Senate Democrats are working to deep six the Barrett (Special Prosecutor) Report which purportedly includes information that the Clinton Administration used the IRS to attack political opponents.

I'm shocked, shocked, shocked!

We sympathize with those who'd like to turn the page on the impeachment, Monica Lewinsky, Ken Starr, etc. We thought Clinton, though disbarred, was insufficiently penalized: Lying under oath is impeachable, and should occasion removal from office. But Americans in their collective wisdom pretty much decided that Republicans had disproportionately politicized a sin of the flesh.

Fine, but such moral infractions can build into tyrannous executive behavior. Ask David Barrett, a special prosecutor assigned to investigate the forgotten case of Henry Cisneros, Clinton's first HUD secretary, who was found to be misappropriating funds to pay off a mistress.

When Barrett pulled on that thread, he reportedly unraveled a cloak hiding abuses of the Justice Department and the IRS. If recent teases about what's in his 400-page report are true, the previous administration was siccing agents on its political opponents.

At the time, various Clinton critics, from the Heritage Foundation to The American Spectator magazine, found themselves under suspicious IRS audits. Was there a deliberate pattern? It's possible the Barrett report can tell us.

Alas, Barrett's work could be the first special prosecutor's report never to see daylight. Clinton operatives have taken advantage of a legal provision letting them blot out anything they feel damages their privacy. And Senate Democrats, with the unwitting cooperation of Senate Republicans, slipped into an appropriations bill a provision that would deep-six the report.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&artnum=2&issue=20060103

Senate Democrats are working to deep six the Barrett (Special Prosecutor) Report which purportedly includes information that the Clinton Administration used the IRS to attack political opponents.

I'm shocked, shocked, shocked!

We sympathize with those who'd like to turn the page on the impeachment, Monica Lewinsky, Ken Starr, etc. We thought Clinton, though disbarred, was insufficiently penalized: Lying under oath is impeachable, and should occasion removal from office. But Americans in their collective wisdom pretty much decided that Republicans had disproportionately politicized a sin of the flesh.

Fine, but such moral infractions can build into tyrannous executive behavior. Ask David Barrett, a special prosecutor assigned to investigate the forgotten case of Henry Cisneros, Clinton's first HUD secretary, who was found to be misappropriating funds to pay off a mistress.

When Barrett pulled on that thread, he reportedly unraveled a cloak hiding abuses of the Justice Department and the IRS. If recent teases about what's in his 400-page report are true, the previous administration was siccing agents on its political opponents.

At the time, various Clinton critics, from the Heritage Foundation to The American Spectator magazine, found themselves under suspicious IRS audits. Was there a deliberate pattern? It's possible the Barrett report can tell us.

Alas, Barrett's work could be the first special prosecutor's report never to see daylight. Clinton operatives have taken advantage of a legal provision letting them blot out anything they feel damages their privacy. And Senate Democrats, with the unwitting cooperation of Senate Republicans, slipped into an appropriations bill a provision that would deep-six the report.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&artnum=2&issue=20060103

Now who's trying to hide stuff? If the Barrett report and Abramoff both see the light of day, we may finally get the stable swept out a little bit.

I think some Senate Staffer should leak the report, if the Dems do succeed in blocking it.

Never fails. The GOP gets caught in a bunch of dirty dealings, and they instantly bring up Clinton. Every. Single. Time.

Anyway, it'll be interesting to see the report. It'll also be interesting to see if the Democrats are as spineless and partisan as the Republicans, and start telling every kind of lie to try to rationalize it, like the right-wingers do.

I just wish that judge would have let us seen Vince Foster's autopsy photos. Plenty of dirt there.

Never fails. The GOP gets caught in a bunch of dirty dealings, and they instantly bring up Clinton. Every. Single. Time.


This is current news, not something that happened years ago. Would you prefer we all just leave the nice Clinton regime alone and tiptoe away?


Anyway, it'll be interesting to see the report. It'll also be interesting to see if the Democrats are as spineless and partisan as the Republicans, and start telling every kind of lie to try to rationalize it, like the right-wingers do.

What are you talking about? That's all the democrats do.

What are you talking about? That's all the democrats do.

Bush attacks a soverign state in an act of aggression, with no defensive rationale, without the approval of the UNSC.

SO WHAT SADDAM IS A TARROIRSTSTSQQQQ!!!!

