April 22, 2005
Covering Up for the Clinton'sI heard about this on the Rush Limbaugh Show yesterday, but Opinion Journal has an excellent look (annoying, but free, registration required) at the whole thing. You might recall from back in the 90's the case of Henry Cisneros; he was Clinton's Secretary of Housing and Urban Development who was caught chucking payoff money at a woman whom he was having an affair with. He pled guilty to lying to the FBI over the matter, and was later pardoned by President Clinton just before he left office. End of story, right? Wrong...one thing we should always know, is that anything Clinton is a never-ending saga:
...the special counsel report investigating all this still hasn't been made public, thanks largely to procedural roadblocks by Mr. Cisneros's attorneys. And now, all of a sudden, a rash of news stories and editorials are urging Independent Counsel David Barrett to wrap up his investigation forthwith, without releasing his findings.Then there's the amendment that North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan and co-sponsors John Kerry and Richard Durbin are trying to attach to the latest supplemental war appropriations bill that would de-fund Mr. Barrett immediately. This would have the practical effect of making sure that Mr. Barrett's report never sees the light of day. After 10 long years and $21 million, don't they think taxpayers deserve to see what the special counsel has learned?
Why do Cisneros and the Democrats wish to suppress the report? No one is sure; it might be that the investigation strayed into the long-standing allegation that the Clinton-led IRS was auditing Clinton opponents with alarming regularity, but no one knows for sure. The only thing we can be sure of is that (a) Democrats are trying to block the report and, therefore, (b) there must be some pretty nasty stuff in it regarding Democrats. Congressional Republicans should stop these Democratic cover-up attempts; the report was paid for by the American taxpayers and they have a right to see what is in it.
Original story: Dems try to kill Clinton probe
Posted by Mark Noonan on April 22, 2005 09:56 AM
Comments
I heard this on Rush's show yesterday too, and that may help it get some traction nationally, which is what needs to happen with stories like this. You can bet if the situation were reversed and Pubs were attempting to block a report that might embarrass, say Bush 41, it would not only leak out, but would be the lead story on every network evening news and front page on every lib newspaper in the country.
We've got to take the gloves off and stop worrying about the Donks liking us. The GOP needs to hire a PR firm with fangs and claws.
When two talking heads get on a TV or radio opinion show and the Lib makes some outrageous statement, the Conservative, instead of saying something like "my friend from the other side has his facts confused", needs to say "my opponent is a @%&#@!* LIAR!!
Posted by: Retired Spook ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.gopbloggers.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 22, 2005 10:54 AM
Doesn't the pardon only count for what the man already pled guilty of? It doesn't absolve him of any and all subsequently proven or discovered crimes.
And another question (probably showing how uninformed I am)... IS there a legitimate purpose for presidential/gubanatorial pardons? If the main thing it's used for is to cover up crimes, it doesn't seem to me like it's a good idea at all.
Posted by: LNC at April 22, 2005 12:19 PM
LNC,
No most pardon are not for covering up crimes. Most are used when the Gov't feels that a case might not have been handle right by the courts. It is there to restrain the courts. The founder felt that it was import that the 3 Parts of gov't have restraining power over each other to prevent one from overtaking the rest. The founding father were afraid the Judges would start thought people in Jail if they disagreed with them so that gave the exective branch the abilty to overide there decissions. I belive that the Founding Father never even though the courts would order people dealths unless they were convicted of a crime so no provision was added for victumes like Terri. That is why Present Bush and/or Gov. Jed Bush had a hard time tring to save her life.
Robert
Posted by: Robert M at April 22, 2005 01:10 PM
Why not just let him finish it and deliver it to Sandy Berger?
Posted by: Jason Smith at April 22, 2005 06:32 PM
