JUDICIAL WATCH FIGHTS CLINTON IRS ATTEMPTED AUDIT

Judicial Watch ^ | April 18, 2002

[Howlin]

Just as I thought: mere posturing.

Your guy claims he wants the laws obeyed and enforced; it might be best if he set a good example.

Unless, of course, he has something to hide and/or runs his organization in a way that wouldn't look that good if it were exposed.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

There is no law requiring Judicial Watch to publish a list of their donors publically! There is no example to set when there is no law requiring it. Judicial Watch respects the privacy of their donors and besides, why should they when the law does not require them to do so? When Judicial Watch harps on Government Agencies and Branches, they do so because it is their legal right to under the law. There is no such law requiring non-profits to disclose their donor list. Judicial Watch stays accountable to their donors by doing their job, their donors do not ask them to publish their names and addresses to the public and nor does the law.

[Howlin]

Did you know that Michael Chertoff looked into this and said there was no evidence that there was any political manipulations behind this audit?

And he told Klayman that, too.

On March 13, Chertoff wrote Klayman that ''after careful consideration, we have determined that a criminal investigation of this matter is not warranted.'' He passed the complaint to Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility to check on charges of misconduct against the department, but on April 1 it reported to Klayman no basis for an investigation.

[Miss Marple]

There are a certain number of people who are audited every year. An audit does not require a suspicion of criminal wrongdoing. In both my sister and my father's cases, they had unusually large deductions which the IRS questioned. Once proof of the accuracy of those deductions was shown, no further action was taken by the IRS.

Do I like the IRS? No. BUT, the same rules apply to Larry Klayman as my sister and my father. He can show them his records and answer their questions, just like they did.

Nice try, but because I think that Larry has to submit to the laws that apply to the rest of us does NOT make me a cheerleader for the IRS. If Larry thinks this is politically motivated, then why is Ashcroft not intervening? But wait...if Ashcroft intervened, wouldn't THAT be politically motivated? I mean, he would be intervening to protect Larry, wouldn't he?

Too bad for Klaymman. I hope he hasn't got anything to hide...as in donations from the DNC.

[Howlin]

There is no law requiring Judicial Watch to publish a list of their donors publically!

Did you know there is no law requiring Dick Cheney to publish a list of the people he meets with to decide energy policies?

Does it bother you that Klayman is asking for that very list, while at the same time saying that HE doesn't have to provide a list of the people who donate to him?

[Howlin]

When Judicial Watch harps on Government Agencies and Branches, they do so because it is their legal right to under the law.

You do realize, don't you, that just because Klayman has the RIGHT to file all these "cases" doesn't mean he's right on the LAW or the FACTS, don't you?

And you do realize, don't you, that the reason they do it is to make money.

[Miss Marple]

No, I didn't know that Michael Chertoff had written that letter. Well, I trust him as much as anyone in Justice.

It seems that Klayman's real gripe is not making sure that audits aren't politically motivated, but rather that HE isn't audited.

I bet he has something big to hide. Ha!

[FreedominJesusChrist]

I find it interesting that you think it is okay for a bureaucratic entity to look at one's intimate financial records without any proof of criminal wrong-doing. I also find it curious as to why you think this is Equal Protection Under the Law, even though we do not know exactly why some political organizations and individuals are audited and some aren't.

[Howlin]

In both my sister and my father's cases, they had unusually large deductions which the IRS questioned.

Now, you know I do NOT do math, so I'll ask you.

Suppose you turned in your IRS forms and you reported taking in over $25,000,000 in donations for your "law firm."

Then you put down LESS than $2,000,000 for legal expenses.

Would that cause anybody to be suspicious?

[FreedominJesusChrist]

"You do realize, don't you, that just because Klayman has the RIGHT to file all these "cases" doesn't mean he's right on the LAW or the FACTS, don't you?"

When one files a FOIA request, it is usually to get more facts and details--it's called public disclosure.

[Miss Marple]

Every year, MILLIONS of Americans submit their personal financial records to the IRS. They tell the IRS their income, how much they gave to their church, the amount they paid the babysitter, how much they won at Lotto, how much they paid for work unifiorms, what their medical bills were.

Now, if you don't like the income tax (and I don't) then one could argue that the whole thing should be abolished. But as long as it is in existence, Klayman has to submit just like the rest of us mortals.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

It is a faulty assumption to believe that just because Judicial Watch wishes to safeguard their Constitutional Rights, that they must have something to hide. Perhaps they just just want to keep their Constitutional Rights (1st, 4th, and 14th) intact.

[Miss Marple]

Judicial Watch has no constitutional rights. Larry Klayman does.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

We are not discussing the income tax right now, we are discussing audits.

[Howlin]

That wasn't an answer to ANY of my questions.

Regarding Larry's "right to sue," he has the right to sue, but that doesn't mean what he sues about is FACTUAL; he twists the law as much as any attorney I've ever seen.

I can SAY I'm the Queen of Egypt, but it doesn't make it true, just like Larry can FILE lawsuits; it doesn't make HIM right or his lawsuits anything more than nusiances that cost taxpayers money to defend.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

Larry Klayman has Constitutional Rights, as does the staff of Judicial Watch who make up Judicial Watch.

[Howlin]

It is a faulty assumption to believe that just because Judicial Watch wishes to safeguard their Constitutional Rights, that they must have something to hide.

Since you're so 'into' rights, I'll point out to you and that I have the RIGHT to assume anything I want to about anybody, drawing on my own experiences and knowledge. And I say he's complaining because he just doesn't want to be audited.

Be sure to apologize to me when I'm right.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

"I can SAY I'm the Queen of Egypt, but it doesn't make it true"

Please clarify that analogy for me. Besides, whether or not Larry's lawsuits have merit is up for a judge to decide and you are not the presiding judge.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

You need to clarify the difference between human rights and civil rights. Sure you have the freedom of thought, but you do not have the civil right to slander whomever you wish because of your assumption--that is grounds for a civil lawsuit for malicious slander and libel.

[RJCogburn]

Ah, the esteemed Miss M. joins in. Let's leave JW out of this for a moment and read what Novak wrote today, per my #40 on this thread.

The Justice Department's stonewall fortifies considerations of privacy and lack of congressional interest in protecting the IRS from scrutiny. The IRS never has explained its intrusion during the Clinton administration's first year when the new president reshaped the White House travel office. Two days after White House sources suggested kickbacks were paid to travel office functionaries from charter airlines, a charter used by the White House--Ultrair of Nashville, Tenn.--was visited by IRS agents for an unannounced audit.

In 1996, the conservative (and anti-Clinton) Western Journalism Center in Los Angeles was hit by an IRS audit from which it never fully recovered. Judicial Watch filed a complaint in behalf of the WJC on May 13, 1998, and the IRS audit of Klayman's organization was launched Oct. 9, 1998. Also swiftly visited with audits were Clinton accusers Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones and Gennifer Flowers, former travel office chief Billy Dale, and even Katherine Prudhomme, who once bothered Vice President Al Gore by asking about Broaddrick--plus assorted conservative organizations.

I'm less interested in JW than these other people, or are they just chosen at random for audit?