The Full un-edited report of another Clinton
Administration scandal remains shielded from public view
The investigation penetrated deep into the Clinton administration’s attempts to
cover-up the Cisneros scandal and to obstruct Barrett’s investigation.
The long-awaited final report by Independent Counsel David Barrett was severely censored
by court order but not enough to sufficiently obscure its importance. As long forecast, it
alleges serious corruption in the Clinton administration's Justice Department and Internal
Revenue Service. The question is what was contained in 120 pages removed by the judges.
These allegations explain why Barrett finally has closed down after 10 years the last
prosecution under the lapsed independent counsel statute. Its target, Henry Cisneros, long
ago resigned as secretary of Housing and Urban Development in a plea bargain after
admitting he lied to FBI interrogators to gain Senate confirmation. What kept Barrett in
business was what he and his prosecutors contend is a Clinton administration
cover-up of income tax evasion charges against Cisneros.
Not only Barrett's stubbornness but also a tip from an IRS whistleblower in San Antonio,
Texas, meant the case did not end with Cisneros' personal disgrace. But for now, the
cover-up has succeeded. No tax prosecution was brought against Cisneros, and IRS conduct
has not been questioned. Friends describe Barrett, a Republican lawyer from Washington, as
feeling at age 68 that he has failed fully to uncover the scandal and that it is up to
Congress to get out the truth.
This probably would have been just another undiscovered scandal had the whistle not been
blown by John J. Filan, chief of the IRS' 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' former mistress and money spent for other purposes
exceeded declared income, said the whistleblower, 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 three judges have lawyer-like arguments in favor of suppressing so much material. For
example, they claim the Barrett report on Cisneros should not contain evidence that was
collected after the plea bargain with Cisneros.
However, the judges have established an exception, or rather 535 exceptions, to the rule
that nobody can see what has been redacted. Any member of Congress can read it merely by
asking. Any such lawmaker, who believes American taxpayers should see the product of $23
million in expenditures, presumably could then publish the material without fear of legal
sanction.
But will any senator or House member do it? Nobody is interested in further prosecution of
Cisneros, an exceptional public figure who might well have become the first
Hispanic-American governor of Texas and perhaps even president of the United States.
Rather, an unredacted Barrett report is an opportunity to observe how the Internal Revenue
Service decides when to prosecute, a place where Congress until now has feared to venture.
BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is certainly incriminating enough, but the question remains: What is in the
120 pages of the report removed by the three federal appellate judges presiding over the
Barrett investigation? Through means such as the Freedom of Information Act, Judicial
Watch is going to continue to try to find out. Here’s how you can help. Contact your
senators and representatives and tell them to release the full report. The number for the
Capitol Hill switchboard is 202-224-2131.
From the Desk of Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton
www.JudicialWatch.org
To Clinton News Archives
To Warriors For Truth
Conservative Independent News Main Page
|
