| 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 are really exposing yourself for what you are on this thread, Howlin. Thanks.
Of course he may have taken money from Scaiffe. There is no law against that. Bill Clinton could have given him money without there being any violation of laws. The fact that he has now gone after both the Clinton and Bush administrations would seem to prove that he is non-partisan. Now if he took money from Scaiffe and didn't go after Bush, THEN you might have an argument. Or if he took money from Clinton during the Clinton years (as some of you move-on'ers have suggested in these Klayman fests) and ignored Clinton crimes, THEN you might have a point. But neither situation is the case.
It is interesting to hear you recite the arguments used by the democRATS when Klayman was going after Clinton. Wonder where you heard them?
So, I'm still holding out hope that there was no settlement in that case. But I have to admit that no one is giving me much assurance.
And I say he wasn't murdered because the known facts say he wasn't. I know that doesn't suit your agenda, but live with it. I do realize if you had to admit the truth, you'd have to stop posting on FR because that is ALL you post. Oh, except where those of us (the majority) who don't agree with you are LIARS, and Democrats.
Because this lawsuit really was and is none of our business! This was not a lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch, but by Larry Klayman as a person and private American citizen.
Ron Brown was dead before the plane crashed. We all know that, why don't you? In denial, as always?
Yes, that's what I'd like her to do too ... on the following questions:
YES or NO? Did Klayman uncovered many serious CRIMINAL violations in Filegate, Chinagate, Emailgate, etc?
If yes, could/can Klayman do anything about CRIMINAL violations? YES or NO?
If no, then does Ashcroft has responsibility for investigating and prosecuting criminal matters of the sort uncovered? YES or NO?
Is yes, then is there any indication that Ashcroft has or is investigating? YES or NO?
If no, then are you critical of Ashcroft ... and Bush, his boss, for ignoring these serious crimes? YES or NO?
If no, then why not?
You really are a vile poster; you know very well that the reason he went after Bush is because the money dried up from the Republicans.
And the only reason I brought up Scaiffe is because FIJC said that Klayman was non-partisan (even Judge Sauls in the Florida recount died laughing at that); Klayman got his START with the GOP and the hard right, but when they deserted him, he HAD to look somewhere else. Any fool could see that the gravy train was drying up.
And if Klayman is NOT partisan, why don't we ever see him on TV, supporting Daschle and Gephardt and Kennedy?
No, he did NOT. As you yourself have pointed out, that is NOT his jurisdiction; you can SAY they are criminal, but until somebody else looks at them and says they are IN A COURT OF LAW, they're not.
You are a LIAR, Howlin. There, I said it again. I've answered HUNDREDS of your questions during our months of discourse. You, on the other hand, just keep SPINNING, like your handlers want you to. And, specifically, what question didn't I answer a few posts back? No need to be cryptic.
Not on cases that have been disposed of, or that they have looked at -- including Klayman's "evidence" -- and have decided there is just nothing there??? And just because Klayman SAYS he has it doesn't mean other REPUTABLE ATTORNEYS WHO SEE KLAYMAN'S DEPOSITION MAY THINK THEY ARE CRIMINAL) and the designated people at the DOJ have ruled they are NOT criminal cases to be prosecuted, for whatever reason, whether YOU agree with their opinions or not!
Much as it kills you and Klayman, he is NOT in charge of deciding what IS and what IS NOT criminal.
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.