| 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.
And just where are you getting that info that the 'ethical Washington Watchdog' is being forced to disclose the names of the donors to the public? Can you cite a source?
The IRS has asked for the info to be given to them but no where do I find where they have asked for it to be made public. Apples/oranges. I don't even find where "eww" has made that claim. Spinning galore....
GO AUDIT GO... lets get this overwith and back to the important mission
Let the Digging begin for the bullet hole.... dig them bones up PRONTO
And why is it that Judicial Watch wishes to bury the truth about the identity of its contributors with the threat that the information will only be released over Klayman's dead body? Why shouldn't the American people learn the truth about Ron Brown's "demise"? Who is being protected?
Let me ask you a question that seems to scare your partner into silence:
Whose idea was it that the House Judiciary Committee should not hear public testimony regarding Ron Brown's suicide during its impeachment hearings?
I was responding to this quote: "What Judicial Watch contributors must be protected at any cost?"
Why is it that everything regarding Ron Brown's death is suddenly hush-hush over at Judicial Watch now that Mr. Klayman might have to disclose the identity of Judicial Watch's contributors? Why doesn't Judicial Watch want the American people to know the truth?
You are being so melodramatic. Are you in a good mood today? Was your day at work bad? You seem very...uptight.
But all I'm saying is no one has asked that the names be disclosed to the public as you assert above....
Yes it would be but no one not even the IRS has asked for that so why are you spinning it that way. Apples/Oranges to the request submitted by the IRS and you know it.
You just don't take Ron Brown's "demise" very seriously, do you? Is there nothing that trumps Judicial Watch's right to privacy? What won't Judicial Watch do to hide the truth from the American people?
You need to calm down and take a deep breath. I was answering Ned's questions, not yours.
Either do that, or just "move on" like your partner did.
See, I never stated that they had, I stated that it doesn't sound far fetched to me. The IRS is shameless in their techniques that invade American citizen's privacy, not to mention that they aren't even a constitutional entity.
How long do you think you can just dodge the questions. You didn't answer any of my questions. Here, I'll even number them for your convenience:
1) You just don't take Ron Brown's "demise" very seriously, do you?
2) Is there nothing that trumps Judicial Watch's right to privacy?
3) What won't Judicial Watch do to hide the truth from the American people?
If you can't answer the questions, why don't you forward them to your friends at Judicial Watch?
Besides, my "partner" hasn't moved on, he is probably busy at the moment.
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.