Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Endless probe, secret result ($22mil Barrett Report due to be released Thursday, January 19th!)
Yahoo News ^ | 1/12/06

Posted on 01/15/2006 9:28:48 AM PST by Libloather

USA Today piece. Link only.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 109th; 19th; barrett; barrettreport; due; endless; january; probe; released; report; result; secret; thursday

1 posted on 01/15/2006 9:28:50 AM PST by Libloather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Does the "secret results" mean the findings will be classified and therefore unavailable to we sheeple?


2 posted on 01/15/2006 9:30:38 AM PST by coloradan (Failing to protect the liberties of your enemies establishes precedents that will reach to yourself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

This was in Thursday's USA Today?


3 posted on 01/15/2006 9:30:58 AM PST by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Released? Or locked away?


4 posted on 01/15/2006 9:31:40 AM PST by MizSterious (Anonymous sources often means "the voices in my head told me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

All of it?


5 posted on 01/15/2006 9:33:45 AM PST by shield (The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instructions.Pr 1:7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

..."The problem is the court could still black out large portions to protect the privacy of those named"

How much of it will be redacted?


6 posted on 01/15/2006 9:38:08 AM PST by ConservativeGreek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peach
This was in Thursday's USA Today?

Looks like Wednesday. It may have hit Yahoo on Thursday.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-01-11-cisneros-edit_x.htm

7 posted on 01/15/2006 9:48:34 AM PST by Libloather (Have you noticed? Leftists really do hate people...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeGreek

The good news here is that USA today has come out clearly in favor of full release of the unredacted report. Cool!


8 posted on 01/15/2006 9:51:59 AM PST by Jack Black
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

On my birthday. Too bad, what I really wanted was an unredacted version.


9 posted on 01/15/2006 9:52:05 AM PST by atomicpossum (If I don't reply, don't think you're winning. I often just don't bother to argue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeGreek
How much of it will be redacted?

Anything having to do with corruption in the IRS, Justice Dept., according to the agreement reached by the Democrats AND Republicans in committee. (R's = Kit Bond, Knollinger) So the answer to your question is probably most of it, or at least the part that hasn't already been published in newspapers long before Clinton left office.

10 posted on 01/15/2006 9:55:45 AM PST by penowa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

This is the kind of stuff that should be "leaked".


11 posted on 01/15/2006 9:59:14 AM PST by sportutegrl (People who say, "All I know is . . ." really mean, "All I want you to focus on is . . .")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeGreek
How much of it will be redacted?

That's my question as well. Will it be a whitewash...

12 posted on 01/15/2006 10:00:04 AM PST by processing please hold (Islam and Christianity do not mix ----9-11 taught us that)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: penowa

Anything having to do with corruption in the IRS, Justice Dept.,

Too bad...........
The article says the Courts will decide what's redacted.
But I have also read a Congressional Committee will or has.
Remain confused and disappointed.


13 posted on 01/15/2006 10:01:12 AM PST by ConservativeGreek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: shield
All of it?

Maybe not...

Imminent Independent Counsel Report Gets Sliced Up
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos

WASHINGTON — Potentially explosive allegations from a 10-year independent counsel investigation may never see the light of day due to an appropriations bill negotiation that has some conservatives crying foul.

The final report of David M. Barrett, an independent counsel appointed in 1995 to investigate potential felonies committed by one-time Clinton administration Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros, is tentatively scheduled for release on Jan. 19, Barrett told FOXNews.com.

However, Barrett and others say, thanks to an amendment to the November judiciary appropriations bill, key elements in the final report, which was completed in August 2004 and has been sitting with a three-judge panel at the U.S. District Court of Appeals in Washington D.C. ever since, may be heavily redacted before its release.

