Topic: Crime/Corruption
Who Pays for Bill?
Judicial Watch
6/15/99 Larry Klayman and Monty Warner
Imagine you founded an organization dedicated to the preservation of the basic principles upon which this county has thrived. Issues like individual freedom, personal responsibility, and ethics in journalism. Not horrible terms, and not even so much because you wanted to antagonize those who didn't share your view; rather, because you firmly believed in these principles as a means by which an orderly society should function. Imagine then if you lived under a government which didn't share your principles, and because they didn't, they decided as arbitrarily as you would choose a movie that they would send an investigatory body like the IRS into your offices to interrogate you without cause. Try to envision a group of these detached individuals camped in your office, rifling through your personal papers, admitting to you that it was a political inquiry, and then making claims to be compiled into formal charges against you that you had to spend your money to defend yourself from. What you've just read is not 18th Century Great Britain. It's not communist China. What you've just heard is what the Western Journalism Center went through with its own government, the Clinton Administration.
Perhaps one of the most startling and disturbing accounts of the Nixon Presidency, beyond Watergate itself – was President Nixon, on tape, discussing with chilling detachment plans to use the IRS to threaten political opponents. In 1974, this was a landmark and most egregious breach of the public trust. Today, despite the Clintons' systematic testing of Americans' threshold of tolerance, the song does, and must, remain the same.
The story of the Western Journalism Center started with a simple if bulky White House document and ended in a $10 million lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch against the IRS for abuse of power. Like any good story it takes the requisite twists and turns, often leaving the viewer or reader befuddled as to how people placed in a position of trust can bring themselves to act as they do. "The Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce," a 331-page manifesto and brainchild of Associate White House Counsel Jane Sherburne and the DNC, was circulated to select reporters in a tortured effort to describe how the "right wing" conveyed "fringe" stories into the mainstream American media. In essence, this document was an effort to "alert" friendly journalists that such a "conspiracy" was being promulgated by certain groups dissatisfied with the moral lapses of the Clinton White House. In short, it was a 1990's enemies list.
Joseph Farah, an award-winning journalist and former editor of The Sacramento Union, founded the Western Journalism Center in 1991. A credentialed publisher of numerous periodicals that specializes in investigative reporting, WJC's efforts have been the focus of numerous articles appearing in The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, Investors Business Daily and dozens of other publications. Armed with its breadth of prior success, WJC began investigating the circumstances surrounding Vince Foster's death – circumstances widely reported to be, at minimum, slightly unusual. Taking out ads in The Washington Times, New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times, WJC raised major questions and inconsistencies about Foster's death – echoing the sentiments of journalist Christopher Ruddy, whose services WJC retained in furtherance of their investigation. These ads met with considerable success and attention – and set off what has inexcusably become old saw to the Clinton Administration – paranoia followed by a brutal, systematic effort to silence its critics through intimidation.
In December of 1994, Associate White House Counsel Sherburne prepared a memorandum that outlined strategies to use against individuals and organizations perceived to be adversaries of the Clinton Administration. The memo also assigned staff members to carry out these strategies – and specifically identified the Western Journalism Center for having investigated Foster's death. WJC was the only news organization targeted for action.
In July 1996, after absorbing months of swirling rumors of a pending audit, Joe Farah answered a knock on his door at the Western Journalism Center. Thomas Cedarquist, an IRS official and one of the chief defendants in Judicial Watch's lawsuit on behalf of WJC, strode in and announced that, having seen the WJC's work on "60 Minutes," he had arbitrarily decided (as this Administration does) that WJC was a political and not a non- profit organization. Cedarquist then confirmed he and others in Washington were going to challenge WJC's tax-exempt status and audit their 1995 tax returns.
If this were a movie, we would have to suspend disbelief long enough to buy into the premise that this action by the IRS was simply a legitimate inquiry on behalf of a legitimate government entity. Regrettably, our sensibilities to this end would be quickly overwhelmed when we saw – as Joseph Farah did – that the search Cedarquist and the IRS were conducting was not for financial reasons, rather to review the content of WJC's work. Farah was asked about his affiliation with Christopher Ruddy, a thorn in the side of the Administration, and why WJC chose to work with him. Nearly every query posed to Farah was related to a story or developing story concerning the White House – an IRS search completely devoid of concern for money. Rightfully exasperated, Farah questioned the tactics of the agency and received the following rejoinder from Cedarquist: "Look, this is a political case, and the decision will be made at the national level." Taxpayers Bill of Rights?
Over the course of the investigation of WJC, nearly 20 other conservative organizations – including the Heritage Foundation, NRA and Citizens Against Government Waste – felt the close, warm touch of the Clinton audit machine. Ironically, all of these groups happened to take issue with its policies and political hatchet work. Even more oddly, the media who knew of the "Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce" never saw any pattern developing that would signify an orchestrated White House effort – much less actually troubled themselves to report it. Meanwhile, the Western Journalism Center's offices were being broken into, with, mysteriously, nothing stolen. Their phone messages were apparently being monitored, and some of these developments happened to coincide with WJC breakthroughs in Clinton investigations. Irony? We are drowning now.
The scrutiny of the WJC by the IRS lasted 9 months. During this time the Center almost went bankrupt. One donor called Mr. Farah and told him that Hazel O'Leary, then the Energy Secretary, had related to him that he would lose his federal contracts if he continued to support the Western Journalism Center. WJC employees lost their jobs and livelihoods.
Finally in October of 1996, Farah exposed these corrupt practices in a piece in The Wall Street Journal, and the tide began to turn. Margret Milner-Richardson, IRS Commissioner and close friend of First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, abruptly resigned. The New York Post attributed her departure to political audits of conservative organizations. Some began to probe these rampant abuses, and the audit of the Western Journalism Center was "concluded" – a verdict of "no wrongdoing" rendered in May of 1997.
Under the Taxpayer Bill of Rights enacted by Congress, Farah requested his case file from the IRS so he could review its contents. In keeping with the Clinton Administration standard practice, these rights were trampled on with a terse refusal to turn over the documents – the IRS frivolously citing "government privilege" as a means of keeping Mr. Farah from seeing justification for what had nearly bankrupted his organization. But Farah would not be deterred. On behalf of WJC, Judicial Watch, a public interest watchdog group, filed a $10 million lawsuit against Ms. Richardson, Mr. Cedarquist, numerous unidentified agents involved in the case and the IRS itself. We are determined to ensure that Mr. Farah sees justice in this case, and that every American is free to express his or her First Amendment-protected views without vicious, detached harassment from its own government. Beyond this, the suit is necessary simply because the government has demonstrated consistently that it cannot police itself.
For all the baying we hear from the left of the travesties of Richard Nixon, they and this White House have elevated abuse of power to a new art form that, if unchecked, will perpetuate itself to unfathomable lows in the future. Nixon was an amateur compared with the criminal enterprise that continues to be run out of this White House. By this standard, citizens who elect their government will have no protection from those assigned to protect them. That is the blasphemy we must examine, and do our level best to stop.
[Refresh | Latest 20 | Post | Search | Register | Login | Logoff | More | Home | Report Abuse | Help!]