| 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.
You really need to remove the clutter from your mind and stay focused on who and what you are talking about. Your last post to me makes no sense.
I hope you realize that this website is not a good statistical measure of the world around us.
LOL......you're right about this, though. Besides here, most people don't know or care who Larry Klayman is.
Looks like IRS is going to match some donor names up with tax filings based upon the request for a list of donors...
APPEALS COURT REJECTS BUSH ADMINISTRATION EFFORT TO BLOCK CIVIL RIGHTS SUIT AGAINST FORMER FBI DIRECTOR LOUIS FREEH BY ENERGY DEPARTMENT WHISTLEBLOWER NOTRA TRULOCK
No man is above the Constitution and the law, not even Louis Freeh, Wen Ho Lee, Peter Lee or anyone in the GW Bush administrations, past or present.
And there are even limits to claims of national security if they are not valid and if they are instead used to shield corruption by politicians from public exposure rather than trully protect the national security.
You know, I sure do wonder who took donations to JW as tax deductions, don't you? I bet we would be surprised at the big names we would find there.
So he says. I imagine we shall see.
The money keeps rolling in; but the "goods" never turn up. How long before the die-hards get a clue? For some reason, a 2x4 comes to mind.
Well alrighty then, you are no friend to the new nazi movement.
I apologize for the charge.
Still, it seems to me that the pattern and practice of abuse of power by the left is the theme, and one facet of the statist enemy's assault on freedom and self determination with which Judicial Watch does battle on your and my behalf.
If the Klayman fellow, battling for your and my right to liberty and self determination, has broken the trust, well lock him up, fine.
Still, charges of malfeasance on Klayman's part are entirely speculative, and powerfully reminiscent of a cherished nazi tactic, undermining the credibility of the messenger of truth.
Hence the question, why focus on a pinto bean when a Mack truck is bearing down on us?
COURT: ASSAULT/CIVIL RIGHTS LAWSUIT AGAINST JESSE JACKSON WILL MOVE FORWARD
AT LEAST SOMEONE HAS THE GUTS TO PURSUE THIS MISCREANT!!
And I can concentrate on two things at once. I can think Klayman should tell who backs him AND think the Clintons, et al., should hang.
A question, Howlin. Who won ... Klayman or his Mom?
Unless, of course, Klayman is really anti-Bush, and then is accusing the Bush administration of payback. But he isn't anti-Bush, is he? He is a non-partisan watchdog group.
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.