Investigation Concludes: Final Barrett Report Gets Little Coverage in Media
Ventura Star, January 30, 2006

By Terry Paulson, PhD

You can see the Washington politicians from both parties distancing themselves from recently-indicted Jack Abramhoff. Politicians are donating campaign funds contributed by Abramoff contacts to various charities while claiming that those funds "were donated in full compliance with federal law and disclosed properly and publicly." Serious investigations of some politicians continue, and further indictments may be sought. Democratic leaders are hoping to keep this a "Republican scandal," but prominent Democratic senators and congressmen have also received funds from Abramhoff.

A full investigation is warranted. As Ken Mehlman, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, said: "Public service is a sacred trust, and we cannot allow it to be sullied by anyone, Republican or Democrat…. If Republicans are guilty of illegal or inappropriate behavior, they should pay the price and suffer the consequences."

But before we prejudge new investigations, it's wise to fully cover the findings from past ones. On January 19th, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit finally approved the release of the Final Report of Independent Counsel David Barrett regarding Henry Cisneros.

Many of you may have no memory of Barrett's independent investigation that focused on the Clinton cabinet member Cisneros. Even after ten years of investigation costing over $21 million dollars, many newspapers have not even mentioned the report's release, much less covered its contents. This is in spite of David Barrett's chilling press release comments: "This has been a long and difficult investigation. It is my hope that people will read the entire Report (http://barrett.oic.gov) and draw their own conclusion. An accurate title for the Report could be, 'WHAT WE WERE PREVENTED FROM INVESTIGATING.' After a thorough reading of the Report it would not be unreasonable to conclude as I have that there was a coverup at high levels of our government, and it appears to have been substantial and coordinated."

After initially looking into the tax fraud allegations by then HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros, Barrett soon discovered something far more damaging. He found evidence of Justice Department interference and active surveillance of his own office. There were also indications that high-level personnel from the FBI, the IRS and the Justice Department with Clinton administration connections were involved in obstructing the investigation and discouraging prosecution.

The Barrett Report was filed on August 13, 2004. Why did it take until 2006 for the report to be released? Well prior to filing, the Democrats used provisions in the independent-counsel statue that allow review and rebuttals. Clinton's lawyers, led by David Kendall, extended that review and rebuttal process for over five years, adding numerous redactions. With no more delays possible, Democrats tried to slip into an Iraq-war spending bill an amendment that would have suppressed every word of the Barrett report. The amendment was defeated.

Democratic Senators Byron Dorgan, Richard Durban and John Kerry were able to convince Republican negotiators to insert language in a Senate-House appropriations conference that would allow names and allegations of individuals to be withheld if two out of three judges on a three-judge panel ruled to protect their individual rights. Since the three judges are Democrat inclined, many feared that the November 30th agreement might prevent the public release of the 120 pages of the report that focused on the obstruction and coverup allegations.

Thankfully, Barrett's determination and the action by the Appeals Court has resulted in the full release of the 474-page report, minus some redacted classified material. Why have you not heard of this report or the findings? Why has the New York Times not leaked revealing details from those redacted sections? Could it be that the revelations included in the Barrett Report are of little interest to the liberal media who control most of our newspapers and news rooms?

Now, that same media working overtime to embarrass Republicans over the activities of Jack Abramoff, might want to note that Democratic Senator Dorgan of North Dakota was the recipient of $67,000 in contributions from Indian tribes represented by Abramoff. Dorgan claims he has nothing to hide and never "knowingly" backed any of Abramoff's programs. That may prove to be true, but we do know that he "knowingly" was trying to hide from public scrutiny the Bartlett Report.

Lobbyists play an important role in informing and influencing politicians, but when their actions cross the line and become illegal, both politicians and lobbyists who have committed crimes should be held accountable no matter what party they belong to. I hope the indictments that come out of the Abramoff investigation will see the light of day, but it's also time for the Bartlett Report to be given the attention it deserves.

Republican Senator Charles Grassley is the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee with oversight over the IRS. He wants to use the Barrett Report to support a full-scale investigation of the tax agency and its use to obstruct justice and harass private citizens. After reading the Barrett Report, you may want to support his efforts.

Dr. Terry Paulson is a psychologist, speaker and author of The Dinner: The Political Conversation Your Mother Told You Never to Have. Share your comments at his PoliticalTalk Blog or contact him at Terry@TerryPaulson.com.

—May we never forget how truly blessed we are!