|
he judges who redacted 120 pages of the Barrett report have, if not a sense of justice, a sense of humor. In their rulings, they provide a mechanism by which the people can see the redactions, but for which at least one honest, selfless, courageous member of Congress is required.
The way it works: Any member of Congress can see the redactions simply by requesting access, and, unlike Barrett, can publish the redactions "without fear of legal sanction."1 The serious '"culture of corruption" in the clinton DOJ and IRS detailed by the Barrett report makes one wonder about the nature of the crimes and abuse that the clintons felt compelled to redact. Even a small subset of what we do know about the redactions argues for their immediate disclosure by Congress. (Only in the surreal world of the clintons would someone suggest with a straight face that disclosure of the crime of obstruction of justice is precluded by privacy considerations.) We know that clinton pettifoggers labored mightily and long to gut and bury this report with some 140 motions, assorted sleights of hand... and, whenever necessary, the clintons' heavy hand. We know that charges of retaliatory IRS audits of both the clintons' political foes and the clintons' victims of rape and predation are said to be included in the redacted material. The mutual protection racket writ large is apparently alive and well in DC. (Is Filegate rearing its ugly head yet again?) We mustn't let Congress get away with this coverup. Call. E-mail. Fax. Don't let up. And remember the responses. On Election Day.
- The Barrett report, Robert Novak, Jan 19, 2006
|
Hillary Clinton's revisionist tome notwithstanding, 'living history' begets a certain symmetry. It is in that light that I make this not-so-modest proposal on this day, exactly 64 years after the attack on Pearl Harbor. 