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
click here to read article
I'm still waiting for your reply on this?? How could my providing bumps- correlate to time outing.?
(good luck on explaining that to FR readers worldwide!)
Sorry I wasn't clear on that. Registered mailings to the current admin., to all Congressfolk and all Senators.
I will happily bear the expense of all these registered letters.
"If you could come up with a standard letter to send or use as as model, I would sign it and send it."
Good, thank you. And in these letters - I'll also inject comments about the good work JudicialWatch.org. has and is providing for our country. (let me put pencil to paper asap)
"Did you intend to gather all the letters together and send in a bundle to maximize the effect?"
When the time comes, I'll do that. Take all of them to the P. O. at the same day. Great idea Iwo, thanks.
There's a difference Reg, a big difference. Clinton directly ordered those criminal acts.
My point is that the headline indicated that Bush/Ashcroft directly promoted this guy, which they didn't. One more point, until such a time as this individual's actions pertaining to the Elian Gonzalez raid are found to be of an illegal nature by either the INS, or a civil court, there is no reason not to promote a 20+ year veteran of the service.
I don't like that, it's just the truth. Something that Larrybots need to acquaint themselves once in a while.
I guess some hit bottom so hard they jar their brains and any hope of rationality escapes.
Good luck to you and to your worlwide readers on your quest for 2000 BUMPS.
I am going to honor your opus now and make believe that you are not posting on FR anymore.
BTW, would the opposite of moveoners be something to indicate people who live in the past? Dinosaurs perhaps?
There are some very lively threads discussing who really won the Civil War that may interest you.
Have a nice day!
LOL.....sounds riveting. T-Rex would probably do well there.
Thank you...and another casual
Ahhh..Southflank, are you stymied?? I see you're already at #613 now..but lo, you've failed to supply Fr readers with the appropriate response. How come???
Let me refresh again Southflank/I'm still waiting for your reply on all this??
"How could my providing bumps- correlate to time outing?
(good luck on explaining that to FR readers worldwide!)"
605 posted on 5/9/02 9:00 AM Pacific by ChaseR
Yes Southflank, you may re-enter now and (try to) supply an appropriate answer-how can me-posting bumps - get me sent off to time out land, rofl...we're all waiting?? (sigh)
Thinking the Unthinkable
By Robert H. Bork
Bill Clinton's political crisis is also, and more important, an American moral crisis. When a plurality first elected him in 1992, we knew, not to put too fine a point on it, Mr. Clinton to be a liar, an adulterer and a draft dodger. Only a few years before, that would have been disqualifying. His elevation struck many of us as profoundly disheartening. A foreign observer wrote: "It is hard to avoid the conclusion that a large part of the American people have turned their backs on that old-fashioned quality: virtue -- private and public virtues." Some of his defenders argue that his electoral triumphs in 1992 and 1996 disposed of the virtue issue, granting Mr. Clinton a permanent easement across traditional morality. We must now adopt or reject that deplorable proposition.
This is the subject of Ann Coulter's readable and informative book, "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" (Regnery, 358 pages, $24.95).
Its sprightly style is a welcome relief from the lugubrious, Teutonic language in which Clinton defenders describe the unthinkable disaster of impeachment. But it should not be unthinkable. The framers of the Constitution did not see impeachment as a doomsday scenario; they thought it necessary to remove bad men from offices they were subverting. Mr. Clinton is a poster boy for what they had in mind.
The president's defenders, experts at changing the subject, prefer to debate whether Mr. Clinton committed a felony. Though it is clear that the president repeatedly lied under oath in Paula Jones's lawsuit, they offer arcane disputes about whether that was technically perjury. I think it was perjury, but that is not the point. As Ms. Coulter reminds us, the Rodino Committee staff, gearing up for Richard Nixon, concluded, correctly, that "high crimes and misdemeanors" are not limited to actions that are crimes under federal law. (It is a minor irony of history that Bernard Nussbaum, later Clinton's White House counsel, and Hillary Rodham collaborated on a report that makes these points.)
When the man charged by the Constitution to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" lies under oath in a federal case and knowingly watches Monica Lewinsky lie in the same case, he has clearly subverted a central constitutional duty.
That alone is amply sufficient for impeachment. While impeachment is not to be undertaken lightly, it is also not to be avoided at the cost of sanctioning such behavior. Ms. Coulter tellingly relies on James Madison: "The `first aim´ of the Constitution," she writes, quoting him, "was to ensure that men with the `most virtue´ would become the nation´s rulers. The Constitution´s impeachment power was for `keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust.´"
The constitutional framework concisely laid out, the book applies the standards for impeachment to various of Mr. Clinton's political and personal sins. It becomes clear that the White House has never before been occupied by such a reckless and narcissistic adventurer. Sociopath is not too strong a word. Much of what Ms. Coulter recounts will be known to avid followers of the Clinton scandals but is only vaguely apprehended by the majority of Americans. She takes us from Paula Jones, whose story can hardly be doubted now, to the Travel Office firings, the White House's receipt of about 900 raw FBI files on persons considered enemies (mostly Republicans), Whitewater, the removal of documents from Vince Foster's office after his suicide, the refusal of Webb Hubbell to give promised cooperation to Ken Starr after receiving more than a half million dollars in "consulting fees" on his way to prison, and Janet Reno's inexplicable (or all too explicable) delay of over a year in seeking an independent counsel to look into Chinese government donations to Mr. Clinton's 1996 election campaign. The list of scandals and cover-ups goes on.
