The Clinton Coverup
Hey, it works when you have : (1) a sympathetic national press corps, (2) corrupt underlings, and (3) senators who are willing to “redact” information from the prosecutor’s report.
Robert Novak comments (via the Houston Chronicle):
The long-awaited final report by independent counsel David Barrett, to be released today, was severely censored by court order but not enough to sufficiently obscure its importance. As long forecast, it alleges serious corruption in the Clinton administration’s Justice Department and Internal Revenue Service. The question is what was contained in 120 pages removed by the judges.
Here’s a sotto voce article from The NY Times, filled with “accusations” against prosecutor David Barrett,
Sample:
Mr. Barrett’s 746-page report said that the tax and obstruction phase of the inquiry ended without a definitive conclusion, but it declared: “These agencies’ treatment of possible charges against Cisneros was at best questionable and at worst represented serious wrongdoing. There seems to be no question that Cisneros was given special consideration and more limited scrutiny because of who he was - an important political appointee.”
Justice Department officials who disputed Mr. Barrett’s findings portrayed his investigation as deeply misguided and said the tax case against Mr. Cisneros had little merit. They suggested that the prosecutor had turned his disappointment in his inability to prove the obstruction allegations into unprovable theories.
Translation of Timese: Though we know there is bad stuff here, we’re still carrying water for the Clintons.
This Reuters wire report hits a little harder, but it takes its direction from the Times’ article.
Where’s the anger from the FOIA crowd and the “open government” grinds? The national press needs to demand the dedacted material be produced.
UPDATE: Bill Clinton can get his law license back today. (From Wednesday’s NY Sun.)
After five years of banishment from the legal profession, President Clinton will be eligible this week to reclaim the law license he gave up as a consequence of the inaccurate responses he gave under oath to questions about his relationship with a White House intern…
The Barrett Report: Is The IRS The Ultimate Def… Through its biased reporting, the New York Times is attempting to “cover up the cover-up”. While the Barrett report will shed some light on alleged obstruction and corruption within the Justice Department and Internal Revenue Service under the Clinto…
Trackback by Martin's Musings — 1/19/2006 @ 10:05 am
RENO: THE BASEST LITTLE AG IN THE WORLD Less than 24 hours after my post on the corruption of the Janet Reno Justice Department “investigation” of the Oklahoma City bombing comes another story detailing the depth of the dishonesty of the Clinton Administration Attorney General. In this…
Trackback by Benedict — 1/19/2006 @ 10:41 am
But wait! I thought that Reid, Pelosi, Kennedy, Dean, Hillary, have all told us that the Bush administration is the most corrupt in history. Are you suggesting that the Clinton administration, with its folks like Cisneros (and let’s not forget Ron Brown), and an Attorney General who was always investigating, never coming to any conclusions, and pardons for all the gang (or at least those with money to give to the Clintons or his library), might also have had an ethical lapse or two? Has anyone told the Times?
Comment by Everyman — 1/19/2006 @ 3:01 pm
[…] it or leave it, the IRS was being manipulated, and possibly the larger justice department. Austin Bay Blog The Clinton Coverup Hey, it works when you have : (1) a sympathetic national press corps, (2) co […]
Pingback by Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » The Barrett Report — 1/19/2006 @ 10:33 pm