A Report Exposing the Most Corupt President Ever?

[rushmc 23]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/05/investigating.irs/

There are many topics that this article does not mention. (as in who used the IRS)

Investigating the IRS
Thursday, May 5, 2005 Posted: 3:30 PM EDT (1930 GMT)


WASHINGTON, D.C.(Creators Syndicate) -- A Senate rider inserted in an emergency appropriations bill in the dead of the night, which would close a rare window into political foul play at the Internal Revenue Service, was quietly removed Tuesday in Senate-House negotiations.

That offers full disclosure of a major scandal that has been percolating for a decade.

The rider would have de-funded the investigation begun in 1995 of then-Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros by Independent Counsel David Barrett.

The amendment was sponsored by three highly influential Democrats, purportedly to stop leakage of federal money in a run-on program and end persecution of a no-longer-prominent Democratic politician.

In fact, Barrett's investigation is the first independent probe, with subpoena power, of the IRS.

Passage of the amendment probably would have meant Barrett's voluminous report on the Cisneros case never would see the light of day.

Document inspected
The document has been inspected by attorneys for prominent Democrats mentioned in it. That inspection was followed by belated efforts from Senate Democratic leaders to terminate Barrett, raising suspicions.

Democrats and their friends in the news media complain with sudden new urgency that Barrett has squandered $21 million over 10 years on a case in which Cisneros admitted in 1999 to lying to an FBI background investigation about his payments to a former mistress to keep her quiet. He was fined $10,000 and then pardoned by President Bill Clinton in 2001.

Cisneros' bigger problem is an allegation of fraud in not paying taxes on funds used for the hush money.

The report, described as 400 pages long with over 2,000 footnotes, is sealed by court order. So are Barrett's lips. But enough has leaked from sources familiar with its content to suggest political dynamite.

Sources indicate an IRS whistle-blower contends the tax fraud investigation was transferred from a regional office to Washington, where the IRS and the Justice Department suffocated it.

That raises the question of whether Cisneros, then a rising Democratic star, was improperly protected by Clinton administration officials. Barrett's use of the subpoena, according to sources, has fleshed out the story.

The investigation has been so protracted because of delaying motions by the Williams & Connolly firm, attorneys for Bill and Hillary Clinton. These lawyers, headed by David Kendall, are described as poring over the sealed Barrett report, according to sources, because clients are named.

Sudden interest
Coincidentally or not, the case aroused sudden interest within the Senate's Democratic power structure.

Sen. Byron Dorgan, Senate Democratic Policy Committee chairman, in the middle of a long floor speech on April 5, gave notice he would try to amend the emergency money bill "to shut off the funding" for Barrett.

Dorgan was the amendment's principal sponsor. Co-sponsors were Sen. Richard Durbin, the minority whip, and Sen. John Kerry, the 2004 nominee for president.

In the collegial Senate Appropriations Committee, the amendment was routinely added to the emergency bill to fund hostilities in Iraq. It passed the Senate without debate or comment late in the evening of April 21.

The first public notice of their plans was an April 22 editorial in The Wall Street Journal that elicited a letter to the newspaper from Dorgan, Durbin and Kerry that was published April 27.

It asserted Barrett's "report should be made public, and we hope that it will be," even if the independent counsel is stripped of funds. This marked the first mention by the de-funders about making the report public.

Quiet maneuvers
Maneuvers like this de-funding are best done quietly, but that no longer was possible. On April 27, two freshman Republican senators (Tom Coburn and Jim DeMint) and two more senior colleagues (Jeff Sessions and Jim Inhofe) wrote Appropriations Committee Chairman Thad Cochran. They urged elimination of the de-funding because of "the risk that the final report on this investigation will not be released."

Although none of the four Republican letter-signers sits on Appropriations, they prevailed.

In the Senate-House conference Tuesday, the House objected to the Dorgan amendment, and the Senate receded.

The report may soon be public, and people who have read it say the worst suspicions about the IRS will be confirmed

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[PhreeZone 20]

What does this report have to do with any President?


