| 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.
And it looks like someone is cleaning house before she gets there. First Barbara Olson dies in a plane crash, Traficant, outspoken critic of Clinton is brought to court and now JW being attacked by the IRS!!
It looks bad, people.
Actually as serious as it was, I found it somewhat humorous.
Thank you for bringing up this aritcle. I remember reading about this two years ago. I'd be curious to know what this "oath of office" really is. You see the oath of office is an oath to the British crown. Bar- stand for "British attorney registered". Our courts have been subject to a foreign oath as well as jurisdiction.
This was probably before Larry had much experience.
Well, all I know is what I read here and it looked like a pretty thin basis for a pretty serious charge. Judges don't take kindly to that sort of thing.
Regarding my comment on Howlin's statement that "As FIJC says, there were a LOT Of people there;"
I must apolize to FreedominJesusChrist for even suggesting that she and Howlin are one and the same. Obviously, she is not.
Not to excuse my mistake but simply to explain ... I, in my haste to finish my posts before I left this afternoon, failed to proof read my post well enough to discover that the initials Howlin used did not match those of the person I thought she meant ... Southflanknorthpawsis. I thought of Southflanknorthpawsis because I've noticed in this thread that her posts seem to share some similarities to Howlins in views and verbage. Perhaps I'm mistaken in which I case I apologize to Southflanknorthpawsis and Howlin. Perhaps I am just misled by the lock-step that most move-on'ers seem to be in as they assault Klayman, ignore Clinton-related crimes and excuse Bush's inaction regarding those crimes.
That is one possibility. Another is that he was shot on the ground by a clean up crew after surviving the crash. There are facts to suggest either possibility ... none of which people like Howlin make any attempt to address.
I'll be more than glad to address it:
Laughable.
Comical.
Ludicrous.
Desperate.
Insane.
Ridiculous.
Do you realize what you just said? It's the standard statist mantra: "What do you have to fear if you've done nothing wrong."
Miss statist Marple, you disappoint me this evening.
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.