The Dynamic Duo Strike Again

[Cknolls]

Clinton Cover-Up In Barrett Report: Daily News

The New York Daily News reports that the long-awaited Barrett report on the investigation into Henry Cisneros will claim that the Clinton administration actively covered up a tax-fraud case against the former HUD Secretary, and that the Hillary crony in charge of the IRS at that time played a key role in killing the investigation:

 

A special prosecutor's long-delayed report charges that a coverup at senior levels of the Clinton administration killed a tax fraud case against ex-cabinet member Henry Cisneros, the Daily News has learned.

David Barrett's 11-year, $23 million probe, which will be released tomorrow, states in stinging terms that this Clinton coverup succeeded.

 

Cisneros was forced to admit in 1999 that he had made secret payments to a mistress before serving as Clinton's secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

 

Barrett investigated tax fraud charges stemming from those under-the-table payments.

 

Then-IRS Commissioner Peggy Richardson, a close friend of Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), was involved in efforts to quash the probe, a source close to the case alleged.

 

But Richardson's role was cut from Barrett's report, which went through 26 drafts, because Democratic law firm Williams & Connolly successfully pressured Barrett to remove a section of the report naming her, a source said.

 

 

In a strange twist to the case, Cisneros' defense attorney now works at the IRS as chief of internal affairs. Cono Namorato refused to comment on the allegations in the Barrett report. Barrett alleges that Richardson and Barry Finkelstein, an attorney with the IRS, fixed the probe by assigning it to two low-level, inexperienced attorneys. A whistleblower, IRS criminal investigatgor James Filan, tried to blow the cover-up out of the water, but in the end did not succeed.

 

The report, if the Daily News has its facts straight, will prove explosive to the 2006 re-election effort of Hillary Clinton, but even more damaging to her expected run at the Presidency in 2008. For instance, Williams and Connolly not only represents Cisneros in this probe, but also has as clients a couple named Bill and Hillary Clinton. It seems as though burying this report and getting a series of redactions helps a number of their clients out, a kind of anti-conflict of interest in this case. And it seems more than passingly strange that Cono Namorato winds up running the IRS division that would have been tasked with discovering a cover-up and malfeasance involving a former client after he gets done representing him.

 

Someone has a lot of explaining to do. And while she tries to come up with an explanation, this will remind everyone what a "culture of corruption" really looks like, as this will bring up the ethical morass of the Clinton years all over again. The Democrats may well have to rethink their electoral theme for 2006 -- again.

[FlaSoxxJim]

I saw this on Raw Story last night and I figured it would be the big news lede of the day. I assume it will get a little more coverage tomorrow.

[kapkomet]

I saw this on Raw Story last night and I figured it would be the big news lede of the day.  I assume it will get a little more coverage tomorrow.

It's not the big news story of the day, because it doesn't fit 'Bush sucks' in content.

 

/back to exile

[Balance]

Where'd this report come from, perchance?

 

I'm a little suspicious about bias when the article refers to a "Democratic law firm." Law firms are made up of individuals, all of whom have their own views.

[juddling]

With a thread title like that..i was expecting a few flashy colors with words like "BAM" "BIFF" "SOCKO"

 

I'm mildly disappointed.

 

[FlaSoxxJim]

It's not the big news story of the day, because it doesn't fit 'Bush sucks' in content.

 

/back to exile

yeah, I figured there had to be a logical reason. Not that the one you've suggested is it, mind you.

[NorthSideSox72]

Reading the last paragraph of the article, I think calling whatever that source is "news" is a stretch. It looks like a fact-challenged letter to the editor.

[jasonxctf]

Reading the last paragraph of the article, I think calling whatever that source is "news" is a stretch.  It looks like a fact-challenged letter to the editor.

 

 

agreed... the last paragraph has Fox News written all over it.

[mr_genius]

agreed... the last paragraph has Fox News written all over it.

 

 

oh, so it's fair and balanced.

[YASNY]

agreed... the last paragraph has Fox News written all over it.