Ms. Coulter makes a persuasive case that the IRS, headed by a Clinton crony, conducted politically motivated audits of taxpayers. Of the audit of Billy Dale, the fired head of the Travel Office, she says: "The reason was simple: Dale was an enemy of the administration. He had made them look bad by not having engaged in criminal conduct when they said he had."
Paula Jones was audited a few months after the Supreme Court allowed her suit against Mr. Clinton to go forward, and days after settlement negotiations had collapsed because she demanded an apology. These and many other examples lead Ms. Coulter to conclude: "Either President Clinton has abused the most fear-inspiring arm of the federal government, or there has been a mathematically improbable series of coincidences involving IRS audits."
We are regularly lectured about a constitutional crisis if the House goes forward with hearings and ultimately votes a bill of impeachment for trial in the Senate. Consider the alternative. Perhaps American presidents, by and large, have not been a distinguished lot. But if we ratify Bill Clinton's behavior in office, we may expect not merely lack of distinction in the future but aggressively dishonest, even criminal, conduct. The real calamity will not be that we removed a president from office but that we did not.
Mr. Bork, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of "Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline" (HarperCollins, 1996).
It's interesting to think that in writing this column, I could be increasing my chance of a federal tax audit. Well, "interesting" is perhaps the wrong word given the near-proctological nature of the modern tax audit, "cold-sweat-inducing" is probably a better description.
Paranoid? Me? Why yes, I am, but that has nothing to do with these fears. Nope, I'm just going by recent news reports that the Internal Revenue Service has once again lent itself to the White House for use as the political equivalent of Murder Inc.
According to the latest reports, an unusual number of political organizations that usually find themselves in opposition to the Clinton administration have been or are being audited by the IRS. These groups include the Heritage Foundation, National Review, Citizens Against Government Waste, the National Rifle Association, the Center for Public Policy Research, the Progress and Freedom Foundation, the Western Journalism Center, and many more. Some of those who've been put in the hot seat contend that auditors admitted to political motivation.
But maybe the IRS should be given the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps Clinton's enemies are just really bad bookkeepers. After all, there's no proof that the nation's tax collectors have become enforcers of the president's will, although Congress has launched a probe of the tax agency to see if it really has been acting as a hired gun for Bubba and company. We should be hearing back on that inquiry sometime in September.
Even before a conclusive investigation, though, it doesn't take much of a leap of lack-of-faith to suspect the IRS of dirty doings. The agency's last official historian, Shelly Davis, resigned after allegations that she had leaked documents on past political shenanigans to an outside scholar. She was cleared of the charges, but the supposed beneficiary of those leaks, historian John Andrews, documented the Kennedy administration's use of the IRS against conservative organizations (that's right, Happy Camelot Campers, Saint Jack was as sleazy as the rest). Andrews is now pursuing similar inquiries about Nixon's use of the tax agency against left-wing groups, demonstrating the not necessarily reassuring fact that the IRS has no political agenda of its own other than a willingness to be used as a bludgeon against anybody tagged as an enemy of the state. Nerve-wracking, no? It makes me want to run through my 1040 form just one more time. Whoops! Too late.
Of course, we're talking about a government agency, here, so what's the chance of it keeping its nefarious activities on-target? Not too good, apparently. In February, a federal appeals court overturned a guilty verdict against an IRS-employed Klansman who was caught browsing through tax records. It wasn't that he didn't violate taxpayers privacy, just that there was no proof that he'd shared the information, and therefore no punishable crime.
Isolated incident? Ummmm. No. In 1994 and 1995, the IRS canned 23 snoopers, disciplined 349, and "counseled" 472 others. Counseled them to avoid freelancing, I guess. Remember, gang, if you're going to misuse your vast powers, stay with the program. The reformers are out in swarms, of course. The agency promises renewed commitment to its policy of "zero-tolerance" for tax-record snooping. (And why is everything "zero-tolerance?" Is this in contrast with slack, old-fashioned, a-little-tolerance? Or did they used to encourage such behavior?) IRS Commissioner Margaret Milner Richardson claims to be "delighted" with congressional investigations of IRS political hits. Everybody's apparently real serious about proving that the bad stuff didn't happen, or if it did, that it won't happen ever again.
