Long investigation of Clinton official reaches bitter end

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | January 19, 2006 | David Johnston, Neil A. Lewis

[mondonico]

Washington -- After the longest independent counsel investigation in history, the prosecutor in the case of former U.S. housing secretary Henry Cisneros is finally closing his operation with a scathing report accusing Clinton administration officials of thwarting an inquiry into whether Cisneros evaded paying income taxes.

The legal saga of the prosecutor, David Barrett, lasted more than a decade, consumed some $21 million and came to be a symbol of the sometimes flawed endeavor to prosecute high-level corruption through the use of independent prosecutors.

Barrett began his investigation with the narrower issue of whether Cisneros, who was President Bill Clinton's first secretary of housing and urban development, lied to the FBI when he was being considered for his Cabinet position. The prosecutor ended his inquiry accusing the Clinton administration of a possible cover-up.

[mondonico]

This is a NYT syndicatd article. At least the report is getting some MSM coverage.

[mewzilla]

Long investigation of Clinton official reaches bitter end

Note to the Chron: Not quite.

[digger48]

Only bitter because the Left failed to keep it from any type of release, and bitter because most of the truth is redacted.

[mewzilla]

Well, by quashing the report, then only agreeing to a release of the redacted version, they've just prolonged their own agony. Fine by me. Couldn't happen to a more well-deserving cesspool of pols.

[Coop]

I wish I had your optimism on this.

[geezerwheezer]

Possible cover-up by the Clinton administration??? Give me a break please, ain't no possible here at all, it WAS A COVER-UP by the Clinton administration!!! So much is redacted in this report it isn't even funny. What B.S.!!

[Eric in the Ozarks]

We can all offer thanks to Chuck Grassley for sticking to his guns that the whole report would be made public. NOT.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Not a word about how the 'Rats have successfully redacted large parts of the report.

[popdonnelly]

If the independent prosecutor system is so bad, why are we paying Fitzgerald? Or does the author have a different take on Fitzgerald?

[mondonico]

Fitzgerald is not an "Independent Counsel." He is a "Special Prosecutor," I believe

The difference is that Gonzalez could fire him if he wanted to.

[Unicorn]

BTTT

[jjmcgo]

So, when will the unredacted version get leaked?

[Grut]

We can all offer thanks to Chuck Grassley for sticking to his guns that the whole report would be made public. NOT.

If Grassley's serious, all he has to do is publish the report in the Congressional Record.

[Doogle]

the deal is done...the American people will never know what was in this report



Doogle

[the final gentleman]

Maybe I don't understand the legal dance that led to this impasse, let's see...

It wasn't because of some threat to US security that the Low Court Judges saw fit to black out a hundred pages of the summary of the ten year report, so the courts redaction must have been implemented in order to shield a few innocent US citizens from guilt by association.

Oh really.

Then why did the court rule that any member of Congress can make the report open if they please?

This smarts of collusion between two of the trilateral branches of our Government at best, or at worse, the existence of a cowardly, political, effete court that is subservient to our congressmen and senators.

Since when did any member of congress have the Constitutional authority to screen public information that doesn't involve national security, and then decide whether or not the Citizens who elected them can know it?

This maneuver is the stuff of dictatorships.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Then why did the court rule that any member of Congress can make the report open if they please?

I find it hard to believe that not ONE member of Congress would do it.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Grassley's channeling Paul Wellstone.