Posted on 04/22/2002 10:00:48 PM PDT by Kay Soze
IRS Official to Judicial Watch: Clinton Enemies Were Audited Carl Limbacher, NewsMax.com
Tuesday, April 23, 2002
An official with the Internal Revenue Service has admitted that legal opponents of former President Bill Clinton were singled out for tax audits, according to court documents made public this week. "What do you expect when you sue the president?" senior IRS official Paul Breslan told Judicial Watch, the Washington-based legal watchdog group that had filed 50-plus legal actions against the Clinton administration and subsequently found itself in the IRS's cross hairs.
Breslan's quote is cited in Judicial Watch's complaint against the tax agency, based on a host of what look to be politically inspired audits that make the worst abuses of the Nixon administration appear puny by comparison.
"There were literally six witnesses in the room when Breslan told us we should have expected an audit," Judicial Watch Chairman Larry Klayman revealed to NewsMax.com. "Four of them were lawyers."
The legal group became the target of an IRS audit in 1998, just four days after it filed an independent impeachment report against Clinton, based on years of investigation into everything from Chinagate to the Paula Jones case.
But Judicial Watch wasn't alone. Witnesses bearing damaging testimony against the president were a favorite target of the Clinton IRS. Those singled out for audits include:
Leak
The Jones case, which would eventually lead to Clinton's impeachment, was of particular interest to the IRS, which apparently leaked her confidential tax returns to the late New York Daily News reporter Lars Erik Nelson.
In a September 1997 column Nelson revealed details from Jones' filing to bolster claims that she was profiting from her sexual harassment lawsuit against Clinton.
In a subsequent interview with NewsMax.com's Carl Limbacher (then with the Washington Weekly), Nelson insisted somewhat implausibly that a "friend" of Jones had come across her tax return during a visit to her home and decided to go public with the secrets.
Quite an Enemies List
As the Judicial Watch complaint notes, the Clinton IRS also went after organizations and even media companies it perceived as politically hostile, including:
The National Rifle Association, The Heritage Foundation, The National Review, The American Spectator, Freedom Alliance, National Center for Public Policy Research, American Policy Center, American Cause, Citizens Against Government Waste, Citizens for Honest Government, Progress and Freedom Foundation, Concerned Women for America and the San Diego Chapter of Christian Coalition.
Fox News Channel analyst Bill O'Reilly, a frequent critic of Bill and Hillary Clinton, has also pointed out how the IRS has repeatedly audited him.
The political nature of the Judicial Watch's audit seems particularly blatant.
"The IRS asked for our political affiliations in the first notice of audit," Klayman told NewsMax.
When he questioned why auditors wanted to know about the group's political ties, an IRS district director said the information had been deemed "relevant."
Worse still, each time Judicial Watch seemed to make legal headway against the White House, the IRS ratcheted up the pressure.
"When we would accomplish something big, like the criminal finding by Judge Royce Lamberth against Clinton in the Kathleen Willey Privacy Act case, our lawyers would get a call saying, 'We just want you to know that Judicial Watch is still on the IRS's radar screen,'" Klayman said.
"The same thing happened when we revealed the White House e-mail scandal," he added.
Shockingly, the IRS's intimidation tactics continue into the Bush administration, which has failed to sack Clinton's IRS Commissioner Charles Rosotti.
After Judicial Watch won the release of thousands of pages of documents from Vice President Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force last month, a badge-wearing IRS agent showed up at the group's offices.
A personal meeting between Klayman and Bush Justice Department Criminal Division chief Michael Chertoff, who led the Senate investigation into the Clintons' Whitewater abuses, failed to yield any interest in pursuing IRS abuses, which now threaten to tarnish the Bush administration.
When noted columnist Robert Novak inquired of the Justice Department about Judicial Watch's IRS complaint, he was told by a department official, "I don't know what we are going to do with this Klayman."
"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," Klayman said. "By leaving Charles Rossotti as IRS commissioner, Bush obviously is sending a signal that political audits are fine with him."
I'm no legal expert, but I think you might me dabbling in slander here, young lady. Unless you have evidence to PROVE this allegation, you better be careful.
You should not make such statements and jeopardize this forum. This is not a joke.
Don't make me laugh. I barely acknowledge that you exist; let alone wait for you to give me my "turn".
Nice try........
No, you are no legal expert. It is not slander, or seditious libel for that matter, for me to believe that he was murdered by Clinton operatives. It would be an entirely different story however, for me to publically announce or publish a story saying that Clinton had his people murder Brown without any evidence of some sort.
Nor are you, sweetie. It has been told that statements made here have prompted visits by those in charge of protecting the former presidents.
Like him or not, Clinton is a former president. Be careful !!!!!
I believe that, especially given some of the idiots on this forum. There is nothing, absolutely nothing wrong with me saying that I believe Clinton had his operatives murder Ron Brown. By saying this, I am not representing clear and present danger, I am not using fighting words, nor am I libeling anyone.
I am not a legal expert, but I have had a few classes in law enough to know that what I just said is perfectly fine!
That's all about to change...sit back, pull up a chair - and be patient. Bttt
Hysterical...simply hysterical...rofl.
Let's all hurry -to chew our nails...too much, rofl.
Sorry, but there are actions on this forum all the time. You comment on one item but not another. That's an action. If nothing else, it illustrates how you prioritize the importance of those two items. There is also intent. Context matters (like writing that people lie all the time in response to a list of Filegate related depositions and their content). Hiding behind EXACT words is Clinton's approach to dealing with truth and viewpoints.
Why are you afraid to answer a simple question about whether you believe Brown was murdered or not?
If you believe he was murdered, then why are you so seemingly friendly with someone who says he was notand won't say how she came to that conclusion?
If you don't believe he was murdered then why don't you do what Howlin has not done ... provide a credible reason for that belief. I'm sure most Freepers would be interested and perhaps you can convince me with your facts and logic. I hold those two things dear.
Why are so seemingly friendly with someone who says she believes every word of Tripp's deposition in Filegate but also says that "gate" and others were investigated and found to be about "nothing"? Which is it? Do you believe Tripp or do you believe Filegate was investigated and found to be about "nothing"? I'm sure most Freepers would be very interested in your answer since it goes to your motive in attacking Klayman. Tell me that you believe Tripp and Bush should reopen the case, and I'll have nothing to say about your call for a Klayman audit ... as long as you don't pretend there's no possibility of political motivations being the reason for it.
I'm just saying that you are the company you keep ... isn't that the expression?
Ain't no probably about it...
That goes for me, too. Stop posting about me; you don't have to worry about me posting to you. I'm not going to.
Now, if you post to either of us again, you're just showing that this IS personal with you.
You are not laughing but I am ... as I watch you and the rest of the move-on'ers squirm every which way to avoid answering that simple question ... as well as my questions about whose responsibility is it to investigate the crimes of the last administration and why that isn't happening.
RUNNNNING ... that's how democRATS deal with uncomfortable facts like those surrounding Ron Brown's death ... isn't it?
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.