| 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.
Care to back that up? I never, ever said that nothing wrong was done. You're making stuff up again.
And, of course, people lie in depositions; I'm just interested in the reason why you all assume automatically that they are the ones doing the lying. Because Larry says so?
BTW, if it's so private, why does he even take questions about it?
I still haven't seen anyone's word but yours that David Keene blocked Judicial Watch from CPAC.
Got proof?
According to one of the best pathologists in the US, Cyril Wecht, who looked at the photos and x-ray in the Brown case, Brown's injuries, except for the hole in his head were not life threatening.
was unlucky enough to have crashed EXACTLY where his murderer was waiting,
You seem to have conveniently forgotten about the missing beacon which disappeared from the airport just days before the crash ... a beacon that experts say could have been used to spoof a plane into flying into the ground, IN A KNOWN LOCATION, exactly as Brown's did.
has a bullet hole that doesn't match the gun that was found,
You only prove your ignorance and bias. NO GUN WAS FOUND.
and was murdered. No way.
What happened to those "others" Howlin who convinced you Brown wasn't murdered? Can't you cite EVEN ONE? Surely they can do better than you just did. You are only providing me with more EVIDENCE that you are a stealth democRAT.
And I say he wasn't murdered because the known facts say he wasn't.
Like what ... your non-existent gun? Or do you mean real facts ... like the fact that all of the pathologists in the case have stated that the wound looks like a bullet wound and Brown should have been autopsied. Or do you mean the fact that the x-rays (which just coincidently has disappeared) supports that allegation? Or do you mean the fact that the person in charge of the missing beacon just happened to commit suicide after the crash, before investigators could interview him. Or do you mean the loss of transponder and radio contact when the plane was still 8 miles from the crash site? Or do you mean the demonstrable lies by AFIP management about the opinions of their expert pathologists and the nature of the wound? Or do you mean the fact that for the first time the Air Force skipped the safety board portion of a crash investigation ... the part specifically charged with finding the cause.
Right Howlin. We believe you. Thank you for making it so blatantly obvious that you know NOTHING about the Brown case and that you are RUNNING from it like your conservative reputation depends on it. Because it does.
You made an out-of-the-blue accusation that David Keene blocked JW from getting a booth at CPAC. YOU brought it up, YOU need to prove it.
P.S. Challenging everyone else to prove you are wrong, when you haven't shown any evidence that the accusation wasn't just your imagination, is very Clintonesque.
Remember what the Bible says about false witness and gossip.
Well which is it, Freedom? You only want the parts of the Word that you like or its entirety????? Better make up your mind.
You have no idea how hysterically funny your post is. You figure it out. LOL !!!!!!
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.