| 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.
We only have Larry's word that this one is.
The agent who investigates is never told who turned a person in or asked for an audit. As far as the agent is concerned it could be a random audit. The Whisle blower law makes it illegal to tell someone who turned them in for an audit. The agent making the audits is not supposed to know who called for the audit. An agent who did know, and revealed it to a person under audit can go to jail.
There were lots of people who believe that Clinton ordered audits. None of them can prove it. Certainly not the agents who made the audits.
Clinton is a lawyer. You can bet the farm that if he did order the audit, the agents who contacted Larry did not know it. You know very well they have zero proof that Clinton did order it.
The last thing an IRS agent would do is tell Larry that Clinton ordered it. He would know that if larry could prove it, the agent and his boss would go to jail. You go to jail for doing illegal things even if the president ordered you to do the illegal thing.
No brass at the agency is going to let an agent know that he is working with Clinton to break the law. If he did the Agent just got total control of the boss.
Clinton is anything but stupid. Clinton would not allow a situation where the investigators could pin it on him. The bosses at the IRS are not stupid. They would not confess to an underling that they were committing a felony. If Clinton did it, he covered his trail very well. He is not stupid.
The smart money is betting that Larry is lying. Larry tends to bet on the fact that you are ignorant of how it works. Fewer and fewer people are ignorant of the facts.
Is that why the Clinton IRS audited all those other conservative organizations too? Is that why they audited people like Juanita Broaddrick and anyone else who ever accused the Clintons or their administration of committing crimes? Were they being overly partisan? Are you suggesting that all those democRAT organizations that weren't audited were non-partisan? Are you suggesting that people like Carville, who most certainly wasn't audited, isn't partisan?
Who are you trying to kid, Amelia? The fact that you even suggest there was no political motivation in the many audits the Clinton administration did is telling as to your political leanings and motives for joining this thread. It is also telling that you implied earlier that Judicial Watch never accomplished anything. To suggest that, in light of what he found out about Chinagate, Filegate, Emailgate, the death of Brown and the Riady non-refund is also telling. Why do you think the move-on crowd who show up to continually bash Klayman always suggest that Klayman never accomplished anything? Because the facts mean nothing to them. The only thing that matters is discrediting one of the few organizations that actually did something to expose the misdeeds of the Clinton administration and inform us of those misdeeds.
JW, rather than submit to the audit, claimed it was being politically persecuted, and also about the same time found some Republican "corruption" to "investigate" as well, to prove JW was non-partisan.
As I said in my original post on this thread, I have no problem with Klayman and Judicial Watch being audited now. Fine. But where is your outrage that the Bush administration has not even investigated the credible allegations of serious crimes committed by the Clinton administration and democRAT party that Klayman and others discovered and publicized? Where is your outrage that even the Democrat who wrote the article of impeachment against Nixon on abusing the IRS has said that Clinton's abuse of the IRS was MUCH WORSE and he should have been re-impeached because of it? It just seems to me that the criticism of Klayman is a little too "partisan" to be honest.
Ya know, I was thinkin' the very same thing........
Isn't it amazing to hear move-on'ers, like Howlin, who claim to be conservative, imply that the auditing of Klayman during Clinton's tenure was not politically motivated? Don't you think it highly likely that it was politically motivated, given how big a thorn in Clinton's side Klayman was? Don't you think it highly likely that it was politically motivated, given the relative percentage of conservative organizations versus non-conservative organizations that were audited during the Clinton administration? Didn't you read the words of the Democrat who wrote the article of impeachment against Nixon concerning his abuse of the IRS? He said, after Clinton's "acquittal" in the Senate, that Clinton's abuse of the IRS was MUCH WORSE than anything Nixon did ... and that he should have been impeached AGAIN. Shouldn't that concern you as much as Klaymans indiscretions? Afterall, one affects Klayman and the relatively few that gave to him ... the other affects a whole nation. Yet, move-on'ers want to ignore the latter and focus on the former. Isn't that amazing?
