Posted on 01/23/2006 2:08:17 PM PST by rightalien
An independent counsel has issued a report claiming that officials of the Clinton administration blocked his investigation into allegations of tax violations by former housing secretary Henry Cisneros. Although these sensational charges have been trumpeted by partisans as evidence of Democratic corruption, they are completely false.
I know; I was there.
The independent counsel, David Barrett, was appointed to investigate charges that Cisneros had lied about payments he made to his mistress. (After investigating this charge for several years, Barrett meekly allowed Cisneros to plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge with a promise of no jail time.)
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Boy, if only Scooter Libby got such good press...
Nice try, Bobby, but it won't fly.
So, now the Washington Post is letting clintonoid flunkies write their editorials?
I looked up Litt, who worked in the clinton Justice Department, hardly a recommendation for honesty. I note that he appears to have been involved in clinton's Clipper program to spy on Americans. See his statement here, where he argues against allowing Americans to encrypt their messages:
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/daag9_97.htm
Again folks,
I am still waiting with baited breath for anyone to explain to me exactly what are in the redacted paragraphs of the Barret Report that are so damning to the Clintons.
Anyone with a clue ?
Well, there's only one way to clear it up: we'll just have to see the entire Barrett report.
Were you asleep from 1992 to 2000?
there's no blue dress either
If this report were about Dubya, the redacted bits would have been leaked to the Post and the New York Times by now.
Exactly.
The end of the article states that Robert Litt served from 1994 to 1999. Somehow it doesn't sound like a non-partisan tenure.
Notice how, as he moves from the early part of this article to the end, he changes the thing from not enough evidence to absolutely no evidence. That right there will trigger any current model BS detector.
That explains why the Democrats tried so hard to keep this report from being published. Oops.
And what're your feelings about the Gorelick Wall you worked so hard to maintain?
Good Robert! Then theres no need to conceal the 120 pages that were "deleted" from the final report!
Release the redacted pages and let us see for ourselves.
<<<<
Were you asleep from 1992 to 2000?
>>>.
No I was not. But I don't think there was an official investigation of this magnitude that detailed potential ( and I use this word guardedly) mis-use of presidential office and the IRS to attack your enemies.
Whitewater ? No official indictment of the Clintons.
Chinagate ? No official indictment.
Buddhagate ? Why was Al Gore allowed to ran for president ?
Johnny Chung, John Hwang, Charlie Trie, Lippogate ? No official indictment.
The only thing we got was a sex scandal in the person of Paul-gate and Lewinsky.
That is why they call him Slick Willy. Nothing sticks to him. Now tell me how Barret's report is different.
There may actually be nothing there ... However, this apparently Barrett was stonewalled for years by the Clintonistas and the report's release held up by the Democratic party. Moreover, there's not been an independent counsel report redacted as this one has. So the question is ... What were they afraid of?
Can someone explain to me why, if there was no evidence of wrong doing, there was a need to redact 120 pages of the report? He forgot to 'splain that little factoid, didn't he?
Close call.
Until the FULL Barrett report is released, whenever I get a request for a donation from a Senator or Congressperson, I'm going to be sending them something like this:
I think a similar thing helped a lot to get them concerned about illegal alien invaders, (the Nada Peso 'bills' from SacredCowBurgers.com); no reason why it won't help with this.
If you want to send something similar, click on my user name; There is a link to a file that will print out three high resolution copies of my 'pseudo-bills'.
"The writer, a Washington lawyer, served from 1994 to 1999 in the Justice Department, where his last position was on his knees replacing monica when hitlery became aware of her pizza deliveries."
A well qualified source. As he said, he was there and saw it from a different perspective.
Is the writer auditioning for a spot in the HRC administration?
Did I miss anything?
Congressman Billybob
Latest column: "The 'Chocolate' Minds of Mayor Nagin and Senator Clinton"
Nope, he doesn't have to audition. The Post was so concerned with protecting the Clinton administration Justice Department and appointees in the IRS that they got one of the past members of the Clinton Justice Department (yes, the same department accused by Barrett) to write the article.
They wanted to be sure that they didn't miss ANY rationalization possible by using an actual biased journalist. (No objective journalist is on staff currently so that category isn't even feasible)
Now that's funny right there. I don't care who you are. That's funny.
Is this the guy they talk about when they say, "Thought like Litt"?
Exactamundo.
What a great idea for a graphic.
Boy, are they ever sugar coating this sour candy.
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.