home

There Was No Cisneros Coverup

By Jeralyn, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 02:21:01 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

There's an excellent op-ed in today's Washington Post by Washington lawyer Robert Litt, who was the principal associate deputy attorney general in the late 90's, on the fake Cisneros scandal. He knows, because he was there. I urge you all to read his article for insights into the independent counsel's collossal waste of $22 million dollars over six years. Litt begins:

An independent counsel has issued a report claiming that officials of the Clinton administration blocked his investigation into allegations of tax violations by former housing secretary Henry Cisneros. Although these sensational charges have been trumpeted by partisans as evidence of Democratic corruption, they are completely false.

After debunking Independent Counsel Robert Barrett's claims, Litt concludes:

Sadly, this independent counsel seemed unable to recognize that different lawyers could reach different conclusions in good faith. Instead, he decided that everyone who disagreed with him could only be corrupt. He did not let the complete absence of evidence to support that fantasy deter him from smearing nonpolitical government lawyers, who have devoted their careers to serving the public, without hearing their side of the story. That's the real scandal.

< Transcript of Last Week's Hearing on Warrantless NSA Surveillance | Feingold on Bush's NSA Data Mining Activities >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    There Was No Cisneros Coverup | 14 comments (14 topical)
    Re: There Was No Cisneros Coverup (none / 0) (#1)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 03:18:22 PM EST
    Sounds wonderful. Now, if we could see the 120 pages that have been removed, we might actually know something. As it is, we don't. The only material removed from a SP's report, bought and paid for by the American people, should be that directly concerned with US security. Somehow I don't think that is the case.

    Re: There Was No Cisneros Coverup (none / 0) (#2)
    by Aaron on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 03:24:29 PM EST
    Even Robert Novak has noted that the entire report is available to any member of Congress, and that any such member can publish the redacted content on as little as a whim. So I don't find complaints about redaction to be very compelling.

    Re: There Was No Cisneros Coverup (none / 0) (#3)
    by ras on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 03:26:57 PM EST
    It can't be a coverup if Dems did it, can it? I thought there was a rule or something. BTW, does "redacted" mean "made available cuz of course we have nothing to hide," or does it mean something else? Darn those rascally partisans anyway, listening to an independent counsel like that.

    Re: There Was No Cisneros Coverup (none / 0) (#4)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 03:31:22 PM EST
    For the 120 pages, just insert whatever taxpayer-funded, graphic descriptions of sexual encounters involving liberals suits your fancy.

    Re: There Was No Cisneros Coverup (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 03:47:36 PM EST
    Sounds wonderful. Now, if we could see the 120 pages that have been removed, we might actually know something. As it is, we don't. The only material removed from a SP's report, bought and paid for by the American people, should be that directly concerned with US security. Somehow I don't think that is the case.
    Jim, As Aaron has stated, every member of congress has access to the report. Please, contact your representative in congress and request, better yet demand, that a copy of the entire report be made available to you. When you are finished analyzing the report, feel free to post your criticisms in an open thread.

    Re: There Was No Cisneros Coverup (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 06:28:01 PM EST
    REP. HENRY A. WAXMAN RANKING MINORITY MEMBER COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Factsheet, JANUARY 18, 2006
    ...The only language in the appropriations measure that relates to potential redactions of the Barrett report is a provision stating that the three-judge panel "shall make such orders as are appropriate to protect the rights of any individual named in such report and to prevent undue interference with any pending prosecution." Waxman explains that this protection of the rights of individuals is not unique to this report. Rather:
    This language is simply a restatement of the pre-existing Independent Counsel statute that has governed the release of Independent Counsel reports in the past.
    Re: There Was No Cisneros Coverup (none / 0) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 06:35:36 PM EST
    Aaron - So any member of Congress cam see the whole thing, and can publish the redacted version. Wow. I an under impressed. I mean, gee. How open can we get? mac - I feel quite free to post my comments about the report at any time on this thread. Frankly, I thought better of you than for you to support such obvious censorship.

    Re: There Was No Cisneros Coverup (none / 0) (#8)
    by Sailor on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 06:37:56 PM EST
    Ahh, stupid lies again. The 120 pages contained personal info of people who had not comitted a crime. Under fed guidlines personal info can't be released. The rethug operative who was prosecutor, (oh, please, please ask for links), had ZERO evidence, nothing but nasty aspersions, and previously had let Cisneros plead to to 1 misdemeanor when charged with about 28 felonies. Then spent another 7 years w/o any obstructions charges, lying under oath charges, ANY charges being brought. The same DOJ that hounded clinton refused to prosecute Cisneros, then asscroft in bushco refused to prosecute, then the SpecProc judges refused. And still Jabert, I mean, barrett, pursued Valjean, sorry I meant Cisneros, and all he has is a loaf, excuse me I meant a load of crap. He only stopped because congress mandated him to write up a report. That took 3 years! Funny how the same folks castigating Fitz for not being productive, (even tho the investigation hasn't concluded), somehow claim barrett is being railroaded.

    Re: There Was No Cisneros Coverup (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 07:00:13 PM EST
    mac - I feel quite free to post my comments about the report at any time on this thread. Frankly, I thought better of you than for you to support such obvious censorship.
    I did not state anywhere in my post that I supported "such obvious censorship". Aaron has provided everyone with a way to get the entire uncensored version of the report. Since you believe these pages have been censored for reasons other than national security, you should exercise your constitutional right as a US citizen to contact your representative in congress and request access to the full report.

    Re: There Was No Cisneros Coverup (none / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 07:26:14 PM EST
    mac - Aw, my mistake.
    and that any such member can publish the redacted content on as little as a
    I missed a word. Still, want to bet we never see the "whim" you refer to?

    Re: There Was No Cisneros Coverup (none / 0) (#11)
    by Sailor on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 08:36:43 PM EST
    Uhh, post about No Cisneros Coverup. Please try to stay on topic.

    Re: There Was No Cisneros Coverup (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 05:29:59 AM EST
    sailor - Comment above about strong possibility of cover up. Please try and focus on understanding subject matter and discussion points.

    Re: There Was No Cisneros Coverup (none / 0) (#13)
    by Dadler on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 08:41:07 PM EST
    Jim, Why don't you request a copy of the full, unredacted report? Your concerns about this can be allayed, if you take the time. How can this be a cover-up if the cover can be opened by anyone who makes a request?

    Re: There Was No Cisneros Coverup (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 01:55:56 PM EST
    dadler - "I" can't. (Assuming Aaron and Novak is correct.}
    Even Robert Novak has noted that the entire report is available to any member of Congress, and that any such member can publish the redacted content on as little as a whim. So I don't find complaints about redaction to be very compelling.
    Besides, why should we have to go through hoops? Would you be happy if this was about a Bush person?

    There Was No Cisneros Coverup | 14 comments (14 topical)