"As it currently stands, the report will not be released in its entirety," said Barrett, who didn't want to speculate why or which portions of the report may not be made public. One decade and some millions of taxpayers' dollars later, he said he is disappointed that the report may not reflect his careful and diligent efforts.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,180374,00.html

14 posted on 01/15/2006 10:03:47 AM PST by Libloather (Have you noticed? Leftists really do hate people...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeGreek

I have not heard that the House or Senate has voted to repeal the tidbit they put into the DOD bill (?), whatever it was they passed that came out of committee and was voted on by both houses and passed, and signed by the president into law. I would guess the article is tossing in the courts and judges as a red herring so the reps will not get the heat when the thing is released. I think the reps were afraid the judges would cave and release it if someone filed a law suit, so they decided not to rely on them and took it upon themselves to make a "deal."


15 posted on 01/15/2006 10:10:00 AM PST by penowa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: penowa

I think the reps were afraid the judges would cave and release it

Sounds to me like this is going to be a fairly well publicized topic.
Hopefully, the reps will be forced to revisit their decision.


16 posted on 01/15/2006 10:14:48 AM PST by ConservativeGreek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

The CIA leaks secrets like an old barge, but this Barrett Report is air tight.


17 posted on 01/15/2006 10:16:28 AM PST by 6SJ7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeGreek
Hopefully, the reps will be forced to revisit their decision.

Possible, but not likely. There is some Republican who is dirty on this one (using IRS or Justice for personal investigation) and they probably don't want to feed the Pelosi machine any more fodder for the "party of corruption" crap. Just my guess.

18 posted on 01/15/2006 10:20:09 AM PST by penowa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Peach

Someone in the Senate should read this report and have it put in the Senate records


19 posted on 01/15/2006 10:23:06 AM PST by Mo1 (Republicans protect Americans from Terrorists.. Democrats protect Terrorists from Americans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

bump for publicity (that the Barrett Report will probably never get)


20 posted on 01/15/2006 10:26:16 AM PST by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: penowa

There is some Republican who is dirty on this one

Good guess. How unfortunate.


21 posted on 01/15/2006 10:30:27 AM PST by ConservativeGreek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Mo1

I do not understand the delays and secrecy surrounding this report.


22 posted on 01/15/2006 10:39:34 AM PST by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: coloradan

what ever the report says, you can bet it will be a cover up just like what Starr and the guy who took his place did. It will get hardly an air play. If this was about a republican, we all know it would get tons of air play, but this is about QUEEN HILLARY and Jester Bill. They will bury it like bill buried his cigar in Monica's humidor. The corrupt elite will get away with it again.


23 posted on 01/15/2006 10:47:05 AM PST by MAD-AS-HELL (Put a mirror to the face of the republican party and all you'll see is a Donkey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MAD-AS-HELL

FREE THE BARRET REPORT


24 posted on 01/15/2006 12:47:41 PM PST by Huevos Rancheros (Free the Barret Report--William B. Travis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Everyone knows why this is being done and whom it is protecting. This outrage is being done in broad daylight. Can anyone say Kitty Genovese?


25 posted on 01/15/2006 12:49:44 PM PST by doug from upland (NEW YORK TIMES -- traitorous b*st*rds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peach
My guess is it catches both parties. That's the only thing that makes any sense.

L

26 posted on 01/15/2006 12:50:48 PM PST by Lurker (You don't let a pack of wolves into the house just because they're related to the family dog.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Libloather; doug from upland; Calpernia; Cindy; Alamo-Girl; backhoe; bd476
In before the ZOT Wite-out....
27 posted on 01/15/2006 4:20:35 PM PST by The Spirit Of Allegiance (SAVE THE BRAINFOREST! Boycott the RED Dead Tree Media & NUKE the DNC Class Action Temper Tantrum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blurblogger

Thanks for the ping Blublogger.
That was interesting.


28 posted on 01/15/2006 4:25:56 PM PST by Cindy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Libloather; All

Does anyone know if the redactions, suppression, etc. can be legally challenged?

Aren't we the people entitled to know that the clintons abused their power and sicced the IRS on the opposition?

If it can be shown that the purpose of the redactions were the concealment of clinton abuse of power and other clinton crimes, would the restrictions hold?

And was it really malpractice, i.e., stupidity, on the right that allowed this to happen? Or was it malfeasance?


29 posted on 01/15/2006 5:05:37 PM PST by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blurblogger

Thanks for the ping!


30 posted on 01/15/2006 9:23:25 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson