It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Another Clinton Scandal Comes to Light

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 09:10 AM
link   
According to the New York Times, new information has now come to light that the Clinton administration used their power and influence to quash a tax investigation against Henry Cisneros, one of Clinton's cabinent secretaries (Housing). The tax inquiry was prompted by Cisneros paying hush money to a former mistress. This kind of behavior, along with lying about it to federal investigators, would turn out to be SOP for someone high in the Clinton administration. And when Cisneros plead guilty to lying, he was promptly pardoned by his apparant mentor on this subject, Bill Clinton.

Here is the article:
NY Times - Another Clinton Administration Scandal


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.

The legal inquiry by the prosecutor, David M. Barrett, lasted more than a decade, consumed some $21 million and came to be a symbol of the flawed effort to prosecute high-level corruption through the use of independent prosecutors.

Mr. Barrett began his investigation with the narrower issue of whether Mr. Cisneros lied to the Federal Bureau of Investigation when he was being considered for the cabinet position. He ended his inquiry accusing the Clinton administration of a possible cover-up.

After being indicted on 18 felony counts, Mr. Cisneros pleaded guilty in 1999 to a misdemeanor charge of lying to investigators. He was later pardoned by President Bill Clinton.


A supporting article:
article


This probably would have been just another undiscovered scandal had the whistle not been blown by John J. Filan, chief of the IRS's 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's former mistress and money spent for other purposes exceeded declared income, said the whistle-blower, and "clearly proves Cisneros knowingly and willingly signed and filed false and fraudulent income tax returns" for 1991, 1992 and 1993.


No doubt many here will want to push all this factual evidence of actual wrong-doing by the Clinton administration aside in favor of the innuendo and outright falsehoods posted about Bush on a daily basis on this board. But someone on another thread here had it right when they referred to that kind of "reporting" as "rectal journalism" (due to the sources of the information).




posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Wow. Shame that such an outstanding president should be involved with anything like this. tsk tsk...And this coming out now will undoubtedly hurt Hillary too!

Any criminal offense should be investigated. I myself would not want to see Hillary as president, nor any member of this current government as next president (if there is one) Politics are dirty and some can certainly get down and dirtier than others. For example, the Bush administration. There's never been so much corruption since i dont know when. Corruption that reaches the far corners of this earth.
By comparison, Clinton was a saint. But he should nevertheless be investigated...and the Bush's should stop hanging around with him too.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 09:32 AM
link   
Why do the actions of the husband have any effect on the wife?

Everytime someone finds something about Bill they assume Hillary will be the same way?

Normally in this country we don't do that. If we did we would assume if a husband kills someone the wife will do the same so we should punish her as well.

Hillary is far different then her husband. Now whether that is good or bad, only time will tell.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Let's see if this helps keep this thread on topic:

It isn't about Bush, so no need to post what you think Bush is "guilty" of (in a feeble attempt to make another political figure look better).

And no, unless you are talking about the Clinton administration, everybody else didn't do it, too.

Without their two key historical arguments (above), lets see what Clinton's supporters still have left to say.


[edit on 1/19/2006 by centurion1211]



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by nativeokie
Why do the actions of the husband have any effect on the wife?

Everytime someone finds something about Bill they assume Hillary will be the same way?

Hillary is far different then her husband. Now whether that is good or bad, only time will tell.


The general consensus is that Hillary was the driving force behind Bill's presidency. And, by all accounts, far more ruthless than Bill. That still doesn't prove what Hillary would do in similar situations, but it gives you an idea of where she's coming from. Who's to say she wasn't the one calling the shots in the Cisneros case. After all, she is a lawyer, too.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 10:05 AM
link   
This is almost a 10 year old finding. It was found out in 1997!?
Honestly, I dont even see what the point of bringing this up is. It certainly has no impact on any of us today, and it didnt have an impact on us then. Its about one guy not paying his taxes and then getting pardoned by Clinton. He was the president and he had that power, and no it isn't an "implied" power either. Am I a Clinton supporter? No more than I am a Bush supporter, but this is silly.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
It isn't about Bush, so no need to post what you think Bush is "guilty" of (in a feeble attempt to make another political figure look better).