Yeah, right. Attack the messenger instead of addressing the message.
I didn't suggest there was no political motivation in the Clinton audits, but I did state that it's illegal for a non-profit to act in a partisan manner.
But where is your outrage that the Bush administration has not even investigated the credible allegations of serious crimes committed by the Clinton administration and democRAT party that Klayman and others discovered and publicized?
Is that the topic of this thread?
Come on. I specifically addressed the facts as you presented them or failed to present them.
I didn't suggest there was no political motivation in the Clinton audits, but I did state that it's illegal for a non-profit to act in a partisan manner.
Fine. And I asked you if that was the reason all those others were audited too? Do you have an answer? How about the individuals that were audited? They certainly weren't "non-profits"? So why were they audited? Why do you want to suggest that Klayman was the ONLY ONE who was audited for valid reasons?
Is that the topic of this thread?
As a matter of fact it is. Klayman alleges that he was audited because he was exposing crimes committed by the Clinton administration and the DNC ... and the fact that all those others were audited for doing the same thing suggests he is right. The fact that the most vocal attackers of Klayman never want to discuss the crimes the Clinton administration committed and the failure of the Bush administration to even investigate those crimes is totally relevant to this thread since it goes to their motive for attacking Klayman so vehemently.
No, the problem for you move-on'ers is that I've got YOUR "numba" ... and the means to show people what you really are. As a result you end up making "witty" remarks to one another because you can't address the actual facts. Take Howlin, for instance, who you seem more comfortable posting. I'm sure my question to her as to why she claims Ron Brown wasn't murdered without being able to say why is a problem. I'm sure my question about why the Bush administration isn't even investigating the crimes the Clintons and DNC committed is a problem. The manner in which she answers both proves that her motives on this forum are less about truth then supporting her particular candidate, regardless of the truth ... regardless of what is right or wrong. In that, she (and perhaps you) are not much different from the democRATS we all CLAIM to despise. Now "what 'cha gonna do about it?"
Goldilucky, Chooser and Freedom...lookie lookie lol - this Howlin move-oner - must be frustrated and buffaloed, rofl -we
finally/politely, jolted her - enough - and she flopped out of her move-on hole. ROFL.
Anyway, got to hit the hay, nite you all :)
Oh that's a laugh. But, thanks, this lets me show any lurkers what you are all about.
First, why don't you post the URL or a specific exchange where Howlin put me "under the table"? Bet you can't. I on the other hand would be happy to demonstrate that Howlin's ONLY response to the Brown facts has been to run and, I think, be dishonest.
She once claimed to believe Ron Brown was not murdered. Then in a later discussion, she forgot the internet has a memory, and tried to deny that. She finally had to admit the lie when I posted her quote and the URL.
I asked her repeatedly to provide the basis for her belief that Brown was not murdered. She simply refused. Then, TWICE, she replied that it is because she believes Ken Starr. The problem is, Starr had NOTHING to do with the Ron Brown case ... ever.
Most recently, while I was noting that the families of the Brown "accident" received very large amounts of compensation in exchange for dropping law suits against the government (at a time, by the way, when they had not even been made aware that the pathologists in the case were saying that Brown appeared to have a bullet wound in his head and should have been autopsied), she latched onto the statement of a democRAT who said she believed nothing foul happened because that is what the official Air Force report stated.
Too bad Howlin won't address a single point I've made about that report not containing facts that suggest it wasn't an accident ... little things like those aforementioned pathologist opinions ... or the x-ray that seems to support that view ... or the loss of transponder signal and radio contact when the plane was still 8 miles from the crash site ... or a dozen other significant facts. She won't address the question of why the Air Force, in this one instance, skipped the part of the crash investigation that is specifically tasked with "finding the cause". Instead, they put out a bogus report filled with obvious holes. But no, Howlin just runs from these facts, NEVER addressing them. And you call that "putting" me "under the table." Well only in your "move-on" reality.
