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."
If your going to make a statement like this, be sure to post the portion of my post you are referring to so we can make "some" sense of it.
But you have IMPLIED on a number of occasions that Klayman's depositions are filled with lies. You have stated that you don't believe Ron Brown was murdered ... which obviously means you don't think there is a bullet in his head or that any of the nefarious events alleged to have occurred at AFIP during and after Brown's body was examined did in fact occur. So again, I ask you ... do you know who Janowski is and what she alleged under oath? ... because your views seem to IMPLY that you think she is a liar.
PROVE IT, APLOGIZE, AND/OR GO AWAY.
It will only be through prayer, dedication, and utter vigilance, that all the Clinton crimes will one day be exposed to the American people. Remember, we always will have a chance to change history and the way it is written in the history books that our children will read in school. One day, Bill Clinton's only legacy will be his crimes and his only existance, the shutter of our remembrance.
Just like Howlin, your actions speak louder than your EXACT words, Amelia. Why are you afraid to answer a simple question about whether you believe Brown was murdered or not?
You have produced ample evidence that you are following me (and others) from thread to thread, carrying arguments from thread to thread in clear violation of forum rules, bringing up unrelated topics in each thread, and accusing me (and others) of saying things we've never said.
I'm not following anyone. You come to Klayman threads on your own accord. You can demand a IRS audit or question Klayman's finances all you want and I'll likely have nothing to say about that. But suggest that he never accomplished anything or that there is no political motivation in this audit and you are going to get challenged, like it or not. Appear friendly with Howlin and others who (YES INDEED) have demonstrably lied about their views about Brown's death or the facts in the Brown matter, and your credibility is going to be challenged. Why are you afraid to answer a simple question about whether you believe Brown was murdered or not?
You have also been calling other posters LIAR and other names.
And in each case I have backed up my accusation. You want to join VA Advogado in claiming Brown was autopsied? Yes or no? You want to explain how Howlin can believe Brown wasn't murdered yet not believe that Janowski is a liar? You want to explain how Howlin can say that Filegate was investigated and found to be about "nothing" yet not believe Tripp is a liar? You want to explain how out of the many audits that were instigated against opponents of Clinton, Klayman's is the only one with any merit? Why are you afraid to answer a simple question about whether you believe Brown was murdered or not?
BAC is, plain and simple, a damend liar.
My point is that there was no need for Klayman is ever cooperate with this audit, because it was politically motivated in the first place. Why should he give in to this bigotry? I would be upset if he did, because I know that he is a fighter and not willing to give the IRS an inch for their deceptive demagoguery.
But why did you say it in response to my list of items concerning Filegate ... the chief items being the depositions of Linda Tripp alleging that crimes occurred. How can you claim that Filegate was investigated and about "nothing" if you believe Tripp? You can't have it both ways, Howlin.
And how can you claim that Ron Brown was not murdered unless you are calling Janowski a liar? You do know who she is, don't you?
Now it has moved on to calling Amelia in favor of mass murder. It is the kind of people who defend Larry Klayman.
If that is the kind of people you like to associate with, fine and dandy. You belittle any credibility you have left.
And in case you're too dense to see, BAC doesn't NEED any antagonizing to drag out those tired and worn macros filled with lies, distortions and inneundos. It moves from thread to thread, trying to work its theory into any converstion. Why? Because that is its WHOLE LIFE.
I am NOT on trial here; it is NOT my duty to explain remarks I never made. DUH.
You obviously are the most obtuse person on the internet. You made statements that those depositions were FACT; I pointed out to you that they are NOT EVIDENCE until they are presented in a court setting and PROVEN under cross examination. I give you Bill Clinton -- AGAIN -- as an example.
You are a liar.
You are the one hanging out with demonstrable liars, Howlin.
You are the one who can't seem to get your FACTS straight where Ron Brown is concerned.
You are the one now parsing words like Clinton to escape the obvious conclusion that you don't believe Tripp or Janowski.
And, by the way, I'm a "he" ... not an "it" ... and what I've posted about Ron Brown is anything but "speculation".
Howlin: I believe every word she said; I have even sent her money.
Registered, now ask her how she can believe every word Tripp said yet claim Filegate was investigated and about "nothing". Both statements can't be true since Tripp herself said that Filegate wasn't properly investigated and was far from "nothing".
I don't get what all the fuss is about.
You see, the "fuss" is that Howlin is trapped. She maintains her "conservative" credentials by going after Bill and Hillary's looks and making snide remarks about Bill's "legacy", but when it comes to the crimes that those two committed, not only IMPLIES that we should move-on but says that they were investigated and found to be about nothing. My belief is that she is using her "conservative" cover to make sure that matters like the death of Brown and Foster never get properly investigated. Why else would she say that those who claim Brown and Foster were murdered give the GOP a bad name? Why else would she show more interest in getting Klayman than the fact that Riady didn't get the refund the Clinton administration and DNC claimed he did?
I am the one hanging out with people YOU say are proven liars, which is one of the best recommendations for friendship I have ever seen.
Sure whatever you say Howlin/
"If that is the kind of people you like to associate with, fine and dandy. You belittle any credibility you have left."
I have no problem with associating myself with either BeAChooser or ChaseR; these two are truly fine American patriots. Plus, you never considered me to have any credibility in the first place, so I guess that I have nothing to lose when it comes to you anyway.
"And in case you're too dense to see, BAC doesn't NEED any antagonizing to drag out those tired and worn macros filled with lies, distortions and inneundos. It moves from thread to thread, trying to work its theory into any converstion. Why? Because that is its WHOLE LIFE."
You antagonize BeAChooser just by referring to him as at "it."
"I am NOT on trial here; it is NOT my duty to explain remarks I never made. DUH."
No, you are not on trial, but you are posting on a public forum, which gives anyone the right to reply to your posts. And you are correct in saying that you don't have to respond to BeAChooser if you wish not to, but it would make you appear to be an honest debater at least.
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.