Posted on 04/27/2005 4:55:42 PM PDT by wagglebee
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Wednesday morning that he'll press for the release of findings by independent counsel David Barrett, whose probe into former Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros reportedly concluded that Clinton officials at the Internal Revenue Service conducted politically motivated audits of White House enemies.
"I believe the investigators should be permitted to complete their work and to issue their final report," Sen. Frist told syndicated radio host Tony Snow, who had asked if he would guarantee the report's release. "I'm pressing the conferees on the supplemental bill to take that amendment out," the Republican leader added.
Frist was referring to a rider attached to an Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill by Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., that will fund government operations after September 30 - but will defund Barrett's probe and prevent the publication of his report.
Dorgan's rider will reportedly bury charges that key officials in the Justice Department and the IRS abused their power by targeting political opponents of Bill Clinton.
Writing on his Web site, Snow said, "those charges — not the Cisneros case — have served as the focal point of Barrett’s investigation for the last several years."
At least a dozen Clinton scandal witnesses – including Sexgate accusers Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Elizabeth Ward Gracen and Juanita Broaddrick – were targeted by audits during the 1990s.
Conservative groups critical of the Clinton administration were also audited, including the Christian Coalition, Citizens for a Sound Economy, the Freedom Alliance, the Heritage Foundation, the NRA and others.
Most of the suspicious audits took place when the IRS was run by Margaret Milner Richardson, a longtime friend of Sen. Hillary Clinton from their days together at Yale Law School.
I called Duncan Hunter's local San Diego office today - his staffer didn't know what amendment I was talking about. I filled him in - and he kept trying to say that the House didn't have any control over the Senate Amendment - and I told him - THEN SOMEBODY BETTER GET IN CONTROL OF IT PRETTY QUICK.
He assured me he would pass along my information. However, I also sent Duncan's Washington office the link to the story from Tony Snow.
I'm very glad to see Tony had a chance to talk to Frist and now that Frist is aware of what the dems are trying to do - I hope this disgusting amendment will get taken out. However, if it gets left in - there will be hell to pay.
I get Tony's show on tape delay in the evenings and I just heard him on with Frist---after he let Frist go, he also said that he has been in contact with the HOUSE members that would be in conference and THEY also said that the amendment would be taken off the bill---
I do get the impression that Tony is not going to be satisfied until he knows it has been taken off.
He also said that he wouldn't be satisfied if it was taken off and just "filed" in the Senate---he said he "knows" there is explosive stuff in the report and he thinks the American people have the right to know what was in it!!!
They might be able to if he was convicted of a felony .. but don't hold your breath.
After his resignation, Nixon made very few comments about current political events; however, shortly before his death he predicted that BJ and Hitlery would be involved in a huge scandal and possibly impeached.
You can't "impeach" somebody who's not holding a public office. However, HE COULD BE CONVICTED OF A CRIME just like anyone else, that incudes indictment, trial, judgment and punishment.
"report will disappear"
NO CHANCE! The reason is it's now been made public.
And .. the "new media" will not allow it to disappear.
He did? I've never heard of this before.
Can you source it?
I would have to do some research; however, I'm fairly certain that I've read opinions that said it was possible to impeach a former president for misdeeds that occurred while in office (I'm fairly certain that it was commented on when the Marc Rich pardon scandal first became public).
I'll see what I can find, it might take a day or two.
Here's a NewsMax article about it.
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1998/06/21/101058
Well .. I think we need to keep supporting Tony. I'm so glad Tony has taken this on - having that surgery may have helped him to be a lot more forceful - and using his celebrity to get some important things done - I applaud him for being so bold.
Bump!
Tony has had time to read FR and watch Tv a lot, so he has had an advantage, but he is usually pretty good at looking at things like one of us, instead of one of them....
BTW, FYI, I just looked at the C-span schedule for tomorrow and on C-span 3 at 9:30 am edt, the Judiciary Committee is going to have hearings for 2 hours.....
It didn't say who they would be hearing/discussing, though.
Thank you very much.
I don't get C-SPAN3 - unless they happen to switch out C-SPAN2 .. but 6:30 am is a bit much for me in the morning.
Oh, you are on the left coast, huh? Well, I should start calling you leftie!!!
Just kidding, I am left-handed and called lefty all of the time---
Well, I am sure it will be replayed tomorrow night if there is anything interesting---besides there will probably be a thread ---if not go to the Senate thread, I will post if I can---
The most damning charges against Nixon had been that he had attempted to use the office of the president to influence the FBI and the IRS. He got an FBI investigation delayed for two weeks, and he was completely ignored by the IRS. . . .Poor Tricky Dick could never actually get the IRS to audit one of his enemies. He couldn't even get them to back off from auditing him while he was president.
Hmmmm? That's interesting. I didn't think you could impeach someone who was out of office - or someone who had already been impeached.
I mean .. that's what "impeachment" is. According to the Constitution, it has to be brought by the House - and if he's not in office - then why would they do that.
As an X-president - he can be indicted, face a jury, and be punished like any normal citizen. Impeachment doesn't need to be used - I guess that is my point.
The only difference is that Nixon had the taping system and Clinton did not.
Well, maybe not the only difference. Only the Clinton tapes would have had the slurping sounds.
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.