Nine years and $20 million later…
In the 1980s, Henry Cisneros was a rising star in American politics. He was a popular, successful mayor of San Antonio, and was recognized by many party leaders as a young, handsome, energetic politician who may one day be perfect for national office. (Personal note to Maverick: remember when we met Cisneros at the White House? Wasn’t that great? But I digress…)
Things didn’t work out the way the young superstar had hoped. Cisneros, married and with children, had an affair during his tenure. In 1988, he acknowledged a relationship with a woman named Linda Medlar, with whom he worked in city government. Disgraced, he didn’t run for re-election.
Things started looking up for Cisneros four years later. Bill Clinton asked Cisneros to serve in his cabinet as Secretary of Housing Urban Development. In light of his background and expertise, he was a natural for the job. Cisneros took Clinton up on the offer and served in the president’s cabinet. By all accounts, he did a great job and was popular with Democrats and Republicans alike.
There was one small problem. Like all cabinet nominees, Cisneros was given a background check by the FBI before he was confirmed by the Senate. He acknowledged the affair and even admitted that he had paid Medlar in exchange for her silence during their relationship. The problem was Cisneros misled investigators about how much he paid the woman.
An independent investigator, David Barrett, began a relentless inquiry. Barrett led a full-time staff of 30 federal investigators and spent three years (and $9 million) to unveil the truth — that Cisneros lowballed the FBI about the payments. (In an interesting sign of things to come, it turns out Cisneros was done in by tapes his mistress had made. Of course, things didn’t work out well for Ms. Medlar, either. She’s now in prison after pleading guilty to 28 counts of fraud, conspiracy, money laundering and obstruction.)
Cisneros plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge and paid a fine of $10,000. He left Clinton’s cabinet and returned to San Antonio.
It’s a sad story about a promising career that was cut short by stupid mistakes. But Carpetbagger, you ask, why are you talking about all this now?
Because Independent Counsel David Barrett is still on the job.
I really couldn’t believe my eyes this morning when I saw this was still ongoing. After the misdemeanor plea from Cisneros several years ago, I thought the matter was done. Soon after, another independent counsel by the name of Ken Starr came around, and everyone quickly forgot all about the Cisneros matter.
Barrett, however, did not forget anything. And after nine years and almost $20 million, Barrett is still not quite done with his investigation.
As the LA Times reported today, the three-judge panel that empowered Barrett to begin the investigation nine years ago has sent the investigator an order: it’s time to wrap things up.
If this isn’t an example of why the independent counsel statute deserved to die a slow, merciless death, then I don’t know what is. Cisneros wasn’t suspected of corruption; he gave the FBI too low a number. His transgression hadn’t even occurred while serving in the cabinet, it had happened years earlier. Nine years and $20 million for investigating this?
I’m not defending Cisneros. He clearly made a mistake, he got caught, and he paid for it. Justice was served to everyone’s satisfaction.
Everyone, that is, except Captain Ahab who still thinks there’s a whale to be harpooned.
At this point, Barrett isn’t even digging into Cisneros any more. He’s spent the years since Cisneros’ misdemeanor conviction investigating whether the Clinton White House conspired to interfere with his inquisition. Barrett apparently hasn’t found any proof to bolster his suspicions, but he spends about $2 million a year in public funds checking, just in case something turns up.
That’s the funny thing about the now-defunct independent counsel law. It creates a grand inquisitor who answers to no one.
I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention that Barrett was a ridiculous choice to lead this investigation in the first place. During the Reagan administration, Barrett was suspected of influence peddling — misusing his role as a HUD employee to win housing contracts for his friends, though he was never convicted of any crimes.
When Barrett was tapped for the Cisneros investigation, Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.) compared the selection to “appointing the well-fed fox to investigate the missing hens at the chicken coop.” Lantos probably didn’t realize at the time how very right he was.