Or was the title just a way to try and get people hating Cliton again?

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[rushmc 23]

Quote

What does this report have to do with any President?


Or was the title just a way to try and get people hating Cliton again?

You mean I am supposed to stop hating the Clintons now

Google it,

those listed in the report have access to it now. The Clinton's, both Hilary and Bill have access to the report and they are trying to block it. (The attempt to stop the funding was to try and make sure the report did not see the light of day. That attempt was stopped.)
Indications that are starting to come out show that the Clintons abused power at a massive level against their political enemies. (don't flame me as I am not saying any facts here or theories)

But, we all know it is the seriousness of the charge that counts, not the facts.....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,116]

>MyCashNow - $100 - $1,500 Overnight
>Payday Loan Cash goes in your account overnight. Very low fees.
>Fast decisions....

No way. Clinton got high interest rate paycheck loans? He is undoubtedly the worst president ever.

[rushmc 23]

More Info

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/10/7/112005.shtml


Friday, Oct. 7, 2005 11:14 a.m. EDT
Lindsey Graham: Release Clinton IRS Report



Sen. Lindsey Graham is calling on the three judge panel overseeing the investigation of Independent Counsel David Barrett to release Barrett's final report, which reportedly includes evidence of politically motivated IRS audits launched by the Clinton administration.

"We spent $22 million [on Barrett's investigation]. We ought to be able to read the report," Graham told Fox News Radio's Tony Snow on Friday.

The document, finished 13 months ago, has been bottled up by the panel - with Democrats in the Senate making an unsuccessful bid earlier this year to quash its publication.

Sen. Graham said he sympathized with those who may have been targeted with bogus audits, telling Snow, "I was involved in impeachment. I can tell you what it's like to be involved on the receiving end of some of this."


Story Continues Below



Former IRS Commissioner Peggy Richardson, who remains a close friend of the Clintons, is among the officials cited in the report, sources told the New York Daily News last week.
Lawyers for Mr. and Mrs. Clinton at their Washington law firm, Williams and Connolly, have pressed the three judge panel to delete damaging portions of Barrett's report, arguing that allegations of illegal activity, for which no charges were filed, should be snipped before the report is made public.

"We're told the Barrett report will be an eye-opener," the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday. "It is the first time the IRS has ever been investigated using grand jury subpoena powers."

Many of the Clintons' most vocal accusers found themselves targeted by suspicious IRS audits during the 1990s, including Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, Juanita Broaddrick. Elizabeth Ward Gracen and former travel office chief Billy Dale.

In 1997, Ms. Jones' confidential tax returns were leaked to the Daily News in an effort to show she was profiting from her lawsuit against Mr. Clinton.


More than a dozen conservative organizations were also hit with IRS probes, including the Heritage Foundation, the National Rifle Association and the Freedom Alliance.
Ms. Richardson and Mrs. Clinton go back to their days together at Yale Law School. Richardson served on the Clintons transition team in 1992 before being appointed to head up the IRS.

Before leaving the post in 1997, Richardson denied that her agency had launched politically targeted audits, calling the allegations "inaccurate", "misleading", and "unfounded."

Sen. Graham's call for the release of Barrett's report may put his own relationship with Mrs. Clinton back into the deep freeze. In recent years, the South Carolina Republican has collaborated with the former first lady on veterans issues and offered nothing but praise.

"I think all of her colleagues on both sides respect her work ethic and the way she conducts herself," Graham said two years ago.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[AlexCrowley 0]

You're absolutely right, it's amazing they hid it for this long, those bastards.

At least the Bush administration doesnt attempt to cover it up and instead relies on the willingness of its mindless army of supporters to justify every corrupt move they make.

I get no joy from these sorts of posts, is it really so hard to consider that it has always happened by all parties? Democrats tend to do more petty stupid shit though. Republicans are much better at the HUGE abuses.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

Indications that are starting to come out show that the Clintons abused power at a massive level against their political enemies. (don't flame me as I am not saying any facts here or theories)

And this is different from most politicians in what way?

