| 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.
Still trying to get by with one-liners I see.
I have no problem if others step up to the plate and get it done. But where are they?
In fact, I've been begging Bush and Ashcroft, the two who are actually responsible for investigating Clinton and DNC crimes, for many many months to step up to the plate. You are the one who seems to think that would be "wrong" on their part.
So you say nasty stuff about them if they don't buy your rant.
And yes, sometimes the truth is awful to hear but you'll have to be more specific and say where I was "nasty". You mean calling you a democRAT because you behave like one?
I trust the Bush Administration to do what is best for the country. If they want to prosecute...fine. If they want to move on....fine. I am more interested in the war on terrorists.
You don't like my answer, and label me a "move-on" type. I don't like YOUR attitude, and will label you "obsessive." How do you like those apples?
CLUE: You don't have to post volumes and volumes of type when you have the facts on your side.
Oh No, Oh No, Mommie, not the dreaded abuse button...rofl.
BTTT
You NEVER do. You NEVER can. Name them, otherwise we might just think they don't exist.
Afterall, you claimed to have believed "others" who you said convinced you that Brown wasn't murdered. But you never could come up with even one name ... other than eventually citing Ken Starr, who we all know never had anything to do with the Brown case. I think you are BOGUS, Howlin.
As FIJC says, there were a LOT Of people there; lots of people remember it differently. We shall see.
Oh I see. So now we to believe another poster who won't post names. In fact, how are we to know you and she are not one and the same? Afterall, you both like to quote definitions and you both don't want to be posted to by ChaseR.
I have written to Mr. Keene to ask him his side of the story.
Is this like when you said you were going to "write" to that democRAT Congresswoman a while back who you cited as the reason you don't believe Brown was murdered? I guess she never got back to you, did she, because you never said another word about her.
"Alleging the existence of forensic evidence of murder, he explained, "Everybody in that lab believed there was a round hole the size of a .45 caliber bullet." (In one TV interview, Klayman suggested the killer was "perhaps the president himself."
Pardon me if I take their word over yours.
But the exact details are still kind of fuzzy.
Because he said from the very beginning, that was a PRIVATE matter. Of course someone like you who doesn't appear to think anything wrong was done in Filegate wouldn't understand that. Now why don't you tell us the motivation for the left leaning Washington Post not announcing who won? Why don't you tell us why you think the Washington Post is a credible source of ANYTHING?
What makes you think THEY are lying?
People lie under oath all the time, Howlin. Didn't YOU say that or something to that effect when we were discussing the depositions in Filegate and the Clinton related crimes?
What proof do YOU have that THEY are lying?
What PROOF do YOU have that Klayman is? You can't even identify a single untruth in his press releases and court documents on Chinagate, Filegate, Emailgate, the Riady non-refund and the death of Brown. I've asked you to do so a number a times and all you've done is RUN. Klayman seems to have a pretty good track record for telling the truth ... at about the same time that the smear article you posted came out.
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.
See, just like democRATS your ONLY debating tactics are repeating and making SMEARS up. Did you graduate from the Carville school?
BTW, there were SEVERAL people who signed affadavits backing the Mother's side; are they ALL lying? Why would they?
Gee, you mean impartial witnesses like the 2nd husband of the wife ... the one with much to gain from STEALING money from his invalid grandmother-in-law who he threw out on the street? And, again, did they win, Howlin? I'm sure with your democRAT sources you can find out for us.
Is that something like "put some ice on it"?
By the way, did the Washington Post ever report the alleged rape of Broaddrick and abuse of women by Clinton?
Ha, Ha. I am sure that David Keene has read my comments and questions before; no doubt he will love hearing them again. So did you sign, 'Howlin'? I sure he would take your letter even more seriously. It boils down to David Keene's word, who had shown a personal dislike for Larry Klayman and Judicial Watch a long time before he blocked them from the Conference, and Judicial Watch's. I would believe Judicial Watch's word over Keene's anyday.
A student's comments? How would he do that? Why would you think you're important enough for David Keene to know what you write about?
Who are you really?
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.