SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sully- who wrote (17176)1/25/2006 7:22:34 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Imminent Independent Counsel Report Gets Sliced Up

By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos
FOX News
Tuesday, January 03, 2006

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.

"I believe after 10 years and the expense of $22 million, the public has the right to see the entire report and make their own judgments," he said.

As the contents of the report have been sealed, Barrett is unable to offer details, but sources say the most serious of the allegations concerns, in part, the use of the Internal Revenue Service under the Clinton administration to intimidate political foes. The charges in the report could embarrass former members and associates of the Clinton White House, including former first lady and Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., say the sources.

"Some people have said it contains some serious allegations, and when people see the report, they can decide for themselves," Barrett said.

David Kendall, attorney for the Clintons, had no comment regarding the pending release of the report and declined comment on the potential impact on Sen. Clinton "because Senator Clinton is not involved in any way with this matter." Sen. Clinton's office referred all comment back to Kendall.

Conservative commentators like Robert Novak of the Chicago Sun Times and Byron York of The National Review, have speculated recently that Democrats are trying to keep the full report from public view in order to protect the Clintons and their Democratic connections, and they blame Democratic efforts in Congress to kill the most serious allegations in the report.

Democrats on Capitol Hill say these complaints are the outcome of paranoia, and they too want the report let out whenever it's ready for public release.

"The conservatives' charges are pure fantasy, 100 percent," said Barry Piatt, spokesman for Sen. Byron Dorgan, D- N.D. "We have no idea what's in the report, we have no agenda."

The three-judge panel overseeing the independent counsel initially ordered that the full report be given to members of Congress, but the public version be redacted, particularly Section Five, in order to protect individuals who had not been publicly indicted or named. In the October court order, the judges specified that Section Five dealt with Barrett's investigation into tax-related matters and obstruction of justice charges beyond the Cisneros affair.

In October, after voicing concerns that the report had yet to be released, Sens. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa and Dorgan introduced an amendment to the judiciary appropriations bill that would have released all portions of the report, with deletions only for "clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy."

But the language worked out in the subsequent House-Senate conference and in the final bill gave much more discretion to the court to redact individuals' names, which critics contend, ensures that much of Section Five and the most serious charges would be left out of the final report.

Barrett said he is disappointed, but not surprised, at the developments.
At least 146 motions have been filed by lawyers connected to the individuals cited in the report, which is reportedly 450 pages long with 2,600 footnotes, delaying its release.

Grassley, in his October remarks regarding the need for the report's imminent release, blamed "foot-dragging" by the lawyers for the individuals named in the report.

"It is the lawyers of the individuals named in the report who have been engaged in one sole pursuit: to foot-drag every inch of the way, filing every motion they can to delay, delay, delay," he said.

But Rep. Joe Knollenberg, R-Mich., an appropriations subcommittee chairman who sat in on the House-Senate conference that produced the legislation on the report's release, defended the negotiators' decision.

"In no way does the legislation suppress relevant — and potential damaging — information about the Clinton administration," said Knollenberg in a recent statement. He added that the legislation simply directs the court to follow existing law that protects individuals' rights and not to interfere with pending prosecution.

Some Democrats suggest that Barrett, who was a former Republican lobbyist and activist before being appointed independent counsel, had overreached his initial mission, which was to investigate whether Cisneros had lied to the Federal Bureau of Investigation about payments he made to his mistress.

In 1999, Cisneros pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge of lying to the FBI, paid a $10,000 fine and was later pardoned by Clinton.

According to a Government Accountability Office report in October, Barrett's office has spent more than $10 million since Cisneros' plea, ratcheting up the total expenses for the office to $22 million since Barrett's 1995 appointment. Since his report was filed in August 2004 until March 2005, he spent $1 million, according to the GAO, mostly on compensation, contractual services and benefits.

"The Barrett investigation has gone on too long and it's wasted millions of taxpayer dollars," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., in a statement through his spokeswoman. "I don't have any problem with Mr. Barrett releasing his report ... I just want him to stop wasting taxpayer dollars on an investigation he could have finished years ago. "

Barrett defends the long years and money he has spent since the Cisneros affair, which he calls "tragic," and suggests all will be clear when the report is released.

He said he has "been called every name in the book," and has spent many days and nights away from his family over the course of the years. He said he has never taken his task lightly or from a partisan point of view.

"This has been very carefully done, " he said, noting that the report went through 26 drafts before its completion.

Conservative activists are watching for the report with interest, vowing to make noise if it looks like a "cover-up" in the making.

"If it turns out that the report gets released and it smells anything like a typical Clinton cover-up, we're going to activate our 1 million members," said William Greene, president of RightMarch, a Georgia-based grassroots organization that specializes in coordinating campaigns that deluge members of Congress with e-mails, faxes and phone calls on issues of interest. "We're keeping an eye on it right now."

foxnews.com



To: Sully- who wrote (17176)3/8/2006 12:21:10 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
    “An accurate title for the report could be, ‘What We Were 
Prevented From Investigating.’” He added: “After a
thorough reading of the report it would not be unreasonable
to conclude as I have that there was a cover-up at high
levels of our government and it appears to have been
substantial and coordinated. The question is why? And that
question will regrettably go unanswered. Unlike some
other cover-ups, this one succeeded.”

