GO AUDIT GO.....
Bones come see the sun......
| 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.
Well, we found out that "murder" means "mysterious death" and so I can hardly wait to hear what "cover-up" really means. Let's not waste time with definitions. Tell your partners at Judicial Watch to quit parsing terms and start cooperating with the IRS's simple requests.
Judicial Watch should stop covering up for its contributors, even the ones with knowledge regarding Ron Brown's "mysterious death". The American people are entitled to the truth!
Don't count on any real suicides at Judicial Watch. Before long, they will be squawking like parrots. The Judicial Watch cover-up will come to an end!
And then maybe the American people will learn the truth about Ron Brown's "mysterious death."
GO AUDIT GO
Let the digging begin... bring Brown and that bullet hole to the surface
I still don't see what this has to do with the audit.
GO AUDIT GO.....
Bones come see the sun......
No need to humor me. You can either LIE by suggesting that Klayman (or anyone else, for that matter) thinks it was a "suicide" or not. I don't care ... I'll just keep an archive of such statements to use against you the next time we actually debate about something you care about. For now it is enough to see yet another Klayman detractor sans facts.
Now then, before you just "move on" again, what is Judicial Watch's latest version of the truth regarding Ron Brown's "demise"?
Why don't you tell us since you seem to think you know so much about Judicial Watch and the Brown case. That is why you are here, right? ... to enlighten us about where Klayman has gone wrong in that matter? Or are you here just to make a fool of yourself?
If you or Judicial Watch are still pretending to believe his "demise" was a murder, exactly who committed it and why?
Geeee ... do most murder investigations start by asking who committed it? No ... I think they start by asking whether there was in fact a murder.
So why don't you tell us why you disbelieve ALL of the pathologists that have been directly or indirectly involved in the Brown case when they say the wound looked like a bullet wound and he should have been autopsied? Actually ... it isn't quite 'all' since I believe Colonel Dickerson, head of AFIP, still claims it was blunt force trauma and that ALL his staff agreed with him. But of course we already know he's lying since ALL his staff do not agree including, in fact, the pathologist, Colonel Gormley, who actually performed the examination of Brown's body. Gormley now says he was just "mistaken" when he concluded that it was blunt force trauma. Actually, he was caught lying on national TV about the reasons he concluded that (nothing in the x-rays to suggest a bullet and no brain matter visible in the wound ... both lies) and had to change his story.
Maybe you can explain why another top manager at AFIP lied when he told the public they'd found the cause of the wound at the crash site. The Colonel who conducted that search at the crash site says "not true" ... nothing that would have caused the wound was found and they measured lots and lots of things.
And perhaps you can explain the sworn testimony of another military officer (in fact, the photographer who took the picture of the x-ray that seems to show a lead snowstorm ... evidence of gunshot) that she was told by another named officer that Gormley made a second set of x-rays after tampering with the machine to make sure it wouldn't show the lead snowstorm.
Or perhaps you can explain why Gormley at first denied there were two sets of x-rays? He only admitted it after he was shown photos of the first set.
Gee, things look mighty suspicious. Maybe they should have performed an autopsy as one of the pathologists at the examination requested. But no, they didn't and you know why? Because, according to Gormley, they received orders not to do an autopsy from ... guess who? ... the Whitehouse, the JCS and the Commerce Department. Do you know that, by law, once that pathologist voiced the opinion that it might be a bullet wound they were required to call in the FBI and, if deemed appropriate, do an autopsy? But they didn't, did they?
So it would appear that there were some "irregularities" at the examination of Brown's body. But that is not all. When the story finally broke years later, instead of just sitting down with the military pathologists and photographer who broke the story to show them why they were mistaken, the Clinton administration decided to DESTROY their careers instead. And wouldn't you know it, all the photos and x-rays of Brown's head have mysteriously disappeared from a lock safe at AFIP that only AFIP management has access to. Mighty suspicious, wouldn't you say?
And perhaps you can explain some of the "irregularities" in the Air Force investigation process and the final report. Why was this the first crash in Air Force history (other than one obvious friendly fire incident) where the first phase of the normal crash investigation process, the Safety Board (which is specifically tasked with "finding the cause") was skipped? And the Accident Board is supposed to produce a report that families and their lawyers can use in any legal proceedings that follow the crash. You would think that those lawyers would like to know about the voiced opinion of pathologists at the examination that the wound looked like a bullet wound. You would think that those lawyers would be interested in the x-rays which seemed to support that possibility. But for some reason, the "official" report given to the families and their lawyers doesn't mention these facts. It also doesn't explain why they lost both transponder and radio contact at the same moment when the plane was still 8 miles from the crash. It doesn't explore the question of the missing beacon either ... or the "suicide" of the maintenance officer that was in charge of the beacon right after the crash (before he could be interviewed). How curious. You do know, don't you, that such a beacon could have been used to spoof the plane into flying into a mountain just like it did?
See, you have the cart before the horse. There are plenty of reasons (more than I've mentioned here, by the way) for suspecting foul play. But before we go to all the trouble of looking for the culprit, don't you think we should just do a simple exhumation and autopsy just to see if there are traces of a bullet?
Who is being protected?
A better question is who are YOU protecting?
That's right ... just one more example of ned making a fool of himself.
But I don't mind ... it only makes Klayman's efforts and the Brown murder suspicions more credible to lurkers, and that is who we want to convince.
"By now, you may have read or heard that the Internal Repenue Service (IRS), Clinton appointe, Charles Rossotti, has attempted to audit Judicial Watch, and that the have demanded we turn over to them records regarding contributions you have made to us (SEE ATTATCHMENT I).
Please do not panic. First, I pledge that, pursuant to law, it will be "over my dead body" before I release your name to the IRS .... "
Over his dead body! Uh ... Pursuant to law, that is! LMAO. So, the new fundraising appeal is "You better give me some more money to fight this, or the IRS will get your name and come after you."
Go AUDIT Go! Daddy need to find who bought baby that brand new pair of shoes! ;^)
Oh, I imagine that one of the things you are about to learn is that I don't "move on" when it comes to the crimes committed by democRATS the last 9 years.
Glad you could make it back. I thought that you had just moved on forever.
What part of the evidence that you listed was inconsistent with the theory of suicide?
And why don't you explain why it was that no live witnesses were called to testify regarding Ron Brown's "demise" before the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment proceedings?
And which of Judicial Watch's donors have any information regarding Ron Brown's "demise"?
Why shouldn't the American people learn the truth about this entire affair? Why the cover-up?
Why doesn't Judicial Watch want Ron Brown's "demise" fully investigated?
Stop the Judicial Watch cover-up!
Thank you. I almost forgot about that.
Why won't the persons affiliated with Judicial Watch disclose their true political affiliations?
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.