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 ... 1,781-1,8001,801-1,8201,821-1,840 ... 2,001-2,014 next last
To: FreedominJesusChrist

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

1,801 posted on 05/02/2002 12:53:40 PM PDT by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1795 | View Replies]

To: BeAChooser
In order to humor you, let's just call it Ron Brown's "demise." Now then, before you just "move on" again, what is Judicial Watch's latest version of the truth regarding Ron Brown's "demise"? If you or Judicial Watch are still pretending to believe his "demise" was a murder, exactly who committed it and why?

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?

1,802 posted on 05/02/2002 12:54:35 PM PDT by ned
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1794 | View Replies]

To: FreedominJesusChrist
I don't think that Judicial Watch employees comment on these threads.

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?

1,803 posted on 05/02/2002 12:57:22 PM PDT by ned
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1793 | View Replies]

To: deport
deport,

I was responding to this quote: "What Judicial Watch contributors must be protected at any cost?"

1,804 posted on 05/02/2002 1:05:58 PM PDT by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1801 | View Replies]

To: ned
Ask whoever murdered Ron Brown.
1,805 posted on 05/02/2002 1:06:36 PM PDT by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1803 | View Replies]

To: FreedominJesusChrist
That's not what you said..... You were talking about the donors being made public..... Now I'm asking you to back that up with a source. Even 'eWW' doesn't make that claim in his screeds. Look at the request from the IRS posted on his web site and find me where they want the data made public. Not there.. so Apples/Oranges.... spinning to suit the need, facts be damned
1,806 posted on 05/02/2002 1:13:27 PM PDT by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1804 | View Replies]

To: ned
You need to understand that many mysterious deaths have never gotten the exposure that they deserved, such as the deaths of Don Henry and Kevin Ives, Mary Mahoney, and Danny Casolaro. Perhaps the most logical explanation that one can give is that the powerful protect the powerful. Why do you think that organized crime still runs rampant in Chicago and New York? Because the local government officials are either bribed, directly involved, or intimidated into silence.
1,807 posted on 05/02/2002 1:13:32 PM PDT by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1802 | View Replies]

To: deport
I was playing around with different scenerios. Ned asked, "What Judicial Watch contributors must be protected at any cost" I was simply stating that it isn't a conspiracy that Judical Watch contributors must be protected, it is their simple privacy rights.
1,808 posted on 05/02/2002 1:16:26 PM PDT by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1806 | View Replies]

To: FreedominJesusChrist
If you go to Judicial Watch's website and use its own search engine to search its articles for the search word "murder," you get 18 hits. None of those articles involve the death of Ron Brown.

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?

1,809 posted on 05/02/2002 1:17:49 PM PDT by ned
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1805 | View Replies]

To: deport
"Not there.. so Apples/Oranges.... spinning to suit the need, facts be damned"

You are being so melodramatic. Are you in a good mood today? Was your day at work bad? You seem very...uptight.

1,810 posted on 05/02/2002 1:18:33 PM PDT by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1806 | View Replies]

To: ned
Maybe because you were using a downright lousy search engine technique. I found plenty of stuff about Ron Brown on JW's website. They aren't hush-hush about Ron Brown, so I don't know what you are talking about. Here is a link to the many articles about Ron Brown on JW's website:

Ron Brown Search Results

1,811 posted on 05/02/2002 1:23:00 PM PDT by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1809 | View Replies]

To: FreedominJesusChrist

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.

1,812 posted on 05/02/2002 1:23:30 PM PDT by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1795 | View Replies]

To: FreedominJesusChrist
I was simply stating that it isn't a conspiracy that Judical Watch contributors must be protected, it is their simple privacy rights.

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?

1,813 posted on 05/02/2002 1:24:01 PM PDT by ned
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1808 | View Replies]

To: deport
deport,

You need to calm down and take a deep breath. I was answering Ned's questions, not yours.

1,814 posted on 05/02/2002 1:25:12 PM PDT by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1812 | View Replies]

To: ned
They aren't hiding anything Ned. I wouldn't want my name to be disclosed to the public, simply because it is no one else's business.
1,815 posted on 05/02/2002 1:26:49 PM PDT by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1813 | View Replies]

To: FreedominJesusChrist
Don't play games. Just show me a recent article from Judicial Watch that discloses the truth (even one of Judicial Watch's versions of the truth) about who supposedly killed Ron Brown.

Either do that, or just "move on" like your partner did.

1,816 posted on 05/02/2002 1:27:22 PM PDT by ned
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1811 | View Replies]

To: deport
I never said that the IRS had requested for disclosure of their donor list. I was stating the what if's. In my post #1800, I stated: " I would like to see the Federal Government even try to force Judicial Watch to release the names of their donors to the public. I am just envisioning a hugely beautiful class action lawsuit right now."

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.

1,817 posted on 05/02/2002 1:30:42 PM PDT by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1812 | View Replies]

To: FreedominJesusChrist
They aren't hiding anything Ned. I wouldn't want my name to be disclosed to the public, simply because it is no one else's business.

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?

1,818 posted on 05/02/2002 1:30:45 PM PDT by ned
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1815 | View Replies]

To: FreedominJesusChrist
Where has he said they should be disclosed to the public? You jumped into his discussion with another poster trying to explain the phrase...... Now all I'm asking is where has 'eWW' been asked to break the confidentiality of the donors by making them public... The IRS didn't asked for that and I don't see where the other poster asserted that.
1,819 posted on 05/02/2002 1:30:55 PM PDT by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1814 | View Replies]

To: ned, BeAChooser
They never claimed to know who murdered Ron Brown; they just stated that Ron Brown was very likely murdered, period.

Besides, my "partner" hasn't moved on, he is probably busy at the moment.

1,820 posted on 05/02/2002 1:32:30 PM PDT by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1816 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,781-1,8001,801-1,8201,821-1,840 ... 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