| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Clinton lawyers try to quash Cisneros report |
| 2005-10-03 |
| The Daily News has learned that lawyers are fighting to suppress a potentially embarrassing final report from the probe that found Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros lied to the FBI about paying $250,000 in hush money to his ex-mistress. Cisneros paid a $10,000 fine after he was found guilty in 1999 and was later pardoned by Bill Clinton. And though neither Hillary Clinton nor her husband was targeted by independent counsel David Barrett, his 420-page final report sent to a special court 13 months ago will include alleged abuses of power by his administration, sources told The News. After Cisneros was convicted, Barrett started looking into allegations that the IRS and Justice Department aides stymied a tax fraud case against the disgraced Housing and Urban Development secretary and audited Clinton critics. Ex-IRS Commissioner Peggy Richardson, who remains a close friend of the Clintons, is among the officials cited in the report, sources said. Lawyers at the Washington firm Williams and Connolly who work for Cisnero and both Clintons have argued to judges overseeing the case that allegations of illegal activity, for which no charges were filed, should be snipped before the report is made public. |
| Posted by:mojo |
| #2 I was a big fan of Cisneros because he was an icon to the latin community in San Antonio and a kick ass mayor. Now that was in the early 80s and not sure how things went south for him but they certainly did. As far as the money, mistress, and the FBI probe it was really much ado about nothing. The IRS probe on Clinton political foes is the real story. O'Reilly claims he was audited four years in a row by the IRS because he took on the Clintons. How many others were investigated by the IRS, FBI, and CIA at the behest of the Clintons? And where is that information today? Henry played with the dogs too long and got fleas from them. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2005-10-03 13:16 |
| #1 have argued to judges overseeing the case that allegations of illegal activity, for which no charges were filed, should be snipped before the report is made public. Get the issue before the California judge who blessed the publication of more Abu Grahib pictures, or maybe just cite his justification. The public has a right to know, man! |
| Posted by: Bobby 2005-10-03 13:15 |