Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies.


Skip to comments.

JUDICIAL WATCH FIGHTS CLINTON IRS ATTEMPTED AUDIT
Judicial Watch ^ | April 18, 2002

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.


TOPICS: Announcements; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Free Republic; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: judicialwatch
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 941-960961-980981-1,000 ... 2,001-2,014 next last
To: Southflanknorthpawsis; Howlin
Hmmm. Perhaps there was an actual reason for an audit, and it had nothing to do with politics.

Audits aren't made public, so donor names wouldn't be disclosed to anyone except the IRS investigator.

As I understand the complaint about the IRS using audits as a political tool, the complaint is that it is a form of harassment. The IRS cannot make up charges. They can question people and ask for records, but if there is nothing wrong the audit is simply annoying.

Now if you have something to hide, that is a different story.

961 posted on 04/24/2002 6:41:43 PM PDT by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 955 | View Replies]

To: Amelia
I don't see why Larry cannot file criminal charges. He can file them but it is up to the Attorney General Ashcroft to follow through with investigating the claims. There is a thing called a Grand jury investigation that Larry could have done against that judge but because Larry is concerned about being disbarred from the court he backed off cause he doesn't want to mess with his bar license.
962 posted on 04/24/2002 6:42:09 PM PDT by goldilucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 956 | View Replies]

To: Registered
Are you really cutting and pasting from liberal whack-job sites?

Hey, Klayman has a conservative [what you said] site, and people post from that. (I refuse to use your weird sexual terms.)

963 posted on 04/24/2002 6:42:12 PM PDT by Amelia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 959 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
Now if you have something to hide, that is a different story.

Sure is !!!!

964 posted on 04/24/2002 6:44:09 PM PDT by Southflanknorthpawsis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 961 | View Replies]

To: goldilucky
I don't see why Larry cannot file criminal charges.

I'm not a lawyer, I don't play one on TV, and I didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but people have been saying all through this thread that Larry couldn't file criminal charges against the Clintons because he wasn't a prosecutor.

If he couldn't file them against anyone else, I don't see how he could file them against this judge.

965 posted on 04/24/2002 6:44:24 PM PDT by Amelia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 962 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
CNN?... a whackjob if ever saw one!
966 posted on 04/24/2002 6:46:15 PM PDT by woofie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 960 | View Replies]

To: FreedominJesusChrist
it looks to me like it came from www.bartcop.com or www.jeffberry.com.
967 posted on 04/24/2002 6:47:05 PM PDT by goldilucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 952 | View Replies]

To: Amelia
That is a good point. Either he can file criminal charges, or he can't.

By the way, didn't he bring something up before that grand jury in Califiornia regarding Anne Marie Smitih (Condit girlfriend)? Wasn't that a criminal charge? If he could do it with that case, couldn't he do it with Clinton? And if he hasn't, why not?

968 posted on 04/24/2002 6:47:54 PM PDT by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 965 | View Replies]

To: Amelia
Yes, one can file criminal charges against a judge. However the key is you do it in their individual capacity not official capacity. In this way they have to get their own attorneys.
969 posted on 04/24/2002 6:49:19 PM PDT by goldilucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 965 | View Replies]

To: goldilucky
These articles say Klayman can't practice law in New York because of that.
970 posted on 04/24/2002 6:50:58 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 962 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Hey Howlin, let me help your research project.  According to my Google search the only website that uses your posted verbiage is at http://www.stonesthrow.org/NandL.html

I've posted some more snippets from www.stonesthrow.org, the website you are using against JW here in the forum, seeing as you TRUST this website so much, let's look at what else they have on that site:

Stoner of the Week Award 

Stoner Hall of Shame 

Every week, we specially honor with an extra-special rock, the representative who in our opinion has done an especially distinguished job of ignoring the will of the American people. We don't know if they've been engaged in any wrongdoing besides ignoring their voters, but this week the Stoner of the Week award goes to all the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee. You know who they are. You know why they won it. 
 
We encourage you to send each and every one of them a lump of coal for Christmas. It's a rock they've earned.   You can send up to 70 pounds anywhere in the United States for just $3.00. 

The citizens movement keeps growing, and growing, and growing... 
We at the Stones Throw Project, MoveOn.org, and EnoughIsEnough.org, have been joined by a group in Iowa City, Iowa called the National Mad as Hell Campaign. Welcome on board, Leslea and Steve! Here are links to their sites: 
 

 

 

 

 

oadsides

House Manglers abandon The Rule of Law

For months they have intoned The Rule of Law--why do they now abandon it?

LET THEM KNOW! 
Contact your Senators and let them know your thoughts on the House Manglers' Kangaroo Railroad. 

Happy Birthday, Mr. President  
At least try to make it a happy one.  

Commentary and Analysis  

Some of the member-sponsors of Citizens and Stones Throw give their views. Currently:  

Is Murder an Impeachable Offense? by Helen Wheels. With many thanks to Beth Meacham for her research on Aaron Burr. 

The Hammer Gets Nailed by Susan DuQuesnay, crack investigative humorist for the Fort Bend Star. Get the view on "Bugsy" DeLay from the Brazos River Yacht Club and Bait Camp. 

Top Ten Republican Sayings Everyone needs a catchy saying in politics, to help their campaign come alive. See our preview of their rallying cries for the 2000 elections. 

Tom's overflite flybys The most unique form of protest we've seen so far.

971 posted on 04/24/2002 6:53:03 PM PDT by Registered
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 960 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
Calif. Grand Jury Declines to Investigate Condit
972 posted on 04/24/2002 6:54:55 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 968 | View Replies]

To: Amelia
whack-job

I honestly didn't attach any sexual aspect to that phrase whatsover. My apologies if it offended you (and your teenage son of course).
973 posted on 04/24/2002 6:55:13 PM PDT by Registered
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 963 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Then we have a serious problem inside OUR courts. It's not that Larry can't get these criminal indicted, it is the judges, magistrates, and law clerks who are being paid under the table to spike these cases. They probably got their orders to spike the case from Bill Clinton as he did appoint them.
974 posted on 04/24/2002 6:57:11 PM PDT by goldilucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 970 | View Replies]

To: goldilucky
You mean something is wrong with a judge because he takes offense when Klayman plays the race card?
975 posted on 04/24/2002 6:58:07 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 974 | View Replies]

To: Registered
Looks like Stone's Throw got their info from CNN, huh?
976 posted on 04/24/2002 6:58:23 PM PDT by Amelia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 971 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
I really do not know the issues about the race card but I do remember reading about that particular judge.
977 posted on 04/24/2002 7:00:27 PM PDT by goldilucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 975 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
I think the best way would be to get a copy of that judges profile and find out who appointed him. State judges are appointed in by state governors but federal judges are appointed by the President and magistrate judges are considered by a judicial committee and picked out by district judges.
978 posted on 04/24/2002 7:03:56 PM PDT by goldilucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 975 | View Replies]

To: goldilucky
Slurs on Judge Warrant Sanctions
979 posted on 04/24/2002 7:04:56 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 977 | View Replies]

To: Amelia
Looks like.
980 posted on 04/24/2002 7:05:53 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 976 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 941-960961-980981-1,000 ... 2,001-2,014 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson