He thinks the Dems are trying to bury this investigation because it will implicate some big Clinton administration people and in the process embarrass Hillary.
Whatever is in the report is trying to be kept secret.
Embarass Hillary ? You must be joking.Thats good, embarass is something that happens to someone who has a moral sole . . . . .
Embarass Hillary ? You must be joking.Thats good, embarass is something that happens to someone who has a moral sole . . . . .
I hope it doesn't pass. They didn't give a bill number, so how can we follow up on it?
No wonder Sandy Bergler gets off with a slap on the wrist.
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.
Ping
WhiteWash!
"the IRS sometimes audited Clinton critics without good cause."
To the contrary, the Clinton administration's idea of 'good cause' was anyone or any institution that criticized the Clinton administration. Remember Mr. & Mrs. Mendoza? W should invite them to the White House, and order an apology from both the Secret Service and the IRS.
There. Fixed it for you.
Another coverup.
If Bush had even just 1 ball, he would veto this bill until the "poison pill" is removed. Remember how the f'n liberal media dems called everything the GOP put in a bill, a "poison pill"? Bush wouldn't dare.
Hannity just read an article from somewhere, I can't remember, The Sun something or The Something Sun, but it sounded like Hillery is the one the dems are trying to protect with this bill from what I heard.
Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my ‘miscellaneous’ ping list.
"succeeded in attaching an amendment to a spending bill Tuesday to cut off his funding by June 1"
How in hell does an issue like this get added as an amendment to s "spending bill" for our troops. By what process does an "amendment" of this nature get attached. Don't other senators have some say in what amendments are added ..?? I'm confused. I thought the repubs were the MAJORITY PARTY.
Do the dems believe Bush will NOT refuse to sign it because it's for the troops ..?? And .. will Papa Bush intervene on behalf of Clinton and encourage his son to sign the bill ..?? Very concerning.
pinging for posterity
snip
"They're, quote-unquote, writing the final report," Herry said. "That's what we were told."
Last year, Waxman asked the GAO for a month-by-month breakdown of Barrett's $1.77 million of expenditures for fiscal 2003, and demanded that the Justice Department shut down the investigation.
snip
"If this doesn't prove [the independent counsel's] worthlessness as a governmental entity, I don't know what does," said Joseph DiGenova,(lawyer for one of the Clinton criminals) a Republican lawyer and former independent counsel, who noted that Cisneros has recently taken small steps back into politics.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17129-2005Mar31.html
Well, Bill O'Reilly has told that he was audited repeatedly by the IRS, for no reason at all. He should be interested in this article.
We could deal with them here....Delay for Clinton...drop both and move on.
The charges stemmed from Cisneros' statements regarding financial arrangements with his former mistress, Linda Medlar. Cisneros, the charismatic former mayor of San Antonio, had admitted to the affair publicly in 1988. On September 12, 1994, the television show "Inside Edition" broadcasted excerpts of tapes Medlar had made of her telephone conversations with Cisneros. In the tapes, Cisneros seemed to suggest that he had deliberately misled investigators about payments he had made to Medlar. The tapes also included Medlar's warnings, and Cisneros' denials, regarding possible illegalities in his relationship with flamboyant businessman and longtime Democratic supporter Morris Jaffe.
On March 13, 1995, Attorney General Janet Reno requested an independent counsel look into the case. In her application to the Special Division, Reno noted that while there was not enough evidence to merit further investigation of Cisneros' relationship with Jaffe, an independent counsel should examine the false statements aspects of the case.
Initially, Medlar agreed to cooperate with the investigation. However, after investigators began to question some of the information Medlar provided, they turned on and eventually indicted her. In January, 1998, Medlar pled quilty to several counts of bank fraud, money laundering and false statements. She received a 42 month prison sentence.
Cisneros was indicted on 18 felony counts of false statements, conspiracy to defraud and obstruction of justice. In September 7, 1999, he pled guilty to a single misdemeanor count of making false statements to the FBI about the amount of money he paid Medlar. Cisneros will pay a $10,000 fine, with no jail time or probation. As of September 1999, Medlar (now known as Linda Jones, after her divorce) is still in prison in Fort Worth, Texas. The four year investigation is estimated to have cost $9 million.
DAVID S. CLOUD, WALL STREET JOURNAL: An independent counsel is investigating whether the Internal Revenue Service and Justice Department obstructed his probe of former Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros, lawyers familiar with the matter said. Independent Counsel David Barrett is questioning IRS officials who were involved in the Cisneros case and has indicated he will look at the Justice Department's role as well. And he has widened his focus to look at whether the Clinton administration allowed politics to influence its handling of other tax cases involving Democrats, one of the lawyers said. It is unclear whether Mr. Barrett has authority to investigate the IRS and Justice Department treatment of tax cases beyond that of Mr. Cisneros, but the probe has become more serious in recent weeks. Mr. Barrett convened a grand jury two months ago and pressured a career IRS lawyer in the chief counsel's office into testifying by telling him that he was a subject of the probe, people involved said. The IRS employee, whose name couldn't be determined, invoked the Fifth Amendment in order to secure an immunity deal and is now cooperating, two lawyers said. He has testified several times and was asked about his work on the Cisneros case. Other IRS officials have testified as well.
The 1997 indictment said Mr. Cisneros actually paid Mrs. Jones $264,500 from 1990 to 1993, including $75,500 as apparent additional hush money after he became HUD secretary in January 1993.