Posted on 04/21/2005 11:14:33 AM PDT by Republican Red
WASHINGTON - Senate Democrats are quietly trying to kill a 10-year legal probe that implicates several senior Clinton administration appointees for obstruction of justice, the Daily News has learned.
The Democrats, saying that the $21 million investigation by Independent Counsel David Barrett should have ended long ago, succeeded in attaching an amendment to a spending bill Tuesday to cut off his funding by June 1.
But two sources close to the investigation said that if the legislation becomes law, it will thwart Barrett from making public a final report that names senior officials in the Clinton Justice Department and Internal Revenue Service who allegedly buried a tax fraud case involving former cabinet member Henry Cisneros.
"It's about obstruction of justice," said one of the sources. "People are willing to take drastic actions to kill this report."
Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), who introduced the amendment with Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), said last week that the disgraced HUD secretary paid a $10,000 fine in 1999 for lying to the FBI and that then-President Bill Clinton pardoned Cisneros, so the probe "should have ended years ago."
Barrett's probe began in 1995 by looking into allegations that Cisneros, who was Clinton's secretary of Housing and Urban Development, lied to the FBI about payments to his mistress. It expanded years ago into a broader obstruction case involving alleged tax fraud, according to the sources.
The report will allege that Justice Department officials snuffed out a tax case against Cisneros and that the IRS sometimes audited Clinton critics without good cause.
Barrett's investigation was wrapped up two years ago, and his 400-page final report was submitted to a three-judge panel last August, said two sources.
Because those named in the report have until the end of June to refute Barrett's findings, Kerry and Dorgan's amendment would prevent its release.
Because they have been obstructed at every turn even by the Clinton "Justice Dept" and the IRS which have now been singing according to William Saffire. Why don't the DEMS want the AMERICAN PEOPLE, who paid for it, to see the report?!!!
I did read that part. Two years for a response? In a government completely controled by the Republicans? There is either nothing to this or it's being suppressed by the White House, perhaps at the request of the the President's new best friend.
Either way it's a waste of money to further fund it. If the Republicans don't want evidence of Democratic corruption to come out, it won't. Why waste anymore money on it?
see my post # 122
Pinging you to let you know I brought your post from the Senate thread over here...
91. S.AMDT.399 to H.R.1268 To prohibit the continuation of the independent counsel investigation of Henry Cisneros past June 1, 2005 and request an accounting of costs from GAO.
Sponsor: Sen Dorgan, Byron L. [ND] (introduced 4/13/2005) Cosponsors (2) Drubin & Kerry
Latest Major Action: 4/19/2005 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 399 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
It's already been funded and the report written. They are only waiting for the response from the people in the report. Why don't Democrats want this report to come out?! We paid for it, we should see it.
February 15, 2001
If Bill Clinton thought the scandals would end when he left the White House, he has been disappointed.
Though his problems might not go as far as retroactive impeachment - a possibility suggested by one senator - he has been dogged by questions about gifts and furniture he and his wife Hillary took with them when they left Washington, and pardons he issued on his last day in office.
Both the House and the Senate have committees investigating these pardons, and federal prosecutors in New York are to conduct a criminal inquiry into the one issued to fugitive multi-millionaire businessman Marc Rich.
(my comment: the investigation into the Rich pardon is ongoing)
And following outrage at the cost of downtown Manhattan office space the former president was planning to rent partly at taxpayers' expense, he has backed down and is negotiating for cheaper property in Harlem.
Tarnishing the legacy
Stephen Schier, a political science professor and editor of the forthcoming book The Postmodern Presidency: Bill Clinton's Legacy in American Politics, says the move to Harlem is a sign Mr Clinton is aware of his image problem.
"Washington has been uniformly hostile to the Clintons' behaviour since he left office", Mr Schier told BBC News Online.
Mr Schier, who teaches at Carleton College, said liberals and conservatives alike were put off by Mr Clinton's recent actions.
And, he said, the general air of scandal will affect how history views the former president.
Bills to pay
"It has given credence to the underside of his record", he said.
Mr Clinton has financial worries as well as image problems. He is believed to owe huge bills from his legal defence against charges related to the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky affairs.
As a former president, he commands large speaking fees - he is reported to have been paid between $100,000 and $150,000 for his first address since leaving office - but there may be hesitation about hiring him.
Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, the financial company, admitted that it "should have thought twice" after Mr Clinton spoke at a company conference after leaving office.
"We should have been far more sensitive to the strong feelings of our clients over Mr Clinton's personal behaviour as president," the chairman of the company is reported to have said in an e-mail message.
But not everyone has been scared off. Software giant Oracle has hired Mr Clinton to speak later this month, as have Credit Suisse First Boston and entertainment newspaper Variety.
Presidential pardons
Mr Clinton may have more serious problems over the roughly 140 pardons he granted on his last day as president.
Among others, he pardoned cocaine dealer Carlos Vignali, whose father donated money to Mr Clinton's Democratic party.
Perhaps even more controversial was the presidential pardon for billionaire fugitive Marc Rich, who was wanted for allegedly having evaded nearly $50m in taxes, committing fraud and racketeering and participating in illegal oil trade with Iran.
Mr Rich's ex-wife reportedly donated money to the Democratic Party, the Senate campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton, and the Bill Clinton presidential library.
A senior Republican Senator is considering introducing a constitutional amendment to limit the president's power to pardon, which at the moment is absolute.
Even a Democratic Senator, Joseph Biden, said Clinton "either had an incredible lapse in memory or was brain-dead" when he pardoned Mr Rich, the Associated Press reported.
Admission of error
One area where the Clintons seem to have admitted error is in taking gifts and furnishings from the White House when they left.
They have returned $28,000 worth of furnishings and said they would pay back $86,000 for gifts they received.
They are reported to have received a total of $190,000 in gifts.
Mr Schier said taking the White House furnishings was seen as "tacky and indefensible" by the Washington establishment.
There was dispute over whether the items belonged to the White House or to the Clintons personally.
That scandal seems to have been resolved by the Clintons' offer to return disputed property.
But it has not put an end to the other problems which could dog Mr Clinton - the youngest ex-president in nearly a century - for some time to come.
And even if he rides out the criticism, it will affect Mr Clinton's legacy, Mr Schier said.
"The way you leave can leave a lasting impression", he said.
I understand Clintons Probe was afflicted with Peroni's disease???? (bent to the left I believe)
Not only would it not be safe to assume that. It would be idiotic to assume that.
Are you an idiot?
If not, then my advice is don't read more into words than their plain meaning.
Soooooooo, what's your guess on why Clinton pardoned Marc Rich?
That was my first thought until reading that: "The CW [confidential witness] is related to an extremely prominent and well-known political figure".
Let me go ahead and wish aloud!
Pls let it be SCC, "Screaming Cueball Carville!"
Bump
How about Ol'-I-Should-have-gotten-five-years-for-STEALING-classified-Clinton-era-documents-for $1000, please, Alex..
If you have a week to read it all, here's a great resource supporting that mindset:
http://www.alamo-girl.com/
Shrek, Shrej, Shrek
Here's an interesting one Brett.
I know, getting Clinton is a delicious pleasure but, really, 10 years? What a disgrace.
Why isnt this article a separate post/thread of its own? This is a good story. I'm starting to like the NY Sun.
I'm so spooked about the Clinton's that I fear that this report exonerates the Clintons and this is a feint!!!
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.