide and medical marijuana. Since the war the FBI and DOJ have seemed to step up efforts against pornographers. I just wonder how the priority of those items can be placed above investigating whether our last several elections were tampered with by the Chinese communists, whether Republicans are being blackmailed by information from the still unaccounted for FBI files, and whether a Secretary of Commerce might have been murdered by someone(s) connected to the Clinton administration. Certainly, those unresolved issues pose a bigger threat to the US than the cases that the FBI continues to work on? Don't you think?
The IRS should investigate Jesse Jackson. Bill O'Reilly has the right idea about Jackson. He's a con man, a bully, a blackmailer of sorts. I doubt that I have ever said that in a thread on FreeRepublic, but that doesn't mean that I don't think that or haven't said it in personal conversations.
Good for you. Now if we can just get the rest of the Klayman detractors on this thread to at least admit that much we might get somewhere because then we can move on to the question of WHY Jackson is not now being investigated by the IRS? Political motivations in the Bush Whitehouse perhaps?
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.