Bush has a policy that encourages illegal tortue of POWs

SO WAHET SADDAEM IS A ATERRORISTS!!!!!

Bush has a policy of spying on American Citizens without a warrent.

SO WHATAERED WHOCAREERES IF YOU DOWNT HAEV ANYTHATING TO HEAID YOU SHOULDN'T ACARE!!!!!!!!!!

A half dozen GOP Senators are caught up in a fraud ring.

DID YOU WHAER WHAT KKKLINTOOON DID HE GOT A BLOAW JOB!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bush lies his ass off to rationalize attacking Iraq by claiming that Iraq is a threat, when it clearly isn't.

SO WHAT SADDAM MURDERED BAIBEES!!!!!!!

It's endless. You people just make excuse after excuse after excuse for all the insanely stupid and illegal activities taking place in your party. I'm just wondering if the Democrats are as much little robotic cult followers as Republicans are.

Bush attacks a soverign state in an act of aggression, with no defensive rationale, without the approval of the UNSC.

SO WHAT SADDAM IS A TARROIRSTSTSQQQQ!!!!

Bush has a policy that encourages illegal tortue of POWs

SO WAHET SADDAEM IS A ATERRORISTS!!!!!

Bush has a policy of spying on American Citizens without a warrent.

SO WHATAERED WHOCAREERES IF YOU DOWNT HAEV ANYTHATING TO HEAID YOU SHOULDN'T ACARE!!!!!!!!!!

A half dozen GOP Senators are caught up in a fraud ring.

DID YOU WHAER WHAT KKKLINTOOON DID HE GOT A BLOAW JOB!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bush lies his ass off to rationalize attacking Iraq by claiming that Iraq is a threat, when it clearly isn't.

SO WHAT SADDAM MURDERED BAIBEES!!!!!!!

It's endless. You people just make excuse after excuse after excuse for all the insanely stupid and illegal activities taking place in your party. I'm just wondering if the Democrats are as much little robotic cult followers as Republicans are.

Given that I've seen no one defending anything that Abramoff may reveal, I think you have your head in a very dark and confined space. Go back and read everything posted on the subject.

Bush attacks a soverign state in an act of aggression, with no defensive rationale, without the approval of the UNSC.

SO WHAT SADDAM IS A TARROIRSTSTSQQQQ!!!!

Bush has a policy that encourages illegal tortue of POWs

SO WAHET SADDAEM IS A ATERRORISTS!!!!!

Bush has a policy of spying on American Citizens without a warrent.

SO WHATAERED WHOCAREERES IF YOU DOWNT HAEV ANYTHATING TO HEAID YOU SHOULDN'T ACARE!!!!!!!!!!

A half dozen GOP Senators are caught up in a fraud ring.

DID YOU WHAER WHAT KKKLINTOOON DID HE GOT A BLOAW JOB!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bush lies his ass off to rationalize attacking Iraq by claiming that Iraq is a threat, when it clearly isn't.

SO WHAT SADDAM MURDERED BAIBEES!!!!!!!

It's endless. You people just make excuse after excuse after excuse for all the insanely stupid and illegal activities taking place in your party. I'm just wondering if the Democrats are as much little robotic cult followers as Republicans are.

:rofl: :nice:

Senate Democrats are working to deep six the Barrett (Special Prosecutor) Report which purportedly includes information that the Clinton Administration used the IRS to attack political opponents.



the previous administration was siccing agents on its political opponents.

At the time, various Clinton critics, from the Heritage Foundation to The American Spectator magazine, found themselves under suspicious IRS audits. Was there a deliberate pattern? It's possible the Barrett report can tell us.

Alas, Barrett's work could be the first special prosecutor's report never to see daylight. Clinton operatives have taken advantage of a legal provision letting them blot out anything they feel damages their privacy. And Senate Democrats, with the unwitting cooperation of Senate Republicans, slipped into an appropriations bill a provision that would deep-six the report.



Just a few quick thoughts came to my mind when I read this:

* Clinton sounds like a tyrant :|
* unreasonable searches (IRS audits) and unwarranted at that. Doesn't anyone care about their civil liberties!!!
* Nice to see those Clinton operatives shield themselves behind the constitution
* gee...and none of this was done for National security.

Bush attacks a soverign state in an act of aggression, with no defensive rationale, without the approval of the UNSC.

SO WHAT SADDAM IS A TARROIRSTSTSQQQQ!!!!

