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

Skip to comments.

IRS Official to Judicial Watch: Clinton Enemies Were Audited
Newsmax ^ | April 23,2002 | Carl Limbacher

Posted on 04/22/2002 10:00:48 PM PDT by Kay Soze

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360361-380381-400 ... 641-655 next last
To: deport
And a good afternoon to you, Deport. It is always a pleasure to reply to a thoughtful poster.

I have never heard the IRS give a reason for the JW audit. I doubt that the IRS ever does that sort of thing at this phase of an audit. I have never been audited, but it could very well be that the IRS gives the audit target a general idea of what is being looked at, but that would not be public information until charges are filed in court either in a civil or criminal suit.

Of course, the target could go public with whatever information the IRS had told them about the reasons for the audit. Just like JW went public with the fact that there was an audit. Without JW's public disclosure, we would not have known about that until suit had been filed.
361 posted on 05/08/2002 11:16:37 AM PDT by Iwo Jima
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 359 | View Replies]

To: Iwo Jima, deport
deport,

I will agree that you are more reasonable than the rest.

As to the subject of the IRS, the fact that they have no publically published criteria setting a standard as to what is their Probable or even Reasonable Cause, into auditing an individual or organization, is what causes me to distrust them so much. There is an old adage that states, "Secrecy coupled with power invites corruption", and that is the IRS--an unconstitutional governmental entity that can investigate and audit people without establishing to a court or to the public, their Probable or even Reasonable Cause for doing so.

362 posted on 05/08/2002 12:14:41 PM PDT by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 361 | View Replies]

To: Native American Female Vet
Feel free to criticize. You don't worry me either.
363 posted on 05/08/2002 12:15:27 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 350 | View Replies]

To: Iwo Jima
I would like for you to define to me what you believe a personal attack is. If BeAChooser attacks anything, it is the lies and untruths that regularily come pouring out of Howlin's mouth, not her actual "person."
364 posted on 05/08/2002 12:16:59 PM PDT by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
I personally hope that she doesn't waste her breath.
365 posted on 05/08/2002 12:17:37 PM PDT by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 363 | View Replies]

To: Iwo Jima, Howlin
I find your diatribes increasingly irrelevant, crude, insulting, unseemly, and just generally full of it.

Why? Because I just demonstrated in no uncertain terms that one of the move-on crowds leaders is not EXACTLY what she claims to be? You will note that she started this whole business months ago, by untruthfully claiming that Judicial Watch never accomplished anything, by implying that everything Klayman was ever involved in was bogus, by suggesting (and I use that word loosely) that there is nothing to the Brown or Foster accusations, by applying democRAT debating techniques to discussions about the crimes that the Clintons and their minions committed, and by claiming knowledge about matters (such as the facts behind Ron Brown's death) that she clearly does not have.

This thread is about an IRS audit that was begun during Clinton's reign when the IRS was auditing nearly every opponent of Clinton. It is about whether Klayman was unfairly targeted for that reason. It is about why Bush's IRS is continuing that process while ignoring the even clearer misdeeds of Jesse Jackson and his organizations. I am more than willing to discuss the facts in those questions. I don't deny that there are aspects of Klayman's recent activities that are grounds for criticism. I would rather he focus on getting the Clinton era crimes investigated. I don't object if Bush's IRS now audits Klayman if they have reason and as long the same scrutiny is applied to Jackson's organization to show there are no political motivations. But I will not stand by and let this discussion turn into a smear of Klayman (using bogus issues like his lawsuit against his mom) or an attack on the veracity of the important crimes that Judicial Watch helped uncover. Cross that line and expect me to chime in.

Howlin's credibility in attacking Klayman becomes a topic of discussion because she's crossed that line many times. If she's going to lead the charge against Klayman as often happens, then we will be discussing her views about Brown and Filegate. What Howlin doesn't like is that the internet has a memory. She could have prevented this if she had not been so sweeping in her attacks on Klayman and had just admitted that she knew nothing about Brown, Filegate or the other Clinton-related scandals when the subjects were raised. Is it any wonder I began to suspect she was not quite what she was claiming when she wouldn't even answer a simple question about why she believes Ron Brown's death was an accident?

Please stop trying to turn every thread on JW into a referendum about who agrees with you about Ron Brown.

It isn't a matter of "agree"ing with me. It is a question of whether we on this forum are going to deal in facts and the rule of law or engage in the type smear, innuendo and excuses for violating laws that are so prevalent in the type of sources that Howlin cites as her sources. Are we to just stand by as people who basically ignore the facts and the law take over this forum and turn it into a reverse image of DU ... only with Republicans doing the chanting?

