SwiftVets.com Forum Index SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Clinton Coverups

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    SwiftVets.com Forum Index -> Geedunk & Scuttlebutt
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
shawa
CNO


Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 2004

PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 7:04 pm    Post subject: Clinton Coverups Reply with quote

Quote:
Clinton Coverups
By Mark Goodman
Published March 7, 2006

Lost in the tumult over Islamic port deals and Katrina video capers is the recently released -- and willfully ignored -- Barrett Report. David Barrett, you'll recall, is the independent counsel appointed in 1995 to investigate allegations of impropriety against President Clinton's Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros.

Mr. Barrett found his path mined by the Justice Department, the Internal Revenue Service and President Clinton's attorneys, even after Mr. Clinton departed the White House. He prepared 18 felony indictments against Mr. Cisneros but had to settle for a guilty plea on a misdemeanor charge (lying to the FBI about his mistress, a poor choice for a tax write-off). He sought to prosecute Mr. Cisneros for tax fraud over a period of years but was thwarted by Attorney General Janet Reno. Ultimately Mr. Cisneros resigned his post, whereupon President Clinton, constitutionally bound to men who lie about their mistresses, pardoned him.

Worse, Mr. Barrett's investigations led him into bleak wilds where unnumbered Clinton misdeeds allegedly lay beneath bureaucratic camouflage. These findings comprised a full 120 pages of his 684-page report -- but you won't find them in the final document published on January 19. That's because congressional Democrats, led by Sens. Byron Dorgan, Dick Durbin and John Kerry, used an appropriations bill to leverage a deal redacting the potentially lethal 120 pages.

A frustrated Mr. Barrett released this statement: "An accurate title for the report could be, 'What We Were Prevented From Investigating.'" He added: "After a thorough reading of the report it would not be unreasonable to conclude as I have that there was a cover-up at high levels of our government and it appears to have been substantial and coordinated. The question is why? And that question will regrettably go unanswered. Unlike some other cover-ups, this one succeeded." Just so.

The media in the main treated Mr. Barrett as if he had spent the past ten years chasing ambulances down Pennsylvania Avenue. The New York Times, in self-imposed redaction, nimbly sidestepped the issue of the missing pages. NBC and CBS ignored the report entirely, while ABC cited unnamed critics as branding the study "incompetent, wasteful and without merit." Objection. One witness may be questionable testimony, but two witnesses are corroborating evidence.

I'm an avowed liberal and a registered Democrat, but I can appreciate Mr. Barrett's ordeal like no other because for nine years I've been negotiating a parallel minefield. Herewith, the redacted portion of my life: In 1997, attending to dark rumors, I contracted with a Washington financial investigator -- I'll call him "Deep" for originality's sake -- to run a background check on Norman Pearlstine, former editor of The Wall Street Journal, who'd been hired by his crony, Time Warner CEO Gerry Levin, as Time Inc's editor-in-chief.

Sure enough, Deep reported that Mr. Pearlstine was living far beyond his evident means -- for instance, he had three lavish houses plus a Manhattan co-op. On request, I turned the report over to the chief of the IRS Criminal Investigation Division in Newark, N.J. Two weeks later, Deep's main IRS contact told him Mr. Pearlstine's tax returns "did not remotely match" his assets and that the agency had assigned two top criminal investigators to the case.

Deep lost the Pearlstine trail, then picked it up again in 2001. "Gerry Levin went to his pal Bill Clinton to get The White House to quash the investigation," he told me. "The two agents assigned to the case were transferred to less sensitive jobs and told to keep their mouths shut or lose their pensions." (Deep pleaded for anonymity; a confidential experience in his NSA years left him in mortal fear of the Clintons.) Whoa.

I suddenly felt like some hapless Hitchcock non-hero who opens the wrong drawing-room door and finds a den filled with opulent thieves, in white tie and tails. Time Warner had already harassed me out of a retaliation suit with the injudicious assistance of Justice Miriam Cedarbaum (Yes, the Martha Stewart judge and my own private Janet Reno).The Justice Department and the FBI then stonewalled me. Fool that I am, I actually thought my colleagues would pounce on such a story. Wrong. Media Blue Wall Law says: No rummaging in the backstage dressing-room of a diva Manhattan editor, especially not with Bill Clinton squinting in the loge.

Surreally, the IRS rang in to threaten me, the whistleblower, with criminal investigation. I accused them of conspiring with Time Warner and the Clinton camp to keep me barefoot and button-lipped. The agency not only backed off, but the Secretary of the Treasury, John Snow, ordered a second inquiry. I'm currently cooperating with CID agents. But I suspect that, not unlike David Barrett, I've been invited on a snipe hunt.

So: We have here twin cautionary tales of fraud, corruption, obstruction and cover-up converging on -- surprise! -- Bill Clinton. It's the Barrett Report, of course, which begs the most disturbing question: What evil lurks in those 120 pages that made the Democratic congressmen press so hard for redaction? My money says, a den filled with opulent thieves, in white tie and tails.


The Washington Times

Anybody ever read 'The Hamlet' by William Faulkner?
I swear Clinton's bloodline must trace back to the Snopes family. Manipulation, threats and intimidation make the Clintons wealthy.
_________________
“I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.” (Thomas Paine, 1776)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wonhyo
Seaman Apprentice


Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 85

PostPosted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 2:36 am    Post subject: Wouldn't this be protected under Whistleblower! Reply with quote

Why can't they release this information as a whistle blower to the media? Or is it because it looks into a Democrat? Surely there is someway to get this information out to the public. I know, change the names to Republicans and then Leahy, Durbin or Rockafeller will get it to the media in a minute.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GenrXr
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy


Joined: 05 Aug 2004
Posts: 1720
Location: Houston

PostPosted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 2:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wouldn't be surprised to learn Clinton comes from a grifter family.
_________________
"An activist is the person who cleans up the water, not the one claiming its dirty."
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to stand by and do nothing." Edmund Burke (1729-1797), Founder of Conservative Philosophy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Army_(Ret)
Lt.Jg.


