Endless probe, secret result ($22mil Barrett Report due to be released Thursday, January 19th!)

Yahoo News ^ | 1/12/06

[Libloather]

USA Today piece. Link only.

[coloradan]

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

[Peach]

This was in Thursday's USA Today?

[MizSterious]

Released? Or locked away?

[shield]

All of it?

[ConservativeGreek]

..."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?

[Libloather]

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

[Jack Black]

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

[atomicpossum]

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

[penowa]

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.

[sportutegrl]

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

[processing please hold]

How much of it will be redacted?

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

[ConservativeGreek]

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.

[Libloather]

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

[penowa]

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."

[ConservativeGreek]

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.

[6SJ7]

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

[penowa]

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.

[Mo1]

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

[VOA]

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