Posted on 01/19/2006 8:46:42 AM PST by mondonico
Here it is:
VI.
This Final Report presents a multi-faceted story of persons who put their personal, political, or institutional interests before the public interest. The result was a time-consuming and expensive, but ultimately necessary, investigation and prosecution effort. In the end, many questions remain open, but there are definite conclusions to be drawn.
CONCLUSIONThe false statements investigation showed that Cisneros (in league with Medlar) and some of Cisneros's employees deliberately lied to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and others to help Cisneros gain a Cabinet post. This phase of the investigation ended with a plea bargain, following Cisneros's resignation from the Cabinet, but this Office is confident it would have proved in court that Cisneros and the others told such lies and that the lies were material to government decisionmaking. In the view of this Office, and of the court, the negotiated disposition of these charges was appropriate given the nature of the offenses, the available evidence, and the other consequences suffered by the participants. The evidence also indicated that certain members of the Transition Team and the Senate were remiss in their oversight role in their enthusiasm to see Cisneros appointed to his post, but this Office did not uncover a sufficient basis to state criminal charges against any of these persons.
Unfortunately, a major part of this Office's efforts were expended in dealing with the non-cooperation of Medlar, whose public revelations and lawsuit had launched the inquiry in the first place. She lied repeatedly, at times under oath, and seriously impeded this Office's efforts. In the end, she suffered more severe consequences than anyone else, a regrettable result that she brought upon herself.
This Office also had jurisdiction to investigate Cisneros for tax offenses in one year, 1992. In the end, it elected not to press any charges against him in this matter. This decision rested principally on the difficulty of proving a willful tax violation for a single year. This Office maintained, and still is of the view, that Cisneros's tax filings for 1991, 1992, and 1993, merited a multi-year criminal investigation and, quite possibly, prosecution for willful tax evasion. There is no real question that he seriously underdeclared his income on his tax returns, and it is hard to escape the conclusion that these actions were willful, given that his expenses (including his payments to Medlar) far exceeded the income he declared. However, because of the actions of the Department of Justice and the Internal Revenue Service, an independent counsel could never undertake a multi-year investigation.
This Office's inquiry into possible obstruction of justice within DOJ and the IRS was incomplete, but the limited record developed is sufficient to suggest that these agencies' treatment of possible charges against Cisneros was at best questionable and at worst represented serious wrongdoing. There seems to be no question that Cisneros was given extra consideration and more limited scrutiny because of who he was an important political appointee. It also appears likely that, if the responsible officials had properly applied the statutory standards they are obligated to uphold, the IRS would have referred the Cisneros case to DOJ for criminal prosecution, and the Attorney General would have asked that an independent counsel handle the matter. But this Office received little in the way of cooperation from DOJ, whose purpose should be to protect the public interest and not to circle the wagons in protection of government personnel. This non-cooperation, in conjunction with the lapsing of the Independent Counsel Act, brought this phase of this Office's activities to an end without a definitive conclusion.
The foregoing is not meant to be a criticism of these agencies as a whole. Numerous officials in each worked hard to make certain that Cisneros received no special treatment. But, in the end, enough high-ranking officials with enough power were able to blunt any effort to bring about a full and independent examination of Cisneros's possible tax offenses, in the face of what seemed to many to be obvious grounds for such an inquiry.
This Office at all times attempted to fulfill its mandates, often in the face of stiff resistance. It sought, and sometimes received, clarification or expansion of its powers and duties when this seemed appropriate. When circumstances made it apparent that further efforts would no longer serve the public interest, it halted operations and began the process of closing down.
This report, in the end, demonstrates the need for public officials to tell the truth and perform honest services. The fact that this does not always happen is the impetus for institutions like the independent counsels. How this can be accomplished today, in the absence of an Independent Counsel Statute, is a question to shich the public mush demand an effective answer.
It can't.
That's the answer.
You forgot to add .......while calling Islam a religion of peace & the illegals just came here for a better life.
Who's really running the damn show? Republican controlled house, Republican controlled senate and executive branch, 7 out of 9 sitting supreme court justices were nomiminated by Republicans and we get a redacted report about Clinton's gang of criminals?
This is not even free market idealogies, let alone any form of democracy based justice. And just Why the hell is it that Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, is the only one who battled to ensure the document's entire publication?
What crap, release the whole report!
It can't.
That's the answer.
I'm not as resigned - "the answer" is different for each of us.
I do agree that the public as a whole has demonstrated either an unwillingness or inability to hold the government accountable.
"Who's really running the damn show? Republican controlled house, Republican controlled senate and executive branch, 7 out of 9 sitting supreme court justices were nomiminated by Republicans and we get a redacted report about Clinton's gang of criminals?
This is not even free market idealogies, let alone any form of democracy based justice. And just Why the hell is it that Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, is the only one who battled to ensure the document's entire publication?
What crap, release the whole report!"
See post #117. Congress did just that, I think.
Before I click on the link is it in Adobe Acrobat or HTML?
If Adobe how many pages is it as I am on dial up?
The link is to an index of links. The first link is the report--approx. 500 pages pdf. You might want to do it overnight.
I wholeheartedly agree. Release the whole report. What is the benefit of having Republican control of both houses of Congress and the White House, if these coverups can continue?
"It's appendices 6-9 that are redacted, not chapters 6-9."
I wonder just what proof of a criminal act the klintoons have on papa? Mena, AR?
It has been apparent to me for some time that GWB is folding to extortion from the diseased one.
Well, I don't it's an accident Congress allowed the statute to expire.
Bookmark
4,242,023 finalreport.pdf
566,173 appendixpages1-3.pdf
1,377,557 appendixpages4-6.pdf
276,889 appendixpages7-8.pdf
2,318,714 appendixpages9-16.pdf
1,518,560 appendixpages17-20.pdf
1,301,772 appendixpages23-44.pdf
21,454,441 appendixpages45-78.pdf
12,908,943 appendixpages79-101.pdf
3,135,550 appendixpages103-116.pdf
239,036 appendixpages117-120.pdf
256,555 appendixpages121-125.pdf
1,733,660 appendixpages126-132.pdf
3,498,534 appendixpages133-158.pdf
204,622 appendixpages159-161.pdf
533,626 appendixpages162-171.pdf
18,211,826 commentletters.pdf
Remember .. only ONE CONGRESSPERSON is needed to request a full report - which he/she will then be allowed to release in it's entirety - even though the court has redacted portions of the report.
Is there just one congressperson who is more concerned with TRUTH and JUSTICE than they are concerned with kissing the blessed assurance of the Clintons ..??
I was just thinking that too. Dems getting a little help from AlJazerra maybe ..?? Interesting!
I think it may be a lot worse than that.
How many GOP Congresscritters do you think might have a bit of dirty money that got laundered to them?
Money or material gifts that they failed to report as gifts on their taxes?
And how much do you want to bet that Senate and Congressional leaders were quietly approached by the IRS and told releasing the whole report would mean they all would be subject to more scrutiny over the next couple of years?
That's why I mentioned someone like Coburn - I figure he's one of the few who are clean enough to not be blackmailable.
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.