Bush has a policy that encourages illegal tortue of POWs

SO WAHET SADDAEM IS A ATERRORISTS!!!!!

Bush has a policy of spying on American Citizens without a warrent.

SO WHATAERED WHOCAREERES IF YOU DOWNT HAEV ANYTHATING TO HEAID YOU SHOULDN'T ACARE!!!!!!!!!!

A half dozen GOP Senators are caught up in a fraud ring.

DID YOU WHAER WHAT KKKLINTOOON DID HE GOT A BLOAW JOB!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bush lies his ass off to rationalize attacking Iraq by claiming that Iraq is a threat, when it clearly isn't.

SO WHAT SADDAM MURDERED BAIBEES!!!!!!!


That should go on T-shirts. :cool:

That should go on T-shirts. :cool:


I think it should be used in print ads aimed at dismantling the NEA. Or Boo could license to Hooked On Phonics and use his royalties to learn proper spelling, grammar, and punctuation skills.

I think it should be used in print ads aimed at dismantling the NEA. Or Boo could license to Hooked On Phonics and use his royalties to learn proper spelling, grammar, and punctuation skills.

Don't qwell the laughter to make a point, just go with it. :cool:

I can't believe you dumbasses are so partisan that you can't see that Clinton was just as big scumbag as Bush and vice versa.

I can't believe you dumbasses are so partisan that you can't see that Clinton was just as big scumbag as Bush and vice versa.

Clinton was a weasel. Bush is a violent weasel.

I think it should be used in print ads aimed at dismantling the NEA. Or Boo could license to Hooked On Phonics and use his royalties to learn proper spelling, grammar, and punctuation skills.

Sentence fragment.

Clinton was a weasel. Bush is a violent weasel.

Clinton killed too. You might find ways to justify his actions but there was a lot of death under his watch.

But what are you gonna do? Vote third party??

We have to have a two party system because.... because.... if we had more options, then sleazy politicians couldn't get away with it! :shrug:

Who here still thinks the two-party system is a good thing?

You are focused on a symptom - not the disease. A multi-party system in which parties could form coalitions in order to continue the feeding from the public trough would not be an improvement, imo. The problem is the vast amount of money politicians are able to spend with no accountability.

I just wish that judge would have let us seen Vince Foster's autopsy photos. Plenty of dirt there.


I'm more interested in Danny Casolaro's, that's one of those things that always makes you wonder "what if"...

But what are you gonna do? Vote third party??



I do. My only other option is to not vote.

I think we're way beyond hope on the federal level. Voting seems be a complete waste of time in most cases.

let's see...We have one poster deflected the issue, one poster is amused with the deflection, one is promoting 3rd party politics, and two have turned the discussion towards other conspiracies. Shucks...seems we just can't carry on a reasonble discussion about Clinton still.


BTW...Out of office doesn't mean we should ignore the past

It is perfectly appropriate to provide relevant information regarding the Clinton Legacy.

It would be IF it were in fact relevant, which it clearly is not.

*******

It would be IF it were in fact relevant, which it clearly is not.


ROFLMAO! Nixon resigned for having an FBI file - and here we have Clinton possibly ordering the IRS to audit political opponents.

The Double Standards of the Leftwing Moonbats are incredibly tiresome.

Some Clinton political opponents claiming they were audited in those years doesn't equate to Nixon's FBI file, which featured audio tapes of Nixon ordering IRS staffers to harass his political enemies.

How many times has the Heritage Foundation been referred to as a "political opponent" in this thread? The Heritage Foundation, a registered tax-free 501(c)(3)?

From the IRS (http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html):

Exemption Requirements

To be tax-exempt as an organization described in IRC Section 501(c)(3) of the Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for one or more of the purposes set forth in IRC Section 501(c)(3) and none of the earnings of the organization may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate at all in campaign activity for or against political candidates.

It's plausible they were under some kind of scrutiny.

Where is the beef in that article ? ... there is nothing but innuendo and suspicion

...such moral infractions can build into tyrannous executive behavior...

:lol:

Ask David Barrett, a special prosecutor assigned to investigate the forgotten case of Henry Cisneros, Clinton's first HUD secretary, who was found to be misappropriating funds to pay off a mistress.

Not true, after 3 years, 30 full time staffers and $9 million on a 500 page report, he was indicted for lying about how much money he sent his mistress, he was not found to have been misappropriating funds.

