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 Watchs 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 Clintons impeachment for misuse of the IRS, was officially made part of the Congressional record. The IRSs 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 Watchs 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 IRSs 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 Watchs 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 Watchs 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.
BTW, what kind of vendetta does David Keene have against Larry Klayman?
I'm pretty sure taking money from Richard Scaiffe would qualify.
Yep yeah youbetcha you have all the rights to engage your mind and energies howsoever you see fit. And more power to you.
I recon that that fellow has the same sort of vendetta against Judicial Watch that you do, I can't 'splain it, I am focused on more important stuff, as I've ben saying.
Like a quick death to the political left!
Scaife's Foundation is not partisan. Even if Scaife is a registered Republican, that wouldn't affect Judicial Watch's tax exempt status at all. I am a registered Republican in my state too, but that doesn't affect any of the non-profits that I give to.
ROFLMAO.
Uh, oh! I'm beginning to smell a rat! I'm beginning to smell a sell-out!
Quit worrying about the rules. Mr. Klayman can tell the IRS and the courts to pound sand. What do you think that they can do about it? Prison? So, what? I've said before that Larry will not sell out his country just to avoid the personal inconvenience of a prison term and if he has to fight corruption as Manuel Noriega's bunkmate, so be it.
There are principles involved here. They cannot be compromised.
Checks in the mail.....
You're the one who said he was NOT PARTISAN.
Usually ads such as this have small print at the bottom stating who paid for the ad. Do you still have a copy of the ad? Can you tell us who paid for it?
Nah, in fact, I can't move on until I correct the title of the book that I described this morning, with the flypage advertising Schippers book " Sellout" I had just purchased this book this past weekend and referred to it as Bitter Harvest. Nope, incorrect on my part - the title is: "Bitter Legacy" - which looks to be a good read -by Newsmax.com and the authors are Christopher Ruddy and Carl Limbacher, Jr. My error.
I believe that if a non-profit attempts to influence political races or certain legislation, that can be seen as partisan & can cause the non-profit designation to be revoked.
I'm not sure what other rules might apply.
Smoke, noise, and clamor over nothing!
Criminetlies! OK folks, here is the Big Truth:
The junkyard dog we see fighting against government corruption and abuse of power that still proceeds from the pervasive and comprehensive corruption of bileh blathe's "leadership" is not a nice doggie.
Nope, mean and nasty.
I for one am well pleased that a mean nasty junkyard dog who you find quaht distahstfuhl is opposing the nazi statist pigs like clinton and boxer and schumer et al.
So if we could clear the meaningless smoke from the air, perhaps we can agree that it is a good thing to have the occasional junkyard dog on hand when we need him, and I agree, as long as he obeys the law of the land. And lest we forget, opposing the brutal abuse of the spirit and letter of the law on the part of the leftist totalitarians who are inches from enslaving you in their new American worker's paradise is THE POINT of the exercise.
It's like getting your panties in a bunch over the color of your life preserver for crying out loud.
I'll be happy to reject and denounce this Klayman dude AFTER he is shown to have broken faith with the public, K?
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.