Joined: 06 Aug 2004
Posts: 108

PostPosted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 12:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here is Dick Morris's take on the Clintons. He worked for them for years and they finally dumped him like so much trash.


THE CLINTONS PASS IN THE NIGHT E-mail this column to a friend!



By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

March 8, 2006 -- Bill and Hillary Clinton are the first couple to appear simultaneously and independently on the national political stage. They are using their special circumstances as a convenient shield for one another, fulfilling, at once, Hillary’s dream of no accountability and Bill’s of being able to take both sides of an issue.

Did Hillary know that Bill was pardoning the FALN terrorists to help her win Puerto Rican votes in New York? Oh, she was opposed to the pardon.

Did Hillary find out that Bill was granting pardons to felons and drug dealers who had hired her brothers for six-figure fees to lobby her husband for pardons right under her nose? No way. In fact she was “saddened” at her brothers’ involvement.

And we all know that Hillary was “gasping for breath” when she first learned the truth about Monica Lewinsky.

And the former first lady was “bewildered” that members of the White House staff would treat her demands that they fire the travel-office staff as an order.

Bill has been out there criticizing the war while Hillary plays to the center by voting for it.

And now, this heavy-footed pas de deux straddles the issue of whether a Dubai company should run six American ports.

Are we truly to believe Hillary’s insistence last week that she knew nothing about Bill’s counseling of his friend and benefactor the crown prince of Dubai, Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktoum, on the ports deal? Do Bill and Hillary Clinton ever speak to each other, or do they just attend funerals, fundraisers and Billy Graham crusades together for photo-ops?

Bill is, after all, a regular in Dubai. The crown prince — that is, the government — contributed to his presidential library and pays him $300,000 per speech. Recently, Yucaipa, an American company that has Bill Clinton as a “senior adviser” and pays him a percentage of its profits, formed a partnership with the Dubai Investment Group to form DIGL Inc., a company dedicated to managing the sheik’s personal investments.

No doubt Bill Clinton was brought in to cement this lucrative deal from which he — and therefore Hillary — will likely make millions. Neither Bill nor Hillary will disclose how much he is paid, but her Senate financial disclosure says that he will make “more than” $1,000. They also won’t say how much Dubai royalty gave to the Clinton library.

So when Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) broke the story that the administration had approved the Dubai ports deal and Bill Clinton started to defend it in public, are we to believe that Hillary did not know that the sheik had called him to ask his advice, and are we to believe that Bill’s defense of the deal was unrelated to his myriad financial ties to Dubai?

Hillary stands to gain millions in income from her husband’s Dubai connection. She knows he flies there very, very frequently. And she must realize that Bill is close to the Dubai royal family.

So why did she dump on the port deal? Likely to cover herself. If she were anything less than front and center against the Dubai port deal, she would vulnerable to criticism over Bill’s involvement with the Dubai royal family. So she held marathon press conferences denouncing the deal and professed not to realize her husband was defending the deal at the sheik’s request.

What’s really going on here is that Bill Clinton is trying to please his Arab patrons and business partners at the same time that Hillary Clinton is trying to capitalize on American stereotypes about Arab terrorists.

More important, she’s desperately trying to distract attention from the Dubai dollars that flow into her family checking account from Bill’s political and business dealings with the Dubai crown prince. What better way than to attack them?

We should insist that:

• Bill Clinton register as an agent of a foreign principal.

• The Clintons say how much he makes from Dubai.

• The Clinton library tell us how much Dubai royalty gave to the library.

• And Bill disclose, in the future, whenever he is speaking as an ex-president or as a paid public-relations flack.

Eileen McGann co-authored this column.
_________________
Peace is acheived through victory
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ocsparky101
PO1


Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 479
Location: Allen Park. Michigan

PostPosted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 12:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

My Michigan Senator Carl Levin (also involved in the coverup) says that the redacted parts involve personal information on people who testified and cannot be released to the public. Keep in mind this is not the first time that Ole Carl lied through his teeth.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Deuce
Senior Chief Petty Officer


Joined: 19 Mar 2005
Posts: 589
Location: FL

PostPosted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 7:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Part of the coverup is clearly directly related to a certain Senator from NY...(kinda like Diplomatic Immunity).

Army, I like Dick Morris' take on the Clinton's using us, and I like Mark Steyn's take on the UAE using Bill...(emphasis mine)...for a little jizya.

Quote:
"If I were Dubai Ports World, I'd sell the U.S. operations to Cosco, the Chinese Commies who run port operations in California, just for the fun of watching congressional [read Hillary] heads explode. Or does Washington's new fun xenophobia stop at the (Pacific) water's edge?

Congress' demand that DPW sell its U.S. operations to someone even if there's no someone to sell them to is almost a parody of the Democrats' (and naysaying Republicans') approach to national security: goddammit, we may not know what we're for but we sure as hell know what we're against. In that sense, whatever one's dissatisfactions on this third anniversary of the Iraq invasion, the Bush Doctrine remains the only game in town. It recognizes that the problem has to be fixed at the source, which means changing the nature of the terrorist breeding grounds. That's not sappy internationalism, but taking the game to the enemy."

http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn191.html

Deuce
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    SwiftVets.com Forum Index -> Geedunk & Scuttlebutt All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group