I know some of you will yawn... but another Clinton coverup reported

[poseidon]

WASHINGTON, Jan. 18 - After the longest independent counsel investigation in history, the prosecutor in the case of former Housing Secretary Henry G. Cisneros is finally closing his operation with a scathing report accusing Clinton administration officials of thwarting an inquiry into whether Mr. Cisneros evaded paying income taxes.

[erik_kosberg]

Yawn.

[realtraveller]

Yeah, who really cares that people high in the Cabinet evaded income taxes and the Clinton administration used the IRS to cover it up?

[poseidon]

Well, as JP would say, "That's it! I'm not voting for Bill Clinton for president again!"

The issue is what the current president does, unless of course, the current president is a Dem. Then it is all about what previous GOP presidents did.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

What Clinton is doing is terrible! We should kick him out of office! I don't want such a sleazebag being MY president!

[poseidon]

AuntieEmma said

What Clinton is doing is terrible! We should kick him out of office! I don't want such a sleazebag being MY president!

**crickets chirping**

[frazzledspice]

Considering that in 1999 Clinton pardoned Cisneros for the one misdemeanor he pleaded guilty to, I fail to see what additional benefit Cisneros would have garnered from a Clinton coverup.

And I feel the same way about Tom DeLay. No matter what he is convicted of, I'm certain Bush will pardon him in that good-old-boy network kind of way. So why doesn't the administration just let his trial proceed, pardon him, and then go back to business as usual? (I would expect no less.)

In my opinion, offenders should only be offered Presidential pardons if 1) they're innocent; or 2) if their investigations and trials were so politically motivated that the punishment is completely out of proportion to the offenses committed.

[poseidon]

frazzledspice said

Considering that in 1999 Clinton pardoned Cisneros for the one misdemeanor he pleaded guilty to, I fail to see what additional benefit Cisneros would have garnered from a Clinton coverup.

And I feel the same way about Tom DeLay. No matter what he is convicted of, I'm certain Bush will pardon him in that good-old-boy network kind of way. So why doesn't the administration just let his trial proceed, pardon him, and then go back to business as usual? (I would expect no less.)

In my opinion, offenders should only be offered Presidential pardons if 1) they're innocent; or 2) if their investigations and trials were so politically motivated that the punishment is completely out of proportion to the offenses committed.

Just so you're understood correctly, you're saying that your hero was part of the good-old-boy network, and that a pardon for Cisneros was wrong, according to your litmus test.

[realtraveller]

AuntieEmma said

What Clinton is doing is terrible! We should kick him out of office! I don't want such a sleazebag being MY president!

And I don't want him to be the back seat driver for another president.

[poseidon]

To be honest, I always thought she held the reigns of power, he just mouthed what she directed him to say.

[frazzledspice]

I think any President that pardons convicted criminals for reasons other than the ones I cited are wrong.

But I fail to see what good it does to stonewall the prosecution when your intent all along is to pardon the criminal no matter what.

Better to appear honest and straightforward in allowing the investigation to proceed, and compassionate and Presidential when you issue the pardon, than to appear sneaky, underhanded and obstructionist.

[poseidon]

So was Clinton honest and compassionate, or sneaky and underhanded, based solely upon what you've said in this thread?

[erik_kosberg]

I can't speak for Fraz, but no that doesn't sound to me like what she said. Nice straw man though.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

Must be a big sale down at the straw man store.

[poseidon]

AuntieEmma said

Must be a big sale down at the straw man store.

That's twice today in this one thread where you've felt the overwhelming need to chime in with almost exactly what someone else said at my expense (and, what's humorous is that one of the people you've copied is me guessing what JP would say). What's the matter, do you need to pick a fight?

[AuntieEmma[$]]

What's the matter, do you need to pick a fight?

Yes, of course. You're so clever to catch on!

But I promise to be a good girl and treat all future revelations about the harm Clinton is doing to the presidency with the seriousness that they deserve. Impeach Clinton Now!

[AuntieEmma[$]]

poseidon said

To be honest, I always thought she held the reigns of power, he just mouthed what she directed him to say.

Totally agree. Not only is Clinton a liar and a cheat and a crook, but worse, he is pussywhipped! No wonder the terrorists were able to take advantage of us. What a weakling Clinton is! If we had had a manly-man like GWB in charge, the terrorists never would have attacked.

[brian_igo]

The difference between a hack and an ethical prosecutor

Hack:

A copy of the report was obtained by The New York Times from someone sympathetic to the Barrett investigation who wanted his criticism of the Clinton administration to be known.

Ethical Prosecutor:

I think what people may be confused about is that reports used to be issued by independent counsels. And one of the complaints about the independent counsel statute was that an ordinary citizen, when investigated, they're charged with a crime or they're not; they're not charged with a crime, people don't talk about it.

Because of the interest in making sure that -- well, there's an interest in independent counsels to making sure those investigations were done thoroughly but then people ended up issuing reports for people not charged. And one of the criticisms leveled was that you should not issue reports about people who are not charged with a crime.

That statute lapsed. I'm not an independent counsel, and I do not have the authority to write a report, and, frankly, I don't think I should have that authority. I think we should conduct this like any other criminal investigation: charge someone or be quiet.

[rmthunter]

Cover-ups have been the option of choice since the 1960s. I don't see that they have any party affiliation -- Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, Bush, their administrations have all tried to hide something.

Of course, it's pretty convenient when your hero is feeling the pressure to be able to haul out the last (opposition) cover-up to take the heat off.

Rinse, repeat.

[erik_kosberg]

Coverup reported implies that there was a coverup. Coverup alleged would be a more accurate description. The special counsel seems to be assuming that there was a grand conspiracy but as far as I can tell presents no evidence of it other than the fact that he was not able to prove anything. Which really isn't evidence of much at all. I can present no evidence of the “fact” that little green men are beaming messages into my skull. That does not therefore mean that there is in fact a conspiracy among little green men.

[poseidon]

Little green men are beaming messages into your skull, too?