JW Sues Bill Clinton, Congressional Dems for Instigating Attempted IRS Audit

[Warlady]

For Immediate Release
Aug 20, 2002 Contact: Press Office
202-646-5172

JUDICIAL WATCH SUES BILL CLINTON, CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS FOR INSTIGATING ATTEMPTED IRS AUDIT

Smoking Gun White House Document Shows Clinton Illegally Influenced IRS Decision to Audit Judicial Watch


(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has filed a civil rights lawsuit against Bill Clinton and top Congressional Democrats (including Charles Rangel, Martin Frost, Jim Moran, Tom Harkin, John Lewis, and Richard Neal) for instigating a political audit of Judicial Watch by the IRS.

Documents produced to Judicial Watch by the IRS under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) included a copy of a email to President Clinton at the White House which stated:
I have received solicitation for funds and a questionnaire from Larry Klayman, of Judicial Watch. They have targeted you and the Vice President. My question is how can this obviously partisan organization be classified as tax exempt under 501(C)(3). I think you and your wife have done a great job in spite of the partisan attacks against both of you.
The IRS documents show the email, which was sent to the IRS Commissioner Charles Rossotti’s
office by President Clinton, was received by the IRS on or about September 22, 1998. Judicial Watch’s first audit notice was dated two weeks later, on October 6, 1998. It is illegal and criminal for the President to directly or indirectly request an IRS audit of any taxpayer. Separately, Judicial Watch had been told by an IRS official that an audit was to be expected for suing President Clinton. (Judicial Watch continues to fight the politically-motivated IRS audit in court.)

After four years, the IRS also finally was forced to release various “complaints” about Judicial Watch from Democrat members of Congress (named above), showing a widespread campaign to illegally pressure the IRS to audit Judicial Watch.

Judicial Watch filed its lawsuit against Clinton and the Democrat members of Congress yesterday here in federal court. The lawsuit alleges a conspiracy to violate Judicial Watch’s First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights. A copy of the lawsuit is available on the Judicial Watch Internet site at www.judicialwatch.org. (http://www.judicialwatch.org.) The case is before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan.

“A citizen ought to be able to petition the government, or even sue the president, without fear of a retaliatory tax audit. Under Clinton, the IRS was sorely abused, as most of his perceived enemies were audited by the IRS. And now the IRS’s own documents show that Clinton was aided and abetted by Congressional Democrats who sought to destroy anyone who questioned the ethics of the Clinton regime. No one is above the law and Judicial Watch looks forward to holding these powerful politicians accountable in court,” stated Judicial Watch Chairman and General Counsel Larry Klayman.

To view the complaint click here (http://www.judicialwatch.org/cases/95/cmp.htm)

[oracle]

Any bets that this won't get covered on the network news or if it does, JW will be identified as a conservative watchdog?

[The_RANDy_Corporation]

You are right oracle. It is funny to watch how the media treats them, depending on the direction Klayman's mood is tilting at any given moment. An odd dichotomy.

[Venus]

Dichotomy? I think you give them too much credit.

It's just their bidness-as-usual, ephemeral, fair-weather friend ethic at work.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

"I disagree and have posted here before urging real conservatives to drop JW like a hot potato. It would appear JW's main criterion for suing anyone is how big the headline will be and how much personal glory (and money) Larry Klayman can get out of it."

You're giving real conservatives bad information. Klayman has or is currently suing Bill & Hillary, Gore, Gephardt, Bernie Scwartz, John Huang, Castro, bin Laden, Saddam/Iraq---just to name a few. The above list isn't exactly a who's who of conservatives, not my kind anyway. But let him sue one pseudo-conservative like Cheney, and you turn on him.

You betcha Klayman is looking for headlines and donations. You obviously don't have a clue of how many tens of millions of dollars is required to research, file and keep cases going in state, federal and international courts.

"If that makes me a pseudo-con, so be it. But I'm in good company. Brit Hume has blackballed Klayman from Fox News for his glad-handing and self-serving. Screw him."

Oh yes, the same Brit Hume who is a dedicated liberal and spent many years as a commentator on the major liberal TV networks. If he was even a little bit conservative, he wouldn't have been allowed to spend so many years in the land of Rather, Jennings et al.

[DesertFox]

Any good JW and Klayman have done is as much accident as design. Larry Klayman is a prick looking for a rep. I agree with RANDy, not Randy.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

"Please note two things: they don't list lawsuit they have won, only ones they have filed. Wonder why?"

Clear proof RANDyCorp is giving us bad information. If he had bothered to take an in-depth look at the website, instead of just the listing of CURRENT cases, he would have found the following list (virtually every victory was AGAINST liberals/leftists) of JW victories:

RANDyCorp's Bad Info Refuted Here (http://www.judicialwatch.org/966.shtml)

"Second, they sue damn near everybody that says a cross word about them, which means I'm probably next."