Sounds great, until you remember that this nonsense keeps on happening. Journalist James Bovard reports that as long ago as 1924, Sen. James Couzens launched an investigation of what was then called the Bureau of Internal Revenue. In response, the Internal Revenue commissioner personally handed the senator a bill for $10,860,131.50 in "unpaid taxes." Couzens eventually won the battle, but you can imagine that he was distracted from his original plans. That was seven decades ago. What has changed since then?
Investigations won't solve the problem and "zero tolerance" is useless. The fact is, the IRS is a monstrosity it's a massive repository of personal, and potentially damaging, information on the American people. It's a ready-made weapon for ambitious politicians, and an irresistible temptation for any employee with the normal human complement of curiosity and grievances. Pass all the laws you want, enact endless safeguards; as long as it exists, the IRS will remain as both a peephole into Americans' lives and the semi-official hitman for the party in power.
Now, smile for the nice tax collectors. So you think I'm full of it, eh? Then go to the primary source:
Warning: These IRS Abuse Reports start mildly and slowly. After a while, these reports build into such a crescendo of sickening horror, criminal destructiveness, and unbearable evil that a sedative may be required to read them all:
There is an internal investigation going on, it started when Rick Ramirez brought the matter to light. As soon as the internal investigation is finished, and if Rick is not satisfied with the outcome, the matter can proceed to a civil court. I honestly don't know what his options would be to appeal the decision within the system.
Having said that, I believe that Rick's complaint came to light after this guy's promotion had taken effect. At least, that was the first time that I remember reading anything about it.
Keep in mind what the real case here is, in spite of Larry's National Enquirer promotional tecniques. The real issue here is the fact that Doris Meissner ordered Federal documents destroyed. This guy is guilty of following her instructions, but then again, so is Rick and the INS attorneys that have come forward since.
Larry writes the headline to panhandle for donations from people who hate the Bush administration.
Last thing, other than the fact that there was a great deal of anti-Cuban sentiment in the Miami INS office (like that's news to anyone down here) and that some agents made racist remarks, there is little more that this guy is guilty of.
I don't have a problem discussing the issue (any issue) with you my FRiend, even if in the back of my mind I suspect that there are others encouraging you to continue engaging me in order to keep the thread bumped.
That way, I get to present my case as to why I do not approve of JW's tactics to Chase's "world wide audience".
Simply stated, I didn't like it when the leftist media spun the truth and told half lies to help Clinton. I have a bigger issue when Judicial Watch does the same thing, spin the truith and tell half lies, for financial gains...then they call it "patriotism".
I like my struggle for truth and justice with a lot less of a National Enquirer look to it.
Just as I predicted, I found relief at the third hole yesterday.
And now another spring flower shall bloom.
During the Clinton years, the IRS became another cog in the Administration's intimidation machine. Many perceived adversaries of the Clinton Administration were audited, including Paula Jones, Billy Dale, Gennifer Flowers, and a number of conservative groups such as the Heritage Foundation. The Western Journalism Center, which had published ads raising questions about the death of Clinton aide Vincent Foster, was audited after the Clinton White House forwarded a complaint to the IRS.
Charles O. Rossotti eventually replaced Hillary Clinton friend Margaret Milner Richardson as IRS Commissioner in 1997. Things did not change at the IRS. For example, under Rossotti's watch, Judicial Watch client Juanita Broaddrick, the woman who was raped by Bill Clinton, was audited, as were scores of other perceived adversaries. And then Rossotti was also caught red-handed in illegal conflicts of interest. Rossotti, as IRS commissioner, has overseen the awarding of IRS contracts to AMS, a company which he founded and in which he still has a major financial interest. This year alone, AMS reportedly will make at least $17 million from its IRS contracts. Additionally, his wife served as outside counsel for AMS.
In December 2000, during the last days of the Clinton Administration, Rossotti was granted a "waiver" for his conflict of interest, obviously for a "job well done" in allowing the audits of Clintons' perceived adversaries.
All these scandals did not seem to bother the Bush Administration. Rossotti remains as IRS commissioner. In December 2001, Rossotti was forced to sell his interest in AMS. This came only after Judicial Watch criminal and civil actions concerning his conflict of interest. The sale of stock was also shortly after Judicial Watch sent 26,103 petitions to President Bush demanding that he fire Rossotti. Outrageously, Rossotti still serves, with impunity, as President Bush's IRS Commissioner. His term does not end until November 2002 not soon enough!
Already under fire for holding on to millions of dollars worth of stock in an information-technology company that he used to run and that does substantial business with the IRS, Commissioner of Internal Revenue Charles Rossotti has hired another large stockholder in the same company to advise the agency on computer modernization and technology purchases, Insight has learned. Rossotti just installed his former employee, Fred L. Forman, as executive program adviser for business-systems modernization, a new position that pays $186,300 a year, the same salary Vice President Dick Cheney earns.
You know that the administration wants to put this [pick your pejorative] behind them. If that means a non-profit law firm continues to be persecuted, so be it.