Cisneros Probe Stirred Worries Of Democrats

http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=25880 ^ | R. EMMETT TYRRELL Jr. and BRIAN McGUIRE

[mal]

WASHINGTON - A long-awaited report detailing an independent counsel investigation of a former secretary of housing and urban development, Henry Cisneros, outlines a coordinated effort by Clinton administration officials to first block and then limit the probe as a way of taking pressure off an administration that was already beset by scandals.

The report, by independent counsel David Barrett, is scheduled for release on January 19. Details of it have been disclosed to The New York Sun by persons familiar with its contents.

The release of the report coincides with the end of an investigation that began in 1995 with Mr. Barrett examining events surrounding Mr. Cisneros's nomination. During his FBI background check, Mr. Cisneros lied about adulterous relations, his payments to a mistress, the extent of his income, and his tax filings with the Internal Revenue Service.

Mr. Cisneros, a former San Antonio mayor, eventually pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of lying to the FBI. He paid a $10,000 fine and was pardoned by President Clinton on Mr. Clinton's final day in office.

Democrats have complained about the length and expense of Mr. Barrett's investigation, which cost more than $23 million when it closed this month. The report, excluding appendixes, runs to 428 pages. In it, Mr. Barrett is said to argue that Mr. Cisneros's mistress delayed the first half of the investigation by lying to a grand jury that was reviewing evidence in the case and that the second half was impeded by top Clinton administration officials.

[airedale]

I wonder how fast those 100 redacted pages will become available? If it were a report on Republicans you know it would be in the MSM within days

[devolve]

[Wristpin]

What ever happened to the allegations of Clinton using the IRS to target his enemies?

[devolve]

Some are blocking that.....

[PatriotGirl827]

BUMP!!

[an amused spectator]

I would guess that "...Richardson is not mentioned in the [unredacted portion of the] report..."

I would also bet that she figures prominently in the redacted areas. ;-)

[bybybill]

Ah, the unasked question, where did Henry get all that play money?
Imagine that you are the head strategist for the Rats and your plan to win back Congress is to brand the R`s as corrupt and, just as you are starting your winning campaign, focusing the public on Washington malfeasance,the other shoe falls and this report comes out.
As Rush says, they have stepped into every cow pie in the pasture.

[airedale]

The media certainly never asked. The report will be out Thursday from what I just read. Hopefully it will explain all. The NY Sun pieces have been interesting.

I wonder if they'll post it on line with the redacted portions blacked out?

[Fruit of the Spirit]

"Remember both Clintons are lawyers..."

I thought he was disbarred??

[gunnedah]

He was disbarred but as of today he is eligible to be reinstated. But disbarment doesnt stop the connection and Hilliary was not affected. The legal profession is nothing more than a fraternity that takes care of its own and being an ex president Bill knows where all the skeletons are hidden and they certainly will not let him down. When have you ever seen anyone turn on a Clinton and get away with it?

[mosquitobite]

Good point. Too bad our guys don't play as dirty as the Rats. Just like someone else said, if Bush were smart he'd go to the Dems in Congress and in the media and tell them "Keep up with this NSA stuff, and we're going to turn up the heat on the Barrett report".
tit for tat and all that ;)

[mosquitobite]

Hear! Hear!

"Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing [a people] to slavery." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. (*) ME 1:193, Papers 1:125

"The oppressed should rebel, and they will continue to rebel and raise disturbance until their civil rights are fully restored to them and all partial distinctions, exclusions and incapacitations are removed." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:548

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff0250.htm

[rock58seg]

I've still don't understand where Cisneros got the money to pay the woman the amounts he did.

I think the City of San Antonio was paying it's mayor about $20,000.00 at that time. Mostly in Lulu's, (in lieu of expenses). There, now you know!

[airedale]

Actually his salary was $148,000 in 1993 when he stopped paying Jones when he had 2 daughters in college and a son that had a heart problem that required extensive and expensive care. In about 3 years he'd payed her more than $250,000. She claimed that he'd recently promised her $4,000 a month. This is $48,000 in after tax dollars. Even if the $250,000 was spread out over 5 years (it was a shorter period if I remember correctly)that would be $50,000 a year in after tax dollars.

If you're making $148,000 per year in salary the last year you hold a job there is no way you're taking home more than $110,000 by the time you get done with withholdings for taxes, insurance, etc. At least he didn't have to pay state income tax since Texas doesn't have one. Do you think you could take $50,000 out of that level of take home and not have your spouse notice, especially with kids in college and a chronically ill child who has expenses that aren't covered by your health care coverage?

[rock58seg]

I was speaking of his salary as mayor of San Antonio. It was $3000.00 per annum with lulu's extra. Yes I know he went into a private sector "job" that paid about 150k, but he waqsn't at that for very long.

This evidences that the "old money" in San Antonio can be very appreciative and supportive of past favors.

[airedale]

No his salary as Mayor was about $140,000. He had additional income from speaking fees and some other ventures. The Barret report makes it plain that his tax returns for some reason understated his income substantially for at least 4 years. I don't remember the correct numbers but they were in the neighborhood of $43,000 one year, $125,000 one year, $150,000 one year and $67,000. The real numbers are in the Barret Report which I read last night. That was the income they could identify. In addition to that he closed out an IRA early which would involve both regular income tax, capital gains and a 10% penalty that he never paid.

I can't believe that he wasn't nailed for felony tax fraud and at least forced to pay the appropriate taxes even without penalties. The IRS and DOJ blocked the investigation.

[rock58seg]

Now he may augment his salary and he may have an outside job but his salary is $3000.00 per annum. So please stop arguing with me on this. Every two to four years we have to go vote down an attempt to get in our back pockets.

http://www.saelections.com/mayor.html

The Mayor of San Antonio acts as the presiding officer of the City Council. He or she gets $3,000 per year plus expenses (as OK'd by the council) to serve in this office. The Mayor is actually just another member of the council, with one vote among the other ten. The Mayor is not able to hire or fire the City Manager (the most important post in the city), single handedly approve any ordinance or law brought before the Council, or hire or fire anyone in the City government. He must have an affirmative vote by no less than 6 of the City Council Members to pass any item (some items may require more votes). No meeting can be held without more than half of the council present (6 members including the Mayor).

[airedale]

I'd suggest you look at the Barret Report which gives his salary. The $300,000 may be the current mayors salary but it wasn't the salary when he was mayor. Here is another source: http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/1999/06/25/cisneros/index1.html : "Then, in the fall of 1993, they stopped. With a government salary of $148,000, two daughters in college, and a son whose heart trouble required constant medical attention, Cisneros couldn't afford to continue supporting Jones as well."

$300,000 gross was probably close to what he was making including the income that he some how didn't report according to the OIC report

[rock58seg]

I don't care about the Barret Report. I'm saying the San Antonio city Mayoral salary is three thousand dollars per annum. Now what he made or could steal from other sources is something else.

Every so often we go thru the charter revision crap in which they want to pay the mayor and city council outlandish amounts and each time we have to expend a lot of effort voting it down.

And no, the current salary is not $300,000.00, it is still only $3000

[airedale]

Was it always that much or did they switch to a city manager style government since Cisneros was mayor?