So why did you feel the need to bring up and defend Bush in your initial post....



No doubt many here will want to push all this factual evidence of actual wrong-doing by the Clinton administration aside in favor of the innuendo and outright falsehoods posted about Bush on a daily basis on this board.


Obviously, your agenda is to make Clinton look bad in an attempt to make Bush look better. Look, you even know this "feeble" tactic, which is why you refered to it above. If you really cared about focusing on Clinton instead of pushing your agenda, you never would have started supporting Bush at the same time you were trying attack Clinton.

I just felt the urge to post this so that others would be able to see through you too. But, go ahead, deny away.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Hillary will be the next President. It doesn't please me either, but get your mind wrapped around it. She's an Illuminati Queen. She's due!

Mod Edit: Removed Inappropriate Remarks -- Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 19-1-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 12:08 PM
link   
i agree that this thread shouldnt be about bush either... it should really be about them both. for anyone to suggest that one is more guilty of these sorts of crimes over the other needs to do some more reading before they even post.

we all know the bush's and clintons arnt enemies, and are actually friends.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
Wow. Shame that such an outstanding president should be involved with anything like this.


lmao


Originally posted by nativeokie
Why do the actions of the husband have any effect on the wife?


well, her actions managed to be linked to him when he was running.

I don't like her. I don't know why anyone does. She's a complete mystery to me. She really has no business running for re-election, let alone a higher office.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Whatever they can dig up on Clinton, even if its from 20 years ago hurts Hillarys chances for the presidency.
Birds of a feather. The battle has begun. And for what? We will have Bush thru 2008 and beyond. Just wait and see.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 06:07 PM
link   
I cannot remember the last president I was actually proud of. No matter who you vote for, they always end up having some kind of scandal rock the country.

Once somebody gets to the level of a presidential candidate they are thoroughly soiled by greed and power.

I say get rid of the lot of them and don't allow them to come back. We do not have to kill them, but maybe exile them to the moon or something. I mean ALL POLITICIANS AT ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT.

We need to start over from scratch.



[edit on 1-19-2006 by groingrinder]



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Every administration has them


President Thomas Jefferson was accused in one of the first sex-scandals in Washington. Sally Hemings, Jefferson’s slave, gave birth to a son, Easton Hemings, who was listed as "white" according to the 1830 Census.



The Whiskey Ring, made public in 1875, involved a national tax evasion scheme where indictments were brought against 86 government officials, including the chief clerk of the Treasury Department as well as President Ulysses S. Grant’s private secretary.



The Teapot Dome scandal in 1924, during President Warren G. Harding’s administration, was one of the most notorious political scandals in U.S. history. The Secretary of the Interior, Albert B. Fall, was found guilty of bribery, fined $100,000 and sentenced to one year in prison



Watergate and the resignation of President Richard Nixon is still considered the worst political scandal in U.S. history. Watergate charges included: political burglary, bribery, extortion, wiretapping, conspiracy, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, tax fraud, illegal use of the CIA and FBI, as well as campaign contributions and use of taxpayers’ money for private purposes. More than 30 Nixon administration officials, campaign officials, and financial contributors pleaded guilty or were found guilty of breaking the law. Facing impeachment, President Nixon resigned August 8, 1974



Iran-Contra publicly exposed two secret U.S. Government operations in October and November of 1986. The operations, providing assistance to the military activities of the Nicaraguan contra rebels and the sale of U.S. arms to Iran merged when funds generated from the sale of weapons to Iran were diverted to support the contra effort in Nicaragua. The Independent Counsel for Iran-Contra matters concluded among many things that policies behind both the Iran and contra operations were fully reviewed and developed at the highest levels of the Reagan Administration. Major trials were held for former National Security Advisor Rear Admiral John M. Poindexter and National Security Counsel staff member Colonel Oliver L. North. Both were convicted and their convictions reversed on appeal. Fourteen persons were charged with criminal violations in the affair.


www.msnbc.com...

