By DAVID JOHNSTON and NEIL A. LEWIS Published: January 19, 2006
WASHINGTON, Jan. 18 - After the longest independent counsel investigation in history, the prosecutor in the case of former Housing Secretary Henry G. Cisneros is finally closing his operation with a scathing report accusing Clinton administration officials of thwarting an inquiry into whether Mr. Cisneros evaded paying income taxes.
The legal inquiry by the prosecutor, David M. Barrett, lasted more than a decade, consumed some $21 million and came to be a symbol of the flawed effort to prosecute high-level corruption through the use of independent prosecutors.
Mr. Barrett began his investigation with the narrower issue of whether Mr. Cisneros lied to the Federal Bureau of Investigation when he was being considered for the cabinet position. He ended his inquiry accusing the Clinton administration of a possible cover-up. - New York Times -------- This is a good article, covering both side of the issue. Republicans will point to the allegations that Clinton officials tried to cover things up, and Democrats will point to the fact that only one Texas investigator disagreed with the Washington IRS conclusion that the evidence was too weak to merit a criminal inquiry.
Since President Clinton later pardoned Cisneros, this will, of course, add fuel to the fire. Republicans will point and say, "See! Clinton did it!" Democrats will say that the past is the past, and we should concentrate on today.
Links to Presidential pardons are below, from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law.
I found Cisneros to be a rather intoxicating candidate for the position and was sorry to see his weaknesses get the best of him. I won't really point to any side; power corrupts and we must be careful to whom we give it and in what measure.
Posts: 8102 | Location: in the backwoods of North Carolina | Registered: 06-07-02
Why is it that it takes them years of research and massive amounts of money to find anything even remotely incriminating for Clinton and his cabinet members? Yet we have several things to incriminate Bush with that the whole world can see without an investigation, and republicans say that's perfectly OK?
So, let me get this straight, They spent $21 million to find out if this man paid his taxes? Does anybody else see a flaw in that logic? How much did the guy allegedly owe anyway?
So, let me get this straight, They spent $21 million to find out if this man paid his taxes? Does anybody else see a flaw in that logic? How much did the guy allegedly owe anyway?
I think this case was more about testing the ability to take-down a high ranking official in this country, and they weren't going to let (our) money stop them. Compare this to how much spent for the 9/11 Commission. Here's more fuel for your outrage:
quote:
The fact that the commission’s work is only now getting under way, more than a year and a half after the fact, and with a minimal budget of $12 million, is symptomatic of the ongoing whitewash. By contrast, NASA’s investigation into the space shuttle Columbia disaster, which killed seven people, is expected to cost some $40 million, and the government spent $50 million investigating Whitewater, a 20-year-old failed real estate deal involving the Clintons.
The government will go to great lengths to pursue income tax cheats, especially "little ones." The reasoning is that there must be a certain amount of fear in every taxpayer, else more would cheat, and the money that comes in from income tax is the oil of government machinery. In my experience, it is rare, however, for the government to spend so much in a tax investigation for so little return. This indicates, to me, that there was something "funny" about either the original investigation or the dropping of the investigation by the federal government.
Posts: 17549 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Originally posted by Vanguard1: How can you justify spending $21 million on the conviction of one man, and $12 million investigating the largest attack on American soil in 50 years?
That is an excellent point. It only goes to show that the government isn't serious about fighting the war on terror.
For some reason these numbers just hit me...$21 million, $40 million, $50 million. For investigations into the possible wrong doing of one person.
Is is me, or is that just a bit excessive? How many staffers, how many paid dinners, how many "business trips" does it take to spend $50 million dollars?
Why do we taxpayers put up with this?
Dwight
Posts: 4347 | Location: Anchorage, AK | Registered: 06-05-02
