|This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies.|
Skip to comments.JUDICIAL WATCH FIGHTS CLINTON IRS ATTEMPTED AUDIT
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 Watchs 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 Clintons impeachment for misuse of the IRS, was officially made part of the Congressional record. The IRSs 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 Watchs 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 IRSs 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 Watchs 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 Watchs 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.
Given Judicial Watch's hyperactive legal machinations against the Bush administration, I don't expect Aschcroft to lift a finger.
And, I'm glad he's not. I'd like to see some of those financials myself.
I believe that a financial audit of Judicial Watch has been in order for a very long time. That it comes from the IRS is juicy, indeed.
Larry's running a political organization. Any investigation of it will be met with cries of "politics."
I do not believe that Judicial Watch is spouting some conspiracy theory here, even the National Review complained that they were audited unfairly because of political reasons during the Clinton era.
It's an audit. People and businesses get audited for lots of reasons.
Larry's been out of the news for a week or so; this must an attempt to gin up some dudgeon among his sap followers (like you).
You haven't changed a bit, Rebeckie.
As for your other comment, of course I haven't changed a bit. I am in college now and long past that adolescent stage in life and if you insist on calling me a name, just call me Beckie.
Clinton's gone. Has been for over a year. It's an audit. People and businesses get audited for lots of reasons.
Tell it to Judicial Watch, Joe Farah's Western Journalism Center, Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, Katherine Prudhomme, Juanita Broaddrick, etc.
I cant understand how you, Bush, or Ashcroft would not support Judicial Watchs contention that these audits were politically motivated.
People always yell and scream when Judicial Watch cannot rack up numerous court wins, but they fail to hold the Justice Department to the same impossible standard that they hold to Judicial Watch.
I won't be surprised if JW gets pursued by the Bush administration's IRS gestapo.
You are absolutely correct, God Bless the staff of Judicial Watch and Larry Klayman.
Agreed. It's incredible to see posters actually gleeful that the Bush Administration is no Different than the Clinton Admin. WRT using the IRS as THEIR tool for intimidation and harrassment.
Does anyone remember these? I can't seem to recall them off the top of my head.
He probably can't list them now because funds are a little tight, sounds like it's time for a fundraising letter.
During the conversation O'Reilly tried to get this lawyer to admit that FRAUD!!!was involved. He also noted that the IRS was acting quite timidly with regards to this woman while he, (O'Reilly), had been audited three times during the Clinton Administration. O'Reilly implied that those audits were politically motivated. I believe!!
It's not your place to tell people whether or not they can post on threads. Even yours.
I can hardly wait to read your rationalizations about why Klayman has been hiding his financial statements. It should be interesting.
Let's ignore JW for a moment and address what Novak writes.
The Justice Department's stonewall fortifies considerations of privacy and lack of congressional interest in protecting the IRS from scrutiny. The IRS never has explained its intrusion during the Clinton administration's first year when the new president reshaped the White House travel office. Two days after White House sources suggested kickbacks were paid to travel office functionaries from charter airlines, a charter used by the White House--Ultrair of Nashville, Tenn.--was visited by IRS agents for an unannounced audit.
In 1996, the conservative (and anti-Clinton) Western Journalism Center in Los Angeles was hit by an IRS audit from which it never fully recovered. Judicial Watch filed a complaint in behalf of the WJC on May 13, 1998, and the IRS audit of Klayman's organization was launched Oct. 9, 1998. Also swiftly visited with audits were Clinton accusers Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones and Gennifer Flowers, former travel office chief Billy Dale, and even Katherine Prudhomme, who once bothered Vice President Al Gore by asking about Broaddrick--plus assorted conservative organizations.
Your absence on the Novak thread is conspicous....or will you also criticize him and avoid the larger issue?
There seems to be some information missing there, doesn't it? Likes names. Seems like if that was true, he'd print who said it.
However, I agree with you about politically motivated audits; Western Case is a prime example, IMO.
Politics aside, I still think JW should publish their BofD and who donates to them.
Didn't see it and will read it later.
Not required, but appreciated, as you are one of the more rational and temperate Bush defenders.
Sorry about the AC. I don't disagree with you regarding JW.
That being said, I do trust Michael Chertoff.
The four directors and their salaries per the 2000 form 990 filing.....
Larry E Klayman.....$250,000+
Paul J Orfandes...... $155,214+
Thomas Fitton.... $128,646+
John Marnua..... $0.....
Heck it used to be that Judicial Watch even paid his law firm Klayman and Associates over $300,000 for rent and supplies, etc. Ethics where art thou..... Now it's reversed and Klayman and Associates is paying "fair value" to JW for the same....
Heck if they are above board and nothing wrong then an audit shouldn't be feared.... it would only boast their claim of being the "eWW"....
The IRS isn't even a Constitutionally valid entity.
Howlin, if Klayman is hiding his financial statements, then I would like you to show me the law that requires him to publish this information publically.
I'd also like to know how it is that it only costs him less than two million dollars to keep "all" these lawsuits going, and why he doesn't spend the OTHER twenty-three million he gets on lawsuits; perhaps he'd win some then. Most of us that you call Klayman bashers would shut up if he could justify that that money isn't going to a coporation he or somebody he knows runs and is legit.
Of course, you do realize, don't you, that EVERYBODY that gets audited thinks it's political.