More on the Democrat “culture of corruption”

By Jerry
Common Sense and Wonder

<<< Clinton cover-ups

(Mark Goodman-Washington Times)

Lost in the tumult over Islamic port deals and Katrina video capers is the recently released — and willfully ignored — Barrett Report.
David Barrett, you’ll recall, is the independent counsel appointed in 1995 to investigate allegations of impropriety against President Clinton’s Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros.

Mr. Barrett found his path mined by the Justice Department, the Internal Revenue Service and President Clinton’s attorneys, even after Mr. Clinton departed the White House. He prepared 18 felony indictments against Mr. Cisneros but had to settle for a guilty plea on a misdemeanor charge (lying to the FBI about his mistress, a poor choice for a tax write-off). He sought to prosecute Mr. Cisneros for tax fraud over a period of years but was thwarted by Attorney General Janet Reno. Ultimately Mr. Cisneros resigned his post, whereupon President Clinton, constitutionally bound to men who lie about their mistresses, pardoned him.

Worse, Mr. Barrett’s investigations led him into bleak wilds where unnumbered Clinton misdeeds allegedly lay beneath bureaucratic camouflage. These findings comprised a full 120 pages of his 684-page report — but you won’t find them in the final document published on January 19. That’s because congressional Democrats, led by Sens. Byron Dorgan, Dick Durbin and John Kerry, used an appropriations bill to leverage a deal redacting the potentially lethal 120 pages.

A frustrated Mr. Barrett released this statement: “An accurate title for the report could be, ‘What We Were Prevented From Investigating.’” He added: “After a thorough reading of the report it would not be unreasonable to conclude as I have that there was a cover-up at high levels of our government and it appears to have been substantial and coordinated. The question is why? And that question will regrettably go unanswered. Unlike some other cover-ups, this one succeeded.” Just so.

The media in the main treated Mr. Barrett as if he had spent the past ten years chasing ambulances down Pennsylvania Avenue. The New York Times, in self-imposed redaction, nimbly sidestepped the issue of the missing pages. NBC and CBS ignored the report entirely, while ABC cited unnamed critics as branding the study “incompetent, wasteful and without merit.” Objection. One witness may be questionable testimony, but two witnesses are corroborating evidence.

I’m an avowed liberal and a registered Democrat, but I can appreciate Mr. Barrett’s ordeal like no other because for nine years I’ve been negotiating a parallel minefield. Herewith, the redacted portion of my life: In 1997, attending to dark rumors, I contracted with a Washington financial investigator — I’ll call him “Deep” for originality’s sake — to run a background check on Norman Pearlstine, former editor of The Wall Street Journal, who’d been hired by his crony, Time Warner CEO Gerry Levin, as Time Inc’s editor-in-chief.

Sure enough, Deep reported that Mr. Pearlstine was living far beyond his evident means — for instance, he had three lavish houses plus a Manhattan co-op. On request, I turned the report over to the chief of the IRS Criminal Investigation Division in Newark, N.J. Two weeks later, Deep’s main IRS contact told him Mr. Pearlstine’s tax returns “did not remotely match” his assets and that the agency had assigned two top criminal investigators to the case.

Deep lost the Pearlstine trail, then picked it up again in 2001. “Gerry Levin went to his pal Bill Clinton to get The White House to quash the investigation,” he told me. “The two agents assigned to the case were transferred to less sensitive jobs and told to keep their mouths shut or lose their pensions.” (Deep pleaded for anonymity; a confidential experience in his NSA years left him in mortal fear of the Clintons.) Whoa.

I suddenly felt like some hapless Hitchcock non-hero who opens the wrong drawing-room door and finds a den filled with opulent thieves, in white tie and tails. Time Warner had already harassed me out of a retaliation suit with the injudicious assistance of Justice Miriam Cedarbaum (Yes, the Martha Stewart judge and my own private Janet Reno). The Justice Department and the FBI then stonewalled me. Fool that I am, I actually thought my colleagues would pounce on such a story. Wrong. Media Blue Wall Law says: No rummaging in the backstage dressing-room of a diva Manhattan editor, especially not with Bill Clinton squinting in the loge.

Surreally, the IRS rang in to threaten me, the whistleblower, with criminal investigation. I accused them of conspiring with Time Warner and the Clinton camp to keep me barefoot and button-lipped. The agency not only backed off, but the Secretary of the Treasury, John Snow, ordered a second inquiry. I’m currently cooperating with CID agents. But I suspect that, not unlike David Barrett, I’ve been invited on a snipe hunt.

So: We have here twin cautionary tales of fraud, corruption, obstruction and cover-up converging on — surprise! — Bill Clinton. It’s the Barrett Report, of course, which begs the most disturbing question: What evil lurks in those 120 pages that made the Democratic congressmen press so hard for redaction? My money says, a den filled with opulent thieves, in white tie and tails.

Mark Goodman, who is currently writing his professional memoir, is the author of “Hurrah for the Next Man Who Dies.”

commonsensewonder.com