I'm sure they're really worried what a "big fish" like yourself thinks about them. images/icons/rolleyes.gif

Please give us numerous documented examples of the alleged frivolous lawsuits they've filed against those who have done nothing more than criticize them.

"Bring it Larry. As if you had the nads."

As if he cares.

He sued Clinton over Chinagate, and every INFORMED conservative at this site should be quite aware of what has happened to many people who investigated Bill, over far less important things than Chinagate.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DesertFox:
Any good JW and Klayman have done is as much accident as design. Larry Klayman is a prick looking for a rep. I agree with RANDy, not Randy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Another "in-depth analysis", so typical of DF. Go to the link I provided in my previous post above, and try to tell me all that was an accident. Cases aren't won by "accident" in federal courts, or any other courts that I know of. The left has some crafty lawyers, JW didn't beat them by "accident".

JW also filed suits in Florida that helped Bush and the repubs. So soon some forget.

[The_RANDy_Corporation]

Larry Klayman is the white man's Jesse Jackson. Don't get between him and the camera. But, hey, Randy, if he's your hero, more power to ya.

How much of your hard earned scratch have you mailed in to this prima donna?

[The_RANDy_Corporation]

Oh, but by the way, you do know Larry sued his own mother don't you?

[**DONOTDELETE**]

A lot of professional repubs, neo-cons and pseudo-cons are whining about JW these days, because JW filed suit against Cheney.

However, if you look at the overall picture, JW has done one heckuva GREAT job. JW was the organization primarily responsible for initially exposing the Chinagate scandal.

They're certainly quite worthy of continued conservative support.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The RANDy Corporation: Larry Klayman is the white man's Jesse Jackson. Don't get between him and the camera. But, hey, Randy, if he's your hero, more power to ya.

How much of your hard earned scratch have you mailed in to this prima donna?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let the official record show that RC was unable to refute any of the information I provided on Klayman, nor provide any evidence for his own allegations---so he must resort to a fact-free ad hominen attack.

[The_RANDy_Corporation]

I disagree and have posted here before urging real conservatives to drop JW like a hot potato. It would appear JW's main criterion for suing anyone is how big the headline will be and how much personal glory (and money) Larry Klayman can get out of it.

If that makes me a pseudo-con, so be it. But I'm in good company. Brit Hume has blackballed Klayman from Fox News for his glad-handing and self-serving. Screw him.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The RANDy Corporation:
Oh, but by the way, you do know Larry sued his own mother don't you?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I notice you provided no evidence to back your assertion. If you're telling the truth, please provide us with all the dirty details and a link to a credible source, Mr. National Enquirer.

You've already lied about the guy. Judging by your signature, you consider yourself quite the Christian. I'm certainly not as pure and righteous as yourself, but I do seem to recall that one of the Ten Commandments specifically forbids bearing false witness.

[The_RANDy_Corporation]

Here is Judicial Watch's web page. (http://www.judicialwatch.org/)

Please note two things: they don't list lawsuit they have won, only ones they have filed. Wonder why?

Second, they sue damn near everybody that says a cross word about them, which means I'm probably next.

Bring it Larry. As if you had the nads.

[The_RANDy_Corporation]

I know the same things you do; what I read. Unless of course you work for him. His own web site it my source.

I thought his intrafamily suit was well-known, as detailed in the Klayman Chronicles as reported by the Washington Post.

Sorry to burst your hero image. (http://www.politicalamazon.com/klaymanmom.html)

As far as my faith, it is well-known. Sadly, I am not perfect, just forgiven. I do have a dark side, just like you.

[The_RANDy_Corporation]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Warlady:
He went from $10,000.00 to 11 million. Apparently suing the Executive branch pays well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. And pays well in spite of who happens to be holding office.

[The_RANDy_Corporation]

How timely!

Here is an even-handed piece about Klayman from David Keene:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>. . . Klayman basked in his notoriety, became a regular on cable television and built Judicial Watch into a truly formidable operation. The numbers tell the story. In 1995, Judicial Watch raised less than $10,000, but by 1998 the operation was bringing in more than $11 million a year through advertising and direct mail.

While others were celebrating the fact that with the election of George W. Bush the Clintons would at last be leaving town, Klayman began hinting that the only reason Bush wasn’t anxious to continue pursuing the Clintons in court was that he was contemplating the same sort of activities. Why else, he hinted, would the new president keep saying he wanted to “put this behind us” when there was so much yet to investigate?

Indeed, Klayman began questioning Bush’s ethics even as he was taking office. Things in Washington haven’t changed much, Judicial Watch advertising seemed to be suggesting, but the public should be assured that he and his team of lawyers are still on the job.

Then, last week, Klayman held a press conference damning the Bush administration, Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) and DeLay. They were, he fulminated at a press conference, engaged in the same sort of illegal activity that characterized the Clinton administration.

