Skip to comments.IRS Official to Judicial Watch: Clinton Enemies Were Audited
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:
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."
You had your chance.
Now, who would be the pro at identifying that?
See how chummy Howlin is with a PROVEN LIAR? She's such a good judge of character. And what a coincidence that Howlin was the ONLY Freeper to step forward and imply that VA Advogado might be right about there being an autopsy of Brown's body. That either proves her own DISHONESTY about the Brown case or her ignorance on the subject. Either way, it makes one wonder about her motives in so vehemently going after Klayman but not the Clinton-related crimes or Bush's inaction with regards to those crimes.
I guess she'd rather chum with VA Advogado then address my response in post #190 to her demand that I explain why I say she believes Tripp is a liar.
Are you and Howlin clones? Or just using the same talking points and suggested debating tactics booklet? Why do you seem so afraid to answer my simple question about whether you believe Brown was murdered or not? And, by the way, THAT tells us your definition of murder and mass murder.
See post #190.
Still waiting for the source of your belief that Ron Brown was not murdered. Tap......tap........tap.
Still waiting to hear why you are friendly with the PROVEN LIAR, VA Advogado. Tap.......tap........tap.
Still waiting for you to explain why you believe the matters of Chinagate, Filegate and Emailgate were properly investigated. Tap......tap........tap.
See post #190.
Howlin certain DOES have to put up or shut up about claiming "others" convinced her that Ron Brown wasn't murdered.
Just so you don't deny we had that conversation. Just so you don't deny that you recently said that Chinagate, Filegate, etc were investigated and found to be about "nothing". As long as were in agreement on those two items, I'm content to let my response in #190 stand.
And note, folks, that Howlin STILL doesn't say that she believes Tripp ... only that she never called her "a liar". How Clintonesque!
And note, folks, Howlin STILL hasn't told us who or what convinced her that Brown wasn't murdered. Wonder why?
You do know who Janowski is, don't you?
Can't remember for sure Rebeckie? Can't remember something that just happened a couple of days ago? Something that a link was provided to you on this very thread?
Are you practicing to join JW? You play as fast and lose with the truth as Larry does.
That post that you can't remember, you know, my "unauditable garbage" was about the fact that you yourself admitted that Larry lies.
In case you forgot, I have it for you below.
BTW, you really need to show a little forum maturity and flag those people who you talk about on a post.
Thats Larrys press release headline.
"It is true that Bush and Ashcroft did not actually take part directly in the promotion of this guy..."
posted by FreedominJesusChrist.
Larry says that Bush/Ashcroft did this, you say that they didn't.
Either Larry is lying, or you are.
I never stated that Larry was lying in this particular headline. It is true that the headline could have been clarified a little better, but it is not an outright lie. I have a lot of respect for Larry Klayman and Judicial Watch and I find it quite ironic that you would rather spend time calling Klayman a liar, rather than criticizing the current Administration who is currently doing nothing all the time, about the violated civil rights of the Cuban Americans down in Miami.
Larry says Bush and Ashcroft did this, you keep saying that they didn't, but that Larry isn't lying.
Which is it?
BTW, Larry ain't doing anything about those violated civil rights himself.
"It is true that Bush and Ashcroft did not actually take part directly in the promotion of this guy, but it is their duty to appoint competent people in positions of power. Obviously this was not the case."
Good!!! I am glad that you are so intent on making an absolute ass out of yourself. It's time for you to go down Rebeckie.
This man's promotion took effect less than two months after Ashcroft took office, and less than six after Bush was sworn in. His cabinet wasn't seated yet.
The promotion, and all the paperwork that goes with it, were finalized long before even Bush took office.
Or do you think that someone just knocked on this guy's door one day and said "guess what? You're moving to Texas!!!"
Grow up Rebeckie.
As for the thing about appointing competent people, let's go back to your statement: "It is true that the headline could have been clarified a little better, but it is not an outright lie."
WHY DOESN'T LARRY HIRE COMPETENT PEOPLE WHO CAN WRITE A FRIGGIN' HEADLINE WITHOUT LYING?
BTW, I've been meaning to tell you that I find it repulsive, and insulting to true Christians everywhere that you trivialize Our Lord's name by using it as a internet monicker.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Like I said before, I do not take your two bit insults and character assassinations very seriously Luis.
Perjury and illegal side deals with Chernomyrdin don't seem to count. Hillary's theft of WH goods are ok. They are not just fascist white trash, but criminals, so far above the law.
Hmmm...sounds like you have put a lot of thought into this one. Organized the entire coupe yet?
Posted by FreedominJesusChrist
Posted by FreedominJesusChrist
It's OK, it isn't an OUTRIGHT lie...and it's OK for JW to tell little lies...is that what you're saying here?
P.S. What part of not taking the Lord's name in vain do you not understand?
Have you figured out yet that's whjy some posters refer to you by any name other than your handle?
Really honey, you are starting to worry me with your high blood pressure and all.
But in all seriousness, most people call me by my old screename because they know it annoys me. And as for my faith and personal walk with Christ, I will let God be the judge of that and not you.
They're still right there in front of you.
Is it OK for that headline to not tell the truth?
Stretching a connection? Not an outright lie?
Quit telling me what it isn't and tell me what it is!
Is the headline the truth?
I am not interested in your editing skills or your grammatical proficiency.
Is the headline the truth?
Well, it isn't an outright misquote, is it?
I'm just "stretching" the truth...it's OK for Larry, isn't it?
Well, I am completely aware that I was sort of dodging your question, but for a darn good reason. Of course that Judicial Watch headline is telling the truth and I happen to believe that it is very eloquently telling the truth and I praise whoever wrote that! Whoever wrote that headline is the greatest, in my humble opinion. What a way to catch people's attention.
I am waiting for the melodramatic music to come on and then for you to break out into song and dance.
You posted what I said; the other conclusions are from your obsessed mind.
You are a dishonest poster. I've asked you at least five times to either produce the post of mine where I said she was a liar, or stop telling people I said it.
You have yet to do so; now it's time for you to admit you're not telling the truth, and stop posting that about me.
Produce it, or stop this dishonesty.
YOU: You do know who Janowski is, don't you?
There you go again, avoiding my statement. I have NEVER discussed Janowski with you or anybody else, nor have I ever typed ANYTHING about Janowski, including her name. Produce it, or stop distorting.
You need to stop posting that.
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.