Of course he doesn't. But again, don't you think the facts are even more suggestive that Jackson's organizations have violated the law where the IRS is concerned? At least Bill O'Reilly and his staff seem to think so. So why didn't Clinton's administration audit Jackson? So why hasn't Bush administration audited Jackson? Since they apparently haven't in both cases, any pretense that there are no political motivations in the selection of IRS audit targets seems to be ludicrous. Add to that the fact that statistically conservative organizations and individuals (especial those who caused Clinton or his administration problems) were much more likely than their liberal counterparts to receive audits and one "reasonably" might suspect the Klayman audit was political in nature rather than based on any firm evidence of wrong doing. Why the presumption of just the opposite on your part and that of other move-on'ers?
Furthermore, if you agree that Jackson should be audited if Klayman is being audited, have you ever criticized either the Clinton or Bush administration IRS for not auditing Jackson? Point out to me where you have done so on ANY thread and I will apologize for doubting your motives. But if you can't, then there is ample cause to suspect your motives in only going after Klayman. After all, at least Klayman isn't implicated in helping to cover up a mass murder connected to the Clinton Whitehouse. Can't say the same for Jackson.