He followed this up with a complaint alleging that an NRCC fundraising appeal represented an attempt to “sell” meetings with government officials and was, in effect, an effort to solicit “bribes.” The charges were, to put it mildly, a stretch, but did represent a Klayman declaration of war on the GOP and the president.

Klayman then promised a Judicial Watch “probe” of the supposed “secret deal” that resulted in the release of the 24 American fliers being held by China. “We aim to find out if any secret promises were made to the ‘Butchers of Beijing’ behind closed doors,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. How? By going to court.

Cynics suggest that Klayman pursues his watchdog role because he can’t help himself. This, after all, is a man who sued his mother. Others say his motives are suspect in the NRCC-DeLay case because of a business dispute, but if one takes Klayman at his word, he comes across more as a super litigious Common Cause type than as a conservative. . . . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Hill (http://www.hillnews.com/041801/keene.shtm)

[Warlady]

He went from $10,000.00 to 11 million. Apparently suing the Executive branch pays well.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

RANDyCorp proves nothing.

From RC's link:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>The case is a spat about money. Klayman says his mother, Shirley Feinberg, reneged on a vow to cover the health-care costs of his grandmother, Feinberg's mom. According to Klayman, his now-deceased grandmother gave Feinberg tens of thousands of dollars that was supposed to be spent on his grandmother's hospital and nursing-home care.

But Feinberg has refused to part with the money, Klayman alleges in court filings, even though he incurred roughly $50,000 in expenses after he moved his grandmother from Pennsylvania to a Washington nursing home and later Georgetown University Hospital. He's suing to force his mother to fork over the cash.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If Klayman is telling the truth, then he has every right to sue her. It is completely moral and just to sue her, if she ripped off her own mother.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

errrr, Randy#23, you forgot to include the paragraph that followed:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR> Feinberg counters in court documents that her mother gave her the money, no strings attached. She says she was paying for her mother's care in Pennsylvania but opposed her son's decision to move her to Washington. She adds that she never agreed to pay medical bills that she says Klayman rang up because he neglected to win preapproval for his grandmother's treatment with her health insurer.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All I know is I ripped off my JW bumper sticker.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

"Consistency is an honorable concept. Conservatives who insisted on exposing Clinton scandals should carefully evaluate and not instantly dismiss the Bush-Cheney allegations as if character doesn't matter. To do this would be to set a higher ethics bar than their adversaries in the liberal press."

"One might accuse Klayman, always a fax-melting attention-seeker, of entering undergraduate studies in the David Brock School of Betrayal in return for Media Accolades. But Klayman hasn't totally changed teams. Unlike Brock, he hasn't suddenly decided all his work against the Clintons was a wretched error. His web site still touts that work. He hasn't joined the Mother Jones left. (Just last fall, he urged Bush to use tactical nuclear weapons to vaporize the bad guys in Afghanistan.)"

L. Brent Bozell III

Bozell Column Here (http://www.mediaresearch.org/bozellcolumns/newscolumn/2002/col20020723.asp)

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Originally posted by letusin2K:

"errrr, Randy#23, you forgot to include the paragraph that followed:"

"All I know is I ripped off my JW bumper sticker."

I didn't forget squat. His mom's version of the story might be bullshit, like your logic. If she really did rip off her own mother, and this wouldn't be the first time in history that happened---there's only one way to find out who's telling the truth---TAKE IT TO COURT AND LET A JURY DECIDE.

Since he's got a reputation to protect, I sincerely doubt he would bring a frivolous lawsuit against his own mother. Why would a guy with his legal expertise file a bogus lawsuit that he would be sure to lose, costing him in more ways than one?

Think about it.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

From RANDyCorp's link:

"The numbers tell the story. In 1995, Judicial Watch raised less than $10,000, but by 1998 the operation was bringing in more than $11 million a year through advertising and direct mail."

1. Please note the word "operation", that means the organization---which is non-profit. JW has a sizeable staff of attorneys, plus they have to hire investigators etc. You obviously have no idea how much money it takes to investigate, file and maintain dozens of lawsuits in federal and international courts. The cost is astronomical.

So your underhanded attempt to make it look like Klayman himself is pocketing all that money, is dishonest and immoral.

2. The 11 million is a GROSS figure, not a net figure. You have to deduct the cost of the advertising and direct-mail from the figure. Anyone familiar with direct-mail, knows that it is QUITE expensive---usually consuming more than half of the money raised.

So after deducting the cost of advertising and direct mail, you have nowhere near 11 million.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Hey, any public figure willing to refer to the Chicoms as the 'Butchers of Beijing' cant be all bad!

And I think we all know, deep down, the kind of chicanery that goes on as a matter of normal course in public politics these days. From 'walking around money', to soft-money-instant-life-long-friends, our political process has been the proverbial bologna factory.

If Klayman can help to clean up even a smidgeon of this crap, I am all for him, no matter what party is doing it.