Decision ‘08

The Barrett Report and the Culture of Corruption

The Democrats are half-right; there is a culture of corruption in Washington, but of course it is not limited to Republicans. Today marks the release of the Barrett Report, a decade-long investigation into the finances of former political high-flyer (and current television executive) Henry Cisneros that alleges preferential treatment for the powerful political appointee and a cover up by Clinton Administration officials. Says Bob Novak:

This probably would have been just another undiscovered scandal had the whistle not been blown by John J. Filan, chief of the IRS’s Criminal Investigation Division in the South Texas District. In a March 31, 1997, memo, Filan expressed outrage that the IRS chief counsel’s office in Washington on Jan. 15 had pulled a tax evasion case out of San Antonio because it required “centralized review.” Told to “box up” his evidence and send it to Washington, Filan wrote: “I am not aware of any other criminal tax cases that have been pulled from experienced District Counsel attorneys.”

With the case now in Washington, the IRS declined to prosecute. In a second memo on April 25, Filan said IRS Assistant Chief Counsel Barry Finkelstein’s conclusions “are just plain wrong.” Payments to Cisneros’s former mistress and money spent for other purposes exceeded declared income, said the whistle-blower, and “clearly proves Cisneros knowingly and willingly signed and filed false and fraudulent income tax returns” for 1991, 1992 and 1993.

That launched Barrett on four frustrating years of attempting tax evasion prosecution in the face of Attorney General Janet Reno’s obstructions. Permitted by Reno to focus on only one year, the independent counsel could not make the case of extended tax evasion.

According to people with access to Barrett’s draft, it goes into intense detail about this obstruction and on the unprecedented seizure of the Cisneros tax case by the IRS in Washington. That much in the 400-page report has survived the three senior federal appellate judges with supervising authority over the independent counsel.

Nevertheless, the question remains what three judges — David Sentelle (D.C.), Thomas Reavley (Texas) and Peter Fay (Florida) — blacked out in 120 pages worth of redactions. Even after the report is released, Barrett and his lawyers would face judicial sanctions if they disclosed anything that was redacted.

The NY Daily News gives us some indication of what might have been in those redacted pages, or even left out altogether:

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.

The law firm represents Cisneros, former President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton.

A Williams & Connolly attorney declined to comment.

The report is an embarrassment to Hillary Clinton’s campaign, but it will not be the fatal blow her opponents had hoped for. The issues are too obscure and too far removed in time. In this case, unless Congress grabs the ball, the cover-up worked.

3 Responses to “The Barrett Report and the Culture of Corruption”

1 AcademicElephant Says:
January 19th, 2006 at 11:47 am
This makes me wonder if it’s really wise of Harry Reid to make the “culture of corruption” his key issue for the 06 elections, as he said to Roll Call yesterday. Sure, we all want reform, but I don’t think it’s going to be a successful partisan issue on either side…
2 Muffin the Cat Says:
January 19th, 2006 at 10:30 pm
The thought of Hilda-*itch becoming President is revolting. Bill Clinton in my opinion was the most corrupt President in my lifetime and that goes back to Eisenhower. I have no problems with a women President and I can deal with Mark Warner or Bill Richardson as President and would have been able to tolerate John Kerry but not easily. The “left” denigrates Bush for supposed abuses, but Bill and Hill are the abuse champions of the world especially “her”. Read Dick Morris’ books.

It will be interesting how the LSM handles this story. I am not expecting very much on it. These two walk on water in their world. No front page stories or even negative editorials.
3 TheBad Says:
January 22nd, 2006 at 4:25 pm
Of course, the LSM will be remiss in presenting negative stories about their sweethearts: the Clintons. Remember that these are the same people who tried to convince us of a vast right-wing conspiracy. An interesting study by the The Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) at George Mason University found the following to discredit that ridiculous notion:

John Kerry’s positive evaluations (58%) versus negative evaluations (42%) post-labor day is the best press any general election candidate has received. Conversely, Bush’s evaluations were 36% positive versus 64% negative.

In the month of October, Kerry’s evaluations were 77% positive compared to Bush’s 34% positive.

Furthermore, this is nothing new! In the past seven elections, democrats received “significantly better” press in four and roughly even press in two. Only one election (1988) fared better for the Republicans.

Also notable is the worst press ever which was for Ronald Reagan in his 1984 re-election bid with 91% negative! Until the 2004 election, Mondale was the best press record holder with 56% positive.

What do I extrapolate from this? It seems that when a solid and effective Republican campaigns for re-election, the press becomes the propaganda outlet for democrats.

Yet still, liberals cry foul when anyone claims the media is biased.