Now as to why Howlin behave this way ... I see two possible explanations. Perhaps she is in fact a democRAT who is just PRETENDING to be a conservative on this platform ... or perhaps she is representative of something worse, a new breed of republican who will act just like a democRAT when it comes to upholding the laws and protecting our election process, our privacy and even our lives. Party comes first in her book. What about you?
But, that may well be the source of your fundraising.......As far as I'm concerned, "eww" has discredited itself so much, and the foolishness that the "workers" exhibit on the forum are enough for me to have a little fun with.
And I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Perhaps you could be a little clearer so us "workers" can understand? Or would YOU like to actually debate the facts in the Ron Brown case? I have plenty to debate and sources to quote. How about you? Or are you just 'hot air'? Perhaps if you are so clear on the matter you can tell us why you apparently believe Ron Brown was not murdered? How about doing that? Maybe YOU can tell us why Howlin doesn't believe?
Unfortunately for your side, there seem to be a few unhappy "customers" that ole Lar' has here that he has yet to satisfy.
No, there appears to be a few "move-on'ers" who would rather DISHONESTLY suggest that Klayman never accomplished anything than EVER answer the questions below.
*******
YES or NO? Did Klayman uncovered many serious CRIMINAL violations in Filegate, Chinagate, Emailgate, etc?
If so, could/can Klayman do anything about CRIMINAL violations?
If not, then who now has responsibility for investigating and prosecuting criminal matters of the sort uncovered?
If the answer is Ashcroft, then provide us with ANY indication that he is investigating?
If you can't, then are you critical of Ashcroft ... and Bush, his boss, for ignoring these serious crimes?
If not, then why not?
******
So how about it? Are you afraid to answer these questions?
But screaming about an IRS audit is in poor form, IMO.......
Go reread my posts. I said I have no objection to Judicial Watch being audited. But if you are suggesting that there was no political motivation in auditing groups like JW and individuals, during the Clinton years, that's just more proof that you are quite the conservative you may claim to be. Or would you like to tell us why Klayman was the ONLY one you think the IRS had a legitimate case against? Or would you like to tell us why the democRAT who wrote the impeachment article against Nixon over IRS abuse was wrong when he stated that the abuse of that agency by Clinton was much worse and he should have been re-impeached over it? Or would you like to tell us why the Bush administration is doing NOTHING to investigate the many credible allegations of criminal activity by the Clintons and their supporters?
I don't know about anyone else. MY motive for "attacking Klayman so vehemently" is that I think it odd that only 4% of the funds he raises go to the stated purpose of his organization. Personally, if I give money, I expect a bit more "bang for the buck".
Yes, he has done some good things in exposing corruption. I don't think that precludes the possibility that his organization might have financial "irregularities".
If Klayman is cheating on his taxes (by claiming tax-exempt status when he should not, for example), that affects all taxpayers to some (admittedly small) extent.
But ask your question in a different way: Why is it okay for Larry Klayman to question the integrity of the Clinton administration and the Bush administration, but not okay for anyone to question Klayman's integrity? I thought corruption was wrong no matter where it was?
And if an audit by an administration Klayman has tried to "expose" is going to be "politically motivated" according to Klayman, all he has to do to avoid audits forever is keep "exposing" these "corrupt administrations", huh?
Disclaiimer: Nothing I've said in this post should be construed or otherwise interpreted to mean that I do not believe there was significant corruption in the Clinton administration. There obviously was significant corruption in the Clinton administration.
Thanks for cluing me in. I detected the fetid aroma of clintonian (goebbels-esque, stalinesque, take your pick) attack-the-source politics.
When these vicious leftist rodents are exposed in their tyrranical criminality they invariably employ the blythe method, attack the source, lie like a rug, embrace a "reform" agenda that is irrelevant to their crime, and delay, delay delay while spewing disinformation like Vesuvius spews gas.
It is lame, it is disgusting, and it is an outrage that with a compliant media, it can actually work.
Not here, however.
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.