Posted on 01/21/2006 8:34:25 AM PST by harpu
The last of the Clinton-era independent counsels, David Barrett, was finally allowed to release his report this week. And while the revelations aren't earth-shattering, the report reminds us why we don't miss the 1990s.
The Barrett probe began because former HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros lied to the FBI during a background check about alleged hush payments to a mistress. Mr. Cisneros pleaded guilty to that offense in 1999, and President Clinton eventually pardoned him. But Mr. Barrett also gathered evidence that Mr. Cisneros didn't report the money for those payments as taxable income. Mr. Barrett alleges that his attempts to investigate tax evasion were obstructed by officials at the Justice Department and IRS.
Some of the most interesting details in the Barrett Report were rumored to concern former IRS Commissioner Peggy Richardson. But they have been redacted. What was deemed fit for public viewing is troubling enough, however, and includes characters familiar to anyone who followed the other Clinton scandals. They include Lee Radek and Jo Ann Farrington of the Justice Department's Public Integrity section, as well as their boss, former Attorney General Janet Reno.
- HUGE SNIP -
Mr. Barrett didn't plan it this way, but it is somehow fitting his report should appear the week Mr. Clinton is entitled to reclaim the law license he forfeited for lying under oath in the Lewinsky case. His report is one piece of a larger story of ethical corner-cutting and a willingness to misuse the institutions of government. With much of the same crowd now preparing for another run at power in 2008, it's fair to ask, what would be different this time?
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Mr. Barrett didn't plan it this way, but it is somehow fitting his report should appear the week Mr. Clinton is entitled to reclaim the law license he forfeited for lying under oath in the Lewinsky case. His report is one piece of a larger story of ethical corner-cutting and a willingness to misuse the institutions of government. With much of the same crowd now preparing for another run at power in 2008, it's fair to ask, what would be different this time?
------
Yes, another reminder that Clinton = sleaze, corruption and criminality. And a reminder to the liberal dolts that voted this maggot into our Oval Office TWICE.
Any relation to Bill Richardson?
Chuck Grassley should get up on his hind legs and publish the entire report on his web site. If he had any guts, that is.
What would 911 have been like if Clinton's Justice Department had devoted a few more BTU's to Al Qaeda instead of protecting their corrupt political organization?
When Fitzgerald was done, indictments were handed down.
Now that Barrett is done, no indictments???
Or is someone waitng until we get closer to November'06 to dump it on the Dems???
This is the political equivalent of coitus interruptus.
Hi harpu,
Yes, if you have it I would appreciate getting the whole article. I don't have a subscripton.
Sadly, the Clinton's really are the gift that just keeps on giving. I did not expect anything earth shattering, but it belies the claim Democrats are using for Republicans now, calling us the party of corruption. The Bush administration has been so clean that it's driving the Democrats nuts.
If it is easier to send this using normal e-mail, please feel free to send it to morgan80237@yahoo.com
Morgan
ping me
Not all investigations result in indictments, but where criminal activity is uncovered, they should.
I would very much like to read the rest of the story so I am pinging you to please FreepMail me with it. Thanks...........Spunky
Barrett prosecuted Cisneros and his girlfriend. They were convicted on multiple counts, then pardoned by Bill Clinton.
Did you notice how a lot of the old media actually said that "most" of Barrett's time was spent working under the Bush adminstration?
They ask "what would be different this time?" How about corruption multiplied by whatever number you can conceive.
"Barrett's allegations of a cover-up are nothing short of laughable, given that the Bush administration was in charge for the majority of his investigation, and it's clear he's simply making excuses to justify his expensive and fruitless witch hunt," Mr. Carson said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/20/politics/20inquire.html?pagewanted=print
Thanks for the link. Carson distorted the facts, but it is disappointing that Ashcroft's DOJ did not authorize an investigation of the coverup. Congress ought to hold public hearings on the findings of Barrett's report.
<< another reminder that Clinton = sleaze, corruption and criminality. And [Was] .... voted ... into our Oval Office .... >>
No he wasn't.
He attained office via the good offices of that evil little IBM-robbing goblins-in-the-garden bad-hair-cut bastard from Texas and of the activist "Democrats" who collect the INS dole and by way of the two most massive electoral frauds ever perpetrated in the United States of America.
And I am very pleased to be lost among the two-hundred and thirty million-odd other Americans who have never even bad-dreamed about voting for the recidivist, treasonous, lying, looting, thieving, mass-murdering, serial raping son of a Hot-Springs' whorehouse Tom and/or Dick and/or Harry, gangster bastard!
Worst Crime Machine to ever live in the WH...that's what one day history will show.
That's because 1/3 or the report was "redacted", not released, hushed up.
Doesn't this set a "political" precedent for Bush pardoning Libby if he is convicted in a court of law?
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.