Amazing how much treasury dough the GOP moral watchdogs spent on their witch hunts back then

Not true, after 3 years, 30 full time staffers and $9 million on a 500 page report, he was indicted for lying about how much money he sent his mistress, he was not found to have been misappropriating funds.

Amazing how much treasury dough the GOP moral watchdogs spent on their witch hunts back then
Barrett continues to spend money - the investigation has cost at least $21 million over the past 10 years.

Some Clinton political opponents claiming they were audited in those years doesn't equate to Nixon's FBI file, which featured audio tapes of Nixon ordering IRS staffers to harass his political enemies.


^ Classic Leftwing Double Standard.

The simple fact they were audited doesn't "prove" they were targeted for political reasons. Thousands of people are audited every year.

An audiotape featuring Nixon's order to attack his enemies does. :rolleyes:

Barrett continues to spend money - the investigation has cost at least $21 million over the past 10 years.

WTF :confused:

sounds like some sort of affirmative action program for GOP witch hunters

The simple fact they were audited doesn't "prove" they were targeted for political reasons. Thousands of people are audited every year.

An audiotape featuring Nixon's order to attack his enemies does. :rolleyes:


Then why not let the Barret report be published so we all know what it contains? What are the Senate Dems trying to hide?

Why are they supposed to desire that a legal matter relevant only to a previous administration be resurrected so as to be used as a strawman to deflect attention from Bush's actual policy?

I thought the analysis of the provisions were a bit sketchy, so I went to the source - the final FY06 TTHUD bill < link to 128-page PDF (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h3058enr.txt.pdf) >. Here's what's actually in the bill:

SEC. 408. (a) The division of the court shall release to the Congress and to the public not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act all portions of the final report of the independent counsel of the investigation of Henry Cisneros made under section 594(h) of title 28, United States Code. The division of the court shall make such orders as are appropriate to protect the rights of any individual named in such report and to prevent undue interference with any pending prosecution. Upon the release of the final report, the final report shall be published pursuant to section 594(h)(3) of title 28, United States Code.

The bolded section is where the "controversy" comes from. Note that the bill doesn't mention redacting any text, or getting rid of any sections.

Why are they supposed to desire that a legal matter relevant only to a previous administration be resurrected so as to be used as a strawman to deflect attention from Bush's actual policy?


Oh - so if a President breaks the law, he is granted automatic clemency upon leaving office? Where is that covered in The Constitution?

I just wanted to mention something, and I might add to this in the near future: posting an op-ed or your favorite blog articleo f the day doesn't add very much to DA.

I just wanted to mention something, and I might add to this in the near future: posting an op-ed or your favorite blog articleo f the day doesn't add very much to DA.
It's political debate dickwad...this isn't the news forum

It's political debate dickwad...this isn't the news forum
But it's not really debate to post someone else's opinion.

Oh - so if a President breaks the law, he is granted automatic clemency upon leaving office? Where is that covered in The Constitution?
Using it as a shill to distract from your foreign policy shortcomings is just as much an abuse of power. They had a bite at impeaching Clinton.

Then why not let the Barret report be published so we all know what it contains? What are the Senate Dems trying to hide?

I second that motion.

Using it as a shill to distract from your foreign policy shortcomings is just as much an abuse of power. They had a bite at impeaching Clinton.

Is your main objection to the releasing this report the politics behind its release or the possibility of what it contains? Because if it's the politics, forget it. Those will never stop. This report may be about something that happened in the past, but its potential release is current. That makes it a legitimate topic of discussion. Are we supposed to ignore it? If so, why?

Hate to break it to you all but.....


CLINTON IS NO LONGER PRESIDENT!

Sorry guys, its Bush's turn to be the punching bag.

Hate to break it to you all but.....


CLINTON IS NO LONGER PRESIDENT!

Sorry guys, its Bush's turn to be the punching bag.

That's not a valid defense. This report has only now been finished. It is a legitimate topic of discussion.

That's not a valid defense. This report has only now been finished. It is a legitimate topic of discussion.

It's a pointless deflection from all the troubles the Republican crime ring is having these days.

It's a legitimate topic of discussion. We need more accountability for the office of the President. Even if we don't prove wrongdoing until after the President leaves office.

I could only dream of Bush being thrown in jail for throwing out the fourth ammendment and ordering his thugs to invade Americans' privacy without a warrant.

Of course, none of these accusations will help improve the country until we have more choices about who we elect.

