| 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.
Oh, but I did. All of us did. You'll figure it out some day.
BTW, you've successfully avoided my questions.
Let's forget about your dad and Larry Klayman.
Just provide me with ONE non-profit organization that only spends 4 percent of their "take" on their stated purpose.
Nobody will ever say.
Rainbow-PUSH maybe??
It isn't the slightest bit misleading.
If a man can't keep himself from behaving like a ten year-old for fifteen minutes on national television - all the while knowing that a vast audience is watching - why am I to believe that such a display is limited to one television appearance?
I think he's a BOZO.
Well, I won't be surprised if they find some personal privileges being taken and similar abuses. That's really pretty common with all organizations that are composed of human beings.
But I'll be surprised if they find anything really flagrantly illegal. Everyone involved had to know from day one that there would be some scrutiny down the road.
I think that a lot of the people who support what they see the organization as doing will overlook any minor, human indiscretions. It's kind of expected, I think.
What, exactly, has Judicial Watch ever actually accomplished?
Looks like the IRS is about to find out maybe.....
But you can get some info here..... .. Not in real detail
In 2000 the 'eww' had expenses of $21,261,717 of which $13,297,454 (62.5%) went to fundraising activities .....
You are the one being subversive.
Well, I can't give you chapter and verse and I'm not the best choice of someone to be blowing his horn for him, but I'm been to its website and know that it lists numerous achievements. In the last analysis, it must be remembered that no one would be contributing if they saw no results and we wouldn't be talking about him if the Government didn't see him as some sort of player.
Actually, my post was longer than that. Nice to see you zero right in on the point.
Thanks.
I can almost guarantee you those numbers made his return pop out.
No problem, that was the main point in your whole argument, you know.
LOL! I'm supposed to base my opinion of Larry Klayman NOT on how he presents himself to the public, but on what? Your opinion of him? LOL!
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.