I do agreee with you, but I still resent your disruptive tactics.

I'm not the one who has tried to promote lies and disinformation in this discussion. If they confine themselve to the facts, they will never know I'm here.

Your gratuitous personal attacks on Howlin

They are neither gratuitous or personal. They concern her credibility to be leading this attack on Klayman based on the views she has espoused on this forum ... not her looks or religion or marital status or ethnicity or height or anything else. Aren't you at all curious why a supposed conservative would say that Brown wasn't murdered and suggest that all the "gates" were investigated and there was "nothing" to them? Aren't you curious how someone who now claims that she believes every word in Tripp's depositions could suggest there was nothing to Filegate as she recently did? I am and I think others should be too ... especially if she is going after one of the few organizations that actually did something about investigating the democRAT crimes the last 9 years. You do realize, don't you, that there will be democRATS in the Presidency again and they no doubt would like to see the demise of Judicial Watch before then.

366 posted on 05/08/2002 1:16:05 PM PDT by BeAChooser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies]

To: FreedominJesusChrist
"You rabid George W. Bush defenders are about as loony as can be."

And you rabid Klaymanbots are just the very image of sanity?

For example, you say that something isn't true, then come back saying that it is.

BUSH/ASHCROFT REWARDED MIAMI INS DIRECTOR WITH PROMOTION TO REGIONAL DIRECTOR POSITION

That's the headline.

"It is true that Bush and Ashcroft did not actually take part directly in the promotion of this guy..."

Posted by FreedominJesusChrist

"Of course that Judicial Watch headline is telling the truth and I happen to believe that it is very eloquently telling the truth and I praise whoever wrote that!"

Posted by FreedominJesusChrist

So tell me, were you lying then, or are you lying now?

367 posted on 05/08/2002 1:23:33 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies]

To: FreedominJesusChrist
"Rather, you misquote me by cutting and not even pasting my quotes in entirety on this forum."

OK, prove me wrong, put up the entire quote and show me where that makes a difference.

368 posted on 05/08/2002 1:28:36 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Dear Luis,

I would appreciate it if you would not cut and aplice my posts to fit your agenda. If you cut and paste my posts, please quote my words in the entirety that I deserve to be quoted by.

Judicial Watch was not lying in that headline and nor am I for saying so. They were stretching a connection and I have no problem with them doing so. Let this be a warning to the Bush Administration that there are some real creeps working within the INS. Either way, I am sure that the headline grabbed their attention, among other things. As I said before, I have no problem with the headline, and neither I nor anyone in JW is lying. My support for JW has not wavered through your rants.

What has the Bush Administration ever done to help the violated Cuban-Americans down in Miami? The answer to that question simply is nothing, perhaps you should question this fact instead of barking at Judicial Watch and Larry Klayman. If it weren't for Larry Klayman, I doubt that Rick Ramirez's story would have even gotten out. You are criticizing the wrong people here, but then again, I am sure that the Bush Adminstration counts on people like you to do that for them.

369 posted on 05/08/2002 1:33:03 PM PDT by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 367 | View Replies]

To: FreedominJesusChrist
"What has the Bush Administration ever done to help the violated Cuban-Americans down in Miami? The answer to that question simply is nothing, perhaps you should question this fact instead of barking at Judicial Watch and Larry Klayman."

That's what I am supposed to do? Why? Because of my last name?

Tell me exactly what Larry has done to help Cuban-Americans in Miami, other than file a lawsuit (any lawyer can do that) has he won the lawsuit?

No...

"If it weren't for Larry Klayman, I doubt that Rick Ramirez's story would have even gotten out."

The Rick Ramirez story was covered in depth by Miami media long before JW got involved, and Rick's original attorney was on with Bill O'Reilly discussing the details looooong before JW took the case.

BTW, now that Larry and JW are involved in the Ramirez case, you can forget about getting any coverage from FOX.

370 posted on 05/08/2002 1:43:02 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 369 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
"That's what I am supposed to do? Why? Because of my last name?"

One quick look at your profile page and one can already tell that you are concerned about the plight of the Cuban-American community. I logically assume that because of this, you would hold the Bush Administration to a high standard of accountability and expect them to actually do something about the violated civil rights of the Cuban-Americans down in Miami. Perhaps I assume too much on your part.

"Tell me exactly what Larry has done to help Cuban-Americans in Miami, other than file a lawsuit (any lawyer can do that) has he won the lawsuit?"

Larry Klayman and Judicial Watch have sent out numerous anti-Castro press releases, filed suit on behalf of some of the peaceful Cuban-American protesters, called media attention to the now infamous INS memo, and they now represent Rick Ramirez.

