Ten years and $21 million later…

Silly me, I thought the independent investigator looking into Henry Cisneros had wrapped up his probe a long time ago. I wasn’t even close.

Nearly a decade after he was appointed to investigate then-Housing Secretary Henry G. Cisneros, independent counsel David M. Barrett spent more than $1.26 million of federal money in the last six months of fiscal 2004, the Government Accountability Office reported yesterday.

Since its inception, the Cisneros investigation has cost nearly $21 million, a total rivaling some of the largest independent counsel investigations in history. Much of the money has gone for pay and benefits, travel, rent and contractors.

Cisneros made a terrible mistake, got caught, and paid a price. Having said that, the fact that this investigation is still ongoing, and that we’re still paying for it, is sheer lunacy.

In case you don’t recall all the details, Cisneros, as mayor of San Antonio in the 1980s, had an extramarital relationship with a woman named Linda Medlar, with whom he worked in city government. After the public learned of the affair in 1988, Cisneros didn’t run for re-election.

Cisneros started to rehabilitate his career in 1992 when Bill Clinton asked him to serve in his cabinet as Secretary of Housing Urban Development. Like all cabinet nominees, Cisneros was given an FBI background check 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, but misled investigators about how much he paid the woman.

An independent investigator, David Barrett, began a relentless inquiry, leading a full-time staff of 30 federal investigators and spending three years (and $9 million) to unveil the truth — that Cisneros low-balled the FBI about the size of the payments. Cisneros plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge and paid a fine of $10,000. He left Clinton’s cabinet and returned to San Antonio.

That was seven years ago. Captain Ahab is still on the job.

Apparently, Barrett isn’t even looking into Cisneros anymore; now the investigation deals with whether anyone at the Clinton White House conspired to interfere with his inquisition. Barrett apparently hasn’t found any proof to bolster his suspicions, but he’s spending about $2 million a year (of our money) checking anyway, just in case something turns up.

Putting Barrett’s spending in context, Patrick Fitzgerald, who’s heading up an ongoing White House criminal investigation about events that took place in 2003, is spending less than half of what Barrett is spending to investigate an incident that occurred more than a decade ago before the accused even served in a presidential administration.

And who is this grand inquisitor, who doesn’t know when to pack up and go home? Barrett was a HUD employee in the Reagan administration who — get this — was questioned by prosecutors as part of a criminal investigation into influence peddling at the agency. Why this man was chosen to head up an “independent” investigation of Cisneros remains a mystery.

Barrett “would not seem to most people to be an ‘A’ choice,” said Charles Lewis of the Center for Public Integrity. “Why he was chosen is frankly mystifying.” Barrett’s history of being “deeply enmeshed in the housing contract culture,” Lewis said, makes for a “peculiar juxtaposition” with his current role.

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 had no idea at the time how very right he was.

Without getting into the specifics of the Cisneros case (because I don’t know much about it,) complaints about “why is this still going on” are rather common in any such investigation.

In 1992, Republicans were up in arms after Iran-Contra IC Lawrence Walsh indicted Casper Weinberger just months before the election. The scandal was 6 years old by then and Reagan had been out of office for 4 years, but if you read Walsh’s book “Firewall” you can understand why the investigation went on so long.

I am not comparing the Cisneros case with Iran-Contra, but the government’s refusal to cooperate with these sorts of investigations ends up dragging them out forever – and then eventually people start demanding to know why they are still going on.

  • Eugene, that might make some sense, except that the executive branch was republican during the Iran-Contra investigation. If you think the Bush white house is reticent to turn over documents incriminating of Clinton, you need to put down the crack pipe.

  • Like all cabinet nominees, Cisneros was given an FBI background check before he was confirmed by the Senate.
    This statement really gave me pause, and the first thing that came to mind was Bernard Kerik.
    With the appointments of Rice, Gonzales, and now the upcoming nomination of Bolton I have to wonder if the genius in charge of finding people starts working from the bottom of the list.
    Bush has often been referred to as the MBA president, but I’m starting to see that this is another lie, a good effective MBA would strive to surround himself with the best and most experienced people.

  • If I am the independent counsel, I am perfectly happy to keep my investigation open forever, as long as Congress is willing to continue footing the bill. It sounds like a good gig.

  • >If you think the Bush white house is reticent to turn over documents incriminating of
    >Clinton, you need to put down the crack pipe

    Not true. Remember, in the opening days of the Bush administration, they basically kiboshed any sort of public release of Clinton documents and gave them, lock, stock, and smoking barrel to the Clinton Library? They are very much into establishing precedent that the control over documents of ex-Presidents be in the hands of those ex-Presidents. I doubt anyone here suspects altruistic motives in this particular policy call, but it is their policy.

    This investigation should be ended,(I don’t care if they’re tracking something, Cisneros wasn’t so dirty that there is anything done on his behalf that should be punished at this late date – justice delayed and all that) but it is the peculiar logic of the independent council law (since euthenized) that, basically, the investigation goes on as long as the investigator wants, short some sort of Congressional interference. This is a ‘who watches the watchmen’ problem is running here, not any sort of Republican vendetta. It is a measure of Ken Starr’s honesty that he wrapped up his when he did, rather than dragging it out in the same way. A very small measure, like a 1/4 teaspoon, but a measure.

  • Mark’s comment above noting Bernard Kerik was questioned by the FBI leads to an obvious question: Does anyone believe that Kerik told the exact truth in his interviews? Shading the truth to the FBI is the exact “crime” Cisneros (and Martha Stewart) faced.

  • “It is a measure of Ken Starr’s honesty that he wrapped up his when he did, rather than dragging it out in the same way. A very small measure, like a 1/4 teaspoon, but a measure.”

    Ken Starr never “wrapped up” his investigation. After releasing his salacious report, he resigned as special counsel in October 1999 to return to a (much more lucrative) private practice job at Kirkland and Ellis. His deputy, Robert Ray, took over the investigation and eventually shut it down in September 2000, saying that there was insufficient evidence to proceed further.

  • rvman is wrong. The Bushies leaked parts of numerous internal Clinton administration memos/communications to make Clinton/Democrats look bad on several occassions. (deliberation over OBL and MidEast Peace Process mostly) When Clinton asked them to release the entire memo/transcript the Busies refused citing national security.

  • a good effective MBA would strive to surround himself with the best and most experienced people.

    You are a very nice boy. I’m sure your mother is very proud of you. I think you would make a very good priest. Now get out of here – you’re fired.
    – The Donald

  • Comments are closed.