Of course, none of these accusations will help improve the country until we have more choices about who we elect.

Which won't happen until people stop allowing themselves to be pigeonholed into a lesser of two evils choice.

Oh, and, yeah, Clinton was a weasle.

It's a pointless deflection from all the troubles the Republican crime ring is having these days.

It's an interesting, if stale topic. I'd be interested to see it followed through. Problem is this isn't front-page news. Clinton hasn't been president for five years now and counting. Those that raise stale topics like this are doing so for clear reasons: diversions from the bad news that plagues "their" guy(s). What's more telling is that their obsessive-compulsive focus on Clinton makes them wont to dig up anything they can -- five years on -- and yet they are so unwilling to see the glaring faults in their guy(s). Clinton is a war-criminal for Bosnia but Bush is a hero for Iraq. Clinton is a bum for now getting AQ but somehow Bush is a hero for 9/11... Reno is a criminal for her pre-9/11 actions, Ashcroft is untouchable for his. :shrug:

Totally partisan, as usual and as expected.

I just wanted to mention something, and I might add to this in the near future: posting an op-ed or your favorite blog articleo f the day doesn't add very much to DA.


Nobody is forcing you to read it. I notice you don't object to the ad nauseum posting of Op-Eds which support your political orientation.

Just sayin'.

Using it as a shill to distract from your foreign policy shortcomings is just as much an abuse of power. They had a bite at impeaching Clinton.


^ Afwaid. Vewy vewy afwaid of the TRUTH.

I'm gonna' bump my own post, which should have ended the thread.

I thought the analysis of the provisions were a bit sketchy, so I went to the source - the final FY06 TTHUD bill < link to 128-page PDF (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h3058enr.txt.pdf) >. Here's what's actually in the bill:

SEC. 408. (a) The division of the court shall release to the Congress and to the public not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act all portions of the final report of the independent counsel of the investigation of Henry Cisneros made under section 594(h) of title 28, United States Code. The division of the court shall make such orders as are appropriate to protect the rights of any individual named in such report and to prevent undue interference with any pending prosecution. Upon the release of the final report, the final report shall be published pursuant to section 594(h)(3) of title 28, United States Code.

The bolded section is where the "controversy" comes from. Note that the bill doesn't mention redacting any text, or getting rid of any sections.

My, somebody has an inflated sense of the important of his posts.

The report should be released. If the Dems block it, then a staffer should leak it. The Public has a Right To Know - we paid for it.

My, somebody has an inflated sense of the important of his posts.

The report should be released. If the Dems block it, then a staffer should leak it. The Public has a Right To Know - we paid for it.
That's what the point of my post was - there's nothing stopping the release of the report.

Actually, there is. The Dems in the Senate are blocking it.

The big question is: Why?

Actually, there is. The Dems in the Senate are blocking it.

The big question is: Why?

Their obstinate obstructionism and sneaky tactics inevitably make it look like they have something to hide. I agree: Why?

It's a pointless deflection from all the troubles the Republican crime ring is having these days.

That's a valid point only if it diminished discussion on other current topics of the day, but it hasn't. That statement is false.

Actually, there is. The Dems in the Senate are blocking it.

The big question is: Why?Their obstinate obstructionism and sneaky tactics inevitably make it look like they have something to hide. I agree: Why?
Again, that's what you read in an op-ed. I copied over the actual language of the bill. Here's a press release (http://www.house.gov/knollenberg/mediacenter/press/2005/12-13-05.htm) from the Republican Chairman of the House TTHUD Appropriations Commitee:

Knollenberg responds to media accounts involving the "Barrett Report"

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Congressman Joe Knollenberg (R/MI-09) released the following letter to the editor in response to an article by Tony Snow involving the "Barrett Report." This letter was published in the Detroit News on Thursday, December 15, 2005.

"To the Editor,

I am writing in response to the December 12 article by Tony Snow regarding the Barrett Report.

Tony Snow made several excellent points in his Dec. 12 column on the Barrett report, but some of his "facts" are in need of clarification.

I wholeheartedly agree that the Barrett report, the investigative report regarding former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros and obstruction of justice allegations within the Clinton administration, should be released. Snow implied that legislation under my jurisdiction will prevent this from happening. This is absolutely, 100 percent incorrect.

In fact, the legislation Snow is referring to requires the release of the report and mandates a deadline for that to occur. My committee gave the court 60 days to release the report. This was done to fulfill the right of public disclosure, but also to compel the closure of this investigation which has lasted more than 10 years and has cost the taxpayers more than $20 million.