"The Rick Ramirez story was covered in depth by Miami media long before JW got involved"

The key to that argument is the Miami media. Notice, no other national newspapers were actually paying close attention to the story. When Klayman released the INS memo to the public, even Reuters carried the story along with video footage from the press conference. You obviously do not like Klayman, but at least Klayman is able to put publicity behind the stories that matter and actually get them into the mainstream news.

"BTW, now that Larry and JW are involved in the Ramirez case, you can forget about getting any coverage from FOX."

And whose fault it that? Obviously, FOX is not as unbiased as it claims to be. Luckily, there are plenty of other news outlets who will cover the story as it progresses.

371 posted on 05/08/2002 1:59:32 PM PDT by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 370 | View Replies]

To: ChaseR
That's nice Advogado, but your forgetting. FR readers worldwide read these threads

Don't flatter yourself. I bet no more than 30 people read these Klayman threads; he's nothing but a blip on the horizon in the big scheme of things. Oh, you'd like to think everybody knows about Klayman, but the vast majority of people don't.

I believe the reason Klayman is fighting the audit is so nobody can see just how few people give to JW, showing just how irrelevant he is.

372 posted on 05/08/2002 2:23:54 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: FreedominJesusChrist
Hey Rebeckie........Who do you think killed Ron Brown? Was it Bill Clinton?

Are you bothered that some people use your threads as sort of a free-for-all dump spot for any topic that obsesses them? Just curious?????

373 posted on 05/08/2002 2:33:40 PM PDT by Southflanknorthpawsis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 371 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
For somoen who's bitching about their quotes being produced in their entirety, it's amazing that you would leave out a significant portion of my quote.

The Rick Ramirez story was covered in depth by Miami media long before JW got involved, and Rick's original attorney was on with Bill O'Reilly discussing the details looooong before JW took the case.

Did you miss the part about O'Reilly?

BTW, since Larry has taken the case, what national outlets have carried the story?

374 posted on 05/08/2002 2:42:09 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 370 | View Replies]

To: BeAChooser
I've said my piece. I held back as long as I could. If I were the forum arbitrator (which I am not), I would decree that no one on a JW thread say that JW NEVER did anything, and just focus on the issue under discussion and JW's recent activities. Otherwise, I would decree that BeAChooser will have the right to come in and say, "Well, you know, they did do this, and that, and ..."

And then the vast number of Freepers will groan and "move on" to anther thread.
375 posted on 05/08/2002 2:48:41 PM PDT by Iwo Jima
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 366 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
"I believe the reason Klayman is fighting the audit is so nobody can see just how few people give to JW, showing just how irrelevant he is."

Even you know that is not true Howlin.

376 posted on 05/08/2002 2:50:07 PM PDT by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 372 | View Replies]

To: Iwo Jima, BeAChooser, goldilucky, ChaseR, Fred Mertz, christine11, palo verde, reformjoy, timesta
Ron Brown's death is relevant to the discussion at hand. His death concerns the fact that the Bush Administration has chosen to move on from serious errosions of our Justice System--the Clinton crimes, of which this audit is just one.
377 posted on 05/08/2002 2:52:54 PM PDT by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 375 | View Replies]

To: FreedominJesusChrist
One more time, Rebeckie. Please answer or be considered dodging the obvious.

DO YOU BELIEVE BILL CLINTON KILLED RON BROWN? YES OR NO?????????

378 posted on 05/08/2002 2:57:46 PM PDT by Southflanknorthpawsis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 377 | View Replies]

To: Southflanknorthpawsis
I believe that Clinton hired a person or people to kill Ron Brown.
379 posted on 05/08/2002 2:58:59 PM PDT by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: BeAChooser
I have asked you three times to produce what YOU SAID I said, and you are unable to do so.

Just like Howlin, your actions speak louder than your EXACT words, Amelia. Why are you afraid to answer a simple question about whether you believe Brown was murdered or not?

Unfortunately, on the forum, there are no "actions", just EXACT words.

I've asked you at least four times to show where I said what you said I said. Apparently I said it in your imagination?

You can't prove it, and you don't seem willing to apologize for lying about me.

I am tired of your name-calling.

I am tired of you assuming I said things that I never said.

I am tired of you saying what my beliefs are, when you have no clue what they are.

In short, I am tired of your lies, distortions, smears, and gratuitous insults. Please go away, and do not post to me or about me any more.

380 posted on 05/08/2002 3:03:09 PM PDT by Amelia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360361-380381-400 ... 641-655 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