| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
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 Watch’s 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 Clinton’s impeachment for misuse of the IRS, was officially made part of the Congressional record. The IRS’s 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 Watch’s 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 IRS’s “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 Watch’s 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 Watch’s 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.
LOL.... glad a bought an extra roll recently as the supply is being used up rapidly.... Look for price escalations to follow soon. Heck it may just be a better investment than opec oil or the 'ethical Washington Watchdog's' donor list....
On with the audit and lets get this behind us as I'm sure there isn't a thing to hide or worry about. Ethicls being what they are with the 'eww' you know all is okay and above board. There are bigger fish to fry like the crimes committed by the current and previous administrations that need to be persued. And never forget that the Ron Brown death must be investigated but first we've got to get this audit mess behind us.......
GO AUDIT GO
Yes, "intent" never seems to matter to defenders of Clinton or Howlin's friends ... or is it Howlin I'd addressing? If not then I'm sorry ... it's just that the views of you two seem so ... well ... "indistinguishable".
No, Howlin is Howlin...Southflanknorthpawsis and goldilucky are the same poster.
Otherwise, how did goldilucky know how to reply to South's post #906, in post #904, before #906 had even been posted?
If you don't believe me, see posts #915, 1064, and 1153.
LOL... Well a lot of articulation going on here that's for sure... but clearly now that's another matter.. Some think they have articulated clearly but then they keep repeating the same articulations over and over and from thread to thread. Heck that's okay because it helps spread the word, you know just like a good sandwich spread, easy and smooth. I like to keep reminding them of some things myself. You know like the $25,000,000+ of dollars donated in 2000 and a $250,000+ salary. Maybe those things have gotten the IRS attention who knows. Something sure did it seems.
But not to worry as the 'ethical Washington Watchdog' has nothing to hide so the quicker he gets this behind him he can go onto other more important unethical things of the current and previous administrations. Gosh those fish just keep getting bigger and bigger. Who knows maybe he can land one while on the 'cruise'. Or maybe we can begin a little digging at the Ron Brown site.....
Why? You just told us that you'd "trust" Bush if he decided not to investigate or prosecute such a crime and you certainly haven't presented anything to convince us that no murder took place or that Bush is indeed investigating or prosecuting this possible crime. Are you just going to ignore the statements of all the expert pathologists in the matter ... just like you say you are going to ignore me? Well some would call that sticking your head in the sand. Or is it "see no evil ... hear no evil ..."?
Is that about it?
No ...
It is claiming you know about the Ron Brown matter when you don't which makes one a liar. It is claiming you have sources that convince you Brown wasn't murdered then not being able to name even one of those sources that makes you a liar. It is telling us that the source is Ken Starr when Ken Starr was never involved in the Brown case that makes one a liar. And it is claiming to have witnessed me being put under "the table" in a discussion about Brown with Howlin and not being able to even cite one URL or quote one exchange where that happened that makes you a liar.
Now is the concept sufficiently clear?
There is nothing wrong with Larry Klayman making $250,000 a year. I get the distinct impression that he is a very hard worker and firmly believes in what he is fighting for--government accountability for their actions, this includes both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.
Sort of like you and Bozo the Clown, huh?
Have you ever had a date or a social life?
Impossible, he died. You need to keep up with current events. You can visit Bozo here.
No, I'm very happy with my marriage. But if I was looking, I wouldn't come near you. You know.......my being heterosexual and all.
I know you aren't particularly bright, but you can do better than that. Can't you???????
Pot, meet kettle.
You, Registered, of all people, should not raise an issue like that.
;-)
Would you like to discuss Ron Brown? Care to explain Howlin's distortions about the facts in the case and her lie that she knows the facts? Care to explain why she TWICE said Ken Starr was her source for believing that Brown wasn't murdered? Perhaps you know who the "others" she mentioned are? Go ahead ... try to prove me a nitwit ... or RUN just like Howlin does ... just like ALL you move-on'ers do from the Ron Brown case.
The only question we have now is whether you move-on'ers and friends of Howlin are democRATS or a new breed of Republican that are worse than democRATS. You ask, how could a Republican be worse than a democRAT? Well with a democRAT you know where you stand. He (or she as the case may be) calls you "repugnant" to your face. And you know they won't defend the constitution or the laws. With the NEW Republicans, though, they say they will defend both, then it appears, turn around and ignore serious crimes that threaten to destroy the election system, privacy rights and other rights established by the constitution.
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.