![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
So this partisan stuff...
Oct. 6th, 2005 10:24 amDeLay has been complaining the case against him is all a put-up job, orchestrated by partisan politics, co-ordinated from Washington, using hacks in Texas and Hollywood Money (you know Soros and MoveOn must be behind it because it's anti-DeLay, and there for anti-Congress, anti-Republican and downright anti-America, and we all know the Liberal just HATE America; because it stands for freedom and they hate our liberty. I only wish that was more tongue in cheek than it is).
So, tell me why, ten years after Henry Cisneros was fined for misdemeanor lies about how much he paid his mistress the House (you know, the august body DeLay said of, "I am the the federal governement" when he was told he couldn't smoke in a Federal Building) is authorizing more money to a closed investigation?
The Starr investigation cost a pretty penny, with estimates in excess of $40,000,000 (and that's just Starr, it doesn't include his predecessor, Fiske, nor the damage and cost incurred by the distraction of the president from his duties, nor that of the Senate, House and Court during the Impeachment,and subsequent trial), but at least when it was done, it was done.
The Senate, acting after the Comptoller General's Office asked why the Gov't was still spending 2 million a year in overhead on this (while the report is finished, the fine paid and the offending officeholder out of said office for more than a decade ago) crime (and as crimes go, this one was pretty much a piece of political hatchet-work. The charge was perjury, for lying during his background investigation. He apparently understated the hush money he gave a mistress. He didn't pretend he didn't have one, nor did he forget to mention it altogether [Kerik, anyone? Illegal alien nannies we forgot to pay Social Securit for? No, just under-reporting) killed his budget.
But the House; that bastion of ethics, saw fit to ram an extention of his operating costs ($930,000 for the first half of this year). What, I want to know (with body armor in short supply, and a host of more recent problems needing some of the swag the House is spending in the "budget with no pork left" that Mr. DeLay tells us the present House has managed to craft in that fiscally responsible way which is only theirs; compare and constrast to the budgets the previous occupant of 1600 Penn. Ave managed to get passed, the ones with that pesky surplus) is what could he possibly be investigating.
His brief hasn't changed (which is more than can be said for Starr). The offense isn't ongoing, nor is there any implication Cisneros plans to lie about it again (since he isn't a candidate for appointment under this administratin; what with not being asked to look for anyone to fill an important post, he isn't likely to be named to one) so that's out.
The only answer which seems to fit is there is some vague hope that stirring up some ten year-old muck will produce something which will stick to the Clintons.
Barret hasn't been willing to say just what he's doing with almost $150,000 a month, save to say those who ask the question are engaged in political posturing. Mind you, given his history, as a member of HUD under Reagan; when corruption there was described as rampant, he is in a good position to know what corruption looks like. If anyone can find some, he'd be the guy.
So... tell me Mr. DeLay, do you get some thrill from calling the kettle black?
So, tell me why, ten years after Henry Cisneros was fined for misdemeanor lies about how much he paid his mistress the House (you know, the august body DeLay said of, "I am the the federal governement" when he was told he couldn't smoke in a Federal Building) is authorizing more money to a closed investigation?
The Starr investigation cost a pretty penny, with estimates in excess of $40,000,000 (and that's just Starr, it doesn't include his predecessor, Fiske, nor the damage and cost incurred by the distraction of the president from his duties, nor that of the Senate, House and Court during the Impeachment,and subsequent trial), but at least when it was done, it was done.
The Senate, acting after the Comptoller General's Office asked why the Gov't was still spending 2 million a year in overhead on this (while the report is finished, the fine paid and the offending officeholder out of said office for more than a decade ago) crime (and as crimes go, this one was pretty much a piece of political hatchet-work. The charge was perjury, for lying during his background investigation. He apparently understated the hush money he gave a mistress. He didn't pretend he didn't have one, nor did he forget to mention it altogether [Kerik, anyone? Illegal alien nannies we forgot to pay Social Securit for? No, just under-reporting) killed his budget.
But the House; that bastion of ethics, saw fit to ram an extention of his operating costs ($930,000 for the first half of this year). What, I want to know (with body armor in short supply, and a host of more recent problems needing some of the swag the House is spending in the "budget with no pork left" that Mr. DeLay tells us the present House has managed to craft in that fiscally responsible way which is only theirs; compare and constrast to the budgets the previous occupant of 1600 Penn. Ave managed to get passed, the ones with that pesky surplus) is what could he possibly be investigating.
His brief hasn't changed (which is more than can be said for Starr). The offense isn't ongoing, nor is there any implication Cisneros plans to lie about it again (since he isn't a candidate for appointment under this administratin; what with not being asked to look for anyone to fill an important post, he isn't likely to be named to one) so that's out.
The only answer which seems to fit is there is some vague hope that stirring up some ten year-old muck will produce something which will stick to the Clintons.
Barret hasn't been willing to say just what he's doing with almost $150,000 a month, save to say those who ask the question are engaged in political posturing. Mind you, given his history, as a member of HUD under Reagan; when corruption there was described as rampant, he is in a good position to know what corruption looks like. If anyone can find some, he'd be the guy.
So... tell me Mr. DeLay, do you get some thrill from calling the kettle black?