 

CBS sure wouldn't give this an insightful thorough investigation and report it objectively. They'd be too busy pushing under the rug while they took aim at Bush.

[Texsox]

It certainly is sad that Republicans can't seem to get into Journalism. I wonder in this free enterprise system how an industry is able to lock out Republicans so well. And an entire industry will forsake profits, credibility, the public trust, in a united effort to get Republicans and elect Democrats. It must be all the profits they make when Democrats are in office.

 

I wonder if there is a secret daily meeting of all newspaper reporters to discuss how to report all the GOP wrongdoings? Maybe there is a secret internet where only the media go to screw Republicans.

 

LOL, maybe once I become paranoid and drink the GOP koolaid, I'll believe it.

 

Bush is perfect, it's just the media.

 

The GOP whining, despite having 24/7 shills like Hannity/Rush/O'Reilly just makes me laugh. They took a page from the doomsday cults and created a bunker mentality, us vs. the media and soooo many people started slurping the koolaid.

 

[Rex Kickass]

With all the power the Clintons seem to have, you'd think they'd actually control the government. Oh wait, they don't.

[YASNY]

It certainly is sad that Republicans can't seem to get into Journalism. I wonder in this free enterprise system how an industry is able to lock out Republicans so well. And an entire industry will forsake profits, credibility, the public trust, in a united effort to get Republicans and elect Democrats. It must be all the profits they make when Democrats are in office.

 

I wonder if there is a secret daily meeting of all newspaper reporters to discuss how to report all the GOP wrongdoings? Maybe there is a secret internet where only the media go to screw Republicans.

 

LOL, maybe once I become paranoid and drink the GOP koolaid, I'll believe it.

 

Bush is perfect, it's just the media.

 

The GOP whining, despite having 24/7 shills like Hannity/Rush/O'Reilly just makes me laugh. They took a page from the doomsday cults and created a bunker mentality, us vs. the media and soooo many people started slurping the koolaid.

 

 

Wait just a goddamn minute here! It's ok for some LEFTIST! to bash FoxNews and when bring up CBS in response I get this crap?

[southsideirish]

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 05:24 PM)

Wait just a goddamn minute here!  It's ok for some LEFTIST! to bash FoxNews and when bring up CBS in response I get this crap?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Umm, yes?

[Reddy]

Wait just a goddamn minute here!  It's ok for some LEFTIST! to bash FoxNews and when bring up CBS in response I get this crap?

 

i dont think he was specifically responding to you as much as the story itself. The GOP says that theres such a liberal media bias, but if that were the case this story would never have come out. There wouldnt be the Limbaughs, the O'Reillys etc etc etc. Tex's point is that the media is in reality no more liberally biased than it is conservatively biased but by saying that it has a liberal bias the GOP gains more support.

 

btw i like reading tex's posts because, unlike most of us (me included), he tends to see things for what they are as opposed to letting a zealous political view cloud his judgement. props to you.

[Steve Bartman's my idol]

To paraphrase the bumpersticker...at least when Clinton lied, people didn't die!

[southsider2k5]

i dont think he was specifically responding to you as much as the story itself.  The GOP says that theres such a liberal media bias, but if that were the case this story would never have come out.  There wouldnt be the Limbaughs, the O'Reillys etc etc etc.  Tex's point is that the media is in reality no more liberally biased than it is conservatively biased but by saying that it has a liberal bias the GOP gains more support.

 

btw i like reading tex's posts because, unlike most of us (me included), he tends to see things for what they are as opposed to letting a zealous political view cloud his judgement.  props to you.

 

I would still hesitiate to call this story really "reported" Where would you think that alleged obstruction of justice by a President should fall on a newscast? Call me silly but I would have thought it would have been screaming headlines and leading newscasts... Has it? I sure haven't seen it. It was picked up days later by some of the newspapers and wires, but it is so far back on the headlines it isn't even funny.

[Cknolls]

I would still hesitiate to call this story really "reported"  Where would you think that alleged obstruction of justice by a President should fall on a newscast?  Call me silly but I would have thought it would have been screaming headlines and leading newscasts... Has it?    I sure haven't seen it.  It was picked up days later by some of the newspapers and wires, but it is so far back on the headlines it isn't even funny.

