Posted on 10/24/2005 3:32:10 PM PDT by Checkers
There is major news in the fight over the report of independent counsel David Barrett's investigation into the Henry Cisneros matter. Late today, the three-judge panel overseeing Barrett ordered that parts of his report be released to the public -- and that all of the report be given to Congress.
"The Court orders that the independent counsel, with all deliberate speed, prepare for release and make release of the now pending Final Report, except for that portion designated as Section V," the order says. It is not clear what is contained in Section V, but it is known that several Clinton-era figures have sought to prevent the Barrett report from being released, and perhaps the material in Section V relates to that. In any event, the Court further ordered Barrett to prepare a version of the report containing the publicly-withheld sections and deliver it to the leaders of Congress and the chairmen and ranking members of several committees.
But there is a catch -- the judges stipulated that their order be stayed for at least ten days in the event that any figures involved in the matter should petition the Supreme Court for a stay. "If no such stay is sought within the period granted by this paragraph, then this stay shall be lifted," the order says. One unspoken aspect of that provision is that whoever has been blocking the report's release in private -- under seal -- would, if a petition is made to the Supreme Court, have to do so publicly.
"I am extremely pleased with the decision of the court," Barrett told National Review today. "The Congress and the public have a right to know the contents of the entire report, and this is a step in that direction."
Editorial: It's past time to release findings on Cisneros
Web Posted: 10/10/2005 12:00 AM CDT
San Antonio Express-News
snip
David Barrett, the independent counsel who conducted the investigation, told the Daily News he is eager to resolve the legal impasse.
"The report was filed over a year ago, but there are still matters ... that have to be resolved by the judges before they decide when it can be published," he said.
The attorneys want allegations apparently involving officials other than Cisneros, that did not result in charges, stricken from the report, but the people deserve to see the unvarnished findings of the inquiry.
If the report is sanitized, it will mitigate the resolution that would bring closure to a process that has gone on too long.
ping
The Clinton IRS audited EVERY Conservative and Republican group and the media didn't utter a word! This country has been "coup d' etated" by the Fifth Column, the Fourth Estate, our left-wing media. I detest them for their unfairness.
Who will be doing the Clintonistas dirty work this time?
---
Paging Lanny Davis and Gregg Craig
Paging Lanny Davis and Gregg Craig
White Courtesy Phone - You're impeached President and honchos needs clean-up on Aisle 2. :-)
I'm sure they'll at least be making the rounds on the talking head shows. That is if the MSM even bothers to cover this story.
ping
I hate to sound paranoid but the Clinton people have been incredibly successful in supressing investigations. They and there lawyers are masters of manipulating the law.
With the media as willing accomplices in their coverups and stonewalls they are about as slippery as you can get.
Ping.
I may have to tune that show in. ;-)
FR ..
All the news the MSM chooses to ignore,,
For some reason. :-D
"Infuriating and inexcusable," said Rep. Henry A. Waxman (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee, who has long been critical of Barrett. "He's burning through taxpayer dollars, and Washington Republicans won't make him accountable for the millions he's wasted."
Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.), who wrote the legislation to cut off Barrett's funding, called the ongoing expenditures "unbelievably stupid."
A Wall Street Journal editorial charged that lawyers at Williams & Connolly have filed more than 190 motions and appeals in the case, one of which took 18 months to resolve. The law firm would not comment.
Columnist Robert D. Novak said Dorgan's amendment, inserted "in the dead of the night," would "close a rare window into political foul play at the Internal Revenue Service."
Dorgan said his amendment would not have precluded the release of the final report, which was already completed. But in House and Senate negotiations over the spending bill, House leaders refused to accept the Dorgan language, and it was dropped.
(There, fixed it...)
Good!
snip
Barrett, originally assigned to examine the Cisneros/Medlar payoffs, twice received permission from the panel to expand his investigation. By March 1997, Barrett was conducting -- in the words of one of the judges overseeing independent counsels -- "an apparently wide-ranging probe of government officials who might, in [Barrett's] view, have sought to shield Mr. Cisneros."
At issue, apparently, was the Internal Revenue Service and Cisneros's tax records. In October 2000, the Wall Street Journal reported that, as early as 1997, Barrett "had wanted to look into allegations that Mr. Cisneros failed to report income from speeches. Investigators suspected that Mr. Cisneros had signed over checks from speaking engagements to his mistress." But the Clinton Justice Department moved in to limit Barrett's access to Cisneros's tax records.
A legal fight ensued.
And that's about all that has been reported. Nevertheless, from discussions with people who have some knowledge of the situation, a bit more can be said. It is true that Barrett's expanded investigation involved a look at the IRS and the Justice Department. Apparently, the office of independent counsel felt it had a serious and credible whistleblower with information about alleged efforts to protect Cisneros and other political figures -- and to stymie the Barrett probe. What followed was essentially hand-to-hand combat between Barrett's office and the Clinton Justice Department, as Barrett sought more information and the department fought to keep it from him. That situation continued beyond the 2000 election, with Republicans in control of the Justice Department, until Barrett finally gave up.
According to papers made public in March, Barrett told the court that his office had "ceased all investigative and prosecutorial activities and does not intend to initiate any others." (He evidently made that decision sometime between last September and March, but exactly when is not clear.) Barrett further told the court that his primary remaining responsibility was writing the final report of his investigation.
That report could be quite controversial. Some people familiar with the situation believe the Justice Department barred Barrett from investigating things that, in the words of one source, "cried out to be investigated." This would include actions by the Justice Department itself -- and the report may say so. "The Department of Justice is incapable of investigating itself, and you can carve that in granite," says the source. (A current official at Justice insists, "Nobody here was attempting to protect the Clinton administration from an investigation.")
snip
In court papers filed in June 2001, Judge Richard Cudahy wrote that "whether a cost-benefit analysis at this point would support Mr. Barrett's efforts is a question to which I have no answer." But Cudahy added that the judges could do almost nothing to stop Barrett. "The [independent counsel] law literally construed may be that Mr. Barrett can go on forever," Cudahy wrote, "so long as he claims or shows active grand jury activity, no matter how unpromising. Who is to contradict his evaluation that what he is doing is full of promise?"
It should be noted that Cudahy is a Carter appointee who sometimes made trouble for independent counsels investigating the Clinton administration. In 1999, he voted (unsuccessfully) to shut down the Kenneth Starr investigation, and in 2000 he leaked information that then-independent counsel Robert Ray had started a new grand-jury probe into whether Bill Clinton could be indicted after he left office. (Cudahy later apologized for "inadvertently" releasing the information.)
snip
If there was ever a case in which the public had a right to know how its money has been spent and how its prosecutors have exercised their power, this is it. Maybe the investigation was a wild goose chase. If so, the public should know about it. But if the Justice Department obstructed a legitimate inquiry, the public should know that, too. Reputations are at stake -- maybe more than just David Barrett's.
Seeing him again will just take me back to the year of Monica.
How true.
Sadly, the old media spills into pop culture, ala Letterman, Jon Stewart Show, etc....so they are NOT dead.
Thanks. I recalled there being several related matters. I guess this is the hydra rather than just one.
pong
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.