April 22, 2005

SO 1998 (via Tom Corcoran):

An IRS Cover-Up? Senators Dorgan and Kerry try to block a report on Clinton-era abuses. (Opinion Journal, 4/22/05)

Perhaps you remember Henry Cisneros. He's the former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development who pleaded guilty in 1999 to lying to FBI investigators during his pre-appointment background check about hush payments to a former mistress, on which it also happens he hadn't paid the requisite taxes.

Well, 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? [...]

So what don't Democrats want everyone to know? We're told that early on the Barrett probe moved away from Mr. Cisneros and his mistress and focused on an attempted cover-up by the Clinton Administration, especially involving the IRS

Mr. Clinton wasn't removed from office after it became public that he raped and otherwise assaulted subordinates--who cares if he diddled the IRS?

Posted by Orrin Judd at April 22, 2005 9:15 AM

If I really thought Kerry was Machivellian enough, I would swear he was launching this bid to quash the IRS probe of the Clinton administration as an overt effort to support Bill in the media, but also as a covert effort to bring the memories of the Clinton-era scandals back into the spotlight, in order to hamper the candidacy of the missus in 2008.

But since he showed no such scheming ability last year, my guess is he's trying to help Bill under the dellusion this will make more people in the party think he's a fine fellow and deserving of another shot at the presidency in 2008. Instead, the Clintons will thank him for his loyalty within the next year or two and then squash him like a bug in 2008.

Posted by: John at April 22, 2005 10:51 AM

If Bush wasn't such a nice guy (i.e. more like another President from Texas with the initials LBJ) more of this type of garbage would be applied to the Dems and they would be reeling.

Posted by: AWW at April 22, 2005 11:58 AM

"Mr. Clinton wasn't removed from office after it became public that he raped and otherwise assaulted suordinates..."

Yeah, but he didn't verbally and emotionally abuse them like Bolton did.

Posted by: Genecis at April 22, 2005 9:18 PM

With Clinton, it was "only sex." With Bolton, it's "verbal abuse."

Posted by: Phil at April 23, 2005 1:52 PM