JUDICIAL WATCH FIGHTS CLINTON IRS ATTEMPTED AUDIT

(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.

So now I am a Clinton defender? ROFL. You'll have a hard time selling THAT on this forum.

Oh I don't know about that.

You do argue like a democRAT, running from discussing ANY SPECIFIC INFORMATION having to do with the Clinton related crimes of Chinagate, Filegate, Emailgate, the Riady non-refund and the deaths of Brown or Foster.

You do hold positions about some of those cases that only democRATS would likely believe ... like claiming that Ron Brown wasn't murdered (without providing any basis for believing that) ... like claiming that those who suggest Brown and Foster didn't die as the corrupt Clinton Whitehouse said give the GOP a bad name ... like implying that Linda Tripp and all the others who gave depositions in Filegate and Emailgate might be lying.

You do want Bush/Ashcroft to move-on with regards to all the crimes that the Clintons and DNC are alleged to have committed, despite mountains of INFORMATION suggesting those crimes occurred.

You admit that even back when Clinton was in office you didn't think it worthwhile that Klayman was using the system to find out, despite Reno's obstructionist activities, what the Clinton Whitehouse was really up to and inform us of what he found, despite a complicit mainstream press.

I don't know ... those sure sound like the actions of democRAT to me.

Perhaps YOU can explain to us all then why it is that Klayman spent less than $2,000,000 on LEGAL FEES, ETC., and blew the other $23,000,000 he collected last year?

Ah gee. You asked me this question too ... and said you wouldn't answer any of mine questions until I answered it. So I did answer it (even agreeing with you that Klayman should be audited) and what did you do ... run off without answering even a single one of the many questions I've asked time and time again without a response.

And by the way, regarding post #718: Klayman vs. Mom Suit, I guess we now know ONE of your 'trusted' news sources ... the Washington Post. Of Course. It figures. Perhaps that's where you got the idea that Ron Brown wasn't murdered? Afterall, this left wing rag, on January 6, 1998, published a hit piece by one of its reporters, Michael Fletcher, on Christopher Ruddy titled "Justice Dept. Declines to Probe Death of Brown". In this article, Fletcher tried to smear Ruddy in order to distract attention from the facts in the Brown case by suggesting that Ruddy and Richard Scaife published "conspiracy theories surrounding the death of deputy White House counsel Vincent Foster." Ruddy responded that "I am still waiting for The Post to identify one such conspiracy I have allegedly written involving Mr. Foster's death." I don't think the Post ever did respond. Maybe you know Howlin? I also believe Fletcher is the reporter that AFAS used to publish the disinformation from Dickerson that all the pathologists at AFIP concur that Brown died by blunt force trauma. That was a clear lie, Howlin, so how trustworthy is Fletcher. How trustworthy is a source that would employ Fletcher? A great source, Howlin. Got anymore that I can put into my archive for future use in discussing your views about Brown and other subjects related to the crimes the Clinton administration and DNC committed?

Oh, and by the way, the following is on the main page of Free Republic: "Free Republic has been enjoined from allowing users to post full text articles from the Los Angeles Times (LAT) and Washington Post (WP) . Please do not post full text from these sources until and unless we can get this order overturned on appeal. " You don't suppose the Washington Post sued Free Republic because they are conservative leaning, do you? NOT. Of course, maybe they would give someone like you a special dispensation since your only spreading their disinformation so eagerly. Or you can go back to citing Salon, which I believe was listed as the source of the particular article you posted the first time it appeared on Free Republic.

In regards to my question about Klayman vs His Mom and who won: He never, ever says.

But isn't it curious that in the article you posted from that left leaning rag, where his Mom and her friends are whining about their mistreatment (never mind what they did to her mom) and making the whole matter public (despite the obvious embarrassment and harm that might cause), they didn't say they won? I can understand why Klayman wouldn't since he tried to keep the lawsuit a family matter, as it should be. But why would a left leaning news organization like the Washington Post drop such a juicy story ... unless Klayman in fact won the suit?

Am I to understand that you are suggesting that the administration conduct politically motivated IRS audits to prove that they do not engage in politically motivated IRS audits?

Not at all. ONLY a democRAT would suggest that there isn't credible INFORMATION suggesting that Jackson's organizations violated the law where the IRS is concerned. Are you telling us you don't believe Bill O'Reilly? I'm asking for just the opposite ... that Jackson be audited BASED ON THE INFORMATION, rather than NOT being audited, for political reasons.

If Klayman won, why wouldn't he tell callers who have asked him about it on radio shows, rather than let this rumor continue? Why wouldn't he say, "And we, of course, were right and the court heard all the testimony and ruled in our favor?" Or did he, once again, settle? Don't try the keeping it private thing. It's out there. The only reason to keep it quiet is because it's embarassing to him.

where his Mom and her friends are whining about their mistreatment (never mind what they did to her mom) and making the whole matter public (despite the obvious embarrassment and harm that might cause), they didn't say they won?

What makes you think THEY are lying? What proof do YOU have that THEY are lying? Who knows, maybe Larry thought his grandmother still had some money and when he found out she had given it to her daughter, he sued.

BTW, there were SEVERAL people who signed affadavits backing the Mother's side; are they ALL lying? Why would they?

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.