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