Who'd thunk it.
Posted on 01/17/2006 8:41:01 PM PST by HAL9000
Excerpts -
WASHINGTON _ A special prosecutor's long-delayed report charges that a coverup at senior levels of the Clinton administration killed a tax fraud case against former Cabinet member Henry Cisneros, the New York Daily News has learned.David Barrett's 11-year, $23 million probe, which will be released Thursday, states in stinging terms that the Clinton coverup succeeded.
[snip]
Before Cisneros' 1999 guilty plea, Barrett's office began a second phase based in part on allegations in a 1997 memo to IRS headquarters by whistleblower John Filan, an IRS criminal investigations chief in Texas.
In a memo obtained by the Daily News, Filan accused top Clinton officials, including senior IRS lawyer Barry Finkelstein, of covering up Cisneros' tax fraud case by transferring it to two inexperienced lawyers in Washington.
Filan wrote that the two got orders "to kill the case from Barry Finkelstein at the outset."
[snip]
(Excerpt) Read more at tmcnet.com ...
You are much too generous :-)
Most of them start going bad the minute they think about running for office.
Tin-eared Algore has managed to get screwed by the Clintons on the timing once again: just after he makes this huge speech about a president overstepping his authority, this comes out! LOL! The man who could NEVER be President loses another round because of sHrillary and Company.
Most legal eagles believe Clinton can't be retroactively impeached. I disagree, not because I'm a 'legal eagle': [far from it], but because the Constitution lacks specificity, and how can you impeach a president who makes last minute abuses of power, such as the pardon of a drug dealer for cash, unless it's after he leaves the White House? If we are unable to impeach a president after he leaves, then we should amend the Constitution, "The Clinton Amendment".
1. He could be stripped of his presidential immunity
2. He could lose his presidential pension.
3. Theoretically, he could even be stripped of his security, but that would appear very, very mean spirited. I'd be happy with 1 and 2.
But in San Antonio, he's a genius.
Poor San Antonio...
Evidently.
My question is, it's obvious that this fellow is very important to the Clintons and they have done everything possible to protect him. His appointment to the cabinet alone is what triggered the investigation.
Anybody got a clue, speculation, about what Cisneros did or has on the Clintons?
Gotta link? That sounds amusing.
Who'd thunk it.
Cisneros was probably pardoned with the stipulation that he can't sing....
The left will say this is an attempt by Republicans to derail Hillary's presidential campaign.
They are so predictable.
HAL9000 your work here with some other counter parts keep the truth alive.
"Before Cisneros' 1999 guilty plea, Barrett's office began a second phase based in part on allegations in a 1997 memo to IRS headquarters by whistleblower John Filan, an IRS criminal investigations chief in Texas."
I guess whistle blowers are only ok when it involves the Bush administration.
MiaT Your help maybe needed here...
The article states that it will be released tomorrow.???
"New York Times planning non-stop coverage. Developing . . . . . ."
Uh-huh.
"New York Times planning non-stop coverage"
And I know how to turn lead into gold!
That sounds like a fine idea.
Do you know where there might be a replay between 12-3 EST?
Mornings are tough for me.
Funny you should mention that...I just left this thread:
2002 Memo Doubted Uranium Sale Claim (NYT desperate for news. Resorts to rehashing lies.)
ROTFLMAO!
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.