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

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."


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abuseofpower; clinton; clintonhaters; clintonscandals; democrats; irs; taxreform
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 641-655 next last
To: Howlin
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.

141 posted on 05/07/2002 9:55:48 AM PDT by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: pepsionice
Sounds like a good plan to me : )
142 posted on 05/07/2002 9:56:55 AM PDT by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Iwo Jima
Iwo, ck your mail - thanks.
143 posted on 05/07/2002 10:38:12 AM PDT by ChaseR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Howlin; deport
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?

144 posted on 05/07/2002 10:45:28 AM PDT by Mmmike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Mmmike
"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.

145 posted on 05/07/2002 10:48:55 AM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Mmmike
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.
146 posted on 05/07/2002 11:02:30 AM PDT by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: ChaseR
Thanks for the ping. Outrageous! I think it's great that JW is nailing those bastards.
147 posted on 05/07/2002 12:46:34 PM PDT by goldilucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: FreedominJesusChrist
morning bump
148 posted on 05/07/2002 12:48:16 PM PDT by goldilucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: FreedominJesusChrist; Howlin
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..."

149 posted on 05/07/2002 2:12:59 PM PDT by Amelia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: kapn kuek
"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.

150 posted on 05/07/2002 2:50:58 PM PDT by Robert A. Cook, PE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ned
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.

151 posted on 05/07/2002 3:11:09 PM PDT by BeAChooser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator
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.

152 posted on 05/07/2002 3:12:09 PM PDT by Amelia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
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"?

153 posted on 05/07/2002 3:16:03 PM PDT by BeAChooser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Amelia
*Yawn*
154 posted on 05/07/2002 3:19:15 PM PDT by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Amelia, Howlin
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.

155 posted on 05/07/2002 3:25:17 PM PDT by BeAChooser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE
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.

156 posted on 05/07/2002 3:30:37 PM PDT by BeAChooser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Amelia, Howlin, deport
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.
157 posted on 05/07/2002 3:32:16 PM PDT by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: FreedominJesusChrist

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'


158 posted on 05/07/2002 3:43:20 PM PDT by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: BeAChooser
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!

159 posted on 05/07/2002 4:04:50 PM PDT by ned
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: All
And please, no fighting today. My nerves just can't take it anymore! Please!
160 posted on 05/07/2002 4:06:55 PM PDT by ned
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 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