Seriously, can you point to a presidential administration in the last century in which corruption/abuse of power was non-existent? Enquiring minds want to know!

I'm growing tired of political fanboy bullshit, from all sides; it really strikes the same dissonant chord with me as WWF fans' zealous support of their favorite wrestler. Why? Because you like his colors? Or he says cool stuff that makes you feel cool? Or he's from your hometown? Or you think he's *really* a better wrestler? DUDE, THE WHOLE THING'S A SHAM!

I'm kinda glad that the media train keeps rolling along. If it ever stopped, and people suddenly realized just how much they're being pandered to and patronized by their favorite politician, fashion label, rap artist, beverage company, etc., there'll either be mass suicide or a new renaissance.

Both of which are scarier than just maintaining the status quo.


EDIT: Oh, shit, I went off on wrestling with Auntie Christ in da house!

[rushmc 23]

Quote

You're absolutely right, it's amazing they hid it for this long, those bastards.

At least the Bush administration doesnt attempt to cover it up and instead relies on the willingness of its mindless army of supporters to justify every corrupt move they make.

I get no joy from these sorts of posts, is it really so hard to consider that it has always happened by all parties? Democrats tend to do more petty stupid shit though. Republicans are much better at the HUGE abuses.

No.........Repulicans are "accused" of larger abuses, but we have to remember......it is the seriousness of the charge that counts, not the facts

It has to be driving the left crazy that even though they keep throwing shit a GWB, nothing sticks. Why, because "fact" is the "glue"

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

No.........Repulicans are "accused" of larger abuses, but we have to remember......it is the seriousness of the charge that counts, not the facts

rushmc, I'm curious... how do you feel about OJ Simpson?

[billvon 3,116]

>No.........Repulicans are "accused" of larger abuses, but we have to
> remember......it is the seriousness of the charge that counts, not
> the facts . . .

When it comes to large abuses, which party has a president that was removed from office after an impeachment?

I would tend to disagree with AC though. The party in power is generally the one that pulls off the really big abuses. The minority party simply can't get into as much trouble.

[AlexCrowley 0]

First, I'm not "from the left" of anywhere but the left side of my brain.

Second, thank you for proving my point.

Third, perhaps you'd like to review your 'political corruption' history.

Fourth, why am I spelling out each number?

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[AlexCrowley 0]

They both get to be in power, it's my personal belief that Democrats do stupid petty crap like get blowjobs and steal a couple of million dollars for themselves whereas republicans tend towards the multi-billion dollar style scams on a much larger scale with more people involved.

Which is kinda backwards if you think about it.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

No.........Repulicans are "accused" of larger abuses, but we have to remember......it is the seriousness of the charge that counts, not the facts

rushmc, I'm curious... how do you feel about OJ Simpson?

Not sure where this is going but........I really don't know. He was found not guilty by a jury so I have to go with that. As for my feelings........if you think I will say the bastard is guilty, I can't, I don't feel that way. Same for M. Jackson......I just don't know. I don't have a feeling he is guilty either.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

They both get to be in power, it's my personal belief that Democrats do stupid petty crap like get blowjobs and steal a couple of million dollars for themselves whereas republicans tend towards the multi-billion dollar style scams on a much larger scale with more people involved.

Which is kinda backwards if you think about it.

Gotta be dam stressful to live in such a world......the planet I live on is better to be in, for the most part, than the one you live in. I don't see as much evil as you do.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

First, I'm not "from the left" of anywhere but the left side of my brain.

Second, thank you for proving my point.

Third, perhaps you'd like to review your 'political corruption' history.

Fourth, why am I spelling out each number?

Proving your point Strange or twisted perspective me thinks

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,116]

>I don't see as much evil as you do.

Didn't you just start a thread on an evil and corrupt president? Either you see a lot more evil than I do or you look a lot harder for it.