So, it is nothing new and every president has his / her battles!

I am not justifying it, just telling it like it is.

- One Man Short



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Boy! It's interesting how your perspective of what's important changes. When Clinton was still president, the whole scandalous affair he had was huge, HUGE news. And now, after all the horrific multiple scandals about our President's administration involving person after person after person, it kind of makes some hush-money to quell a casual fling kind of trite, doesn't it?

[edit on 19-1-2006 by jupiter869]



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by nativeokie
Why do the actions of the husband have any effect on the wife?

Everytime someone finds something about Bill they assume Hillary will be the same way?

Normally in this country we don't do that. If we did we would assume if a husband kills someone the wife will do the same so we should punish her as well.

Hillary is far different then her husband. Now whether that is good or bad, only time will tell.


I would guess at the theory of being guilty by association because the wife at most times knows what the husband is doing. In the Clinton issue, Hillary was evidently not taking care of her man and he went looking. Damn that stained dress not to forget he has a proven track record of fooling around. I wonder if any of this is linked to the shocking news of Teddy and his new found son of his love slave. It appears that for the most in D.C have very little morales from what I have seen.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 08:19 PM
link   
One Man Short has got it right. It's hard to find one that is worth anything. Clinton sure had his faults. Of course pardoning a guy who didn't pay his taxes didn't get thousands of people killed, so that counts for something.

And bringing up Clinton's crimes to make Bush look good is just funny! He doesn't look any better, no matter what dirt you dig up on Clinton.


Originally posted by groingrinder
I cannot remember the last president I was actually proud of.


Jimmy Carter for me. He was a terrible president, but a very good man. He was on Jon Stewart.
Very good man.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 11:11 PM
link   
Hey, BH. Didn't think you'd be able to resist this thread. I never much agree with you, but I've always appreciated the intellect behind your posts. Obviously, your team didn't give you much to work with this time. After all, cheating, lying and then covering it up are criminal offenses by anyone's standards, and I'd guess your side must be holding your breath just hoping the next scandal to break isn't so bad. This one, however, does look pretty bad for the Clintons.

Anyway, BH, you're a good soldier for your team and I also appreciate that. Say, maybe I'll see you over on PTS on my "Ted Kennedy's Love Child" thread. Now there's someone that can really use some of your help.

Respectfully yours,



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
(in a feeble attempt to make another political figure look better).


Isn't this just a feeble attempt to make Bush look better?

As far as I'm concerned ALL politicians, especialy presidents are corupt, Bush is no better than Clinton is no better than Reagan is no better than any of them.

It's just a game to keep us unaware of the real agenda of the rich and powerful.

Some just get caught, and some don't. How much goes on that we don't hear about? And what do we hear that is just BS from the oposition?

Don't trust any of them, get over your need to be lead.
The rich and powerful are no better to tell you how to live your life than you are. Self governance, self reliance, self control, that's real libery, not being lead around by the rich and powerful.

Their agenda is a personal one, we are just appeased to keep us out of the way.

To them it's a game, a dangerous paranoid game.

[edit on 19/1/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 11:50 PM
link   
Interesting. On "MYATS", it says that ANOK was the last person to post on my thread but I don't see the post.

Nevermind. Forgot I had him on ***IGNORE***. Guess I'll never know ...


[edit on 1/19/2006 by centurion1211]



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 11:54 PM
link   
LOL I guess that's your loss mate, scared of the truth I guess?

But seeing as you're not reading this, I should say that's his loss.

But who cares, it's the other posters reading this that matter not you.
Your pro bush/government BS will shine out as just what it is, BS.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join