IRS Official to Judicial Watch: Clinton Enemies Were Audited

Newsmax ^ | April 23,2002 | Carl Limbacher

[FreedominJesusChrist]

First of all, I do not take dictionary definitions very seriously--they show a lack of creativity on one's part. Second of all, I said before that I am not a beacon of Olympian Objectivity when it comes to Judicial Watch. Third of all, I may show favoritism towards them, but it is only because I appreciate their diligence and hard work. Fourth of all, I have no self-interest in Judicial Watch, so I don't know what you are talking about there; I do not even want to work for them when I get out of school, so my defense of them is not for extra brownie points or anything like that.

Howlin, my point is that the same standard should be applied to you. You have let your intense personal distaste for Klayman cloud your ability to see the good he has done and is currently doing.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

Sounds like a good plan to me : )

[ChaseR]

Iwo, ck your mail - thanks.

[Mmmike]

Do you guys question whether that IRS official actually said, "Well, you sued the President, what do you expect," or do you simply attribute no significance to it?

Regardless of that, Do you deny there is a pattern of IRS harassment of conservative groups over the last decade?

[Howlin]

"Well, you sued the President, what do you expect," or do you simply attribute no significance to it?

Those are Larry's words; I'll wait and see what the official transcript says -- the one with the sworn testimony in it.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

They probably will not deny this, but they certainly make an exception for Judicial Watch. They have let their personal distaste for Judicial Watch and Larry Klayman cloud their ability to see the whole picture, especially in this situation.

[goldilucky]

Thanks for the ping. Outrageous! I think it's great that JW is nailing those bastards.

[goldilucky]

morning bump

[Amelia]

First of all, I do not take dictionary definitions very seriously--they show a lack of creativity on one's part.

Sort of reminds one of "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is..."

[Robert A Cook PE]

"Isn’t this illegal? If it is, why isn’t someone in jail?

Of COURSE it is illegal!

Why isn't some one in jail?

Answer: Hillary ran the White House, Reno ran the Justice Dept .... AND THE NY TIMES IGNORED THEIR CRIMES.

[BeAChooser]

Looks to me like it was just a diversion

What do you think I have been trying to tell you?

All you are telling me is that you argue like a democRAT and fear the Ron Brown case like all the rest of the move-on'ers. Thanks for making my case.

[Amelia]

keep it civil or the thread gets pulled.

Actually I went to bed right after posting #43, and was never planning to be uncivil in any case. However, since an essentially similar thread went over 2000 posts before being locked last week, it appeared that all pertinent points had already been made on the subject.

[BeAChooser]

I'll wait and see what the official transcript says -- the one with the sworn testimony in it.

Gee, Howlin, didn't you tell me that people lie all the time in sworn testimony? Isn't that what you said when you were trying to dismiss the sworn testimony of Linda Tripp, Kathleen Janoski and all the others who were deposed in such matters as Chinagate, Filegate, Emailgate and the death of Ron Brown ... you know, those scandals that you recently said were investigated and found to be about "NOTHING"?

[FreedominJesusChrist]

*Yawn*

[BeAChooser]

Sort of reminds one of "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is..."

I am more curious about your and Howlin's definitions of MURDER and MASS MURDER. They sound very ... well ... Clintonesque.

[BeAChooser]

Answer: Hillary ran the White House, Reno ran the Justice Dept .... AND THE NY TIMES IGNORED THEIR CRIMES.

Answer 2: Bush runs the White House, Ashcroft runs the Justice Dept ... and the NY Times is ignoring the fact that Bush and Ashcroft are simply moving on with regards to all the serious crimes committed by Clinton and his friends. At least the NY Times is consistent.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

Many pertinent points had been made, but not nearly enough it seems, because you and Howlin still believe that there is nothing wrong with this politically motivated IRS audit.

[deport]

Many pertinent points ..

The pertinent points won't have a thing to do with the price of eggs in China nor the actually IRS audit of the 'eWW'..... I'm sure he is as clean as the wind driven snow.... and we'll know just as soon as he gets on with the audit.

Just think he could have saved his donor many dollars by completing this audit back in 1998 when it was first requested. Instead he's strung it out and gotten deeper each year. Now he's begging for more money to spend to fight it in his estimate of $150,000 per month.

Gosh had he provided the info in 1998 he could be going about the business of ferreting out gov't corruption and taking extra cruises... maybe even filing a few more suits in the world court.... Instead he now has to spend the donors money to to do something he should have done over 3 yrs ago...

Come clean 'eWW'

• Go Audit Go
• Where dem bones, come see the sun....

[ned]

Why must you steal portions of my suicide theory and then use the stolen portions to criticize it? It's my theory, not yours!

Make up your own theory, please!

[ned]

And please, no fighting today. My nerves just can't take it anymore! Please!