In no way did this legislation suppress relevant -- and potentially damaging -- information about the Clinton administration. Furthermore, the legislation rightly directs the court to comply with existing law to "protect the rights of individuals named in the report and to prevent undue interference with any pending prosecution."

If during the investigation other crimes were unearthed, then those crimes must be prosecuted on their own merit. It is my belief that any possible crime brought to light should be investigated and, if sufficient evidence exists, prosecuted to the full extent of the law. However, it would be "grossly irresponsible," to use Snow's words, to change laws and rescind individual rights just to prove a political point.

Snow and I agree that the public has a right to all of the information relevant to this criminal investigation and to the obstruction of justice allegations. And, when the 60-day deadline is up in February, both the public and Congress will finally have the opportunity see what the previous presidential administration has been fighting for so long to avoid."

Again, that's what you read in an op-ed. I copied over the actual language of the bill. Here's a press release (http://www.house.gov/knollenberg/mediacenter/press/2005/12-13-05.htm) from the Republican Chairman of the House TTHUD Appropriations Commitee:

Knollenberg responds to media accounts involving the "Barrett Report"

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Congressman Joe Knollenberg (R/MI-09) released the following letter to the editor in response to an article by Tony Snow involving the "Barrett Report." This letter was published in the Detroit News on Thursday, December 15, 2005.

"To the Editor,

I am writing in response to the December 12 article by Tony Snow regarding the Barrett Report.

Tony Snow made several excellent points in his Dec. 12 column on the Barrett report, but some of his "facts" are in need of clarification.

I wholeheartedly agree that the Barrett report, the investigative report regarding former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros and obstruction of justice allegations within the Clinton administration, should be released. Snow implied that legislation under my jurisdiction will prevent this from happening. This is absolutely, 100 percent incorrect.

In fact, the legislation Snow is referring to requires the release of the report and mandates a deadline for that to occur. My committee gave the court 60 days to release the report. This was done to fulfill the right of public disclosure, but also to compel the closure of this investigation which has lasted more than 10 years and has cost the taxpayers more than $20 million.

In no way did this legislation suppress relevant -- and potentially damaging -- information about the Clinton administration. Furthermore, the legislation rightly directs the court to comply with existing law to "protect the rights of individuals named in the report and to prevent undue interference with any pending prosecution."

If during the investigation other crimes were unearthed, then those crimes must be prosecuted on their own merit. It is my belief that any possible crime brought to light should be investigated and, if sufficient evidence exists, prosecuted to the full extent of the law. However, it would be "grossly irresponsible," to use Snow's words, to change laws and rescind individual rights just to prove a political point.

Snow and I agree that the public has a right to all of the information relevant to this criminal investigation and to the obstruction of justice allegations. And, when the 60-day deadline is up in February, both the public and Congress will finally have the opportunity see what the previous presidential administration has been fighting for so long to avoid."

So when the bill is released with 120 pages missing, what do we do then? I don't believe for a moment that the whole thing will come out easily.

So when the bill is released with 120 pages missing, what do we do then? I don't believe for a moment that the whole thing will come out easily.
You read one article, and didn't bother verifying any of its claims due to your lack of skepticism of anything that matches your political beliefs. Get over it.

You read one article, and didn't bother verifying any of its claims due to your lack of skepticism of anything that matches your political beliefs. Get over it.

Are you convinced the whole thing will come out the first time? Perhaps you should look at political reality.

Are you convinced the whole thing will come out the first time? Perhaps you should look at political reality.
What "whole thing?" You don't know a thing about this other than reading one article which contained a false description of a piece of legislation that was recently signed into law. And you've repeatedly shown a lack of curiosity towards expanding your knowledge.

What "whole thing?" You don't know a thing about this other than reading one article which contained a false description of a piece of legislation that was recently signed into law. And you've repeatedly shown a lack of curiosity towards expanding your knowledge.

My, my, you certainly claim to know a lot about me and what I know. Have you developed ESP? You also seem remarkably certain as to how much of the report is actually going to be released. Are you sure the whole thing is going to come out or not?

Have you developed ESP? You also seem remarkably certain as to how much of the report is actually going to be released. Are you sure the whole thing is going to come out or not?
I have no idea - but I do know that this legislation will have nothing to do with that.