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

Quote

rushmc, I'm curious... how do you feel about OJ Simpson?

Not sure where this is going but........I really don't know. He was found not guilty by a jury so I have to go with that. As for my feelings........if you think I will say the bastard is guilty, I can't, I don't feel that way. Same for M. Jackson......I just don't know. I don't have a feeling he is guilty either.

Just checking, that's all. Good on you for applying your logic universally, and not being hypocritical.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

rushmc, I'm curious... how do you feel about OJ Simpson?

Not sure where this is going but........I really don't know. He was found not guilty by a jury so I have to go with that. As for my feelings........if you think I will say the bastard is guilty, I can't, I don't feel that way. Same for M. Jackson......I just don't know. I don't have a feeling he is guilty either.

Just checking, that's all. Good on you for applying your logic universally, and not being hypocritical.

I think I get your point here. If you are refering to the facts vs charges thing..........

Most of my beef is with the media through all of this. (i know this is a change)
For example, the Delay charges.......all over the news. But Pelosi gets into similar deep water (not exactly the same) and you can barely find a line or it is buried.

If Bush is guilty of something then he should be impeached and jailed but the charges being thrown are for the most part Bullshit. But the media is all over it. Clinton is an admited felon but since he is elected and popular we can't remove a sitting president. Two differnet rules!!

My point? If you are going to make accusations then have some facts to back it up and, more importtantly, do it to both sides

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

When it comes to large abuses, which party has a president that was removed from office after an impeachment?

Please tell us which President was removed from office after an impeachment.

-

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

I get no joy from these sorts of posts, is it really so hard to consider that it has always happened by all parties? Democrats tend to do more petty stupid shit though. Republicans are much better at the HUGE abuses

Spoken like a true moderate.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

I'm growing tired of political fanboy bullshit, from all sides; it really strikes the same dissonant chord with me as WWF fans' zealous support of their favorite wrestler. Why? Because you like his colors? Or he says cool stuff that makes you feel cool? Or he's from your hometown? Or you think he's *really* a better wrestler? DUDE, THE WHOLE THING'S A SHAM!

If that's not a veiled attack on AlexCrowley, professional wrestler, I don't know what is.

Probably the latter!

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

rushmc, I'm curious... how do you feel about OJ Simpson?

Not sure where this is going but........I really don't know. He was found not guilty by a jury so I have to go with that. As for my feelings........if you think I will say the bastard is guilty, I can't, I don't feel that way. Same for M. Jackson......I just don't know. I don't have a feeling he is guilty either.

Just checking, that's all. Good on you for applying your logic universally, and not being hypocritical.

I think I get your point here. If you are refering to the facts vs charges thing..........

Most of my beef is with the media through all of this. (i know this is a change)
For example, the Delay charges.......all over the news. But Pelosi gets into similar deep water (not exactly the same) and you can barely find a line or it is buried.

If Bush is guilty of something then he should be impeached and jailed but the charges being thrown are for the most part Bullshit. But the media is all over it. Clinton is an admited felon but since he is elected and popular we can't remove a sitting president. Two differnet rules!!

My point? If you are going to make accusations then have some facts to back it up and, more importtantly, do it to both sides

Has anyone noticed that "Delay" an an anagram of "Daley". Do you think they are aliases for the same corrupt politician operating in two different states?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

Not sure where this is going but........I really don't know. He was found not guilty by a jury so I have to go with that

Wasn't Clinton found not guilty by way of impeachment? Do you feel he was guilty?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Not sure where this is going but........I really don't know. He was found not guilty by a jury so I have to go with that

Wasn't Clinton found not guilty by way of impeachment? Do you feel he was guilty?

What I feel here is not important. He admitted to lying under oath.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,116]

>Please tell us which President was removed from office after an
>impeachment.

Richard Nixon was forced to resign after impeachment proceedings began on May 9, 1974. In August the tape proving his complicity in the Watergate burglaries was released. He then resigned, and was pardoned by his vice president (now president.)