 

But the media is not biased. :puke

[Reddy]

I would still hesitiate to call this story really "reported"  Where would you think that alleged obstruction of justice by a President should fall on a newscast?  Call me silly but I would have thought it would have been screaming headlines and leading newscasts... Has it?    I sure haven't seen it.  It was picked up days later by some of the newspapers and wires, but it is so far back on the headlines it isn't even funny.

 

i havent read a newspaper in days or watched the news and yet i've heard about it (and not first from here)

[NorthSideSox72]

I would still hesitiate to call this story really "reported"  Where would you think that alleged obstruction of justice by a President should fall on a newscast?  Call me silly but I would have thought it would have been screaming headlines and leading newscasts... Has it?    I sure haven't seen it.  It was picked up days later by some of the newspapers and wires, but it is so far back on the headlines it isn't even funny.

 

Again, the only story I have seen about the Clinton thing is that laughably-biased op-ed piece that was posted early on. Has there been any actual, fact-based news about this whatsoever? Maybe that's why it's not headlines - it might be unfounded.

 

If someone can provide a link to a real news article, I'd be curious to see it, BTW. I am NOT saying the Clintons aren't guilty - I've always thought Slick Willie was an unusually well-spoken used car salesman. But I've seen no actual news on this.

[southsider2k5]

Again, the only story I have seen about the Clinton thing is that laughably-biased op-ed piece that was posted early on.  Has there been any actual, fact-based news about this whatsoever?  Maybe that's why it's not headlines - it might be unfounded.

 

If someone can provide a link to a real news article, I'd be curious to see it, BTW.  I am NOT saying the Clintons aren't guilty - I've always thought Slick Willie was an unusually well-spoken used car salesman.  But I've seen no actual news on this.

 

Hit a google news search on Cisneros. It has been reported by a few different reputable groups now. I remembered seeing LA Times at the top of the list when I checked.

[NorthSideSox72]

Hit a google news search on Cisneros.  It has been reported by a few different reputable groups now.  I remembered seeing LA Times at the top of the list when I checked.

 

Got it.

 

For everyone's benefit, here is the LA Times article:

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/po...s-supreme_court

 

Not the strongest sounding case I've ever heard, for having spent 10 years on it.

 

There are other actual news articles out there now too outside of Trib Corp, if anyone wants to Google it.

Edited January 20, 2006 by NorthSideSox72

[Cknolls]

Again, the only story I have seen about the Clinton thing is that laughably-biased op-ed piece that was posted early on.  Has there been any actual, fact-based news about this whatsoever?  Maybe that's why it's not headlines - it might be unfounded.

 

If someone can provide a link to a real news article, I'd be curious to see it, BTW.  I am NOT saying the Clintons aren't guilty - I've always thought Slick Willie was an unusually well-spoken used car salesman.  But I've seen no actual news on this.

 

Then why did the Clinton lawyers file motion after motion to have over 140 pages

 

redacted from the final report? usually this only occurs when info pertaining to

 

national security will be published. certainly not the case here. That is why this is

 

laughable. Why was the case moved from a local Texas IRS office to Washington?

[Rex Kickass]

I would still hesitiate to call this story really "reported"  Where would you think that alleged obstruction of justice by a President should fall on a newscast?  Call me silly but I would have thought it would have been screaming headlines and leading newscasts... Has it?    I sure haven't seen it.  It was picked up days later by some of the newspapers and wires, but it is so far back on the headlines it isn't even funny.

 

Maybe its because the current sitting President may very well have broken the law regarding US Citizens daily life.

[southsider2k5]

Maybe its because the current sitting President may very well have broken the law regarding US Citizens daily life.

 

Which has been in the headlines daily and he ADMITTED what he did, and he has a legal arguement that was he did was legal (FWIW). This is a conspiracy to hide tax evasion and obstruct justice alledgedly, in which the President led the charge. I still don't understand how that shouldnt' be just as big if not bigger?